Industrialized Housing and Buildings
Summary of Building Code Council Meeting March 19, 2007
The Texas Industrialized Building Code Council (Council) held its forty-seventh meeting in the meeting room on the 7th floor of the E.O. Thompson Building on Monday, March 19, 2007. Chairman Martin Garza presided over a quorum of eight members.
Compliance Division/Industrialized Housing and Buildings Program Update – Donna L. Lipke, IHB Program Manager, informed the Council that the Licensing Division was now handling registrations of manufacturers and industrialized builders and introduced some of the personnel involved in the registration process. She also informed the Council that the IHB section had hired a new inspector, Mark Feighner, to replace the previous inspector who had resigned at the end of last year. She then updated the Council on the status of the IHB program, including number of units constructed, number of inspections, manufacturers certified since last meeting, number of units labeled and shipped, and the status of builder audits.
Executive Office/Legislative/Organizational Update – Bill Kuntz, TDLR Executive Director, updated the Council on the status of the Legislative Appropriations Request for TDLR. He informed the Council that exceptional items requested by the Department that would directly affect the IHB program had been well received by the Legislature. The first is a request for additional customer service representatives to answer the large number of phone calls received by the Department. The addition of the Barbers and Cosmetology programs under the TDLR umbrella has increased the number of phone calls received by the Department from 1,000 per day to 5,000 per day. The second item is a request for an additional inspector for the IHB program that will allow for more efficient handling of the IHB inspection work load.
Enforcement Division/Industrialized Housing and Buildings Update – Christina Kaiser, Director of Enforcement, provided the Council a breakdown on Enforcement data for the IHB program for fiscal year 2006 and for the current fiscal year.
Old Business:
Alterations Update (recertification of buildings) – Donna L. Lipke updated the Council on the status of the alterations program. Approximately 22 alteration decals have been sold to date. In addition, the staff is continuing to work on the development of rules and procedures where alteration work is performed in a “remanufacturing” facility and would try to have those rules and procedures ready for review and possible approval by the Council at their next meeting.
Request for approval of PermaTherm sandwich panels as a code alternate by Ice House America
Action: The Council directed the Department to make one final review of the latest report from Ice House America and to either approve or reject the panels based on that report.
Discussion: At their last meeting the Council had approved the use of these panels contingent upon receipt of a report from a Texas licensed engineer demonstrating compliance with the applicable code requirements or criteria of the mandatory building codes. The Council had also stipulated that Department staff would verify that the report demonstrated code compliance and had directed the Department to require additional information as necessary to assure compliance. Donna Lipke provided the Council with a summary timeline that described the steps taken to date in Ice House’s attempts to achieve approval. She informed the Council that the information necessary to approve these panels had not been received as of the date of the meeting and that the Department did not really have the resources to continue on this path. Chairman Garza asked if all the information needed had been received, but just not compiled in an easy to review format. Donna Lipke replied that not all the information necessary had been received and that there were still outstanding issues. Some of the outstanding issues included the following.
- Panels were not sampled as required by the acceptance criteria. Neither the test laboratory nor an independent third party inspection agency verified the assembly of the test panels at the PermaTherm facility.
- No listing was provided for the adhesive used in the assembly of the sandwich panels
- No listing was provided for the foam plastic insulation demonstrating compliance with the flame spread and smoke developed indexes required by the codes
- There were inconsistencies in the fastening requirements between the test reports and the engineer’s drawings
- The limitations or conditions of use were not summarized in a way that was usable for the purposes of the IHB program
- Documentation provided did not clearly indicate how the panels were to be identified if and when they were found to be in compliance with the requirements of the IHB program
Bob Alligood with Ice House indicated that an engineer’s report had been submitted, but that Department staff had identified items that required further investigation and data. He indicated that he had a response to the Department’s letter of November 17, 2006 that he believed would satisfy the criteria and would like the Department to review the information for compliance.
New Business:
Adoption of 2006 International Codes and 2005 National Electrical Code
Action: The Council directed the Department to file proposed rules in the Texas Register for adoption of the 2006 International Codes and the 2002 National Electrical Code (NEC) for review and possible approval and adoption at the next meeting of the Council.
Discussion: The Department requested authorization to propose rules in the Texas Register for adoption of the 2006 International Codes and the 2005 NEC prior to the next Council meeting. The proposed rules would be presented to the Council for their review and possible approval and adoption at their next meeting. Donna Lipke indicated that this was necessary since further research was needed to determine what code amendments might be required to assure that the adoption of the 2006 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) would result in energy compliance at least as stringent as that required by the 2001 edition, which was adopted as the energy code for Texas by the 77th Legislature. If necessary, the proposed rules would include amendments to the 2006 IECC that would assure that it was at least as stringent as the 2001 IECC. John Mata with the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials (IAPMO) requested that the 2006 Uniform Plumbing Code and the 2006 Uniform Mechanical Code, both published by IAPMO, be considered for adoption along with the 2006 International Plumbing and Mechanical Codes. However, Chapter 1202 of the Occupations Code specifies only codes as published by the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO) or the Standard Building Code Congress (SBCCI) and the NEC as published by the National Fire Protection Association as the codes applicable to the IHB program. The 2006 International Codes being considered for adoption are published by the International Code Council (ICC), which is the successor group to ICBO and SBCCI.
