Key Takeaways
- Docket No. 24-V-358 is a public-record example of a permanent variance application before California authorities for four vertical platform lifts designed as viewing platforms.
- The variance targeted specific adopted requirements based on ASME A18.1-2003.
- The lifts used retractable runway enclosure panels, omitted platform enclosure walls for viewing purposes, and incorporated lever suspension/support architecture.
- ASME A18.1-2020 provisions were referenced only to support equivalency for lever suspension/support and platform safety omission.
- The Board conditionally granted the variance subject to enforceable design, operational, and inspection conditions.
- Those conditions became part of the inspection pathway and Permit to Operate requirements.
Introduction
This article documents the permanent variance process in California through Docket No. 24-V-358. It is written from the perspective of the manufacturer representative who prepared the submission, coordinated the engineering equivalency argument, and appeared at the formal hearing.
The lifts involved were bespoke vertical platform lifts designed as viewing platforms. The wheelchair user is raised to an elevated VIP viewing position and remains on the platform as the designated seat. There is no upper landing exit. The lifts are not intended to function as general second-level access devices.
The engineering architecture described in the record aligns with the principles behind lever-supported hydraulic platform lift solutions such as the Cavendish platform lift, particularly where unobstructed sightlines and minimal pit depth are required.
This case study focuses on regulatory structure, not marketing. It examines how adopted legacy code interacts with modern consensus code development and how a permanent variance can reconcile the two — under strict boundaries.
What Is a Permanent Variance
A permanent variance is a formal legal mechanism allowing a specific departure from adopted safety orders when equivalent safety and health can be demonstrated.
In California, this process is administered within the regulatory framework overseen by Cal/OSHA. The pathway includes:
- Formal docketing of the application
- Public posting and/or distribution requirements
- A Cal/OSHA review period
- A formal hearing
- A proposed decision
- Conditional grant, denial, or modification
A variance is not a code amendment. It is an applicant-specific order tied to a specific installation and subject to enforceable conditions.
Why the 2003 Edition Created a Conflict
The adopted Elevator Safety Orders in this case incorporated ASME A18.1-2003.
The conflict arose because the viewing-platform configuration required:
- Retractable runway enclosure panels at the upper viewing elevation
- Vertical slots in the runway enclosure for guiding/locking members
- Omission of platform enclosure walls to preserve sightlines
- Lever-type suspension/support means
- Omission of platform safeties under a non-flexible drive arrangement
These design characteristics were not permitted under the adopted 2003 list of allowable suspension/support means and platform safety provisions.
The issue was not disagreement with the code’s intent. The issue was that the adopted edition did not contemplate this configuration.
How Lever-Hydraulic Architecture Interacts with Legacy Code
ASME A18.1-2003 lists permissible suspension and support means. Lever-type support was not included in that edition’s permitted list.
The lever architecture was selected to:
- Provide an unobstructed viewing platform at the upper elevation
- Allow the mechanism to sit in a minimal pit depth
- Maintain the viewing function without overhead or side obstruction
This design decision interacts directly with legacy code language that presumes traditional suspension configurations.
The lifts described in this docket are a real-world example of how architectural requirements can create tension with a static adopted code edition.
How ASME A18.1-2020 Logic Can Inform a 2003 Variance Application
The modern edition of the consensus standard, ASME A18.1, evolved after 2003.
ASME A18.1-2020 includes lever-type suspension/support means within its permitted list and includes provisions allowing platform safety omission under defined constraints for non-flexible drive systems.
In this docket, those 2020 provisions were referenced to support the equivalency argument for:
- Lever suspension/support
- Platform safety omission
Cross-edition boundary statement:
The 2020 edition was not used to replace the adopted 2003 edition. It was cited only to support equivalency for those two variance items. The Board’s conditions require compliance with specific ASME A18.1-2020 sections for those two items only. The 2020 edition does not replace the 2003 adoption for any other requirement not addressed in the variance.
This boundary is critical. Cross-edition citation in a variance does not create blanket permission to apply a later edition in place of the adopted edition.
