Louis Bialy is diector, Worldwide Codes & Stan dards for Otis levator Co, He is registered profes- q sonal engineer. Bily has ‘more than I years of ‘experience in the design, development and testing of industrial products and 28 years of experience in elevator and escalator engineering, neuding 1S years in fulltime codesand.standards acts. Bly isan active member ofthe SO/TCI7E Pie: rary Commitee, as well as several ISO working _roups. He sa member ofthe ASME AIT Standards Committee and i vee chr of the AI7 Interns: ‘onal Standards Commitee and AIT Mechanical Design Committe, and chair ofthe Nationa Ele ‘ator Industry, Ie. Cental Cade Commictes. He slso serves on the NAESA loermational Board of Directors. ily hs received numerous industry awards and has been honored as an Otis flow. He holds many patents in the hfe and other indus laa) in the Elevator Industry’ ty tous say Abstract ‘The world economy is increasingly global in nature, resulting in two major effects releted to the elevator industry: A universal expectation of a consistent level of safety for all elevators; and a worldwide demand for safe, reliable, innovative products, For elevators based on new technol- ogy, a process for ensuring safety while enabling innovation is being de- veloped under tae International Organization for Standardization (SO) umbrella, The ASME A17.7/B44.7 Performance Based Safety Code for Elevators and Escalators provides an example of the ISO process. Al7.7/B44.7 in: cludes the Glotal Essential Safety Requirements (GESRs) of ISO/TS 2559-1 as the essence of the safety objective. It also includes the ISO 14798 Risk Assessment Methodology, which is used to evaluate and modify an innovetive design so as to sulfciently mitigate identified risks. ‘An independent, accredited elevator/escalator certification organiza tion (AECO) wil. verily that the process has been followed and be re- sponsible for the certification of the design. The certificate granted by the AECO will be provided to jurisdictional authorities in support of acceptance of the equipment. Jurisdictional authorities also have the op- tion of conducting such certification in their jurisdictions. This will pro vide a structurec, uniform process for verifying the safety of and gaining acceptance of irnovative products in North America, The following describes the worldwide trend toward pertormance- based codes. The conception and development of the European Direc- lives and their influence on code initiatives is also discussed, and the development of ISO documents intended for use as a basis for perform: ance-based elevator codes on a worldwide basis is elaborated. The North American approach of developing a performance-based code founded on such relevant ISO documents is described. Moreover, this article elaborates the risk-assessment process and the content of the code compliance document presented to the AECO. In addition, the To lean mare about the Pesfrmance-Based Code, visit wn levotor werkdcom and chick on the Onine Extras con EXTRAS September 2009 | ELEVATOR WORLD |qualifications, accreditation, roles and responsibilities of AECOs are discussed. The next steps in North America related to adoption of the performance-based code ate considered. Finally, a new paradigm that envisages a structured environment for innovation with safety is de- scribed. Thoughts and suggestions for participating in the process are offered for consideration, Introduction ‘The swift development and dissemination of techno'- ogy has played a prime role in the rapid evolution of the modern world. A vivid example of this is the explosion of communication systems. Major media networks such as television, radio and newspapers have shifted to a global focus. Computer technology has infiltrated every aspect of life, and the Internet has made a significant impact on society as a whole. Telecommunication systems have been enhanced by wireless technology, satellite-based networks and mobile telephones. Thus, ideas, events, ac tivities, knowledge and information are rapidly and widely disseminated throughout the world. In the same manner, interest in new products, trends and themes are rapidly conveyed from location to location!!! ‘One ofthe consequences of globalization is the increase in travel of people to many parts of the world, Not only do visitors expect the same level of safety wherever they are, local residents also anticipate that the means of trans: portation they use will be safe. This is particularly true in the elevator industry, where safety is a non-negotiable imperative Codes of the Future Elevator safety codes have become the universal means, of ensuring safety in the elevator industry. in developed as well as cleveloping countries, the expectations of society have changed over time, and the elevator codes have evolved in sympathy with this trend. This effect is not restricted to elevators. In the automotive industry, for example, earlier models of automobiles had no restraints for the driver or passengers. Eventually, seat belts emerged and became compulsory by regulation, Later still, airbags and such features as anti-lock braking systems, limited-slip differentials, traction control, crust- resistant