Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elevator Standards topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee raises concerns about elevator‑standards language in House Bill 1183 and related Senate bill
Summary
Members flagged jurisdictional and enforcement conflicts in HB 1183 (and companion SB 5156) proposing smaller passenger elevator allowances for certain low‑rise buildings and language referencing international standards; the Department of Labor and Industries' jurisdiction over conveyances was a central concern.
Get email alerts on the Elevator Standards topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The committee discussed House Bill 1183 and a related Senate bill (SB 5156), which include language that would allow passenger elevators "no larger than those that accommodate a wheelchair" for apartment buildings up to six stories and 24 units, and would reference international elevator safety standards.
"They are proposing a change to 19.27.042, which is, for, indigent housing... by March 31, 2026, to adopt standards for cities and counties to allow passenger and freight elevators to adopt standards for global safety standards, or in the alternative, the current North American standards," Roger Haringa, BFRW committee chair, summarized during the legislative update.
Committee members said the proposed language raises at least two issues: whether the State Building Code Council is the correct venue to adopt elevator safety standards, and whether the proposal would conflict with the Department of Labor and Industries’ existing authority to adopt and enforce conveyance standards. "The Department of Labor and Industries has been tasked with all conveyances and machinery and buildings, and they adopt a standard for elevator safety, which happens to currently be the same standard listed in the international building code," Haringa said, adding that L&I staff "are reluctant to go to a global standard, the ISO. They see it as a significant departure on life health and safety for these conveyances."
Members also questioned the bill’s target population and placement in statute. Chelsea (surname not given) noted the bill’s placement in an RCW section that refers to indigent or emergency housing and asked whether the drafter intended that placement. "I think this reads as they're targeting the single exit," said Dustin (surname not given), referring to single‑exit building typologies that sometimes use reduced‑size elevators and different rescue scenarios.
Several members noted that federal accessibility requirements and ANSI/ICC accessibility standards also influence car size and clearances. Haringa said he had contacted the elevator program at L&I and that L&I indicated the rules they already administer may allow similar small cars but that coordination is needed. The committee identified the bill’s adoption of a safety standard in a building code RCW as the principal concern rather than the car size itself.
"So, I mean, if that is the intent, then, yeah, it needs to be somewhere else because otherwise, this opens it up to a whole different sort of grouping," Haringa said. Committee members agreed to monitor the bills closely and to coordinate with L&I and the bill sponsors; Haringa said he planned to appear at upcoming hearings to raise concerns about jurisdiction and enforcement.
Ending: The committee marked HB 1183/SB 5156 as high‑priority concerns and recommended staff coordinate with the Department of Labor and Industries and testify where appropriate to clarify whether the bill’s language belongs in labor/conveyance rules rather than the building code statute.

