Building Code Council denies emergency petition on food‑truck gas checks, issues opinion letting local fire officials approve alternate inspection methods

The Washington State Building Code Council voted June 26 not to establish emergency rulemaking on a petition seeking relief for LP‑gas inspection requirements on mobile food preparation units and then formally denied the petition, opting instead to issue an interpretive opinion that clarifies local fire officials may authorize alternative inspection methods.

The council’s action began after staff and the BFRW committee recommended against emergency rulemaking because the petition did not meet the statutory emergency threshold and because enforcement of the existing provisions rests with local authorities. Staff noted the council’s statutory filing deadline for a response is June 28.

Why it matters: Petitioners sought immediate relief for operators of mobile food units who have faced difficulty obtaining inspections or approved inspectors; the council’s opinion does not change code language but signals how local fire officials may exercise discretion when certifying alternate inspection approaches. That leaves primary enforcement and method approval to local authorities rather than imposing a statewide emergency rule.

Staff member Dustin explained the BFRW recommendation and the timeline for meeting the APA filing deadline, and the council debated whether an opinion or emergency rule was the appropriate response. Several council members said they sympathize with small businesses that may lack ready access to approved inspection agencies but that a broad waiver would conflict with existing fire code constraints.

"The code says that the fire or fire official can't waive the requirement," council member Angela Haupt said, citing fire code section 104.1. "They can interpret. They can create policies and procedures for how to enforce it, but they can't just waive a requirement." (Angela Haupt)

Seattle Fire Marshal representative Ken Burlett told the council his office did not view the petition as an emergency and recommended relying on existing code provisions; he advocated referencing 2024 code language that explicitly allows an "approved inspection agency, person, or special expert" where appropriate to broaden acceptable methods.

Council members voted first to decline emergency basis for rulemaking. The motion to not establish emergency basis was moved and seconded; the voice vote carried with a single recorded nay by Tom Young. The council then made a separate motion to deny the petition for APA record; that motion also passed with one recorded opposition.

The discussion then turned to the text of an opinion the council could issue to clarify enforcement practice. Members debated whether the opinion should rely only on the 2021 code text the council currently administers or also reference the 2024 code language to show the intent of forthcoming clarifications. Several members suggested wording that points to the fire official’s authority under existing modification provisions.

Ken Burlett summarized the legal point the council adopted: "Per 104.9 (modifications), the fire code official has the ability and is authorized to allow locally approved methods," and the council incorporated that clarification into the opinion. (Ken Burlett)

The council amended the draft opinion to emphasize that local fire officials have authority to approve alternative inspection methods that achieve the same life‑safety outcomes, and adopted the opinion by voice vote.

What the action does—and does not—do: The opinion clarifies enforcement discretion; it does not change code mandates or create a statewide waiver. Local authorities retain responsibility for how to verify compliance and may approve locally accepted inspection processes, so long as any modification does not reduce life‑safety protections required by code.

Next steps: Staff will finalize the denial letter and the opinion and file them to meet the statutory deadline. The opinion may be revised later through the council’s standard processes if further information emerges.

(At the meeting: the BFRW committee recommended denial of emergency rulemaking; the council declined emergency basis and denied the petition; the opinion clarifies local authority under sections discussed in the meeting.)