passenger compartments, etc. emerged. In the elevator industry, retracting safety edges on door systems were replaced by proximity devices such as electromag, netic fields and multiple-ray light-based detection sys- 86 | WWW.ELEVATORWORLD.COM | September 2009 tems, Ascending car overspeed protection means and uncontrolled car motion protection systems are common on contemporary elevators. ‘An important result of increasing globalization of the world’s economy is the emergence and proliferation of innovative products. Due to rapid communication and market forces, when a product brings increased value to users in one market, it de facto creates a demand in other markets. This effect is equally applicable to elevators, as a myriad of other products. It is imperative that the safety of innovative products is comparable with the safety of standard products that meet the prescriptive codes de- scribed in the foregoing. It is recognized that the process of development of prescriptive codes is inherently slow due to the pace of reaching consensus. A process is thus requited to enable safe, innovative new products to enter the marketplace in a timely fashion. Such a process embodied in a code is generally known as a performance- based code (PBC). The Advantages of PBCs PBCs provide a structured method of ensuring safety while enabling innovation. The use of risk assessment in the process of applying PBCs systematically identifies and addresses hazards applicable to the equipment being reviewed, thus reducing the overall risk level. Moreover, the risk assessment process lends a degree of proactivity in anticipating risks, rather than depending upon experi ence asa result of accidents and mishaps, One of the most significant results of innovation is that it provides compe- tition in ideas, thus bringing value to users. Innovation is, in the final analysis, the lifeblood of economic growth. Background and Action in Europe To better understand the current world codes and standards environment, it is instructive to look back briefly to the world of 1957. Many people equate this time with the start of the space age, ushered in by Sputnik 1 Another important event, albeit less spectacular, also occurred in 1957, but the implications have also had global significance. The event was the Treaty of Rome, at which an agreement was concluded for the future of Europe. Europe was emerging from the devastation suffered dur- ing World War Il. Europeans recognized that in order to compete economically in the modern world, they would have to expand their markets,One of the most important issues recognized at the lime was that differing national standards could become a barrier to trade, which would defeat the principle of a common market. The solution to this dilemma was the creation of European Directives comprising Essential Health and Safety Requirements (EHSR) and an accompa nying conformity assessment process to ensure that the directives were being met. By transposing the directives into national law in each country, it could be assumed that national standards could not be used to block free trade within Europe Harmonized standards consistent with the directives could then be developed as prescriptive means of meet- ing the directives. EHSRs of the directives were generally written in performance language, and the conformity- assessment process required that risk assessment be carried out to ensure that all relevant hazards relating to a given system were identified and addressed. Moreover, the conformity assessment process required the estab- lishment of independent, expert organizations, and that member countries of the European Union (EU) notify the European Commission of organizations that are accted- ited to perform conformity assessments in their fields of expertise. Such organizations have become known as “notified bodies.” In the case of elevators and escalators, the most signif icant directives are the Machinery Directive,P! revised in 2006 and the Lifts Directive! published in 1995. The EN 115 Code for Escalators and the EN 81 Code for Elevators! were each harmonized to eliminate national deviations. ‘The latter was published in 1998. In the case of elevators, European law requires that the Lifts Directive be met. This can be done by mecting the EN 81 code; however, as long as the EHSRs of the Machinery and Lift Directives are met and verified by the conformity assessment process, elevators can be placed on the market in any member country of the EU. Itis not clear that the visionary architects of the Treaty of Rome anticipated that the Directives would ultimately lead to a revolution in innovation, but itis to their credit that the directives led to an explosion of new ideas and technological innovation. In the elevator industry, prod- ucts sutch as machine-room-ess elevators, elastomeric- coated steel belts and two elevators in a single hoistway emerged. Prior to the directives, there was little incentive for significant innovation, because the consensus process for developing codes is inherently slow and thus, by the time a prescriptive code is changed to accommo date a new technology, the technology is no longer new. Action under ISO Once the