Report on Proposals — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 501Box 11700 7011 South 19th Street, Tacoma, WA 98411 98466-5399. Substantiation: The name of APA, as currently shown, is incorrect. APA

501-1

Report on Proposals — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 501 NFPA 501

________________________________________________________________501-1 Log #6 MAN-ADM Final Action: Accept( 1.4 )________________________________________________________________Submitter: Fulton Desler, APA -The Engineered Wood AssociationRecommendation: Revise text to read: APA-The Engineered Wood Association American Plywood Association, PO Box 11700 7011 South 19th Street, Tacoma, WA 98411 98466-5399.Substantiation: The name of APA, as currently shown, is incorrect. APA also has a new mailing address preference.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 10Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10

________________________________________________________________501-2 Log #19 MAN-ADM Final Action: Accept( 1.4 )________________________________________________________________Submitter: John M. Halliwill, Intʼl Assn. of Plumbing & Mechanical Officials (IAPMO)Recommendation: Revise text to read: IAPMO — International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials, 20001 Walnut Drive South, Walnut 5001 E. Philadelphia St., Ontario, CA 91780-2825 91761-2816.Substantiation: IAPMO has moved itʼs offices to Ontario, CA. This reference needs to also be updated in 14.1.2.20.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 10Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10

________________________________________________________________501-3 Log #2 MAN-ADM Final Action: Reject( 2.12 [4.12] (New) )________________________________________________________________Submitter: Earl A. Gilson Port Angeles, WARecommendation: Add new text as follows: “Hallways shall have a minimum horizontal dimension of 28 in. (710 mm) of 30 in. (762 mm).”Substantiation: Narrow hallways and narrow doors into habitable areas of these units makes it extremely difficult for persons with restricted mobility (persons in wheelchairs, electric motor equipped scooters, or walkers or crutches) to get around easily. My own experience in helping less mobile persons made this request necessary. Cost of this modification at time of assembly would be negligible.Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The committee finds no compelling reason to mandate 30 in. wide hallways. The committee notes that 30 in. wide hallways can be purchased from the manufacturer and that walls can be removed upon request. The current text of section A.4.12 speaks to this option. Number Eligible to Vote: 10Ballot Results: Affirmative: 9 Negative: 1 Explanation of Negative: PAULS: I have voted negatively to support the argument presented by the proponent, Mr. Earl Gilson. (Obviously there is a typo or processing problem with the way his proposal is presented.) Indeed I would have gone further than he did and would support the same 36-inch minimum width required for other dwellings covered by NFPA 5000, NFPA 101, ICC-IBC and ICC-IRC. Also, as pointed out in comments submitted during the development of the current edition of NFPA 501, I object strongly to considering an annex note—suggesting the consumer can ask for the wider hallway—as appropriate for a minimum standard. For a home type especially intensively used by older persons who need extra room for movement, and more frequently use mobility aids, there is every reason for manufactured homes to have the same minimum hallway width requirements as do other homes.Comment on Affirmative: ROBERTS: While this proposal has been rejected by the committee for consideration in all manufactured homes, the proponentʼs concerns should be addressed by HUD in regulations. The committeeʼs statements that the home buyer could purchase these accessibility features as options is inadequate. There must be in place a way for the home buyer to understand these options available and then be given the opportunity to consider them at time of sale. That requirement is best addressed in the administering regulations and not in the construction standards.

________________________________________________________________501-4 Log #18 MAN-ADM Final Action: Reject( 4.5 )________________________________________________________________Submitter: Earl A. Gilson Port Angeles, WARecommendation: Add a new paragraph to read: All interior doors providing access to habitable areas (bedrooms, bath, utility room, kitchen) shall be equipped with lever operated hardware mechanisms.

Substantiation: Millions of these manufactured units (single wide mobiles, expanded single wides - 10 and 12 ft wide - doublewides, or larger manufactured homes, are owned and occupied by senior citizens (60 years or older) or persons with disabilities. Many of these persons find standard door knobs hard to grasp to open that door. Those with further restricted mobility, strokes, injury or infirmity find it extremely difficult to use the door knob. I have replaced dozens of the installed knob mechanisms with lever type. Cost, if installed at time of manufacture, is negligible.Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The committee finds no compelling reason to mandate lever operated hardware mechanisms. The committee further notes that lever operated hardware can be purchased as an option from the manufacturer. Number Eligible to Vote: 10Ballot Results: Affirmative: 9 Negative: 1 Explanation of Negative: PAULS: I have voted negatively to support the argument presented by the proponent, Mr. Earl Gilson. Lever door handles are among the least expensive improvements that manufactured home builders can provide for homes. Indeed lever handles do not need to cost any more than do knobs and they come in a range of styles to suit aesthetic choices. For a home type especially intensively used by older persons who have reduced hand function, and more frequently use mobility aids generally, there is every reason for manufactured homes to have door hardware that does not require “tight grasping, pinching, or twisting of the wrist” the exact requirement language from the American National Standard for Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities, ICC-ANSI A117.1-1998, Section 309.4.Comment on Affirmative: ROBERTS: See my Comment on Affirmative on 501-3 (Log #2).

________________________________________________________________501-5 Log #16 MAN-ADM Final Action: Reject( 4.5.2.2 )________________________________________________________________Submitter: Earl A. Gilson Port Angeles, WARecommendation: Add new text to read: All exterior swinging doors shall provide a minimum 28 in. wide 32 in. wide (312 mm) x 74 in. high opening. All exterior sliding glass doors shall provide a minimum 28 in. wide 32 in. wide (372 mm) x 74 in. high opening. Substantiation: Narrow entry and exit doors provide restricted access and exit, especially critical to older persons or persons with restricted mobility due to strokes, accidents, illness, injury or infirmity. Millions of these housing units, whether single-wide mobiles, expanded single-wide units, double-wide manufactured homes, or larger, provide low cost quarters for many of our elderly. (Clallam today County has 5800 units today). Sixty percent of these are occupied by senior citizens 50 years or older.Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The committee finds no compelling reason to mandate 32 in. wide exterior doors. The committee notes that 32 in. wide doors can be purchased from the manufacturer upon request. The committee further notes that NFPA 5000 and NFPA 101 allow for 28 in. wide doors where the doors do not serve persons with mobility impairments. Number Eligible to Vote: 10Ballot Results: Affirmative: 9 Negative: 1 Explanation of Negative: PAULS: I have voted negatively to support the argument presented by the proponent, Mr. Earl Gilson. For a home type especially intensively used by older persons who need extra room for movement, and more frequently use mobility aids, there is every reason for manufactured homes to have doors providing the standard 32-inch clear width that has long been a feature of the American National Standard for Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities, ICC-ANSI A117.1 and is also found in the ICC-IRC for at least one exterior door for the dwelling (in the form of a 36-inch nominal door leaf size. There is little or no cost difference to the builder to provide, from the start, this door size in the exterior wall of the manufactured home. Later on, enlarging the door size is very costly and damaging to the homeʼs enclosure. Providing the 32-inch clear opening is also a feature of design for “Visit-Ability” a growing social concern in Britain (where is has been a national requirement for new dwellings since 1999) and in the USA. Just because NFPA 101 and NFPA 5000 have not been progressive on this point does not mean that NFPA 501—which caters to a more-needy clientele—should be equally deficient on this matter. This is one of the very few areas where the ICC-IRC has a better requirement based on user ergonomics than do NFPA 101 and 5000.Comment on Affirmative: ROBERTS: See my Comment on Affirmative on 501-3 (Log #2).

501-2

Report on Proposals — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 501 ________________________________________________________________501-6 Log #1 MAN-STR Final Action: Accept in Principle( 4.5.3.1 [6.5.3.1] )________________________________________________________________NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee (MAN-AAC) letter ballot did not support the Technical Committee action on this proposal. This proposal will be reconsidered as a comment. See the ballot statement at the front of this report.NOTE:This proposal appeared as Comment 501-22 (Log #12) which was held from F2002 ROC on proposal 501-41Submitter: James A. Rossberg, Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE / Rep. SEI or ASCERecommendation: A. Replace (bolding shown to located proposed changes): 4.5.3.1.1 Standard Wind Loads (Zone I). When a manufactured home is not designated to resist the wind loads for high wind areas (Zone II or Zone III) specified in 4.5.3.1.2, the manufactured home and each of its wind-resisting parts and portions shall be designed for horizontal wind loads of not less than 15 psf (718 Pa) and net uplift loads of not less than 9 psf (431 Pa). With: 4.5.3.1.1 Standard Wind Loads (Zone I). When a manufactured home is not designated to resist the wind loads for high wind areas (Zone II or Zone III) specified in 4.5.3.1.2, the manufactured home and each of its wind-resisting parts and portions shall be designed for horizontal wind loads of not less than 17 psf (814 Pa) and net uplift loads of not less than 10 psf (479 Pa). B. Replace: 4.5.3.1.2 (1) The design wind loads for Exposure C specified in ANSI/ASCE 7-88, Minimum DesignLoads for Buildings and Other Structures, for a 50-year recurrence interval, a design wind speed of 100 mph (160 km/hr), as specified for Wind Zone II, or 110 mph (177 km/hr), as specified for Wind Zone III With: 4.5.3.1.2 (1) The design wind loads for Exposure C specified in ANSI/ASCE 7-98, Minimum DesignLoads for Buildings and Other Structures, for a 50-year recurrence interval, a design wind speed of 115 mph 3-second gust (185 km/hr), as specified for Wind Zone II, or 125 mph 3-second gust (200 km/hr), as specified for Wind Zone III C. Replace 4.5.3.2 Wind Loads – Zone Designations. The wind zone and specific wind design load requirements shall be determined by the fastest basic wind speed (mph or km/hr)… With: 4.5.3.2 Wind Loads – Zone Designations. The wind zone and specific wind design load requirements shall be determined by the 3-second gust basic wind speed (mph or km/hr)… D. Delete Figure 4.5.3.2.1 of NFPA 501 and replace with the following:.

