Council declines emergency petition on food‑truck gas inspections, issues opinion letting local fire officials approve alternative methods

The Washington State Building Code Council voted Friday not to establish an emergency basis for a petition seeking a statewide waiver or emergency rule on LP‑gas piping inspections for mobile food units, and instead adopted a nonbinding opinion clarifying that local fire officials have authority to approve alternative inspection methods.

Chair Todd opened discussion on the petition and explained the legal threshold: emergency rulemaking is the only off‑cycle path for the council to make binding code changes when not directed by the legislature. Dustin, representing staff and the BFRW committee, told members the committee recommended denying emergency status and issuing an interpretive opinion to meet the statutory deadline for a response.

Tom, speaking in public comment, urged compassion for small food‑truck operators and suggested a one‑year extension rather than an outright denial, saying operators can face ‘‘a sense of desperation’’ if inspections are unavailable. Angela, a council member, said granting an exception would conflict with section 104.1 of the fire code, which prevents officials from waiving code requirements, and favored issuing an opinion that clarifies how fire officials may enforce the requirement without waiving it.

Council member Jason Benway moved that the council not establish emergency rulemaking; Angela seconded. The chair called a voice vote; the motion carried with a single recorded opposition by Tom Young. The council noted that failing to find emergency basis effectively denies the petition.

Members then debated the language of an opinion intended to clarify inspection authority. Ken Burlette of the Seattle Fire Marshal’s Office advised that the fire code’s modification provisions (section 104.9) already permit locally approved methods and recommended referencing that provision. Members discussed whether the council should rely on 2021 code language or explicitly reference 2024 code clarifications; several members urged the opinion be framed as an interpretation rather than a substantive change to existing code.

The council amended the proposed opinion to emphasize that, under the code’s modification authority, a local fire official may approve locally acceptable inspection methods and that the opinion does not waive code requirements. The council adopted the amended opinion by voice vote. The opinion will be issued to the petitioner and posted as the council’s response.

The opinion is nonbinding: it clarifies how local officials may exercise discretion under existing fire‑code provisions and points readers to sections cited during the discussion (104.1 and 104.9). The council recorded the petition response to meet the statutory response deadline.