Lift Directives came into force and new prod- lucts emerged in Europe, a worldwide demand for similar products was created as a result of the effects described in the previous sections. The fact that the lifts and ma- chinery directives were enshrined in law and are under the auspices of the European Commission made it diff ut for these to be adopted outside of Europe. The concept of EHSRs combined with a conformity assessment process provided a powerful model for ensuring safety while enabling innovation, The potential of this approach was recognized in ISO TC 178, the Elevator Standardization Technical Committee of ISO, and a global approach toward PBCs was spawned. The first step was to develop a set of GESRs, which are in the form of performance-based safety objectives. By satisfying the GESRs, a safe elevator system will result By starting from basic principles and recognizing the function of an elevator, a systematic risk-assessment, process, in accordance with ISO 14798,!! was used to establish GESRs for elevators without imposing restric tions on the design of, or materials and technologies used in, the elevators. Experts from around the world were involved by the establishment of three regional study groups, (North America, Europe and Asia-Pacific). The process used by each study group was to identify all safety risk scenarios, including hazardous situations and harmful events that could arise at all stages and in all conditions of the operation and use of elevators.(51 GESRs were formulated as safety objectives to mitigate the iden- Uifled risks. The work of the regional study groups was harmo- nized under a specific working group of ISO TC 178 using an interactive process. Ultimately, ISO TS 22559-1 was, completed and became the first building block in a series necessary to establish performance-based requirements and a conformity assessment process for worldwide performance-based codes. The second document in the seties, ISO TS 2569-2," identifies global safety param- September 2009 | ELEVATOR WORLD | 87eters (GSPS), which may be used to help mitigate risks and satisly the GESRs, Turther documents describing the roles and responsi- bilities, as well as the accreditation procedures, for global conformity assessment bodies (GCABs) are under devel ‘opment by ISO TC 178. When complete, ISO/TS 22559-3 and ISO/TS 22559-4 will provide the roles and responsi bilities of and accreditation procedures for GCABs. Cetti- fication organizations engaged in international arenas such as prominent notified bodies and AECOs will likely apply for accreditation as GCABs, which represent state~ of-the-art global certification. ISO. 14798"! also provides an important building block for PBCs. Action in North America An important example of the incorporation of ISO/TS 2559-1 and ISO 14798 into a PBC is provided by the AI7.7-2007/ B44.7-07 Performance Based Safety Code jor Elevators and Escalators! published in March 2007 and effective when adopted by the various jurisdictions in North America Elements of the AI7.7/B44.7 PBCs Process For many years, ASME A17.10! recognized that the code cannot cover all situations, and that alternative technology should be allowed by the authorities having jurisdiction (AH)s), provided that it could be documented that safety equivalent to that required by the code has been achieved. This is described in the preface and Section 1,2 of the A17.1/B44. While the principle is clear that the code is not intended to impose a barrier to new technology, code versions prior to 1997 lacked a uniform process for demonstrating that equivalent safety to that required by the code has been achieved, A17.7/B44.7 was thus developed to provide a structured process for ensuring the safely of innovative products. Such a process would be invaluable to enforcing authorities and elevator providers alike. It was recognized that a way of capturing the esse! of the safety issues (ie., what is really required to mace the system safe) is needed. As the GESRs of ISO/TS 2559-1 were developed with international patticipaticn, including participation by North America, these were used as the basis for A17.7/B44.7. It was also recognized that quantitative measures may be necessary to ensure 8B | WWW.ELEVATOR-WORLD.COM | September 2009 Innovation ae yt 54 fiamtaloa Indu that the GESRs have been met, and that the technical solution is safe. These quantitative measures are called safety parameters (SPs). A process is reyuined lv evaluate and modify the proposed equipment design so as to ensure that the identified hazards have been addressed and the GESRs met. The ISO 14798 risk assessment ‘methodology®! provides this process, ‘Asa further step, a means of verification is required in order to ensure that the process described by A17.7/ 44.7 has been followed and the relevant hazatds ad. dressed. This important step will be conducted by AECOs or by the enforcing authorities directly. Global Essential Safety Requirements and Safety Parameters The GESRs are performance-based statements that slate the safety objective i.e., what is to be achieved, not how a safety objective is to be accomplished. There are 48 GESRs covering all aspects of elevator safety. The