E. Update Table 4.5.3.1.2(2) Design Wind Pressures table with the pressures shown.

Wind Zone II - Design Wind

Speed100 mph (160 km/hr) 115 mph

(185 km/hr)

WindZone III Design Wind Speed 110 mph

(177 km/hr)125 mph (200 km/hr)

Anchorage for lateraland vertical stability:Net Horizontal Drag + 39 40 psf (1.9

kPa)+ 47 46 psf (2.2 kPa)

Uplift - 27 23 psf (1.1 kPa)

- 32 27 psf (1.3 kPa)

Main wind force resist-ing system:Shearwalls, diaphragms + 39 40 psf (1.9

kPa)+ 47 46 psf (2.2 kPa)

Ridge Beams…Components and clad-ding:Roof trusses in all areas,….

+ 39 40 psf (1.9 kPa)

+ 47 46 psf (2.2 kPa)

Exterior roof cover-ings….

+ 39 40 psf (1.9 kPa)

+ 47 46 psf (2.2 kPa)

Rest of table*values can be computed, but information about generation of values in table is needed

Acceptance of these changes will necessitate revision of Sections 4.5.3.2.2 and 4.5.3.2.3 to identify the individual counties.

Substantiation: The information contained in NFPA 501 pertaining to wind loads does not appear to have been updated to reflect the latest information regarding wind loads on structures. When one examines the information contained in NFPA 501 there appears to be loads which are significantly higher that what would be required by ASCE 7-98 for the wind zones indicated and there are areas of the Southeast for which the loads are lower than would be required by ASCE 7-98.

501-3

Report on Proposals — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 501 As a first step in bringing NFPA 501 up-to-date with the wind load criteria used throughout the country and which will be adopted by NFPA 5000, it is proposed that the contour between Zone I and Zone II be changed to match the 90 mph 3-sec gust contour as given on the Basic Wind Speed Map contained in ASCE 7-98. This map will not be changed in the 2002 edition of ASCE 7 hence this change will be correct for at least the next 3 to 5 years, and probably longer as no change to the map is currently being contemplated by ASCE 7. Note: Supporting available is for review upon request at NFPA headquarters.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle See Committee Action on Proposal 501-10 (Log #29).Committee Statement: This proposal originally appeared as Comment 501-22 (Log #12), which was held over from the F2002 ROC. At that time, the Technical Committee agreed that the wind design requirements for NFPA 501 and NFPA 225 needed to be based upon the most up-to-date standards. The Technical Committee requested that the Wind Task Group develop a complete package of proposals for the F2004 cycle to address the topic of wind design for both NFPA 501 and NFPA 225. The Task Group ʻs work was submitted as Proposal 501-10 (Log #29) and Proposal 225-29 (Log#72a). These proposals base the wind design requirements on ASCE 7-02, instead of ASCE 7-98, as recommended by the proponent of this proposal.Number Eligible to Vote: 16Ballot Results: Affirmative: 11 Negative: 2 Abstain: 1 Vote Not Returned: 2 BRADFIELD, WELDYExplanation of Negative: BRYANT: 1. The economic analysis shows a $59,000,000 annual cost which is far too expensive for the affordable housing consumer. The cost analysis provided only applies to the home itself. However, other costs associated with the change have not been considered such as cost to revise design packages, DAPIA approval costs, engineering/training necessary to comply with the higher wind zone requirements, and installation costs. 2. There is no benefit analysis offered for this expense. Although the wind zones and loads would more closely approximate those of the latest ASCE 7 document, there is no indication of any tangible benefits to the cost conscience consumer. Although the existing 501 winds are based on a dated version of ASCE 7, there is no compelling evidence to suggest that homes properly installed in conformance with the existing standards do not perform. 3. University studies in the mid 90ʼs showed that when the retail price of an individual home increases several hundred dollars many consumers are excluded from their only loss-cost homeowner choice, manufactured housing. This proposal shows that and existing Wind Zone I home will increase in cost $290. And for the 18,000 plus homes a year that would be re-designated from Wind Zone I to Wind Zone II the increase is projected to be $900 per home. This would exclude many home buyers from the market altogether. FARISH: Wind Construction. • No economic analysis • No benefit analysis • 501-10 is more comprehensive and should be considered instead (although it is flawed also, but less so). Explanatin of Abstention: MENDLEN: As a Federal employee involved with the Regulation of Manufactured Housing, I am abstaining on all votes for Structural proposals on NFPA 225 and 501 for Manufactured Housing.

________________________________________________________________501-7 Log #32 MAN-ADM Final Action: Reject( 4.14 )________________________________________________________________

TCC Action The TCC directs that MAN-ADM specifically address requirements concerning stairs for NFPA 501 during the ROC stage of the documentʼs revision cycle. Submitter: Jake Pauls, Jake Pauls Consulting ServicesRecommendation: Add a new section as shown below and renumber existing sections: 4.14 Stairs 4.14.1 General. Stairs shall comply with NFPA 5000 requirements applicable to one- and two-family dwellings.Substantiation: NFPA membership have now voted repeatedly several times in favor of a single standard for stairs and this is reflected in requirements of NFPA 5000, NFPA 101, and NFPA 101B that require dwelling unit stairs to have, for example, the same step geometry as provided for almost all other stairs and specifically, stairs complying with Section 11.2.2 of NFPA 5000-203. In the interests of consistency among NFPA codes and standards - and in recognition of the major safety and usability problems of stairs - the gap in the current NFPA 501 should be filled with stair requirements consistent with NFPA 5000. Alternatively, the NFPA 501 Technical Committee should extract the appropriate requirements of NFPA 5000 into the new Section 4.14. (Yet another option is to replace 4.14, 4.15, 4.16 and 4.17 with a requirement requiring stairways, handrails and guards to comply with NFPA 5000.) The issue is no longer one of technical justification for the so-called “7-11” step geometry (and that technical justification has been augmented with more - recent research from the Building Research Establishment in the UK); it is simply one of consistent use of this design standard in occupancies where users ̓needs are substantial and that includes dwellings, especially dwellings

such as multi-level manufactured housing that are more extensively used by elderly persons and those of limited financial means which means that injury costs are crushing. Notably, it has been shown in earlier proposals by Pauls (extensively published in both the NFPA and ICC processes) that injury costs as well as usability benefits significantly exceed the additional costs of providing stairs designed and constructed to the requirements of NFPA 5000. Thus the benefit-cost considerations, as well as technical merit, strongly support this proposal.Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The committee finds no compelling reason to mandate the so called “7-11” stair geometry for manufactured home residential applications. The committee notes that a “7-11” stair geometry could be provided as an option at the request of the homeowner. The committee further notes that the International Residential Code currently allows for a 7 3/4 in. by 10 in. stair geometry. Number Eligible to Vote: 10Ballot Results: Affirmative: 9 Negative: 1 Explanation of Negative: PAULS: As the proponent of proposal 501-7 I am opposed to its rejection in a 3-to-2 vote at the technical committee meeting. The committee statement purports there is no compelling reason to mandate the so-called “7-11” step geometry. There are compelling reasons described in the following reproduction of the full justification provided (in an earlier form) for changes accepted in NFPA 5000 and NFPA 101—both of which require that dwelling unit stairs used for primary means of escape meet the “7-11” minimum standard. Recent research described in that justification clearly shows that the “7-11” is not an “optimum,” it is a suitable minimum requirement. Moreover, the fact that an argument is made by the Committee that it could be an option is meaningless for the home buyer; unless it is a requirement, builders will be loath to provide it even as an option and its cost will be higher than would be the case if it were the minimum standard for safety and usability.

Beyond the following extensive justification for the most-objected-to require-ment (on step geometry) manufactured housing committee members also need to have a better sense of exactly what requirements would be pulled into NFPA 501 if there were simply the mandatory reference to “NFPA 5000 requirements applicable to one- and two-family dwellings.” Thus, here are the requirements intended for incorporation by the proponent; these could form the basis for a revised proposal coming through the comments stage of this cycle for NFPA 501. Presenting them here should avoid having committee members argue that such a comment is too great a departure from what was intended in the original proposal.

Extracts from NFPA 5000 provided for NFPA 501 committee convenience.(NOTE: This is edited for format and to be applicable to dwellings only. Handrail and guard requirements are also included even though NFPA 501 already has some requirements for them.) Annex notes are not reproduced here.

