Automatic Gate Accident Statistics

What are the key automatic gate accident statistics?

The strongest current answer is still historical: CPSC estimated about 300 emergency-room injuries a year during 2011–2015. Each item below stands alone with its figure, period, qualifier, and named source; every source and calculation was verified July 25, 2026.

1. Nearly 25,000 people involved in automatic-gate-related injuries from 1990 to 2000, including 9,000 children under 15. CPSC's wording was "involved in," not "seriously injured." (U.S. CPSC, 2001.)
2. More than 2,000 emergency-room treatments a year, including 800 children, for injuries to the head, neck, arm, or hand — the annual figure CPSC reported in 2001. (U.S. CPSC, 2001.)
3. Children were 20 of the 32 deaths known to CPSC in October 2001 — 62.5%. This is a calculation from the agency's two unrounded counts: 20 ÷ 32. (Derived from U.S. CPSC, 2001.)
4. 14 federal workplace automatic-gate investigation records from 1988–2021 were located, screened, and verified from OSHA's Investigation Summaries. This is a case series, not a national count. (Automatic Gate Incident Evidence Ledger v1.0; U.S. OSHA.)
5. Four of the 14 OSHA cases in the 1988–2021 ledger were fatal. Three of the four deaths involved crushing or asphyxia after a person was caught or pinned by the moving gate. (Automatic Gate Incident Evidence Ledger v1.0; U.S. OSHA.)
6. Eight of the 14 OSHA cases in the 1988–2021 ledger happened while someone was installing, repairing, maintaining, troubleshooting, or clearing a malfunctioning gate. This is the largest coded activity group in the retained case series. (Automatic Gate Incident Evidence Ledger v1.0; U.S. OSHA.)
7. Five of the 14 OSHA cases in the 1988–2021 ledger involved an amputation or a severed body part. (Automatic Gate Incident Evidence Ledger v1.0; U.S. OSHA.)
8. Three of the 14 OSHA cases in the 1988–2021 ledger involved someone reaching through or across a gate to use a keypad or card reader. Two of those three cases were fatal. (Automatic Gate Incident Evidence Ledger v1.0; U.S. OSHA.)
9. Federal law gives automatic residential garage door openers a mandatory CPSC safety standard; vehicular gate operators do not have a comparable mandatory CPSC consumer-product rule. Congress's 1990 requirement applied to residential garage door operators manufactured after January 1, 1991, while the current 16 CFR Part 1211 requirements apply to operators manufactured on or after January 1, 1993 for sale in the United States. (U.S. CPSC; 16 CFR Part 1211.)
10. CPSC's Operation Safe Gate material says additional monitoring of external entrapment-protection means became required in January 2016. Current UL guidance says a gate operator must continuously monitor external entrapment-protection means and limit movement to constant-pressure operation if a means is not working. (U.S. CPSC, 2018; UL Solutions.)
11. Arizona's State Fire Marshal began using the 2024 International Fire Code on April 13, 2026 for projects within the office's review jurisdiction. Tucson and Pima County's 2024 building codes took effect January 1, 2026. (Arizona Office of the State Fire Marshal; City of Tucson.)

What do the two federal snapshots report?

CPSC published automatic-gate injury and fatality figures in an October 2001 news release and again in its August 2018 Operation Safe Gate campaign. The 2018 estimate — about 300 emergency-room injuries a year, drawn from about 1,500 injuries over 2011–2015 — is the most recent automatic-gate-specific federal estimate located in this review. The 2001 release is the federal source for the "32 deaths" and "nearly 25,000 injuries" figures.

Sources: U.S. CPSC news release 02-023, October 23, 2001 and the CPSC-produced Operation Safe Gate campaign fact sheet, published with CPSC's August 6, 2018 campaign. Original qualifiers retained. Verified July 25, 2026.

Tier key. ★ means the figure was read directly against the issuing agency's page or a CPSC-produced campaign document and verified during this pass. Every row in Table 1 is primary-verified.

What federal workplace automatic-gate cases appear in OSHA records?

OSHA publishes Investigation Summaries from inspections that followed a fatality, catastrophe, or employer-reported referral that resulted in an inspection. We located 14 summaries in which a powered, automatic, electric, motorized, or remotely controlled vehicular gate — or its operating mechanism — caused the injury; four were fatal. This is a keyword-located case series, not a census of U.S. gate accidents and not a rate.

