On the surface, this proposal and the stated reasoning behind it would seem consistent with a well-intentioned effort to decrease the cost of doing business by eliminating apparent regulatory conflict in favor of a less restrictive construction requirement.  Comparing the adopted model codes, the International Fire Code (IFC) exempts any quantity of distilled spirits stored in any size wooden barrel from the more rigorous protective measures required by the International Building Code (IBC).  There are distinct reasons why this perceived discrepancy exists.  Just as the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code is, at its core, a maintenance code, so is the referenced model, the IFC.  Research conducted into the origin of the exemption in the IFC resulted in the discovery that it came from one of the legacy organizations of the International Code Council.  It is likely that code officials in some parts of the country occasionally sought to require the retrofit of existing facilities based on requirements in a more recent edition of the building code.  Seen in this context, it is clear to many that there is no conflict between the requirements for new facilities under the IBC and facilities which may have been operating for a considerable number of years and should be allowed to continue without upgrades.  This is a long-standing regulatory philosophy for Virginia’s USBC and SFPC but not necessarily so across the country.  That being said, it is recognized at the national level that this product, under certain conditions, should not be considered a high hazard use.  When the exemption was first presented, development of the 2018 International Codes was underway and a proposal to address the issue had been submitted for consideration.  Essentially, the proposal (G26-16) reduced the classification to moderate-hazard storage when accessory to a distillery but continued to recognize the higher hazard potential by including a requirement for sprinkler protection and ventilation regardless of the amount of product.  The proposal was eventually withdrawn but review on a wider scale was initiated.  The ICC Building Code and Fire Code Action Committees held numerous work group meetings and other forums resulting in the development and submission of F276-18 for the current code development cycle.  One of the documents consulted during the drafting process was one involving recommended fire protection guidelines published by the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States.  The proposal eliminates the exemption upon which this amendment to the USBC is based and adds a new chapter to the IFC dealing specifically with distilled spirits and related products with correlating changes to the IBC for consistency.  It was recommended for approval by the International Fire Code Committee in April and will be presented for final consideration this fall.  It addresses storage in barrels and casks and provides protection against the recognized hazards inherent to the product:  ventilation, spill control and fire protection.  Instead of a blanket exemption to any requirement for protection, this pending change to the IFC lowers the hazard classification to eliminate, among other things, a need for more fire-resistant construction and restrictions to locations within a building but provides a trade-off in the form of lowering the threshold for protection.  Again, on the national level, the change that is being supported is to eliminate the exemption from the International Fire Code.

This comment is provided for the purpose of ensuring the Board is fully aware of issues discussed in the process leading up to this proposal and that the reasons for it are not fully represented in the summary contained in the Virginia Register of Regulations.  There must be no doubt that the Board knows how this issue came to be and how it is being approached through the consensus code development process at the national level.  Understandably, there is concern among craft distillers who operate in non-farm locations due to the long-standing life safety exemptions provided by the General Assembly for activities that can in any broad-based perspective be seen as having even the most remote association with an agricultural purpose or process.  The creation of this unfair advantage lies solely with the legislature.  Exempting the product does not change its physical characteristics and the potential hazard they present, it only increases the number of people who are exposed to the potential hazard.  The Board is directed by statute to promulgate regulations consistent with recognized standards of health and safety.  This is an example of an action that runs counter to that directive.