22.2.5 Stairs, Ramps, Guards, and Handrails.22.2.5.1 Stairs, ramps, guards, and handrails shall be in accordancewith 11.2.2 for stairs, 11.2.5 for ramps, and 11.2.2.4 forguards and handrails.22.2.5.1.1 The provisions of 11.2.2.5, 11.2.5.5, and 11.7.3shall not apply.22.2.5.2 The clear width of stairs, landings, ramps, balconies,and porches shall be not less than 36 in. (910 mm), measuredin accordance with 11.3.2.22.2.5.3 Spiral stairs and winders in accordance with11.2.2.2.3.2 and 11.2.2.2.4 shall be permitted within a singledwelling unit.

11.2.2.2 Dimensional Criteria.11.2.2.2.1 Standard Stairs. Dimensional criteria for stairs shallbe in accordance with Table 11.2.2.2.1.

Table 11.2.2.2.1 Dimensional CriteriaMinimum width clear of all obstructions, except projections not more than41⁄2 in. (11.4 cm) at or below handrail height on each side: 36 in. (91 cm) Maximum height of risers: 7 in. (17.8 cm)Minimum height of risers: 4 in. (10.2 cm)Minimum tread depth: 11 in. (27.9 cm)Minimum headroom: 6 ft 8 in. (203 cm)Maximum height between landings: 12 ft (3.7 m)Landing: See 11.2.1.3 and 11.2.1.4.3

11.2.2.2.2 Curved Stairs. Curved stairs shall be permitted as a component in a means of egress, provided that the depth of tread is not less than 11 in. (27.9 cm) at a point 12 in. (30.5 cm) from the narrower end of the tread and the smallest radius is not less than twice the stair width.11.2.2.2.3 Spiral Stairs.11.2.2.2.3.1 Where specifically permitted for individual occupancies by Chapter 16 through Chapter 30, spiral stairs shall be permitted as a component in a means of egress in accordance with 11.2.2.2.3.2 through 11.2.2.2.3.3.

501-4

Report on Proposals — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 501 11.2.2.2.3.2 Spiral stairs shall be permitted, provided the followingcriteria are met:(1) Riser heights shall not exceed 7 in. (17.8 cm).(2) The stairway shall have a tread depth of not less than 11 in.(27.9 cm) for a portion of the stairway width sufficient toprovide egress capacity for the occupant load served in accordancewith 11.3.3.1.(3) At the outer side of the stairway, an additional 101⁄2 in.(26.7 cm) of width shall be provided clear to the otherhandrail, and this width shall not be included as part ofthe required egress capacity.(4) Handrails complying with 11.2.2.4 shall be provided onboth sides of the spiral stairway.(5) The inner handrail shall be located within 24 in.(61.0 cm), measured horizontally, of the point where atread depth of not less than 11 in. (27.9 cm) is provided.(6) The turn of the stairway shall be such that descendingusers have the outer handrail at their right side.11.2.2.2.3.3 Where the occupant load served does not exceedthree, spiral stairs shall be permitted, provided that the followingcriteria are met:(1) The clear width of the stairs shall be not less than 26 in.(66 cm).(2) The height of risers shall not exceed 91⁄2 in. (24.1 cm).(3) The headroom shall be not less than 6 ft 6 in. (198 cm).(4) Treads shall have a depth not less than 71⁄2 in. (19.1 cm) ata point 12 in. (30.5 cm) from the narrower edge.(5) All treads shall be identical.(6) Handrails shall be provided on both sides of the stairway.11.2.2.2.4* Winders. Where specified in Chapter 16 throughChapter 30, winders shall be permitted in stairs. Winders shallhave a tread depth of not less than 6 in. (15.2 cm) and a treaddepth of not less than 11 in. (27.9 cm) at a point 12 in.(30.5 cm) from the narrowest edge.11.2.2.3 Stair Details.11.2.2.3.1 Construction.11.2.2.3.1.1 All stairs serving as required means of egressshall be of permanent fixed construction.11.2.2.3.1.2 All components of a stairway, including platformsand landings, shall be constructed of materials consistentwith the types permitted for floor construction, based onthe type of construction of the building, except that woodhandrails shall be permitted for all types of construction. Allwalking surfaces of a stairway shall be capable of supportingthe loads specified in Chapter 35.11.2.2.3.2 Landings. Stairs shall have landings at door openings.Stairs and intermediate landings shall continue with no decreasein width along the direction of egress travel. In new buildings,every landing shall have a dimension measured in thedirection of travel that is not less than the width of the stair.Exception No. 1: Landings shall not be required to exceed 4 ft(122 cm) in the direction of travel, provided that the stair has astraight run.Exception No. 2: Within a dwelling unit, a door at the top of a stairshall be permitted to open directly at a stair, provided that the door doesnot swing over the stair and the door serves an area with an occupantload of fewer than 50 persons.11.2.2.3.3* Tread and Landing Surfaces. Stair treads and landingsshall be solid, without perforations, and free of projectionsor lips that could trip stair users. If not vertical, risersexceed 30 degrees from vertical, but the permitted projectionof the nosing shall not exceed 11⁄2 in. (3.8 cm).Exception: The requirement of 11.2.2.3.3 shall not apply to noncombustiblegrated stair treads and landings as provided in 16.2.2.3.2,21.2.2.3.1, and 29.2.2.3.1.11.2.2.3.4* Tread Slope. Tread slope shall not exceed 1⁄4 in./ft(2 cm/m) (a slope of 1 in 48).11.2.2.3.5* Riser Height and Tread Depth. Riser height shall bemeasured as the vertical distance between tread nosings. Treaddepth shall be measured horizontally between the vertical planesof the foremost projection of adjacent treads, and at a right angleto the treadʼs leading edge, but shall not include bevelled orrounded tread surfaces that slope more than 20 degrees (a slopeof 1 in 2.75). At tread nosings, such bevelling or rounding shallnot exceed 1⁄2 in. (1.3 cm) in horizontal dimension.11.2.2.3.6 Dimensional Uniformity. There shall be no variationin excess of 3⁄16 in. (0.5 cm) in the depth of adjacenttreads or in the height of adjacent risers, and the tolerancebetween the largest and smallest riser or between the largestand smallest tread shall not exceed 3⁄8 in. (1 cm) in any flight.Exception: Where the bottom riser adjoins a sloping public way, walk,or driveway having an established grade and serving as a landing, avariation in height of the bottom riser not to exceed 3 in. in every 3 ft(7.6 cm in every 91 cm) of stairway width shall be permitted.11.2.2.4* Guards and Handrails.

11.2.2.4.1 Handrails.11.2.2.4.1.1 Stairs and ramps shall have handrails on bothsides unless otherwise permitted in 11.2.2.4.1.6.11.2.2.4.1.2 In addition, handrails shall be provided within30 in. (76 cm) of all portions of the required egress width ofnew stairs.11.2.2.4.1.3 Where intermediate handrails are provided inaccordance with 11.2.2.4.1.2, the minimum clear width betweenhandrails shall be 20 in. (510 mm).11.2.2.4.1.4 The required egress width shall be providedalong the natural path of travel.11.2.2.4.1.5 If a single step or a ramp is part of a curb thatseparates a sidewalk from a vehicular way, it shall not be requiredto have a handrail.11.2.2.4.1.6 Stairs within dwelling units and within guestrooms, and ramps within dwelling units and guest rooms, shallbe permitted to have a handrail on one side only.11.2.2.4.2* Continuity. Required guards and handrails shallcontinue for the full length of each flight of stairs. At turns ofnew stairs, inside handrails shall be continuous betweenflights at landings.11.2.2.4.3 Projections. The design of guards and handrails andthe hardware for attaching handrails to guards, balusters, or wallsshall be such that there are no projections that might engageloose clothing. Openings in guards shall be designed to preventloose clothing from becoming wedged in such openings.11.2.2.4.4* Handrail Details.(A)* Handrails on stairs and ramps shall have a consistentheight of not less than 34 in. (86 cm) and not more than 38 in.(96 cm) above the surface of the stair tread or ramp walkingsurface, measured vertically to the top of the rail from theleading edge of the stair tread or the ramp walking surface.Exception No. 1: The height of required handrails that form part of aguard in stairways not required to be accessible to persons with disabilitiesshall be permitted to exceed 38 in. (96 cm) but shall not exceed42 in. (107 cm), measured vertically to the top of the rail from theleading edge of the tread.Exception No. 2: Additional handrails that are lower or higher thanthe main handrail shall be permitted.(B) Handrails shall provide a clearance of not less than21⁄4 in. (57 mm) between the handrail and the wall to whichit is fastened.(C)* Handrails shall have a circular cross section with an outsidediameter of not less than 11⁄4 in. (3.2 cm) and not morethan 2 in. (5 cm).Exception: Any shape, other than circular, with a perimeter dimensionof not less than 4 in. (10.2 cm), but not more than 61⁄4 in.(15.9 cm), and with the largest cross-sectional dimension not morethan 21⁄4 in. (5.7 cm) shall be permitted, provided that graspable edgesare rounded so as to provide a radius of not less than 1⁄8 in. (0.3 cm).(D) Handrails shall be continuously graspable along theirentire length.Exception: Handrail brackets or balusters attached to the bottom surfaceof the handrail shall not be considered to be obstructions to graspability,provided that the following criteria are met:(1) They do not project horizontally beyond the sides of the handrailwithin a vertical clearance of 11⁄2 in. (3.75 cm) of the bottomsurface of the handrail.(2) For each 1⁄2 in. (1.3 cm) of additional handrail perimeter dimensiongreater than 4 in. (10 cm), as specified in (1), the verticalclearance dimension of 11⁄2 in. (3.75 cm) shall be permitted to bereduced by 1⁄8 in. (0.3 cm).(3) They have edges with a radius of not less than 0.01 in. (0.25 mm).(4) They obstruct not in excess of 20 percent of the handrail length ifthe graspable perimeter dimension is less than 51⁄2 in. (140 mm).(E) Handrail ends shall return to the wall or floor or shallterminate at newel posts.(F) Handrails that are not continuous between flights shallextend horizontally, at the required height, not less than 12 in.(30.5 cm) beyond the top riser and continue to slope for adepth of one tread beyond the bottom riser.Exception: Within dwelling units, the handrail shall be permitted toextend, at the required height, to points directly above the top andbottom risers.11.2.2.4.5 Guard Details.(A) The height of guards required in 11.1.8 shall be measuredvertically to the top of the guard from the surface adjacentthereto.(B) Guards shall be not less than 42 in. (107 cm) high.(C)* Open guards shall have intermediate rails or an ornamentalpattern such that a sphere 4 in. (10.1 cm) in diametershall not be capable of passing through any opening up to aheight of 34 in. (86 cm).Exception No. 1: The triangular openings formed by the riser, tread,and bottom element of a guardrail at the open side of a stair shall be of

