HB1404 – Altering the State Building Code Council’s procedures and authority. (Dead.)
Prime Sponsor – Representative Goehner (R; 12th District; Chelan) (Co-Sponsors Chapman – D; Corry, Jacobsen, Griffey, Rude, Couture, Christian, Cheney – Rs)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Local Government. Still in committee by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5117 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Summary –
The bill would create a variety of new procedural rules for the Council. It would be required to discard any proposal that doesn’t include all the requested information, doesn’t have sufficient detail to be acted upon as of a deadline the Council sets, or that “exceeds the specific delegation of authority provided by the Legislature”. (It would not be allowed to rely solely on the broad delegation of authority in the current law.) A member of the Council would have to sponsor a proposal for it to move forward. The proposed text would have to be put in the Code Reviser’s format for finalized rules, and any proposed changes to that would have to be in writing, specify the legal authority for the amendment, and be available to all councilmembers and the public before a vote on a change could be taken. (The current process, in which members discuss and agree to many adjustments in phrasing and details in a draft during one or more meetings, would be explicitly prohibited.) The Council would be required to adopt policies to ensure it adheres to all of the requirements for rule making in the Administrative Procedures Act.

The bill says that if there’s “a concern” that the information provided in a proposal isn’t sufficient, inaccurately represents the actual impacts or costs, or if the assertions in the proposal “are questioned” by experts with knowledge of the industry or circumstances the Council “should” supplement the cost estimate information provided in a petition with independent research. At least two weeks before final adoption of nonemergency changes to the Code, the Council would have to make available for public comment:
(1) the currently required small business economic impact statement;
(2) the currently required cost-benefit analysis and the supporting information, for members to determine if the proposed rule is the least burdensome alternative for those required to comply with it and if the probable benefits of the rule are greater than its probable costs;
(3) any independent, third-party analysis the Council commissioned;
(4) any supplemental cost estimate information and industry specific information provided in the process; and,
(5) any findings, determinations or recommendations of the Council’s economic impact work group, consultants, or employees.
The bill says all this information should be available for review and vetted by Council members prior to a final vote adopting any rule modification. If someone working in an industry subject to regulation under a proposed rule raised an economic or cost-related protest or provided a cost or economic analysis that was different, the protestor could request that the Council provide a substantive response to raised concerns, including an explanation of provisions in the rule addressing, mitigating, or reducing the cost or economic impacts of the rule.

The bill would specify various criteria for appointments to technical advisory groups. If a member represented a specific interest or group, it would allow any person of that group to petition the Council to have that member removed from the TAG on the grounds that the person doesn’t have the qualifications or characteristics necessary to represent the interest or group. The Council would be required to remove any technical advisory group member it found lacked the characteristics and qualifications necessary to fill the position.

The Council would be required to identify the sources of information it reviewed and relied upon in the course of adopting changes to the Code, to include that information in the rule-making file, and to post the materials it considered or relied upon on its website for at least a year. It would be required to create a distribution list to notify specified agencies about proposed rules and the associated materials before public hearings on them. It would also be required to notify individuals involved in providing state subsidized housing that the proposed rule would increase the cost and complexity of building construction and identify when public comment will be taken. If a proposal would change the design of school buildings, OSPI would have to be notified. Every three years, the Council would have to submit a report to the Legislature identifying provisions in the adopted codes that generated conflict, summarizing the different perspectives brought before the Council related to the conflict, and how the Council addressed it.

The bill would make the appointment of the managing director of the Council subject to confirmation by the Senate, and prohibit anyone registered as a lobbyist from serving on it. It would add a representative from a utility to the Council. It would require training on ethics in public service and the Council’s rules of procedure for anyone serving on it.