What Constitutes Equivalent Safety
Equivalent safety in this docket was structured hazard-by-hazard.
The 2003 runway enclosure requirement was intended to:
- Guard against contact with moving equipment
- Prevent falls into the open runway
- Inhibit debris from entering the runway
The 2003 platform enclosure wall requirement was intended to:
- Protect passengers from exposure to divergent surfaces
- Protect against unprotected running clearances
The platform safety requirement was intended to:
- Stop and hold the platform should failure occur in suspension or support
The equivalency argument mapped each of those hazard intents to engineered controls and operational conditions:
- Retractable panels with obstruction detection and automatic locking
- Acrylic barrier panels limiting opening size
- Defined clearance ranges between platform and runway enclosure
- Interlock logic preventing unsafe sequencing
- Lever architecture supported by hydraulic rams with burst hose valves
- Control system logic preventing movement in unsafe states
- Staff supervision and documented operating procedures
Equivalent safety was not asserted. It was defined in terms of specific, inspectable controls.
Decision Framework
When a permanent variance is appropriate
A permanent variance is appropriate when the architectural or functional requirement cannot be met within the adopted edition without defeating the core purpose of the installation. In this case, the lift was a viewing platform with no upper exit. The departure from enclosure walls and support configuration was integral to the function. Where the adopted edition does not address that configuration, and where equivalent safety can be defined through engineered controls, a variance becomes the correct legal pathway.
When it is not appropriate
A variance is not appropriate when compliance can be achieved by selecting a different architecture that fits within the adopted code. It is also not appropriate when the applicant cannot produce a complete, inspectable evidence package including drawings, operating procedures, and control logic descriptions. A variance application that cannot describe every unsafe state the control logic must prevent will not survive technical review.
Practical constraints
The process includes a regulatory review window and formal hearing scheduling. The administrative load includes posting/distribution compliance and coordination with Cal/OSHA. The documentation burden includes narrative equivalency arguments, SOPs, control-system descriptions, and drawings. Post-grant, the design becomes operationally rigid because conditions are enforceable.
Trade-offs for specifiers, AHJs, and engineers
A variance does not increase flexibility. It replaces code flexibility with conditional specificity. The conditions attached to the grant become part of the inspection pathway and Permit to Operate obligations. Any operational or dimensional change must be assessed against those conditions. A parameter change after grant may require application to modify the Board order. That is the trade-off.
How the Board Evaluates Permanent Variances
The proposed decision follows a structured format:
- Findings of Fact
- Conclusive Findings
- Decision and Order
The decision states that a preponderance of evidence must support equivalent safety when subject to the stated conditions and limitations.
The order was “conditionally GRANTED to the limited extent” necessary to accommodate the defined deviations.
This language matters. It reflects that variances are narrow, controlled, and conditional.
What Engineering Evidence Must Be Submitted
The application in this docket included:
- Executed permanent variance application
- Revised narrative responses
- Standard Operating Procedures
- Drawing pack
- Control system description
The control system description specified that:
- The lift will not function unless the acrylic panel is installed and closes a limit switch
- The retractable panels must be raised and mechanically locked before travel
- The platform cannot move unless panel interlocks are satisfied
These were not theoretical descriptions. They were design commitments submitted into evidence.
What Happens at a Formal Hearing
The hearing was conducted via videoconference before the California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board.
The manufacturer representative appeared and the evidentiary record included stipulated exhibits and oral testimony. The record closed and the matter was taken under submission.
The decision states:
“conditionally GRANTED to the limited extent”
“A preponderance of the evidence supports the finding”
These excerpts illustrate the formal adjudicative tone of the process.