Source: U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration Investigation Summaries, one official record per row. These are 14 keyword-located and manually reviewed federal workplace records — not all U.S. automatic gate accidents and not an incidence rate. Every row was opened and verified July 25, 2026.

Table 3: What the 14 OSHA cases contain

Source: Automatic Gate Incident Evidence Ledger v1.0, counted from the 14 retained and primary-verified OSHA records above. These counts describe this case series only. Verified July 25, 2026.

The clearest pattern in the ledger is uncomfortable for the trade this site works in: eight of fourteen cases happened while someone was installing, repairing, maintaining, troubleshooting, or clearing a malfunctioning gate. That is a pattern in this selected federal case series, not a national injury share.

What does this data show — and what does it not show?

These figures support three statements: automatic gates kill and injure people, children are heavily represented in the fatality record CPSC published, and the most recent federal injury estimate is more than a decade old. They do not support a trend line, a complete annual death count, or any risk-per-gate figure.

What you can say. CPSC estimated about 300 emergency-room injuries a year during 2011–2015. CPSC knew of 32 automatic-gate deaths between 1985 and October 2001, 20 of them children. CPSC separately identified four deaths during 2011–2015. Fourteen OSHA Investigation Summaries between 1988 and 2021 describe automatic-gate injuries, four of them fatal.

What you cannot say. You cannot present 32 plus four as a complete national death count. The periods do not overlap, but 36 would be only an incomplete subtotal from two separated reporting windows: it omits 2002–2010 and everything after 2015, and the public materials do not establish one common counting method. You cannot chart the 2001 and 2018 figures as two comparable points on a line. CPSC stated in 2018 that deaths and injuries had "gone down dramatically" since tougher UL 325 requirements took effect in 2000, but the published materials do not contain the year-by-year series needed to calculate a rate of change. You cannot derive a national injury rate from 14 workplace records.

How was this research produced?

This page was built from primary agency records and standards-body material opened and read during the July 25, 2026 verification pass. No statistical figure was taken from a law-firm page, independent blog, or another statistics roundup.

CPSC figures. We opened CPSC news release 02-023 on cpsc.gov and transcribed each figure with the agency's own qualifier and reference period intact — "nearly," "more than," and "about." We did not convert qualified estimates into falsely precise numbers. For the 2018 campaign, we used the CPSC-issued Operation Safe Gate announcement and the CPSC-produced campaign fact sheet that states the 2011–2015 period, about 1,500 five-year injuries, about 300 annual injuries, and four fatalities.

OSHA case identification. We reviewed OSHA Investigation Summaries for abstracts describing an automatic, powered, electric, motorized, or remotely controlled vehicular gate, a gate operator, or an automatic vehicular-access barrier. A record was retained only where the gate or its mechanism caused the injury.

We excluded manual gates with no powered context, garage doors and garage-door openers, baby and pet gates, truck liftgates, railroad crossing gates, livestock gates, industrial machine-guard gates, duplicates, and cases where a gate was present but not causal.

Case coding. Each retained record was coded for event date, gate type, powered status, mechanism, outcome, fatality, amputation or severing, whether the injured person was installing, repairing, maintaining, troubleshooting, or clearing a malfunctioning gate, and whether the person reached through or across the gate to a control. The "work on gate" field does not include the 2005 worker who was closing a gate or the 2007 superintendent who was walking beneath a gate; correcting those two classifications produces the verified count of eight.

Row-level verification. All 14 OSHA records were opened against their live OSHA Investigation Summary pages on July 25, 2026. Every retained row is marked ★ in Version 1.0.

Calculations. The 62.5% child share of deaths is 20 divided by 32, both unrounded figures from the same CPSC release. Ledger counts were tallied only from the 14 retained OSHA records. We did not compute a percentage change between the 2001 and 2018 estimates because the two were published 17 years apart and the public documents do not establish a common estimation method.

What we deliberately did not produce. We did not generate a new weighted NEISS injury estimate. The January 2025 CPSC coding manual routes "automatic gates or gate openers" to product code 1871, "Fences or fence posts," so narrative-level classification is required. CPSC also warns that public NEISS estimates are potentially unstable when the estimate is below 1,200, fewer than 20 sampled records support it, or the coefficient of variation exceeds 33%, and that raw case counts cannot be compared because cases carry different weights. A new estimate belongs on this page only after the retained narratives, exclusions, survey weights, confidence interval, coefficient of variation, and full calculation file are published with it.

How many people are injured by automatic gates each year?

