Which rule controlled when Columbia’s building code conflicted with state fire-marshal regulations?

Plain-English summary

Columbia’s inspections director asked whether adopting the state-mandated Standard Building Code by city ordinance made State Fire Marshal rules inapplicable, especially where child day-care requirements differed. In October 2001, the AG said the city’s duly adopted code controlled to the extent of a conflict. The fire-marshal regulations themselves said they yielded to a conflicting statute, municipal code provision or duly adopted ordinance.

The opinion did not exempt Columbia from all fire-marshal regulation. It described the regulations as applicable where no local conflict displaced them, and discussed unincorporated areas or municipalities without adopted codes as other examples.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2001. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Historical summary

City inspectors and fire marshals

The AG applied the regulation’s express conflict clause: a conflicting Columbia code provision took priority only for the conflicting matter.

Day-care operators

The request identified differences in child-occupancy limits and retrofitting rules. The letter resolved the legal priority between adopted city provisions and fire-marshal rules, not the compliance facts of any one center.

Common questions

Did Columbia’s adopted code erase every state fire rule? A: No. The opinion limited the city-code priority to actual conflicts.

What rule governed a conflicting provision?
A: The AG said the duly adopted municipal code or ordinance governed under the fire regulation’s own conflict clause.

Background and statutory framework

Section 23-9-60 authorized fire-prevention regulations. The opinion quoted Regulation 71-8300.15, which expressly gave priority to conflicting statutes, adopted municipal codes and ordinances. The AG applied that text to Columbia’s code.

Citations and references

• Section 23-9-60: fire marshal regulatory authority.
• Regulation 71-8300.15: conflict clause quoted and applied by the AG.

Official title

Concerning conflicts between the requirements of the Standard Building Code and the State Fire marshal’s Rules and Regulations.

Requester

Donny Phipps, Director of Inspections

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/october-4-2001/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/01oct-4-phipps.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLIE CONDON
AITORNEY GENERAL

October 4, 2001
Donny Phipps, Director of Inspections
City of Columbia
P.O. Box 147
Columbia, South Carolina 29217

I

RE:

Informal Opinion

Dear Mr. Phipps:
By your letter of September l 0, 2001, you have requested an opinion from this Office concerning conflicts between the requirements of the Standard Building Code and the State Fire Marshal's Rules and Regulations. By way of background, you provide the following information: All counties and municipalities in the state of South Carolina that enforce building codes, by ordinance, are required by state law to enforce the Standard Codes. The State Fire Marshals Office in addition to the Standard Codes have their own rules and regulations to enforce. There are not many differences between the two but there is a problem when reviewing and inspecting child day care centers. The two major differences are that the Standard Building Code is more restrictive with the number of children allowed in certain occupancies and the Standard Building Code does not require retrofitting of existing day care centers ....
~Jl;

I

You ask, "Does this mean that since the City of Columbia has adopted State mandated Codes, by ordinance, the Fire Marshal's Office Rules and Regulations do not apply to the City?" South Carolina Code of Laws Section 23-9-60 grants the Division of the State Fire Marshal the authority to promulgate regulations and ensure their compliance. Section 23-9-60 states: The State Fire Marshal shall require conformance with the fire prevention and protection standards based upon nationally recognized standards as may be prescribed by law or regulation for the prevention of fires and the protection oflife and property. The Division of the State Fire Marshal shall have the authority to promulgate fire prevention andprotection regulations based upon nationally recognized standards for

REMBERT c. DENNIS BUILDING

i>~~;-':# r{./~ '

•

POST 0FACE Box 11549

•

COLUMBIA,

s.c. 29211-1549

•

TELEPHONE: 803-734-3970

•

FACSIMILE: 803-253-6283

f

I

l

Mr. Phipps
Page 2
the protection of life and property of the residents of the State from fire. (Emphasis added)

r

As the emphasized portion indicates, the State Fire Marshal's regulations detail the specifics of the fire prevention requirements and their relationship to nationally recognized standards. For example, Regulation 71-8300.9 designates certain chapters of the Standard Building Code as the "[m]inimum standards for fire prevention and life safety protection in construction, occupancy, and use of all buildings structures." The regulations do however, acknowledge the existence of a potential conflict between the State Fire Marshal regulations and other standard safety codes. To resolve those conflicts, Regulation 71-8300.15 states:

I
I

No provision of this subarticle shall apply to the extent that it is in conflict with any statute of this State, any provision of any building or other code duly adopted by ordinance of a municipality, or any duly adopted ordinance of a municipality. In the event of a conflict, such statute, other provision, or ordinance shall apply in all respects. The cardinal rule of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and effectuate the legislative intent whenever possible. Bankers Trust of SC v. Bruce, 275 S.C. 35, 267 S.E.2d 424 (1980). The statute's words must be given their plain and ordinary meaning without resort to a forced or subtle construction which would work to limit or to expand the statute's operation. State v. Blackmon, 304 S.C. 270, 403 S.E.2d 660 (1991). Applying these rules to Reg. 71-8300.15, the provision operates to exempt municipalities from particular provisions of the regulations to the extent they are in conflict with the municipality's own duly adopted ordinances or safety codes. By contrast, in unincorporated areas of a county, in municipalities that have not for some reason adopted the standard safety codes, or in areas that have opted-out of provisions of the standard codes, the State Fire Marshal regulations would apply. Thus, in response to your question, because the City of Columbia has adopted State mandated codes by ordinance, the conflicting provisions of the Fire Marshal's Regulations do not apply to the City; instead, the City's duly adopted standard safety code provisions control. This letter is an informal opinion only. It has been written by a designated Assistant Attorney General and represents the position of the undersigned attorney as to the specific question asked. It has not, however, been personally scrutinized by the Attorney General nor officially published in the manner of a formal opinion. With kind regards, I remain Very truly yours,

Susannah Cole
Assistant Attorney General