Proposed amendment to Department rule 70.60, Plant Certifications
Action: The Council decided to proceed with the proposed rule as amended provided the potential conflicts of interest are addressed in a proposed rule change at the next Council meeting. The rule will be submitted to the Texas Commission of Licensing and Regulation for approval at their meeting of March 28, 2007 prior to final adoption.
Discussion: The proposed revision is to clarify the ability of the Department to use qualified individuals from outside the Department in the performance of certification inspections of manufacturing facilities. The rule as proposed in the Texas Register would limit the use of outside third parties providing certification team members to those not associated with the agency that normally performs in-plant inspections or provides design review services to the plant. The rule, with changes recommended to the Council by the Department, would limit the use of outside third parties providing certification team leaders to those not associated with the agency that normally performs in-plant inspections or provides design review services to the plant. The revision is necessary due to the increase in the number of manufacturers requiring certification and a corresponding lack of available qualified Department personnel to perform these inspections. The Council expressed concerns over the possibility of a conflict of interest should the manufacturer switch to the DRA or TPIA who provided the team leader for the manufacturer’s certification inspection not long after the facility was certified. The Council felt that the manufacturer should be limited for a period of 12 months from switching to the DRA or TPIA providing the team leader. The manufacturer would still have the option to switch to a different DRA or TPIA within that 12 month period, but not to the one who provided the team leader for the certification inspection.
Proposed changes to the Certification Inspection Program
Action: The Council approved the procedures as amended. The revised procedures will have the same effective date as the revision to Department rule 70.60.
Discussion: Donna L. Lipke presented the proposed revisions to the Certification Inspection Program that will be necessary upon adoption of the revisions to Rule 70.60, Certification Inspections. The Council added language to the section concerning the team leader that would restrict the manufacturer from changing to the TPIA or DRA who supplied the team leader for 12 months after the date of certification.
Foundation Works foundation systems for modular housing
Action: The Council unanimously determined that the Foundation Works foundation system for modular homes could not be accepted without an evaluation report from the International Code Council Evaluation Services (ICC ES).
Discussion: The Department recommended that the Foundation Works foundation system not be accepted without an evaluation report from the International Code Council Evaluation Services. The information submitted by Foundation Works for their foundation system included calculations and listing reports based on the Federal Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards for HUD-code manufactured housing and was not based on the requirements of the mandatory building codes adopted under the Texas IHB program. In addition, no nationally recognized listing was submitted for the system, the documents submitted do not sufficiently describe the testing and limitations/limits of the system, the piers are not attached to an in-ground footing system and do not provide uplift resistance, and the pre-poured footings are not code compliant. Jason Matthews with Foundation Works told the Council that they were not prepared to address these issues as they had not been previously informed that the system was required to meet the International Codes. He indicated that even though the calculations submitted were for the Federal Manufactured Housing Construction Safety Standard, they also had calculations that showed the system would meet the requirements of the 2003 IBC and IRC for use with modular housing. Mr. Matthews indicated that each construction site starts with an original grade and that backfill is used to change the original grade requirements to put the footings underground in accordance with ASCE 32-01. He also told the Council that the system was approved by TDHCA for use with HUD homes and that they had approval from the top 10 manufacturers for use with all their homes. The Council asked if the system was an anchoring system or a foundation system, or both, and Mr. Matthews indicated that it is an earthquake resistant and bracing system and that it is intended to brace against lateral and longitudinal loads, and against uplift as a deadman anchor, but that it was never intended to be used in high wind areas where uplift would overrule the dead weight. Council member Davy Beicker said that as a structural engineer he had tried to use a system such as this and that it had not worked. The council did indicate that steel columns, such as the ones used in the Foundation Works foundation system, may be acceptable provided the column and cross bracing complies with the requirements of the applicable mandatory building codes and provided the column is used as part of a code compliant foundation system that utilizes below grade footers and provides for anchorage to the foundation system as required by the IRC or IBC. All foundations must be site specific and designed and sealed by a Texas licensed engineer or architect.
Kysor Panel Systems request for acceptance of listing other than from ICC ES
Action: The Council did not approve the Kysor Panel Systems Panels as modular components.