CPSC's most recent estimate is about 300 emergency-room injuries a year during 2011–2015, published in August 2018 with an estimated five-year total of about 1,500. The older figure still circulating — more than 2,000 a year, including 800 children — comes from CPSC's October 2001 release and describes a different historical period. Anyone citing an annual injury number for automatic gates in 2026 is citing data whose newest event year is 2015.

CPSC described the injuries associated with its 2018 campaign as frequently serious: cuts, broken bones, hematomas, and amputations. That injury profile appears independently in the OSHA ledger, where five of 14 retained cases involved an amputation or a severed body part.

How many people have died in automatic gate accidents?

No running federal death count for automatic vehicular gates was located. CPSC knew of 32 deaths from 1985 through its October 2001 release, including 20 children. Separately, CPSC identified four deaths during 2011–2015 — three children aged 8, 11, and 12, and one adult.

Why should the two death figures be reported separately?

The two published periods do not overlap, but adding the figures to produce 36 creates an incomplete subtotal rather than a national death count. It omits 2002–2010 and everything after 2015, and the public CPSC materials do not establish a single continuous surveillance method across both publications. Report 32 and four separately, with their periods attached.

What causes automatic gate accidents in federal case records?

Across the 14 OSHA records, five mechanisms recur: unexpected gate or operator movement during work, hands drawn into chain-and-sprocket or roller assemblies, people reaching through a gate to reach a control on the far side, gates falling or tipping off their supports, and a barrier arm descending onto a worker. These mechanisms describe the retained case series only; they are not ranked national causes.

What happens when a gate activates during service work?

The oldest case in the ledger, from 1988, involved a worker repairing and adjusting a powered slide gate's drive mechanism who was caught and killed; OSHA noted the absence of a formal lockout procedure. Related unexpected movement appears in the 1997, 2006, 2017, and 2021 records. For covered general-industry work, OSHA's hazardous-energy rule at 29 CFR 1910.147 applies to servicing and maintenance where unexpected energization, startup, or release of stored energy could injure an employee.

What injuries appear around chains, sprockets, rollers, and pulleys?

Five of the 14 cases involved a chain-and-sprocket, roller, or pulley pinch point. Four of those five produced an amputation or severing injury. In one 2006 case, the worker's partially amputated fingers were surgically reattached.

What happens when a person reaches through a gate to use a control?

Three cases share a specific geometry: the keypad, card reader, or control sits on the opposite side of the gate from the person operating it, so the person reaches through or across the gate. Two of the three were fatal. In the 2000 case, the opening was 38 by 13½ inches. In the 2015 case, the victim was pinned between the gate's leading edge and an electrical box while alone at 7:00 p.m.

CPSC's 2001 release says gate controls should be placed far enough from the gate that a user cannot touch the gate while operating the control. That agency guidance matches the mechanism visible in the three OSHA cases without turning the case series into a national frequency claim.

What happens when a gate falls or tips?

Three cases involve a gate falling or tipping rather than a person being drawn into a powered drive: a 500-pound rolling steel gate came off its track, a large automated gate tipped after its automatic eye was reactivated, and an electric gate fell onto a construction superintendent. ASTM's official discussion of F2200 identifies fall-over protection and positive stops that limit gate travel as construction safeguards addressed by the standard.

Are barrier-arm incidents included?

One case involves an automatic parking barrier arm rather than a gate leaf: an attendant was struck on the head when a raised arm descended sooner than she expected. It is retained in the ledger as a distinct subtype and is not blended into gate-leaf entrapment counts.

Why is there no current national automatic-gate accident count?

The public federal record is fragmented. Automatic vehicular gates have no dedicated NEISS product code, and the available CPSC publications are dated agency analyses rather than a public running series. OSHA's Investigation Summaries add detailed workplace cases, but they are completed inspection records, not a national injury census.

Do automatic gates have a dedicated injury-surveillance code?

No. CPSC's January 2025 NEISS coding manual explicitly directs coders to use "Fences or fence posts," product code 1871, for "automatic gates or gate openers." The manual separately identifies automatic doors and door openers excluding garage doors as code 0137, automatic garage doors and door openers as code 0138, and baby gates or barriers as code 1506.

That has a direct consequence for reproducibility: a raw code-1871 total is not an automatic-gate total because it also captures fences, fence posts, and other gates. Automatic-gate records must be isolated through narrative review. CPSC also explains that its published analyses may differ from a public query because agency analyses can use additional information and factors unavailable through the public tool.