What Conditions Were Attached to the Conditional Grant
The conditional grant included requirements that:
- Staff be trained and supervised
- Retractable panels include obstruction detection and automatic locking
- Interlocks prevent unsafe sequencing
- Acrylic panels reduce openings to specified limits
- Clearance ranges between runway enclosure and platform remain within defined tolerances
- Suspension/support comply with ASME A18.1-2020 section 2.5
- Platform safety omission comply with ASME A18.1-2020 section 2.8
- Inspection occur and Permit to Operate be issued before the lift is placed in service
Operational consequence statement:
These conditions become part of the Permit to Operate and inspection checklist. The lift cannot be placed in service before Permit to Operate issuance. Any operational change must be evaluated against those conditions. Changes after grant may require modification through the Board’s procedural process.
Comparison Table
ASME A18.1-2003 Requirement |
ASME A18.1-2020 Provision Referenced in Record |
Board Condition Granted |
Hazard Intent the Requirement Addresses |
Solid runway enclosure |
None referenced for this item |
Retractable panels with obstruction detection and automatic locking; acrylic panel limiting opening |
Prevent contact, prevent falls, inhibit debris |
Platform enclosure walls |
None referenced for this item |
Walls omitted except control side; defined clearance limits; acrylic barrier; control inhibition |
Protect against divergent surfaces and running clearances |
Suspension/support means list excludes lever |
2020 edition includes lever |
Must comply with 2020 section 2.5 |
Ensure safe suspension/support |
Platform safety required |
2020 section 2.8.8 exception logic |
May omit safety if compliant with 2020 section 2.8 |
Stop and hold platform upon failure |
How Manufacturers Should Document Alternative Safety Pathways
The record shows that equivalency must be documented in terms regulators can inspect.
Define the use case precisely.
Map every deviation to hazard intent.
Submit control logic that prevents unsafe states.
Attach SOPs and training commitments.
Treat interlock logic as enforceable design, not descriptive theory.
Leadership and Regulatory Accountability
I personally coordinated the submission of this permanent variance application and appeared at the formal hearing as the manufacturer representative.
The interlock logic and equivalency argument were developed and committed at manufacturer level. The control logic described in the submission was not hypothetical; it reflected the actual engineered configuration.
The lifts were delivered and installed by the manufacturer’s engineering and installation team consistent with the commitments made in the variance submission.
This was not a consultant narrative. It was a manufacturer assuming regulatory accountability.
What Lessons Should Engineers and Specifiers Take From This Case
Cross-edition logic must be bounded and explicit.
Equivalent safety must be defined hazard-by-hazard.
Variance conditions create operational rigidity.
Interlock logic must be inspectable.
A variance is a legal mechanism, not a shortcut.
Comparative Compliance Frameworks
For broader context on how ASME A18.1 compliance engages with Authority Having Jurisdiction review processes in US projects, see UK Platform Lifts USA AHJ ASME A18.1 Guide. A comparable regulatory pathway can be observed in Canada where guarding strategies under CSA B355 may require documented equivalency submissions to provincial authorities, as outlined in Roll-Off Guard Canada – CSA B355 & TSSA Approval Guide. For liftway scope interpretation under European standards, see Liftway Definitions and EN 81-41 Scope.
FAQs
How do you apply for a permanent variance under ASME A18.1 in California?
By submitting a formal application to the regulatory authority within the framework overseen by Cal/OSHA, followed by review, hearing, and decision.
Can ASME A18.1-2020 replace an adopted 2003 edition?
No. In this docket, 2020 provisions were referenced only to support equivalency for two items and were incorporated into the Board’s conditions for those items only.
What is equivalent safety?
It is a demonstration that alternative engineered controls provide safety and health equal to or greater than full compliance with the adopted provisions.
Does a variance set precedent?
No. It is an applicant-specific order subject to conditions.
Are variance conditions enforceable?
Yes. They form part of inspection and Permit to Operate obligations.
Can lever-supported platform lifts meet ASME requirements?
Yes, where permitted by the adopted edition or supported through a formal variance incorporating relevant consensus provisions.
What happens if you change the design after grant?
Changes must be evaluated against the variance conditions and may require a modification application.
Is a variance easier than compliance?
No. It typically requires more documentation and greater operational specificity.
Call to Action
Book a Teams Meeting with one of our Project Managers:
https://www.sesameaccess.com/b...