501-5

Report on Proposals — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 501 such size that a sphere 6 in. (15.2 cm) in diameter shall not be capableof passing through the triangular opening.

See supporting material for justification on the “7-11” step geometry.Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters.

________________________________________________________________501-8 Log #10 MAN-FIR Final Action: Accept in Principle( 5.3.1.2 )________________________________________________________________Submitter: Fulton Desler, APA -The Engineered Wood AssociationRecommendation: Add new text: Establishment of Flame-Spread Index. (h) 1/4-in. (6-mm), or thicker, unfinished wood structural panels with phenolic or other exterior glueSubstantiation: Adds wood structural panels to the list of materials meeting the flame-spread requirement.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle The Technical Committee Accepted 501-8 (Log #10) in Principle with a change to the location of the submitterʼs recommended new text within NFPA 501. The committee directed staff to editorially revise the reference to Paragraph 5.3.1.2(1)(h).Committee Statement: The change was necessary to correct the placement of this new requirement within NFPA 501.Number Eligible to Vote: 13Ballot Results: Affirmative: 9 Abstain: 1 Vote Not Returned: 3 GAISER, RYAN, WALKERExplanatin of Abstention: MENDLEN: As a Federal employee involved with the Regulation of Manufactured Housing, I am abstaining on all votes for Structural proposals on NFPA 225 and 501 for Manufactured Housing.

________________________________________________________________501-9 Log #7 MAN-FIR Final Action: Accept( 5.6.2.1 )________________________________________________________________Submitter: Fulton Desler, APA -The Engineered Wood AssociationRecommendation: Revise text to read: Minimum 1-in. (25-mm) nominal lumber-23/32-in. wood structural panel or 5/16-in. (8-mm) thick gypsum board, or the equivalent, shall be allowed.Substantiation: 23/32 in. wood structural panel is permitted for fire blocking in Section 717.2.1 of the International Building Code as equivalent to 2-in. nominal lumber blocking or two thickness of 1-in. nominal lumber blocking. Without this added language, it isnʼt readily apparent to the reader that this commonly used material is “equivalent.”Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 13Ballot Results: Affirmative: 9 Abstain: 1 Vote Not Returned: 3 GAISER, RYAN, WALKERExplanatin of Abstention: MENDLEN: See my reason for abstention on 501-8.

________________________________________________________________501-10 Log #29 MAN-STR Final Action: Accept in Principle( Chapter 6 )________________________________________________________________NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee (MAN-AAC) letter ballot did not support the Technical Committee action on this proposal. This proposal will be reconsidered as a comment. See the ballot statement at the front of this report.Submitter: Bill Farish, Fleetwood HomesRecommendation: Revise text in 1.5(7) and (8) as follows: (7) The following statement on the wind zone map on the data plate: “This home has not been designed for the higher wind pressure and anchoring provi-sions required for oceans/coastline areas and should not be located within 1500 ft (457 m) of the coast line in Wind Zones II, and III unless the home and its anchoring and foundation system have been designed for the increased require-ments specified for Exposure D in ANSI/ASCE 7-88.” (8) (7) The statement: “This home has ____ had not ____(appropriate blank to be checked by manufacturer) been equipped with storm shutters or other pro-tective coverings for windows and exterior door openings. For homes designed to be located in Wind Zones II, and III and IV, which have not been provided with shutters or equivalent covering devices, it is strongly recommended that the home be made ready to be equipped with these devices in accordance with the method recommended in the manufacturerʼs printed instructions.” (9) (8) The statement: “Design approval by…” Followed by the name of the agency that approved the design. Revise Table 6.4 as follows: Unclassified Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures SEI/ASCE 7-88 02Revise 6.5.3.1, 6.5.3.1.1, and 6.5.3.1.2 as follows: 6.5.3.1 Wind Loads – Design Requirements 6.5.3.1.1 Standard Wind Loads (Zone I) delete the entire section 6.5.3.1.2 Wind Loads for High Wind Areas (Zone II and Zone III). When designed for high wind areas (Zone II and Zone III), tThe manufactured home, each of its wind-resisting parts (including, but not limited to, shear walls, dia-phragms, ridge beams, and their fastening and anchoring systems), and its com-ponents and cladding materials (including, but not limited to, roof trusses, wall studs, exterior sheathing, roofing and siding materials, exterior glazing, and their connections and fasteners) shall be designed by a professional engineer or architect to resist the following: (1) The design wind loads for Exposure C specified in ANSI SEI/ASCE 7-88 02, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, for 50-year recurrence interval, a design wind speed of 90 mph (145 km/hr.) for Wind Zone I, 100 110 mph (160 177 km/hr.), as specified for Wind Zone II, or 110 130 mph (177 210 km/hr.), as specified for Wind Zone III, or 150 mph (242 km/hr), as specified in Wind Zone IV. (see Figure 6.5.3.2) (2) The wind pressures specified in Table 6.5.3.1 The wind pressures in Table 6.5.3.1 may not be resisted by more than 0.6 x dead load. Revise Table 6.5.3.1 as shown on the following page.

501-6

Report on Proposals — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 501

Table 6.5.3.1 Design Wind PressuresAnchorage for Lateral and Vertical Stability (see 6.6.1),

and Main Wind Force Resisting System10:

Basic WindSpeed

LoadDirection

RoofPitch

HorizontalPressure Vertical Pressure Wind

OverhangWall Roof Windward Leeward

Wind Zone I90 mph

(145 km/hr)

Transverse≤3:12 13.8 -4.2 -13.9 -9.6 -21.45:12 15.2 0.0 -10.1 -10.1 -17.6

≥7:122 14.4 10.0 5.9 -9.3 -6.9Longitudinal Singlewide

Multiwide12.911.6

-6.5-5.6

-15.8-14.3

-9.4-8.8

-23.3-21.8

Wind Zone II110 mph

(177 km/hr)

Transverse≤3:12 20.5 -6.3 -20.8 -14.4 -32.05:12 22.7 0.0 -15.1 -15.1 -26.3


Multiwide19.317.4

-9.6-8.4

-23.7-21.6

-14.1-13.1

-34.9-32.7

Wind ZoneIII

130 mph(210 km/hr)

Transverse≤3:12 28.7 -8.8 -29.0 -20.2 -44.65:12 31.8 0.0 -21.0 -21.1 -36.7


Multiwide27.024.2

-13.4-11.6

-33.1-30.1

-19.7-18.4

-48.7-45.7

Wind ZoneIV

150 mph(242 km/hr)

Transverse≤3:12 38.2 -11.8 -38.6 -26.8 -59.45:12 42.2 0.0 -28.1 -28.0 -48.9


Multiwide36.032.3

-17.9-15.6

-44.0-40.0

-26.2-24.6

-64.8-60.8

Components and Cladding11:

Walls12

Wind Zone I90 mph

(145 km/hr)

Wind Zone II110 mph

(177 km/hr)

Wind Zone III130 mph

(210 km/hr)

Wind Zone IV150 mph

(242 km/hr)Walls interior zone 17.7 -19.1 26.4 -28.6 36.8 -39.9 49.0 -53.1Walls with 3ft of corners 17.7 -23.6 26.4 -35.2 36.8 -49.2 49.0 -65.6

Roofs – Slopes up to and including 6:12Roof interior zone (z-1) 10.2 -16.1 15.1 -24.1 21.2 -33.6 28.2 -44.8Within 3ft of roof edge (z-2) 10.2 -28.2 15.1 -42.1 21.2 -56.8 28.2 -78.2Within 3ft of roof corners (z-3) 10.2 -41.6 15.1 -62.2 21.2 -86.9 28.2 -115.7Roof overhang int. (z-2) -32.9 -49.1 -68.6 -91.4Roof overhang corner (z-3) -55.3 82.6 -115.3 -153.5

