|
COMMITTEE MINUTES |
|
NCSBCS FACTORY-BUILT STRUCTURES COMMITTEE Conference Call Meeting Thursday, January 20, 2005, Noon EST Chairman Mark Luttich (NE) called the meeting to order at 12:06 p.m. and welcomed the guest speaker, HUD Manufactured Housing Program Director William Matchneer III, to the call. Present on the call: Randy Vogt, Minnesota Minutes Chairman Luttich asked if there were any corrections or comments to the minutes of the December 9 conference call. There being none, a motion was made by Richard Mancini and seconded by Randy Vogt to approve the minutes as distributed. The motion passed. Guest Speaker – William Matchneer, U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Mr. Luttich thanked Mr. Matchneer for accepting the committee’s invitation to address a range of issues relative to the states role as partners in the Federal Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Program. He noted that they would follow the list of issues raised in the invitation letter of December 15. ISSUE #1: How will HUD deal with states that don’t meet the federal minimum requirements for installation and dispute resolution after December 27, 2005? Will HUD allow provisional approval? How long will states have to become fully approved? Answer: HUD will have to be as flexible as it possibly can be in accepting state programs. HUD is not anxious to assert federal authority over the state programs. This includes HUD’s allowing some period, yet to be defined, of temporary approval. Question: When you review state programs will you take into account whether the state is in process of getting their rules and programs being passed legislatively? Answer: Yes, this would be one of the things that HUD would consider. HUD would only consider taking over a states program when it has done nothing to adopt a program or shown a "good faith effort." Question: What is good faith effort? For example, in New York State we have legislation for a installation and training program that has passed through the Senate but not through the Assembly yet. It will be delayed to another legislative session. Is that "good faith?" Answer: We don’t have an AGC opinion on this issue yet so I cannot answer. But this looks like New York is already far along in trying to comply, and we would give you time to finish the legislative process. Question: Is HUD going in January 2006 to be able to do inspections in those states that do not pass laws? Answer: Default states (those states that do not pass laws or make an effort to do so) are going to be a problem and we don’t yet know if we have funds to run programs in those states. We are trying to figure out the licensing and training programs now. Question: Why is HUD not using the COSAA installation manual we developed eight years ago? Answer: HUD is using the NFPA A-225.1 installation standard as the basis of the federal minimum and so cannot use the COSAA Manual. Question: Some states, like Minnesota, have training programs. Can other states use them? Answer: Yes, we encourage states to share programs. ISSUE #2: Has HUD decided or discussed how many inspections would be done on site before or after installation? One or two, before or after? Answer: In the next couple of months HUD will finish drafting its regulations in this area. We recommend that you wait until these are released for public comment and then give us your recommendations. ISSUE #3: Over a year ago, NCSBCS commented on HUD’s Federal Register notice regarding areas where HUD regulations impact state affordable housing programs. We specifically commented on ways that HUD’s existing manufactured housing program blurs the lines of distinction between manufactured homes and modular housing that states regulate. Answer: This Federal Register notice was a part of the HUD Barrier Removal Program and HUD’s responses to the notice have not been issued yet. We have, however, studied your comments and some of them are not accurate. HUD does not allow manufacturers to remove the chassis from HUD-code homes. We noted that you had concerns with Alternate Construction (AC) letters. The concern was that HUD was being too liberal on onsite completions. HUD, however, is now developing an onsite completion rule that will take the place of current AC letters. The purpose of AC letters was to encourage innovation. The rule will include inspection requirements. Question: Under the HUD AC letter program local authorities currently do not have a say on site completion items like stairways. Answer: Stairways are not preempted by the HUD code. They are the responsibility of the local government. Question: What about state electrical boards? Are they preempted? Answer: If the issue relates to anything "inside the box" then yes, the local board is preempted. I don’t see how HUD’s new onsite completion regulations will change any of the current AC letters. ISSUE #4: What have been some of the comments HUD has received so far on the December 1, 2004, Federal Register Notice on Proposed Changes to the Federal Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards? Answer: You can go to the EPA website (www.epa.gov) and visit their listings of public comments on pending Federal Register notices. You can review for yourselves the comments that have been made thus far. Some of the subjects on which comments have been made include:
Question: Is there anything HUD can do to increase funding for the monitoring of manufactured homes and third party agencies? Some states are very concerned over reduced monitoring levels due to reduced funds for the program from label fees. Answer: HUD would be pleased to receive letters from the states expressing their concerns in this area. A general discussion on this issue followed and the Factory-Built Structures Committee agreed to discuss the funding level issue further at their next meeting. Mr. Luttich thanked Mr. Matchneer for his participation on the day’s call to address these issues. Mr. Matchneer thanked the committee for the opportunity to participate and left the call. Modular Survey Results Mr. Wible thanked Tennessee and North Carolina for adding their input to the State Modular Program Survey completed last fall. The updated survey summary will be posted to the NCSBCS website and is included as an attachment to these minutes. It was agreed that the survey would be useful in the committee’s discussion of the issue of interstate reciprocity programs at the next meeting. Several modifications to the final survey were discussed including dropping or adding items to clarify several items in the survey. Results of Member Survey on HUD’s Proposed Changes to the Federal Manufactured Housing Standards Chairman Luttich reviewed with the members the results of the survey regarding which changes to the Federal Manufactured Housing Standards there was a consensus on within the committee. The committee members agreed after extensive discussion that they would offer comments on: Firestopping, Truss Structure Tests, Vapor Barriers, Restricted Flow Water Closets, Water Heating Drip Collection Pans, Air Distribution and Bathroom Electrical Connections. Mr. Luttich will prepare a draft formal submission to HUD for the committee’s review and submission prior to the deadline of January 31, 2005. Date & Location of Next Meeting The members discussed the topics for and time of their next meeting. It was agreed to conduct it after the HUD-COSAA meeting in March. The date of March 31 was selected. The topics for the next meeting will be:
There being no further business to come before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 2:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Minutes of December 9, 2004 Meeting
|