fol: lowing is an example of a GESR, relating to the support/ suspension means for the elevator car ‘Car Support/Suspension Means shall be provided to support the fully loaded car and reasonably foreseeable overload. NOTE: This addresses the strength and failure of the suspension means, when the car is loaded with its rated load. It is, however, understood that the integrity of the elevator would be maintained if the foreseeable overload condition were reached. The rated performances, however, can be affected if the rated load is exceeded. ‘The support/suspension means GESR addresses many types of support/suspension, eg., steel wire ropes, elastomeric-coated steel belts, hydraulic plungers, scissor jacks, rack-and-pinion devices, screw-thread jack devices, etc. The note to the GESR clarifies that the integrity of the elevator car should not be compro: mised by a foreseeable overload, although the elevator performance can be affected by such an overload. In order to satisfy the safety objectives of a particu- lar GESR, an SP may be useful. Using the example of the suspension/support means for an elevator car, an, SP would define how strong the suspension/support means should be. Thus, SPs such as electric stability criteria, rigidity requirements, etc. for suspension/ support means are safety factors,Ps for other GESRs are deceleration levels, body part dimensions, illumination levels, fire-rating levels, etc. (It should be recognized that uilferent dimensional spaces are required related to body part dimensions dependent upon whether safe entry is to be ensured for a body part, or whether a body part is to be pre- vented from entering a particular space.) SPs are fully consistent with values embodied in the requirements of the A17.1/B44 code. Thus, there are no contradic: tions between the A17.1/B44 and A17.7/B44.7 codes, It should also be recognized that SPs ate a means of meeting a safety objective and not always necessary. ‘As an example, the ISO 14798 Risk Assessment Methodology provides a hierarchy of risk-reduction measures. The first priority is to eliminate the hazaré by design where feasible; if not, the next priority is te provide a protective measure. f the hazard is eliminated, there is clearly no need for an SP. Outline of the AI7.7/B44.7 PBC A list of GESRs conforming to ISO/TS 22559-1 is pro- vided in A17.7/844.7 Part 3 and Appendix A-3. A list oF SPs compatible with existing codes and/or existing ISC documents is also provided in A17.7/B44.7 Part 4 and Appendix B. A method of selecting appropriate GESRs for, the system being analyzed is provided in A17.7/B44.7 Section 2.4. The ISO 14798 Risk Assessment Methodology is explained in A17.7/B44.7 Section 2.7 and Appendix C. A realistic elevator example is provided to assist the user in A17.7/B44.7 Appendix E. An approval process for AECOs is provided in an accom: panying document designated A17.7.1/844.7.119, Establishing the Safety of a Product Using AI7.1/B44.7 The A17.7/B44.7 code outlines the options for estab- lishing the safety of a product as follows: Option 1 ~ Meet the requirements in A17.1/B44 Option 2 ~ Meet some of requirements in A17.1/B44 and where provisions of A17.1/B44 are not met, meet applicable requirements of A17.7/B44.7 ‘ Option 3 ~ Meet the requirements in A17.7/B44.7 Option 1 is intended to establish mutual recognition between the A17.1/B44.1 prescriptive code and the ‘A17.7/B44,7 PBC. Thus, meeting the one is de facto rec ognized as meeting the other. Option 2 is the process most likely to be used, as most elevator products will generally have a majority of standard features and only a minority of provisions not covered by A17.1/B44.1. In this case, only the GESRs applicable to provisions not addressed by A17.1/B44.1 need to be addressed using AIT.T/BAAT Option 3 provides a process for meeting all of the GESRs of A17.7/B44,7. This would generally only be applied in special cases where the technology is novel. ‘The typical approach to product safety would be to first evaluate if the proposed elevator system is completely covered by A17.1/B44. IFso, there is no need to apply the PBC. The next step is to determine which aspects of the system are not covered by A17.1/B44 and to identify the applicable GESRs that pertain to the aspects not covered by A17.1/B44. The next step is to carry out a risk assessment, using a balanced team of experts led by an experienced facilita- tor to verify that the identified GESRs are met. SPs would be applied where appropriate to sufficiently mitigate identified risks. The completed risk assessment, as well as other technical documentation including design and test data is assembled in a code compliance document (CCD), which will be used for certification, ‘An AECO will examine the CCD and provide feedback to the submitter, who will revise the CCD in an iterative process until the AECO is satisfied that the process has been followed and is safe. At that stage, the AECO will cer- tily the product. The AH) can provide the function of an ‘AECO and may do so if it has appropriate expertise. Once certification is obtained, the certificate can be used to gain acceptance of the product in jurisdictions that have adopted ‘AI7.7/B44.7. This