Roofs – Slopes greater than 6:12Roof interior zone (z-1) 16.1 -17.7 24.1 -26.4 33.6 -37.3 44.8 -49.0Within 3ft of roof edge (z-2) 16.1 -20.6 24.1 -30.9 33.6 -43.1 44.8 -57.2Within 3ft of roof corners (z-3) 16.1 -20.6 24.1 -30.9 33.6 -43.1 44.8 -57.2Roof overhang int. (z-2) -29.9 -44.6 -62.3 -83.0Roof overhang corner (z-3) -29.9 -44.6 -62.3 -83.0

See Figure 6.5.3.1 for explanation of roof zones

501-7


Figure 6.5.3.1 Roof Zones for Components and Cladding

Revise Notes for Table 6.5.3.1 as follows: Note: (+) sign means pressures are acting toward or on the structure; (-) sign means pressures are acting away from the structure; (+) sign means forces pres-sures can act in either directions, toward of away from the structure.1The net horizontal drag of ± 39 psf (1.9 kPa) to be used in calculating anchor-age for lateral and vertical stability and for the design of main wind force resisting systems is based on a distribution of wind pressures of +0.8 or + 24 psf (+38 kPa or + 1150 kPa) to the windward wall and 0.5 or 15 psf (-24 kPa or 720 kPa) to the leeward side. Pressures shown are applied to the horizontal and vertical projections, for Exposure C, and a mean roof height of 15 ft (4.5 m). For a roof height of 25 ft (7.6 m), multiply the table values by 1.11. 2Horizontal drag pressures need not be applied to roof projections when the roof slope does not exceed 20 degrees. The total horizontal load shall not be less than that determined by assuming the horizontal roof projections equal to zero. 3Design value in this table are only applicable to roof slopes between 10 degrees (nominal 2/12 slope) and 30 45 degrees (nominal 12/12 slope). For roof slopes between those shown linear interpolation shall be permitted. 4The design uplift pressures are the same whether they are applied normal to the surface of the roof or to the horizontal projection of the roof. 5Shingle roof coverings that are secured with 6 fasteners per shingle through an underpayment that is cemented to a 3/8 in. (10 mm) structural rated roof sheathing need not be evaluated for these design wind pressures of Wind Zones II, III, or IV. 6Structural rated roof sheathing that is at least 3/8 in. (10 mm) in thickness, installed with the long dimension perpendicular to roof framing supports, and secured with fasteners at 4 in. (102 mm) on center within 3.0 ft (0.9 m) of each

gable end or endwall if no overhanging is provided, and 6 in. (152 mm) on center in all other areas, need not be evaluated for these design wind pressures of Wind Zones II, III, or IV. 7Exterior coverings that are secured at 6 in. (152 mm) on a center to a 3/8 in. (10 mm) structural rated sheathing that is fastened to wall framing members a 6 in. (152 mm) on center need not be evaluated for these design wind pressures of Wind Zones II, III, or IV. 8One piece metal roofings, tested without structural sheathing, using the design wind pressures specified in the table for component and cladding (exterior roof coverings), is allowed to be used without structural sheathing. 9The edge distance shall be 2a, where: For widths of 30 ft (9 m) or less: a = 3 ft (0.9 m). For widths greater than 30 ft (9 m): a = 10 percent of the least horizontal dimension, or 0.4 times the mean roof height, whichever is smaller, but not less than either 4 percent of the least horizontal dimension or 3 ft (0.9 m). 10Main Wind Force Resisting System includes shearwalls, diaphragms, and their fastening and anchorage systems, ridge beams and other main roof sup-port beams (beams supporting expanding room sections, etc.) 11Components and Cladding includes roof trusses, exterior roof coverings sheathing and fastening, wall studs, exterior windows and sliding glass doors (glazing and framing), exterior coverings, sheathings and fastening. 12For sliding glass doors with openings of 72 in. (1.82 m) or greater the pres-sures in the table may be multiplied by 0.92.

The following changes should be made to the map above: • Alaska map will be added later • Lines for 100, 120 and 140 mph will be eliminated • All four zones will be labeled on the map above • Only note 1 will remain on the map

Add new Figure as follows:

Add new Figure as follows:

501-8


• Debris Hazard area will be eliminated • Portion of country should remain as shown (rather than reduce the scale to show entire continental US) Revise text to read as follows: 6.5.3.2.1 Wind Zone I – 90 mph (145 km/hr)

Wind Zone I shall consist of those areas shown in Figure 6.5.3.2 that are not identified in 6.5.3.2.2, or 6.5.3.2.3 or 6.5.3.2.4 as being within Wind Zones II, or Wind Zone III or Wind Zone IV, respectively.

6.5.3.2.2 Wind Zone II – 100 110 mph (160 177 km/hr) The following areas listed by state and county or city shall be deemed to be within Wind Zone II in accordance with Figure 6.5.3.2:

(1) Alabama – Augusta, Barbour, Bibb, Bullock, Butler, Chambers, Chilton, Choctaw, Clarke, Coffee, Conecuh, Coosa, Covington, Crenshaw, Dale, Dallas, Elmore, Escambia, Geneva, Greene, Hale, Henry, Houston, Lee, Lowndes, Macon, Marengo, Montgomery, Monroe, Perry, Pike, Russell, Sumter, Tallapoosa, Washington, Wilcox

(2) Connecticut – Fairfield, Hartford, Litchfield, New Haven, Tolland, Windham

(3) Delaware – Kent, Sussex(4) Florida – Alachua, Baker, Bradford, Clay, Columbia, DeSoto,

Gadsden, Gilchrist, Glades, Hamilton, Hardee, Highlands, Jefferson, Lafayette, Lake, Leon, Madison, Marion, Orange, Osceola, Putnam, Pole, Suwannee, Union, Seminole, Sumter

(5) Georgia – Atkinson, Appling, Bacon, Baker, Baldwin, Ben Hill, Berrien, Bibb, Bleckley, Brantley, Brooks, Bulloch, Burke, Chattahoochee, Calhoun, Candler, Charlton Clay, Clinch, Coffee, Colquitt, Columbia, Cook, Crawford, Crisp, Decatur, Dodge, Dooly, Dougherty, Early, Echols, Effingham, Emanuel, Evans, Glascock, Grady, Hancock, Harris, Houston, Irwin, JeffDavis, Jefferson, Jenkins, Johnson, Jones, Lamar, Lanier, Laurens, Lee, Long, Lowndes, Macon, Marion, McDuffie, Meriwether, Miller, Mitchell, Monroe, Montgomery, Muscogee, Peach, Pierce, Pike, Pulaski, Quitman, Randolph, Richmond, Schley, Screven, Seminole, Stewart, Sumber, Talbot, Tattnall, Taylor, Telfair, Terrell, Thomas, Tift, Toombs, Treutlen, Troup, Turner,

Twiggs, Upson, Ware, Warren, Washington, Wayne, Webster, Wheeler, Wilcox, Wilkinson, Worth

(6) Hawaii – the entire state(7) Louisiana – Parishes of Acadia, Allen, Ascension, Avoyelles,

Beauregard, Calcasieu, Catahoula, Concordia, East Baton Rouge, East Feliciana, Evangeline, Iberville, Jefferson Davis, Livingston, Pointe Coupee, Rapides, St. Landry, St. Helena, St. Martin, Tangipahoa, Vermilion, Vernon, Washington, West Baton Rouge, West Feliciana

(8) Maine – Androscoggin, Cumberland, Hancock, Kennebec, Knox, Lincoln, Sagadahoc, Waldo, York

(9) Maryland – Caroline, Dorchester, Queen Annes, Talbot, Wicomico(10) Massachusetts – Bristol, Essex, Franklin, Hampden, Hampshire,

Middlesex, Norfolk, Suffolk, Worcester(11) Mississippi – Adams, Amite, Claiborne, Clarke, Copiah, Covington,

Forrest, Franklin, Hinds, Jasper, Jefferson Davis, Jefferson, Jones, Kemper, Lamar, Leake, Lauderdale, Lawrence, Lincoln, Marion, Neshoba, Newton, Noxubee, Pike, Rankin, Scott, Simpson, Smith, Wayne, Walthall, Wilkinson, Winston

(12) New Hampshire – Cheshire, Hillsborough, Merrimack, Rockingham, Strafford

(13) New Jersey – Bergen, Burlington, Camden, Cumberland, Essex, Gloucester, Hudson, Mercer, Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, Passaic, Union, Salem, Somerset

(14) New York – Bronx, Kings, New York, Putnam, Queens, Richmond, Rockland, Westchester

(15) North Carolina – Bertie, Bladen, Cumberland, Duplin, Edgecombe, Gates, Green, Halifax, Harnett, Hertford, Hoke, Johnson, Lenoir, Martin, Nash, Northampton, Pitt, Robeson, Sampson, Scotland, Wayne, Wilson

(16) Pennsylvania – none(17) Rhode Island – Providence(18) South Carolina – Aiken, Allendale, Bamberg, Barnwell, Berkeley,

Revise Figure 6.5.3.2 as shown:

501-9

Report on Proposals — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 501 Calhoun, Chesterfield, Clarendon, Colleton, Darlington, Dillon, Dorchester, Fairfield, Florence, Hampton, Jasper, Kershaw, Lancaster, Lee, Lexington, Marion, Marlboro, Orangeburg, Richland, Sumter, Williamsburg