Why is the federal garage-door rule different from the gate-operator standard?

Congress's Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 1990 required automatic residential garage door operators manufactured after January 1, 1991 to meet specified UL 325 entrapment provisions. CPSC's current 16 CFR Part 1211 requirements apply to automatic residential garage door operators manufactured on or after January 1, 1993 for sale in the United States.

CPSC has no comparable mandatory consumer-product standard for vehicular gate operators. UL 325 remains the central operator consensus standard, and its gate provisions become legally enforceable where a statute, adopted code, approval condition, or other applicable legal instrument incorporates them.

Which safety standards apply to automatic vehicular gates?

Two central consensus standards divide the system: ASTM F2200 addresses the gate's construction, while UL 325 addresses the powered operator and its entrapment-protection functions. They are standards, not a single nationwide gate statute. Their legal force depends on product listing requirements and the laws and codes adopted for the installation.

Sources: U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Electronic Code of Federal Regulations, Nevada Legislature, UL Solutions, ASTM International, International Code Council model provisions, City of Tucson, Pima County, and Arizona Office of the State Fire Marshal. Verified July 25, 2026.

What does ASTM F2200-24 cover?

F2200-24 is the active edition of the Standard Specification for Automated Vehicular Gate Construction. Its scope lists horizontal slide, horizontal swing, vertical lift, vertical pivot, overhead pivot, and horizontal bifold gates. It covers four use classes. The 2020 edition listed five gate types in its scope; the 2024 edition adds horizontal bifold gates. ASTM's official page also states that automated vehicular gate systems shall comply with F2200 and be compliant with UL 325.

What does UL 325 require of the operator?

UL's current public guidance states that two independent entrapment-protection devices must be installed and active for each entrapment zone of an automated gate system. The operator is not allowed to move until the minimum number of devices is installed. External devices such as photoelectric systems and sensing edges must be continuously monitored; when one is not working, operator functions are limited to constant-pressure movement rather than normal automatic operation.

Does a newer standard automatically decide what an older gate must do?

No. A standard's publication date does not by itself decide the legal obligations for every existing installation. Existing-gate duties come from the statute, adopted code and edition, permit or approval condition, enforcement order, product listing and instructions, contract, and other law that apply to the specific site.

Where are automatic gate requirements legally enforceable?

Enforceability depends on the instrument and jurisdiction. The federal CPSC rule is mandatory for automatic residential garage door operators, not vehicular gate operators. Vehicular gate requirements become enforceable through statutes such as Nevada's, adopted building and fire codes, listing requirements, approvals, and other applicable law.

Sources: 16 CFR Part 1211; Nevada NRS 405.270; 2024 IBC §3110; 2024 IFC §§503.5–503.6; 2024 IRC Appendix BH. Verified July 25, 2026.

The residential point is easy to miss. The 2024 IRC places its one- and two-family automatic vehicular gate provisions in Appendix BH. Whether that appendix has force in a specific place depends on the jurisdiction's adoption and amendments; the model appendix cannot be treated as a nationwide residential rule.

What applies in Arizona, Tucson, and Pima County?

Arizona does not use one building-code adoption rule for every project and location. Counties and municipalities adopt local codes under state authority, while the Arizona Office of the State Fire Marshal applies the 2024 IFC within the office's defined review jurisdiction. Tucson and Pima County moved to their 2024 building-code editions effective January 1, 2026.

Sources: A.R.S. §11-861; Arizona Office of the State Fire Marshal; City of Tucson Building Codes; Pima County Building Permits Resources. Verified July 25, 2026.

On local accident numbers. We looked for a Tucson or Pima County automatic-gate injury count and did not find one that could be reproduced from an official source. There is no verified county numerator and no installed-gate or operating-cycle denominator. This page therefore publishes neither an estimate nor a zero, and it does not substitute a list of news reports for an official series.

The State Fire Marshal's scope is the most useful statewide distinction for Arizona reporting. Its official page specifically lists installation, modification, or alteration of a security gate among projects subject to review for projects in areas without a locally adopted fire code.

Why do these automatic gate accident statistics matter now?

Three dates define the current evidence gap. The newest federal injury estimate covers 2011–2015; CPSC's campaign material says additional monitoring of external entrapment-protection means became required in January 2016; and no later automatic-gate-specific national injury estimate was located in this review. The available federal estimate therefore does not measure the period after that monitoring change.