process provides a structured approach to demonstrating the safety of products and eases the way for new technology to safely enter the marketplace, ‘Mojor Features of the ISO 14798 Risk Assessment Methodology Risk assessment is best carried out by a balanced team of experts, with a range of expertise indexed to the scope of the risk assessment. In general, a team consisting of about eight members is suitable. The team should be led by an experienced facilitator, knowledgeable about the September 2009 | ELEVATOR WORLD | 89product and skilled in helping teams reach consensus. This is further elaborated in ISO 14792.) The risk assessment is typically documented int the template illustrated in Figure |. For each identified GESR, a hazardous situation is defined and harmful events com prising the causes and effect are documented. This process. elaborates the mechanism by which a hazardous situa- tion leads to a harmful result. The risk assessment team assesses a level of severity from the table in Figure 2, and a level of probability during the lifecycle of the elevator according to Figure 3. The combination of severity and probability determines the risk level, as illustrated in the risk profile chart of Figure 4 Clearly, if a scenario has the highest level of severity, (Ge,, severity level 1) and the highest probability (e., probability level A), then the corresponding risk level 14 ‘would be the highest level of risk. On the other hand, if scenario has a negligible level of severity and is highly improbable, it would have a risk level of 4F, which is the lowest level of risk, Thus, the risk level reduces from the top left corner of Figure 4 to the bottom right comer. The risk evaluation table of Figure 4 provides guidance on Assessment Documentati Purpose and subject: Moderator” *NoTe Innovation M29 Elevator Industry Which risk levels need to be reduced. All risks in risk group I need to be reduced, while no further action is required for risks in risk group Ill. For risks in risk group Il, further review is required, and guidance for this is provided in ISO 14798, If risk reduction is required, the protective measures, are documented in the template of Figure 1. Protective measures include elimination of the hazard where feasi- ble, and if not feasible, the implementation of SPs and other measures. After the protective measure is imple- mented, the risk is reassessed and further measures taken (if necessary) until the risk has been sufficiently mitigated Any residual risks are documented and if necessary, mitigated in the same way as the original risks. The process is continued until all risks pertaining to identified GESRs have been addressed. The CCD The CCD fully describes the equipment to be certified, including its application and duty range. tt lists the AI7.1/B44 requirements addressed using A17.7/B44.7, as well as the GESRs that have been considered. It also ate: Purpose eam moderator and members cou be recorded in seperate document ‘risk ration nl Estimation ot Aner protective s—Levas ot severity of te harm (nee 853) 1-High 2-Mectum Low 4—Negigible A-Highiy probable B Probable Remote E_impronala Figure 1 Sk assessment dacumenttion 90. | WWW.ELEVATOR-WORLD.COM | September 2009Levels of Severity 4— Negligible Will not result in injury, ‘occupational illness, system or ‘environmental damage Figure 2: Levels of severiy Levels of Probability igure 3: Levels of probability Risk Profile ,.,.. on igure 4: Risk profile — includes all technical documentation used to support the protective measures implemented, including applicable test data and calculations, The tisk-assessment documentation, including details of the team members, constitutes an important part of the CCD. The acceptance inspection and test methodology unique to the component and the Periodic tests, inspection, maintenance, replacement, adjustment and repair procedures are included in the CCD and as part of the maintenance control program (MCP). ‘The CCD thus provides a comprehensive document for consideration by the AECO or ALY directly. AECOs AECOs play a vital role in the process of certifying innovative products. It is essential that their role be apparent, their accreditation be at the highest level and the certification process be clear. The impartiality of the AECO is vital for the credibility of the process. Roles and Responsibilities of AECOs The role of the AECO is to review all of the material submitted by the applicant in the CCD and verify that the A17.7/844,7 tequitements have been followed. This will include a comprehensive review of the range and appli- cation of the equipment, and the design details of the safety related items. The AECO will review the selection of applicable GESRS to ensure that this is accurate and complete. The AECO will review the risk assessment to ensure that the process has been thoroughly executed, that the risk identification and mitigation process is com: plete, safety parameters applied where appropriate and residual risks addressed. Moreover, the AECO can con- duct additional tests or have these performed to establish compliance with A17.7/844.7. The review process will typically be an iterative proce- dure between