(19) Texas – Angelina, Atascosa, Austin, Bastrop, Bee, Brooks, Burleson, Caldwell, Colorado, Dewitt, Duval, Fayette, Fort Bend, Goliad, Gonzales, Grimes, Guadalupe, Hardin, Harris, Hidalgo, Jackson, Jasper, Jim Hogg, Jim Wells, Karnes, Lavaca, Lee, Liberty, Live Oak, McMullen, Montgomery, Newton, Polk, San Jacinto, Starr, Trinity, Tyler, Victoria, Walker, Waller, Washington, Webb, Wharton, Wilson, Zapata

(20) Virginia – The counties of Essex, Gloucester, Isle of Wight, James City, Lancaster, Mathews, Middlesex, Northumberland, Surry, Southampton, York; The cities of Chesapeake, Hampton, Newport News, Norfolk, Portsmouth, Suffolk, Virginia Beach, Williamsburg Revise text as follows: 6.5.3.2.2 Wind Zone III – 110 130 mph (177 210 km/hr) The following areas shall be considered to be within Wind Zone III in accordance with Figure 6.5.3.2:(1) States and Territories. The following states and territories:(a) The entire state of Hawaii(b) (a) The coastal regions of Alaska (as determined by the 90 110-mph isotach on the ANSI SEI/ASCE 7-88 02 map)(c) (b) All of the U.S. Territories of American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, and the United States Virgin Islands.(2) Local Governments. The following local governments are listed by state and county unless specified otherwise:

(a) Alabama – Baldwin, Mobile(b) Connecticut – Middlesex, New London(c) Florida – Bay, Brevard, Calhoun, Charlotte, Citrus, Collier,

DeSoto, Dixie, Duval, Escambia, Flagler, Franklin, Gulf, Hendry, Hernando, Hillsborough, Holmes, Indian River, Jackson, Lee, Levy, Liberty, Manatee, Nassau, Okaloosa, Okeechobee, Pasco, Pinellas, Santa Rosa, Sarasota, St. Johns, St. Lucie, Taylor, Volusia, Wakulla, Walton, Washington

(d) Georgia – Bryan, Camden, Chatham, Glynn, Liberty, McIntosh(e) Louisiana – Parishes of Assumption, Iberia, Jefferson, Lafayette,

Orleans, St. Charles, St. James, St. John the Baptist, St. Martin, St. Mary, St. Tammany

(f) Maryland – Somerset, Worchester(g) Massachusetts – Barnstable, Bristol, Dukes, Nantucket, Plymouth(h) Mississippi – George, Greene, Hancock, Harrison, Pearl River, Perry,

Stone, (i) New Jersey – Atlantic, Cape May, Ocean(j) New York – Nassau, Suffolk(k) North Carolina – Beaufort, Camden, Chowan, Columbus, Craven,

Currituck, Dare, Hyde, Jones, New Hanover, Onslow, Pamlico, Pasquotank, Pender, Perquimans, Tyrrell, Washington

(l) Rhode Island – Bristol, Kent, Newport, Washington(m) South Carolina – Beaufort, Charleston, Georgetown, Horry(n) Texas – Brazoria, Calhoun, Chambers, Galveston, Jefferson, Kennedy,

Kleberg, Matagorda, Nueces, Refugio, San Patricio, Willacy(o) Virginia – Accomack, Northampton

Add new section as follows: 6.5.3.2.4 Wind Zone IV – 150 mph (242 km/hr) The following areas shall be considered to be within Wind Zone IV in accordance with Figure 6.5.3.2: (1) Territories. The following territories: All of the U.S. Territories of Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, and the United States Virgin Islands. (2) Local Governments. The following local governments are listed by state and county:

(a) Florida – Broward, Martin, Miami-Dade, Monroe, Palm Beach(b) Louisiana – Parishes of Cameron, Lafourche, Plaquemines, St.

Bernard, Terrebonne, Vermillion(c) Mississippi – Jackson(d) North Carolina – Brunswick, Carteret(e) Texas – Cameron

Revise text to read as follows: 6.5.4.2 The allowable eave or cornice deflection for uplift shall be measured at the design uplift of 9 psf (430 Pa) for Wind Zone I and at a design uplift pressure cited in 6.5.3.1.2 for Wind Zone II and Wind Zone III. The allowable deflection shall be (2 x Lc)/180, where Lc is the measured horizontal eave projection from the wall. 6.5.5.2 For Wind Zones II and Wind Zone, III and IV roof framing members shall be securely fastened at the vertical…that overlaps the roof and floor systems. Steel strapping or engineered connectors shall be installed at a

maximum spacing of 24 in (610 mm) on center in Wind Zones III and IV. 6.6.1 Provisions for Support and Anchoring Systems. Each manufactured home shall have provisions for support and anchoring or foundation systems that, when properly designed and installed, will resist overturning and lateral movement (sliding) of the manufactured home, as imposed by the respective design loads. For Wind Zone I, the design wind loads to be used for calculating resistance to overturning and lateral movement shall be the simultaneous application of the wind loads indicated in 6.5.3.1.1, increase by a factor of 1.5. The 1.5 factor of safety for Wind Zone I shall also be applied simultaneously to both the vertical building projection, as horizontal wind load, and across the surface of the full roof structure, as uplift loading. For Wind Zone II and Wind Zone III, the The resistance shall be determined by the simultaneous application of the horizontal drag and uplift wind loads, in accordance with 6.5.3.1.1. The basic allowable stresses of material required to resist overturning and lateral movement shall not be increased in the design and proportion in of these members. No additional shape or location factors shall be needed to be applied in the design of the tie-down system. Only 60 percent of the dead load of the structure shall be permitted to be used to resist these wind loading effects in all wind zones. 6.6.4 Requirements for Ties. Manufactured homes in Wind Zone I shall require only diagonal ties. These ties shall be placed along the main frame and below the outer side walls. All manufactured homes designed to be located in Wind Zones II, and Wind Zone III, and IV shall both vertical and diagonal ties below the outer side walls. 7.2.5.2 Apply the uplift load to the top chord of the truss. For Wind Zone I, the net uplift load for the clear span of the truss is 9 psf (431 Pa) and 22.5 psf (1.1 kPa) for the eave or cornice projections of the truss. For Wind Zones II and III, The net uplift load for the clear span and eave cornice projections shall be determined by subtracting the minimum dead load from the uplift load provided in Table 6.5.3.1.2. Measure and record deflection 5 minutes after the net uplift load has been applied. Design load deflection shall be less than L/180 for simply supported clear span and less than Lo/90 for eave or cornice projections. 7.3.6* Protection of Primary Window and Sliding Glass Door Openings in High Wind Areas. For homes designed to be located in Wind Zones II, and Wind Zone III, and IV, manufacturers shall design exterior walls surrounding the primary window and sliding glass door openings to allow for the installation of shutters or other protective covers, such as plywood, to cover these openings. The manufacturer…” (no further changes to the section) 7.4.6* Protection of Egress Window Openings in High Wind Areas. For homes designed to be located in Wind Zones II, and Wind Zone III, and IV, manufacturers shall design exterior walls surrounding egress window openings to allow for the installation of shutters or other protective covers, such as plywood, to cover these openings. The manufacturer…” (no further changes to the section) 7.5.6* Protection of Exterior Doors in High Wind Areas. For homes designed to be located in Wind Zones II, and Wind Zone III, and IV, manufacturers shall design exterior walls surrounding the exterior door openings to allow for the installation of shutters or other protective covers, such as plywood, to cover these openings. The manufacturer…” (no further changes to the section) 14.1.2.10 ASCE Publications. American Society of Civil Engineers, 1801 Alexander Bell Drive, Reston, VA 20191. ASCE 7, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, 1988 2002 ASCE 8, Design of Cold-Formed Stainless Steel Structural Members, 1990.Substantiation: General Statement of the Problem - The 501 Technical Committee has expressed concern in the past that the wind standards needed to be updated, specifically, the reference to ASCE 7 needed to be upgraded from 1988 edition to a more recent edition. There was also concern that the existing Wind Zone I was not in compliance with even ASCE 7-88, much less a later edition. The TC realized that to accomplish this change more would need to be done that simply changing the references to ASCE 7; major portions of the standard would need to be rewritten. To that end, a subcommittee of volunteers* has labored for several months** to present the following changes to 501. The latest, 2002 edition of ASCE 7 has been used. The most significant changes are the following: • Revised wind zone map with a fourth wind zone • Revised table of design wind pressures (adding zones I & IV) • New 90 mph rating for Wind Zone I • Deletion of special Wind Zone I exceptions (such as roof dead load restrictions and 1.50 anchoring factor) • Elimination of Exposure D requirements 1500 feet from coastline The subcommittee did not suggest the proposed changes purely to update a reference standard. There is real concern that , based on the latest weather data, that many homes may not be adequately designed for a likely wind event

501-10

Report on Proposals — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 501 unless the design pressures are changed. This is especially true in Wind Zone I where the methods of analysis have not been changed in over 25 years. Of lesser consequence but still a concern is the fact that all other wind design methods are based on the newer three-second gust data whereas the existing 501 standard still is based on the older fastest-mile data. The subcommittee is aware that these changes could have a significant impact on the industry. The subcommittee will complete an economic impact analysis within the next few weeks so that it will be available for the ROP meeting of the TC in September. In summary these proposals may be thought of as a proactive response to the latest design procedures. This seems to be a better approach than to wait for a “hurricane Andrew” event to prompt other reactions.