Discussion: Kysor Panel Systems asked for approval of their panels as modular components based on listings from the City of LA and Miami-Dade County. The Council has previously approved the use of modular components without requiring the components to come under the Texas IHB program provided there were no hidden systems in the panels and the panels had an evaluation report from the ICC ES. The Department recommended that the panels not be approved without further documentation on the testing required by the City of LA and Miami-Dade County. The Department further recommended that if the Council decided to approve based on these listing, then the panel should not be approved without placing certain restrictions on the use of the panels. The Council expressed concern that the Department and the Council did not have the resources necessary to make a determination on the acceptability of the compatibility of the requirements of the City of LA and Miami-Dade County with the requirements of the mandatory building codes and the ICC ES.
Veristeel VeriClad composite structural panels request for acceptance of listings other than from ICC ES
Action: This item was removed from the agenda - no action was considered.
Use of alternate product listing for other panel systems
Action: The Council approved sandwich panels without hidden systems as modular components if the product has been certified or listed through either an ICC ES evaluation report or by a product certification agency accredited by the International Accreditation Service (IAS). The Department is to promulgate rules and procedures as required to enforce the Council’s decision.
Discussion: It has been proposed previously that the Council and the Department adopt policies by which products such as sandwich panels could be approved without an evaluation report from the ICC ES. One proposal would allow Council approved design review agencies (DRA’s) to review product data, test reports, calculations, etc and determine product compliance. Another proposal is that listings from other organizations may be acceptable in addition to ICC ES. However, DRA’s approved by the Council have been required to meet criteria that should allow them to provide accurate reviews of plans, specifications, calculations, etc to assure compliance with the prescriptive requirements of the mandatory building codes with the Department monitoring their performance. The DRA’s have not been certified or approved to provide product certification of alternative materials or methods of construction. Nor does the Department have the expertise or resources to evaluate these agencies for product certification or to monitor their performance as product certification agencies. Likewise the Department does not have the expertise or resources to determine if other listing agencies are providing adequate oversight to the products they certify. ICC ES was approved as an avenue to determine product compliance because they provide oversight of the companies who have obtained listings through them. The IAS has recently instituted a program for accrediting product certification companies. The accreditation criteria that has been proposed requires applicants to submit data showing compliance with the IAS Rules of Procedures for Certification Agency Accreditation (Rules of Procedures) and with ISO/IEC Guide 65, General Requirements for Bodies Operating Product Certification Systems. The Rules of Procedures also requires that IAS perform periodic on-site assessments and unannounced inspections of the product certification agency to assess continuing compliance with the accreditation criteria.
Approval of third party inspectors, third party inspection agencies, and design review agencies
Action: The Council approved third party inspectors whose applications were found by the Department to comply with the criteria for approval as outlined in Department rule 70.23. The following inspectors were approved.
- Jacob Hopland, Registration #IHI-146, employed by PFS Corporation, Registration #IHIA-3
- Roger Lane III, Registration #IHI-147, employed by PFS Corporation, Registration #IHIA-3
- Donald Sheffield, Registration #IHI-148, employed by Progressive Engineering, Registration #IHIA-12
- Donald L. Pratt, Registration #IHI-149, employed by Progressive Engineering, Registration #IHIA-12
- Edward Sorensen, Registration #IHI-150, employed by TR Arnold & Associates, Registration #IHIA-7
- Mark Egleston, Registration #IHI-151, employed by NTA, Registration #IHIA-10, and Registration #IHI-152, employed by RADCO, Registration #IHIA-13
IHB Penalty Matrix
Action: The Council voted to recommend approval to the TDLR Commission of the IHB penalty matrix with the addition of penalties for failure to comply with procedures established by the Council per Department rules 70.60, 70.61, 70.73, and 70.74 as a Class C violation.
Discussion: Christina Kaiser presented a revised version of the IHB penalty matrix for assessing administrative sanctions for violations of the IHB program and explained how the matrix was organized. Class A violations are the least serious violations and Class D are the most serious violations. Class A violations typically include information that the registrant is required to submit to the Department, or information the registrant is required to maintain, such as copies of an approved design package for example, or information the registrant is required to post. Class B violations are where you find unlicensed activity. Class C contains the more serious violations, such as failing to construct buildings in accordance with the mandatory building codes. Class D violations are the most serious and include items such as committing fraud or obtaining a registration through false representation. The matrix was updated with respect to the September 1, 2005 statute for the IHB program and the June 1, 2006 rules governing the IHB program. Donna Lipke indicated that failure to comply with the procedures established by the Council per Department rule 70.60, 70.61, 70.73, and 70.74 needed to be added to the penalty matrix. Christina Kaiser indicated that those violations could be added to the matrix as Class C violations.
Recommendations for agenda items for the next meeting – Recommendations for agenda items for the next meeting include rules and procedures for re-manufacturers; electronic submittals of approved documents; rules for adopting new code editions; revised language for rule 70.60 to address the Council’s concerns over possible conflicts of interest; and review of proposed rules and procedures that will allow acceptance of listings from product certification agencies accredited by IAS.
Selection of date for next meeting – The Council directed the Department to schedule the next meeting for August or September 2007. The Department is to establish a date and back up date for the Council’s approval.