the applicant and AECO until the latter is, satisfied and all safety-related issues have been ad- dressed, When all of the applicable criteria specified in A17.7/B44.7 have been verified and the information pro- vided in the CCD fully scrutinized, the AECO will provide a certificate of conformance confirming the compliance of the equipment with the PBC. Subsequent to the certifi cation, AECOs will provide an auditing function to ensure that certified equipment is being manufactured and September 2009 | ELEVATOR WORLD | 91installed to the requirements defined in the CCD. The require access to expertise in elevators, escalators, AI7.1/B44 anid AL7.7/B44.7, as well ay all Of the elements of these codes. They must also have access to expertise in risk assessment. They will provide auditing and certification functions for equipment designs to en- sure compliance with the PBC and must have a track record of integrity. Accreditation of AECOs Accreditation of the AECOs is essential for them to be recognized by AHJs. The American National Standards Institute (ANS!) and Standards Council of Canada (SCC) are the accrediting organizations. A rigorous process of accreditation and auditing is in place to ensure high cred- ibility of the AECOs. The process and method for accred- itation defined in ASME AI7.7.1/CSA B44,7.1 is based on ISO/IEC Guide 65. It includes additional requiremerts specific to the particular functions necessary for AECOs to fully execute their responsibilities. ‘The accreditation of three AECOs marks a significant historical landmark for the North American elevator industry. ANSI announced in March 2009 that the three organizations had met the rigorous requirements of the accreditation process and are now permitted to certily elevator components, functions and systems to the ASME AI7.7-2007/CSA B44.7-07 Performance-Based Safety Cole for Elevators and Escalators, ‘The three organizations are as follows: + Underwriters Laboratories Inc. + TOV-SOD America Inc. + Liftnstituut Holdings BV Subsequently, the SCC announced that it had accredited TOV-SUD America Inc. This accreditation is in addition to the accreditation received from ANSI. Accreditation by either ANSI or SCC is valid for all of North America and is only necessary by one of these bodies. Next Steps With the publication of A17.7/B44.7 and the accredi- tation of three AECOs, a major move forward has been taken in North America toward ensuring safety and e abling innovation. The next major step is the adoption of the PBC throughout North America, and the recognition of the AECOs by the Aivls in the U.S. and the regulatory 92. | WWW.ELEVATOR.WORLD.COM | September 200° Innovation mn SE 97 rola authorities in Canada. This is clearly a jurisdiction-by- jurisdiction process. Progress has been made and several jurisdictions have already adopted the PBC. It is attici- pated that in the fullness of time, the true value of AI7.7/B44,7 \will be recognized, and it will be widely used in North America, The Emerging Paradigm ‘A new paradigm is emerging, marked by a trend toward a process for innovation with safety for new equipment, including elevators. This paradigm demands a rapid time to market for new, innovative elevators, with corresponding pressure for PBCs and directives. Such codes and directives require a process of verification, cer- tification and/or conformity assessment. Moreover, the paradigm provides impetus for the global recognition of certifications granted by accredited organizations. By developing A17.7/B44,7 based on relevant ISO documents and establishing credible AECOs, the North American elevator industry as a whole has indicated that it is ready to set the example and provide leadership for other areas of the world that do not as of yet have an equivalent process. Reference Ui} Ecological Tends inthe Li industry, a Perspective fom a Global Manulactuer Lous Bialy, PE” Proceedings of the European Lit Counc Helton, Germany, 2008 [2] EU Machinery Dect, European Pariament and Count Directive 2006/42/EC, European Directive for Machinery, avalable from ‘wun newapproach org/aectives [8] 15014798 Lis (Elevators), Escalators and Moving Walks — Risk Assessment and Reduction Methodology n process of publication, based on IS0 CD 19796: 2006 and 1SO TS 14798: 2002, Avalable from Bish Standards institution (BSD, CEN EN 8 1998 Safety Rules fr the Constcton and installation Of its. Avalable from I EU ils bievtve, cutopean Parlament and councionectve 95/16/8C, 29, June 1995, No. 1 213/2 European Directive for Lit ‘Available fom www newapproach ony/ieetives ISO/TS 22559-12004 Safety Requirements for Lis (Elevator) Pat 1 Global Essent Safety Regulements(GESRS) fo Lis (levator) 81, 2003, vaable rom BS. (7) 180/18 22859.2 Safety Req Global Saety Parameters ( Publication 18] ASME A17.7-2007/¢8A B44.7-07 Performance Based Safely Code for Elevators and tscalators. avaliable rom CSA 19] ASME A17.1-2007/¢Sa BA4-07 Safely Code or Elevators, Escalators and Moving Walks. available from ASME, 2007, (10) ASME AI7-.1/CSA D447. General Requltements for Acreted Elevator Escalator certicaion Organizations, 2007. Avallable rom ments for LiNs (Elevators) Part 2: | Yor Lifts (Elevators) In process of