* - Listing of subcommittee membership available upon request. ** - Minutes from at least six subcommittee meetings are available upon request.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise text as follows:I. Revise text in Section 1.5(7) and Section 1.5(8) as follows: (7) The following statement on the wind zone map on the data plate: “This home has not been designed for the higher wind pressure and anchoring provi-sions required for oceans/coastline areas and should not be located within 1500 ft (457 m) of the coast line in Wind Zones II, and III unless the home and its anchoring and foundation system have been designed for the increased require-ments specified for Exposure D in ANSI/ASCE 7-88.” (8) (7) The statement: “This home has ____ had not ____(appropriate blank to be checked by manufacturer) been equipped with storm shutters or other pro-tective coverings for windows and exterior door openings. For homes designed to be located in Wind Zones II, and III and IV, which have not been provided with shutters or equivalent covering devices, it is strongly recommended that the home be made ready to be equipped with these devices in accordance with the method recommended in the manufacturerʼs printed instructions.” (9) (8) The statement: “Design approval by…” Followed by the name of the agency that approved the design.

II. Revise Table 6.4 as follows: Unclassified Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures SEI/ASCE 7-8802

III. Revise 6.5.3.1, 6.5.3.1.1, and 6.5.3.1.2 as follows: 6.5.3.1 Wind Loads – Design Requirements. 6.5.3.1.1 Standard Wind Loads (Zone I) … [Delete the entire section] 6.5.3.1.2 Wind Loads for High Wind Areas (Zone II and Zone III). When designed for high wind areas (Zone II and Zone III), tThe manufactured home, each of its wind-resisting parts (including, but not limited to, shear walls, dia-phragms, ridge beams, and their fastening and anchoring systems), and its com-ponents and cladding materials (including, but not limited to, roof trusses, wall studs, exterior sheathing, roofing and siding materials, exterior glazing, and their connections and fasteners) shall be designed by a professional engineer or architect to resist the following: (1) The design wind pressuresloads for Exposure C specified in ANSI SEI/ASCE 7-88 02, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, for 50-year recurrence interval, a design wind speed of 90 mph (145 km/hr.) for Wind Zone I, 100 110 mph (160 177 km/hr.), as specified for Wind Zone II, or 110 130 mph (177 210 km/hr.), as specified for Wind Zone III, or 150 mph (242 km/hr), as specified in Wind Zone IV. (See Figure 6.5.3.2.) (2) The wind pressures specified in Table 6.5.3.1.2.No more than 60 percent of the dead load of the structure shall be permitted to be used to resist the wind pressures in Table 6.5.3.1.

501-11

Report on Proposals — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 501 IV. Delete Table 6.5.3.1.2 (including footnotes) and replace with the following Table 6.5.3.1 (including footnotes) as follows:

Table 6.5.3.1 Design Wind PressuresAnchorage for Lateral and Vertical Stability (see 6.6.1),

and Main Wind Force Resisting System10:

Basic WindSpeed

LoadDirection

RoofPitch

HorizontalPressure

psf

VerticalPressure

psfWall Roof Windward Leeward Windward

Overhang

Wind Zone I90 mph

(145 km/hr)

Transverse≤3:12 13.8 -4.2 -13.9 -9.6 -21.45:12 15.2 0.0 -10.1 -10.1 -17.6


Multiwide12.911.6

-6.5-5.6

-15.8-14.3

-9.4-8.8

-23.3-21.8

Wind Zone II

110 mph(177 km/hr)

Transverse≤3:12 20.5 -6.3 -20.8 -14.4 -32.05:12 22.7 0.0 -15.1 -15.1 -26.3


Multiwide19.317.4

-9.6-8.4

-23.7-21.6

-14.1-13.1

-34.9-32.7

Wind ZoneIII

130 mph(210 km/hr)

Transverse≤3:12 28.7 -8.8 -29.0 -20.2 -44.65:12 31.8 0.0 -21.0 -21.1 -36.7


Multiwide27.024.2

-13.4-11.6

-33.1-30.1

-19.7-18.4

-48.7-45.7

Wind ZoneIV

150 mph(242 km/hr)

Transverse≤3:12 38.2 -11.8 -38.6 -26.8 -59.45:12 42.2 0.0 -28.1 -28.0 -48.9


Multiwide36.032.3

-17.9-15.6

-44.0-40.0

-26.2-24.6

-64.8-60.8

Components and Cladding11

Wind Zone I90 mph

(145 km/hr)psf

Wind Zone II110 mph

(177 km/hr)psf

Wind Zone III130 mph

(210 km/hr)psf

Wind Zone IV150 mph

(242 km/hr)psf

Walls12 Walls interior zone 17.7 -19.1 26.4 -28.6 36.8 -39.9 49.0 -53.1Walls within 3ft of corners 17.7 -23.6 26.4 -35.2 36.8 -49.2 49.0 -65.6

Roofs – Slopes up to and including 6:12Roof interior zone (z-1) 10.2 -16.1 15.1 -24.1 21.2 -33.6 28.2 -44.8Within 3ft of roof edge (z-2) 10.2 -28.2 15.1 -42.1 21.2 -56.8 28.2 -78.2Within 3ft of roof corners (z-3) 10.2 -41.6 15.1 -62.2 21.2 -86.9 28.2 -115.7Roof overhang int. (z-2) -32.9 -49.1 -68.6 -91.4Roof overhang corner (z-3) -55.3 82.6 -115.3 -153.5

Roofs – Slopes greater than 6:1213

Roof interior zone (z-1) 16.1 -17.7 24.1 -26.4 33.6 -37.3 44.8 -49.0Within 3ft of roof edge (z-2) 16.1 -20.6 24.1 -30.9 33.6 -43.1 44.8 -57.2Within 3ft of roof corners (z-3) 16.1 -20.6 24.1 -30.9 33.6 -43.1 44.8 -57.2Roof overhang int. (z-2) -29.9 -44.6 -62.3 -83.0Roof overhang corner (z-3) -29.9 -44.6 -62.3 -83.0

Note: (+) sign means pressures are acting toward or on the structure; (-) sign means pressures are acting away from the structure; (+) sign means pressures can act in either directions, toward of away from the structure.1Pressures shown are applied to the horizontal and vertical projections, for Exposure C, and a mean roof height of 15 ft (4.5 m). For a roof height of 25 ft (7.6 m), multiply the table values by 1.11. 2The total horizontal load shall not be less than that determined by assuming the horizontal roof projections equal to zero. 3Design value in this table are only applicable to roof slopes between 10 degrees (nominal 2/12 slope) and 45 degrees (nominal 12/12 slope). For roof slopes between those shown linear interpolation shall be permitted. 4The design uplift pressures are the same whether they are applied normal to the surface of the roof or to the horizontal projection of the roof. 5Shingle roof coverings that are secured with 6 fasteners per shingle through an underpayment that is cemented to a 3/8 in. (10 mm) structural rated roof sheathing need not be evaluated for these design wind pressures of Wind Zones II, III, or IV. 6Structural rated roof sheathing that is at least 3/8 in. (10 mm) in thickness, installed with the long dimension perpendicular to roof framing supports, and secured with fasteners at 4 in. (102 mm) on center within 3.0 ft (0.9 m) of each gable end or endwall if no overhanging is provided, and 6 in. (152 mm) on center in all other areas, need not be evaluated for these design wind pressures of Wind Zones II, III, or IV. 7Exterior coverings that are secured at 6 in. (152 mm) on a center to a 3/8 in. (10 mm) structural rated sheathing that is fastened to wall framing members a 6 in. (152 mm) on center need not be evaluated for these design wind pressures of Wind Zones II, III, or IV. 8One piece metal roofings, tested without structural sheathing, using the design wind pressures specified in the table for component and cladding (exterior roof coverings), is allowed to be used without structural sheathing.

9The edge distance shall be equal to 2X a, where: For widths of 30 ft (9 m) or less: a = 3 ft (0.9 m). For widths greater than 30 ft (9 m): a = 10 percent of the least horizontal dimension, or 0.4 times the mean roof height, whichever is smaller, but not less than either 4 percent of the least horizontal dimension or 3 ft (0.9 m). 10Main Wind Force Resisting System includes shearwalls, diaphragms, and their fastening and anchorage systems, ridge beams and other main roof sup-port beams (beams supporting expanding room sections, etc.) 11Components and Cladding includes roof trusses, exterior roof coverings sheathing and fastening, wall studs, exterior windows and sliding glass doors (glazing and framing), exterior coverings, sheathings and fastening. 12For sliding glass doors with opening widths of 72 in. (1.82 m) or greater the pressures in the table may be multiplied by 0.92. 13 See Figure 6.5.3.1 for explanation of roof zones.