A standards publication date also does not establish the status of the installed gate population. Existing-installation obligations depend on the applicable jurisdiction, code edition, permit or approval, enforcement action, listed equipment instructions, and other law. The defensible current statement is narrower and stronger: writers in 2026 still have no newer public federal automatic-gate-specific injury estimate than the one covering 2011–2015.

What are the limitations and unavailable figures?

The evidence is useful because its boundaries are explicit. It combines dated CPSC national snapshots with a manually reviewed OSHA workplace case series; it does not convert either source into a complete national surveillance system.

1. The 2001 and 2018 CPSC figures are separate dated snapshots. The public documents do not provide the comparable annual series that a trend line would require.
2. The 2011–2015 period, about 1,500 injuries, about 300 annual injuries, and four deaths were verified from a CPSC-produced Operation Safe Gate fact sheet. That document is preserved on a media-distribution archive rather than cpsc.gov; the figures are presented as CPSC's, not as an independent estimate by the host.
3. NEISS records injuries associated with a product, not necessarily caused by it. Narrative review is required to establish that an automatic gate or gate operator was causal.
4. Automatic gates have no dedicated NEISS product code. The January 2025 coding manual routes them to code 1871, "Fences or fence posts," which also captures nonautomatic products and incidents.
5. All 14 OSHA rows were verified against live official records, but the case series remains keyword-located. OSHA warns that Investigation Summaries are completed inspection records, recent cases may not yet be available, and new uses of the database should be verified carefully.
6. The OSHA rows are not all U.S. workplace automatic-gate injuries. They cannot establish a national cause ranking, percentage, or rate.
7. No installed-gate or operating-cycle denominator was located. Nothing here supports a risk-per-gate, per-property, per-vehicle-passage, or per-cycle figure.
8. CPSC's figures concern emergency-room treatment and reports received. They do not count every injury treated in urgent care, a doctor's office, at home, or not treated.
9. No reproducible state-by-state or county-level automatic-gate injury series was located.
10. No federal automatic-gate death count covering any period after 2015 was located.
11. No new weighted NEISS estimate is published in Version 1.0. CPSC's public guidance says an estimate is potentially unstable when it is below 1,200, based on fewer than 20 sampled records, or has a coefficient of variation above 33%. Any future estimate must publish its narrative inclusion decisions, weights, variance calculation, confidence interval, and code.

Which figures are not published here?

Current annual U.S. automatic-gate deaths. Accidents by state or county. A Tucson or Pima County accident total. Injury rate per installed gate or operating cycle. A new weighted NEISS estimate. A "most dangerous gate type." The share of installed gates that are noncompliant. None of these can be sourced and reproduced from the evidence assembled for Version 1.0, so none appears as a statistic on this page.

How should this page be cited?

The entries below provide neutral bibliographic details for the page and its original compiled dataset. They identify the publication, title, URL, verification date, and dataset version.

Tucson Automatic Gate Repair Research. “Automatic Gate Accident Statistics.” Tucson Automatic Gate Repair. Last verified July 25, 2026. https://tucsonautomaticgaterepair.com/research/automatic-gate-accident-statistics/

Dataset: Tucson Automatic Gate Repair Research. Automatic Gate Incident Evidence Ledger, version 1.0, July 25, 2026. https://tucsonautomaticgaterepair.com/research/data/automatic-gate-incident-evidence-ledger-v1.csv

What is included in the downloadable dataset?

Version 1.0 contains 23 records across two panels: nine CPSC statistical records and 14 OSHA investigation records. The CSV is intended for spreadsheet and statistical use; the JSON preserves the same records with dataset metadata, summary counts, methodology, limitations, and the list of figures not published.

• automatic-gate-incident-evidence-ledger-v1.csv23 rows including 9 CPSC records and 14 OSHA case records; 15,499 bytes. SHA-256: d5b0662c101804fa4e215acd64124c8fecbe30cacbaa12fa566cbdc868e3b863
• automatic-gate-incident-evidence-ledger-v1.jsonMetadata, summary, and the same 23 records; 32,492 bytes. SHA-256: 409f70674077799746a0118d4d1c8a12a31a2db0a5700ad48db7d9e06c4f77a2

Record fields: record_id, panel, event_or_reference_date, period_start, period_end, geography, measure, value, unit, population_or_scope, gate_type, powered_status, incident_mechanism, outcome, fatalities, amputation_or_severing, work_on_gate_activity, reach_through_control, source_agency, source_record, source_url, verification_tier, verified_date, notes.

