MODEL # 98-7

RECIPROCAL AGREEMENTS FOR
SUBSEQUENT SITING OF MODULAR STRUCTURES
STATES OF IDAHO, OREGON, AND WASHINGTON

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Jurisdiction Statistics (member states):

• Population: 1.2 million (Idaho); 3.3 million (Oregon); 5.7 million (Washington)
• Size (square miles): 82,413 (Idaho); 97,073 (Oregon); 66,512 (Washington)

Regulatory Areas:

• Administration & Enforcement

PROBLEM:
Inspection of Modular Structures - Multistate Inspections

Many industrialized/modular structures are often leased rather than bought to fill a temporary need until more permanent accommodations can be made. Under most state building codes, once the modular structure is sited, it must stay within that state, as it would not comply with another state's code. This makes operations difficult for leasing companies and dramatically limits where they could lease their products. Another problem is that if manufacturers wished to send units to a neighboring state, the neighboring state's inspection agency would have to fly in to inspect the units. As a result, routine inspections on a single unit would cost thousands of dollars, which is not a cost effective way of doing business to either the inspection agencies or to the manufacturers.

SOLUTION:

Multi-state Partnership Agreement

The state inspection agencies of Oregon, Washington, and Idaho, along with industry representatives, reached an agreement that the states' codes were similar enough to combine their provisions to use as a common standard. Under this system, manufacturers could have inspections done in one state and still be free to move the modular structure among the other two states. This would also prevent manufacturers from having to pay for inspectors from other states to travel in order to perform inspections.

DESCRIPTION:

The agreement takes the most restrictive portions of each state's code and uses them to review "reciprocal plans." The state where the unit was to be sited first would conduct the primary plan review and the other states have the option to courtesy review the plans.

RESULTS:

The submitting party states that since this agreement was implemented, multi-tagged units enabled the leasing market to open up exponentially. In addition, a chart is provided, attached to the letter dated August 27, 1997, which illustrates time and cost savings using the example of an Oregon manufacturer requiring a Washington inspector to travel to Oregon to perform an inspection.

EVALUATION BY STREAMLINING COMMITTEES:

Advantages

• Regulator saves time and money by eliminating travel to other states;
• Entire process is simplified for manufacturers through consistency;
• Good cooperative effort; work across state lines.

Drawbacks

• Training of staff on statewide code amendments every three years;
• Limited to states with similar codes;
• Manufacturers have to build to the most stringent codes (could also be considered a program advantage).

The Streamlining Committees designated this program a streamlined model to be paired with Model # 98-1, Industrialized Buildings Commission, for presentation purposes.

FOR MORE INFORMATION OR ASSISTANCE IN CONSIDERING THE USE OF THIS MODEL, PLEASE CONTACT:

Rick Lloyd
Assistant Manager, Statewide Services
Building Codes Division
P.O. Box 14470
Salem, OR 97309-0404
Phone: (503) 378-2306
FAX: (503) 378-2322
Email: Rick.L.Lloyd@state.or.us

Or NCSBCS STAFF:

Carolyn Fitch
Regulatory Affairs Specialist
National Conference of States on Building Codes and Standards, Inc.
505 Huntmar Park Drive, Suite 210
Herndon, VA 20170
Phone: (703) 467-2048
FAX: (703) 481-3596
Email: cfitch@ncsbcs.org