Building Code Council declines to advance petition on modular components after debates over inspections and standards

The Building Code Council voted on voice to deny a petition that would have added a new section to chapter 301 of the International Residential Code to govern modular components and to reference ICC manufacturing standards for off-site fabrication.

The petition, introduced by proponent Todd Batherthor, sought to add definitions and a compliance pathway allowing jurisdictions to accept third-party code reports and certifying-agency documentation for modular assemblies. Batherthor said the change was intended to create "a compliance pathway" so manufacturers and jurisdictions would have more certainty when approving off-site-built wall and floor assemblies. "Modular does not mean always volumetric," he said, arguing the proposal was meant to address assemblies that fall outside volumetric or manufactured-home programs.

Members raised a series of technical and jurisdictional concerns during the discussion. Micah and others questioned whether referencing the ICC MBI 1200-series standards would inadvertently require local code officials to enforce chapters on manufacturing, transportation and plant oversight—areas some said are traditionally outside routine local inspection duties and in some cases are already covered by Washington's Department of Labor & Industries (L&I) programs. Quinn Tye noted the changes had passed ICC committee action and would likely appear in the 2027 model code cycle, but he and other members urged Washington-specific correlation work before adopting the language into the 2024 code.

Glenn, who shared a public-comment document during the meeting, proposed a narrow insertion to the petition that would explicitly reference the IBC's chapter 17 special inspection/testing requirements so building officials would have clear authority to request special inspections. "This now gives full authority to the building official to ask for special inspections per the IBC," he said. Members debated whether adding that explicit reference would close an IRC/IBC gap or create further enforcement obligations.

Several members, including Annie O'Rourke and Patrick Hanks, said they were not comfortable advancing the petition without more work on the referenced standards and clearer limits on what local jurisdictions would be required to enforce. "I'm not going to vote yes on this proposal without the corresponding MBI documents being what we want them to be," O'Rourke said. Hanks warned that pulling next-edition code material into the current cycle would create extra work and could produce inconsistencies with state law and L&I authority.

With no agreement to adopt the proposed friendly amendment or to move the petition into rulemaking with firm Washington amendments, the tag moved to a motion to deny ("not move forward") the petition for the 2024 code cycle. The motion was made and seconded; the council recorded a voice vote in favor and the chair declared the motion passed. The transcript records the voice vote as "aye" responses and the chair stating the motion passes; individual roll-call vote totals were not recorded in the meeting transcript.

The council discussed options for future action: proponents may return with revised language, the matter could be revisited if related legislation (referred to in meeting remarks as the Kit/Kidd Homes bill, spoken as SB 5552) advances, or the topic could be addressed during the 2027 code adoption process. The meeting adjourned with no further business.

The decision: the petition to add modular component provisions to the IRC and to adopt related ICC manufacturing standard references was denied for the current code cycle; proponents may revise and resubmit or await legislative action.