The underlying CPSC and OSHA records remain government records. The original work published here is the source selection, normalization, row-level classification, calculated case-series summaries, methodology, and versioned distribution.

What are the most common automatic-gate accident questions?

These answers repeat the page's main findings in a form that remains accurate when extracted independently. Every number keeps its period and source context.

Which primary sources support this page?

Statistical figures are traced to CPSC; each workplace case is traced to its OSHA record; regulatory statements are tied to the issuing government or standards body.

1. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, news release 02-023, "New Safety Standard for Automatic Security Gates Helps Prevent Deaths and Injuries to Children," October 23, 2001. cpsc.gov/…
2. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, CPSC-issued Operation Safe Gate announcement distributed August 6, 2018. prnewswire.com
3. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Operation Safe Gate campaign fact sheet (2011–2015 period, about 1,500 injuries, about 300 annual, four fatalities). broadcastnewsresource.com/…
4. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, "Automatic Residential Garage Door Operators." cpsc.gov/FAQ/…
5. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, "CPSC Safety Standard Targets Garage Door Deaths," June 12, 1991. cpsc.gov/…
6. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, "Safety Commission Publishes Final Rules for Automatic Garage Door Openers," December 3, 1992. cpsc.gov/…
7. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations, 16 CFR Part 1211. ecfr.gov/…
8. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, "Garage Door Operators/Gate Operators," voluntary-standards topic page. cpsc.gov/…
9. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, January 2025 NEISS Coding Manual (automatic gates = product code 1871). cpsc.gov/…
10. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, "NEISS Frequently Asked Questions." cpsc.gov/…
11. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, "Explanation of NEISS Estimates." cpsc.gov/…
12. U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, "Investigation Summaries." osha.gov/…
13. OSHA Investigation Summary 14369409. osha.gov/…?id=14369409
14. OSHA Investigation Summary 170900575. osha.gov/…?id=170900575
15. OSHA Investigation Summary 200672905. osha.gov/…?id=200672905
16. OSHA Investigation Summary 307166280. osha.gov/…?id=307166280
17. OSHA Investigation Summary 201692480. osha.gov/…?id=201692480
18. OSHA Investigation Summary 202444246. osha.gov/…?id=202444246
19. OSHA Investigation Summary 202506184. osha.gov/…?id=202506184
20. OSHA Investigation Summary 202551123. osha.gov/…?id=202551123
21. OSHA Investigation Summary 78190.015. osha.gov/…?id=78190.015
22. OSHA Investigation Summary 99991.015. osha.gov/…?id=99991.015
23. OSHA Investigation Summary 120269.015. osha.gov/…?id=120269.015
24. OSHA Investigation Summary 127473.015. osha.gov/…?id=127473.015
25. OSHA Investigation Summary 133524.015. osha.gov/…?id=133524.015
26. OSHA Investigation Summary 140642.015. osha.gov/…?id=140642.015
27. U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 29 CFR 1910.147, The Control of Hazardous Energy (Lockout/Tagout). osha.gov/…
28. UL Solutions, "New US & Canada Binational Standard Published for Door and Gate Operators and Systems," September 11, 2018. ul.com/…
29. UL Solutions, "UL 325 50th Anniversary & Key Safety Issues," November 29, 2023. ul.com/…
30. ASTM International, F2200-24, Standard Specification for Automated Vehicular Gate Construction. store.astm.org/…
31. ASTM International, F2200-20, prior edition. store.astm.org/…
32. ASTM International, "Standards for Hidden Dangers of Gates." astm.org/…
33. Nevada Legislature, NRS 405.270. leg.state.nv.us/…
34. International Code Council, 2024 IBC, §3110. codes.iccsafe.org/…
35. International Code Council, 2024 IFC, §§503.5 and 503.6. codes.iccsafe.org/…
36. International Code Council, 2024 IRC Appendix BH. codes.iccsafe.org/…
37. Arizona Legislature, A.R.S. §11-861. azleg.gov/…
38. Arizona Department of Forestry and Fire Management, Office of the State Fire Marshal, "Arizona State Statute and Fire Code." dffm.az.gov/…
39. City of Tucson Planning and Development Services, "Building Codes." tucsonaz.gov/…
40. Pima County Development Services, "Building Permits Resources." pima.gov/…

What changed in each dataset version?

The revision log records changes to row counts, classifications, sources, and file hashes. A visible verification date changes only when the underlying records and calculations are actually rechecked.

Last verified: July 25, 2026