By Michael P. Walsh, Vice President, Elevator Construction Consultants
Pennsylvania just gave the entire industry a case study in what happens when an Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) lets a code sit too long. The Commonwealth ran on the ASME A17.1 2000 edition, with the 2002 addenda bolted on, for the better part of two decades while neighboring states moved forward. Now it’s finally transitioning to the 2016 edition, and the size of that jump is a lesson in itself.
This isn’t really a story about Pennsylvania. It’s a story about what a sixteen-year gap does to an industry, and Pennsylvania just happens to be the one living it in real time right now.
The Real Cost of Deferred Code Adoption
Most AHJs update on a rolling three- to six-year cycle as new editions get published. When that cycle holds, each adoption is incremental. Contractors, inspectors, and owners absorb a manageable set of changes every few years instead of getting hit all at once. Pennsylvania didn’t hold that cycle, and the bill for skipping it is coming due for everyone in the state at the same time.
When an AHJ updates on schedule, the change from one edition to the next is usually a punch list. When an AHJ waits sixteen years, the change from one edition to the next is an entire construction project, sometimes several. Pennsylvania is jumping from 2000 to 2016, and it’s landing on requirements that assume electronic monitoring and modern door detection technology that simply didn’t exist as a code requirement the last time this state touched its adoption.
That’s the actual cost of deferral. It’s not that the new code is unreasonable. It’s that any one jurisdiction absorbing sixteen years of accumulated change in a single transition turns what should have been routine modernization into a wave of forced retrofits, all landing on owners in the same narrow window.
When a Code Update Creates a “Permit Cliff”
Because Pennsylvania let so much time pass, the state now has a hard cutover instead of a gradual one. Once the new edition takes effect, the rules that apply to a project aren’t determined by design intent, they’re determined by the date stamped on the permit application. File before the cutover and you’re under one set of requirements. File after and you’re under another, with different hardware and different long-term operating costs attached to the same building.
That kind of cliff doesn’t happen to AHJs that update regularly. It happens specifically because deferred adoption forces a single hard line where there should have been several soft ones spread across years.
If you’re doing work in any jurisdiction, know where that jurisdiction sits in its own update cycle, because a state that’s overdue is a state one legislative session away from doing exactly what Pennsylvania is doing right now.
For owners and project teams, that makes code adoption a planning, procurement, schedule, and budget consideration. And the effects become clearer when you look at several of the requirements Pennsylvania is now confronting at once.
Sixteen Years of Change, All at Once
So, what’s new under the 2016 code? Some of the big changes include:
- Emergency Phone Line Monitoring. Under the 2000 code, an emergency phone that was wired correctly at installation was assumed to keep working indefinitely. Under the 2016 code, that assumption is gone. The system has to automatically verify the line is functioning, and if it isn’t, a visual and audible signal has to activate at the main landing until someone deals with it.
An AHJ that adopted this requirement when it was newer would have let owners upgrade their communication infrastructure gradually, replacing aging copper as it failed. An AHJ that waited means a lot of buildings hit this requirement all at once, often with infrastructure that hasn’t been touched since the Clinton administration.
- Door Protection Resolution. The old code accepted basic mechanical safety edges and single beam photo eyes. The 2016 edition requires door protection systems that can detect something as small as two inches in diameter across nearly the full height of the opening. That effectively retires a lot of legacy door edges still in service and points the industry toward multi beam infrared light curtains.
The real risk isn’t the door edge itself, it’s scope creep. A routine door operator swap can get reclassified as a major alteration once new technology triggers are involved, and a state catching up all at once means that reclassification is hitting contractors who had no reason to expect it, because the last time this code touched their state, that trigger didn’t exist.
- Machine-Room-Less Elevators. Machine-room-less elevators have spent 20 years in Pennsylvania under a variance process, essentially a case-by-case negotiation because the code never caught up with the technology. The 2016 edition finally gives MRL installations real standardized criteria for hoistway clearance, pit refuge, and controller placement.
That’s a direct benefit of catching up. But it also means the informal flexibility that came with the variance process disappears. Under the old system, a pit poured two inches shallow could sometimes get talked through the variance board. Under a standardized code, short is short, and the fix is a jackhammer, not a phone call.
An AHJ that adopted MRL standards years ago would have already worked these edge cases out of the system gradually. Pennsylvania is working them out all at once, on whichever projects happen to be in the pipeline right now.
The Cost Doesn’t End at Construction
The effects of a delayed code cycle don’t stop once construction is complete. They can also change the long-term inspection, testing, and operating requirements owners need to plan for.
This is where an outdated code shows up as a permanent bill, not a one-time project cost. Right now, Pennsylvania traction elevators run their Category One no-load test and their Category Five full-load test on the same five-year cycle. Hydraulic elevators run differently, their Category One no-load test happens every three years, while the heavier Category Three pressure test runs on a five-year cycle alongside Category Five. That five-year window on the traction side is not standard. Most neighboring states test Category One annually, and have for years.
A five-year Category One interval on traction elevators is exactly the kind of thing that survives when a code sits too long. It’s not that anyone decided this was safer. It’s that nobody revisited it. When code adoption happens more frequently, it often corrects the drift that accumulates when older provisions never get a second look.
The Inspection Learning Curve
There is another consequence that’s harder to quantify: everyone involved in delivering and approving the work has to adjust to the new requirements at essentially the same time.
Pennsylvania’s rule under Section 405.5 is unforgiving on its own terms. Once a major repair, replacement, or alteration happens, the unit comes out of service and stays out until the Department inspects it and passes it.
A more technically detailed code raises the number of small things that can hold up that sign off, something as narrow as a buffer certification mark that doesn’t match spec is enough to fail an otherwise complete inspection.
A state that updates regularly trains its inspectors and its contractors on these details incrementally. A state that waits sixteen years asks everyone, inspectors included, to absorb the entire increase in technical complexity at once. That’s a slower reinspection process for everybody, not because the new code is harder to enforce, but because nobody in the pipeline has had years of practice with it yet.
The Lesson Goes Beyond Pennsylvania
Every AHJ that lets its adoption cycle slip is building toward its own version of this. The pain here isn’t the 2016 edition itself, it’s 16 years of accumulated change landing on one permit cliff instead of getting absorbed a little at a time the way a normal update cycle would allow.
For owners, architects, and construction teams, the takeaway is to understand where an AHJ sits in its code-adoption cycle before a project reaches permitting. An overdue jurisdiction can create risks that affect everything from equipment selection and procurement to inspections, schedule, and long-term operating costs.
If you work across multiple jurisdictions, the states worth watching aren’t the ones that just updated. They’re the ones that haven’t touched their adoption in a decade or more. That’s where the next permit cliff is being built right now, one skipped code cycle at a time.
About Micheal Walsh
Michael Walsh is Vice President of Elevator Construction Consultants and a recognized expert in vertical transportation with nearly 40 years of experience in the elevator and escalator fields. His career includes senior roles at LF Driscoll and Citywide Elevator Consultants, where he led complex modernization and construction projects nationwide. A certified elevator mechanic and National QEI Certified Elevator Inspector licensed in multiple states, Michael holds more than 20 certifications across various elevator systems. He also serves on four National ASME Code Committees, contributing directly to the development of industry safety and performance standards.