501-12


V. Add new Figure as follows:



501-13


Modify the new Figure 6.5.3.2 by: • Eliminating Lines for 100, 120 and 140 mph • Labeling all four zones (Zones I, II, III, and IV) on the map • Deleting Notes 2-5 so that only Note 1 will remain on the map • Eliminating Debris Hazard areaThe Alaska map will be added at the comment stage. Portion of country should remain as shown (rather than reduce the scale to show entire continental US)

VII. Delete Sections 6.5.3.2.1, 6.5.3.2.2 and 6.5.3.2.3 and replace with the fol-lowing text: 6.5.3.2.1 Wind Zone I – 90 mph (145 km/hr). Wind Zone I shall consist of those areas shown in Figure 6.5.3.2 that are not identified in 6.5.3.2.2, 6.5.3.2.3 or 6.5.3.2.4 as being within Wind Zones II, Wind Zone III or Wind Zone IV, respectively. 6.5.3.2.2 Wind Zone II –110 mph (177 km/hr). The following areas listed by state and county or city shall be deemed to be within Wind Zone II in accor-dance with Figure 6.5.3.2:

(1) Alabama – Augusta, Barbour, Bibb, Bullock, Butler, Chambers, Chilton, Choctaw, Clarke, Coffee, Conecuh, Coosa, Covington, Crenshaw, Dale, Dallas, Elmore, Escambia, Geneva, Greene, Hale, Henry, Houston, Lee, Lowndes, Macon, Marengo, Montgomery, Monroe, Perry, Pike, Russell, Sumter, Tallapoosa, Washington, Wilcox.

(2) Connecticut – Fairfield, Hartford, Litchfield, New Haven, Tolland, Windham

(3) Delaware – Kent, Sussex(4) Florida – Alachua, Baker, Bradford, Clay, Columbia, DeSoto,

Gadsden, Gilchrist, Glades, Hamilton, Hardee, Highlands, Jefferson, Lafayette, Lake, Leon, Madison, Marion, Orange, Osceola, Putnam, Polk, Suwannee, Union, Seminole, Sumter.

(5) Georgia – Atkinson, Appling, Bacon, Baker, Baldwin, Ben Hill, Berrien, Bibb, Bleckley, Brantley, Brooks, Bulloch, Burke, Chattahoochee, Calhoun, Candler, Charlton Clay, Clinch, Coffee, Colquitt, Columbia, Cook, Crawford, Crisp, Decatur, Dodge, Dooly, Dougherty, Early, Echols, Effingham, Emanuel, Evans, Glascock, Grady, Hancock, Harris, Houston, Irwin, Jeff Davis, Jefferson, Jenkins, Johnson, Jones, Lamar, Lanier, Laurens, Lee, Long, Lowndes, Macon, Marion, McDuffie, Meriwether, Miller, Mitchell, Monroe, Montgomery, Muscogee, Peach, Pierce, Pike, Pulaski, Quitman, Randolph, Richmond, Schley, Screven, Seminole, Stewart, Sumber, Talbot, Tattnall, Taylor, Telfair, Terrell, Thomas, Tift, Toombs, Treutlen, Troup, Turner, Twiggs, Upson, Ware, Warren, Washington, Wayne, Webster, Wheeler, Wilcox, Wilkinson, Worth.

(6) Hawaii – the entire state(7) Louisiana – Parishes of Acadia, Allen, Ascension, Avoyelles,

Beauregard, Calcasieu, Catahoula, Concordia, East Baton Rouge, East Feliciana, Evangeline, Iberville, Jefferson Davis, Livingston, Pointe Coupee, Rapides, St. Landry, St. Helena, St. Martin, Tangipahoa, Vermilion, Vernon, Washington, West Baton Rouge, West Feliciana

(8) Maine – Androscoggin, Cumberland, Hancock, Kennebec, Knox, Lincoln, Sagadahoc, Waldo, York

(9) Maryland – Caroline, Dorchester, Queen Annes, Talbot, Wicomico(10) Massachusetts – Bristol, Essex, Franklin, Hampden, Hampshire,

Middlesex, Norfolk, Suffolk, Worcester(11) Mississippi – Adams, Amite, Claiborne, Clarke, Copiah, Covington,

Forrest, Franklin, Hinds, Jasper, Jefferson Davis, Jefferson, Jones, Kemper, Lamar, Leake, Lauderdale, Lawrence, Lincoln, Marion, Neshoba, Newton,

VI. Delete Figure 6.5.3.2 and replace with new Figure 6.5.3.2 as shown:

501-14

Report on Proposals — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 501 Noxubee, Pike, Rankin, Scott, Simpson, Smith, Wayne, Walthall, Wilkinson, Winston

(12) New Hampshire – Cheshire, Hillsborough, Merrimack, Rockingham, Strafford

(13) New Jersey – Bergen, Burlington, Camden, Cumberland, Essex, Gloucester, Hudson, Mercer, Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, Passaic, Union, Salem, Somerset

(14) New York – Bronx, Kings, New York, Putnam, Queens, Richmond, Rockland, Westchester

(15) North Carolina – Bertie, Bladen, Cumberland, Duplin, Edgecombe, Gates, Green, Halifax, Harnett, Hertford, Hoke, Johnson, Lenoir, Martin, Nash, Northampton, Pitt, Robeson, Sampson, Scotland, Wayne, Wilson

(16) Pennsylvania – none(17) Rhode Island – Providence(18) South Carolina – Aiken, Allendale, Bamberg, Barnwell, Berkeley,

Calhoun, Chesterfield, Clarendon, Colleton, Darlington, Dillon, Dorchester, Fairfield, Florence, Hampton, Jasper, Kershaw, Lancaster, Lee, Lexington, Marion, Marlboro, Orangeburg, Richland, Sumter, Williamsburg

(19) Texas – Angelina, Atascosa, Austin, Bastrop, Bee, Brooks, Burleson, Caldwell, Colorado, Dewitt, Duval, Fayette, Fort Bend, Goliad, Gonzales, Grimes, Guadalupe, Hardin, Harris, Hidalgo, Jackson, Jasper, Jim Hogg, Jim Wells, Karnes, Lavaca, Lee, Liberty, Live Oak, McMullen, Montgomery, Newton, Orange, Polk, San Jacinto, Starr, Trinity, Tyler, Victoria, Walker, Waller, Washington, Webb, Wharton, Wilson, Zapata

(20) Virginia – The counties of Gloucester, Isle of Wight, James City, Lancaster, Mathews, Middlesex, Northumberland, Surry, Southampton, York; The cities of Chesapeake, Hampton, Newport News, Norfolk, Portsmouth, Suffolk, Virginia Beach, Williamsburg 6.5.3.2.3 Wind Zone III –130 mph (210 km/hr). The following areas shall be considered to be within Wind Zone III in accordance with Figure 6.5.3.2:(1) States and Territories. The following states and territories: (a) The coastal regions of Alaska (as determined by the 110-mph isotach on the SEI/ASCE 7- 02 map) (b) American Samoa(2) Local Governments. The following local governments are listed by state and county:

(a) Alabama – Baldwin, Mobile(b) Connecticut – Middlesex, New London(c) Florida – Bay, Brevard, Calhoun, Charlotte, Citrus, Collier,

DeSoto, Dixie, Duval, Escambia, Flagler, Franklin, Gulf, Hendry, Hernando, Hillsborough, Holmes, Indian River, Jackson, Lee, Levy, Liberty, Manatee, Nassau, Okaloosa, Okeechobee, Pasco, Pinellas, Santa Rosa, Sarasota, St. Johns, St. Lucie, Taylor, Volusia, Wakulla, Walton, Washington

(d) Georgia – Bryan, Camden, Chatham, Glynn, Liberty, McIntosh(e) Louisiana – Parishes of Assumption, Iberia, Lafayette, Orleans, St.

Charles, St. James, St. John the Baptist, St. Martin, St. Tammany(f) Maryland – Somerset, Worchester(g) Massachusetts – Barnstable, Bristol, Dukes, Nantucket, Plymouth(h) Mississippi – George, Greene, Hancock, Harrison, Pearl River, Perry,

Stone(i) New Jersey – Atlantic, Cape May, Ocean(j) New York – Nassau, Suffolk(k) North Carolina – Beaufort, Camden, Chowan, Columbus, Craven,

Currituck, Dare, Hyde, Jones, New Hanover, Onslow, Pamlico, Pasquotank, Pender, Perquimans, Tyrrell, Washington

(l) Rhode Island – Bristol, Kent, Newport, Washington(m) South Carolina – Beaufort, Charleston, Georgetown, Horry(n) Texas – Aransas, Brazoria, Calhoun, Chambers, Galveston, Jefferson,

Kennedy, Kleberg, Matagorda, Nueces, Refugio, San Patricio, Willacy(o) Virginia – Accomack, Northampton

VIII. Insert new section as follows: 6.5.3.2.4 Wind Zone IV – 150 mph (242 km/hr). The following areas shall be considered to be within Wind Zone IV in accordance with Figure 6.5.3.2: (1) Territories. The following territories: All of the U.S. Territories of Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, and the United States Virgin Islands. (2) Local Governments. The following local governments are listed by state and county:

(a) Florida – Broward, Martin, Miami-Dade, Monroe, Palm Beach(b) Louisiana – Parishes of Cameron, Jefferson, Lafourche, Plaquemines,

St. Bernard, St. Mary, Terrebonne, Vermillion(c) Mississippi – Jackson(d) North Carolina – Brunswick, Carteret(e) Texas – Cameron

IX. Revise text to read as follows: 6.5.4.2 The allowable eave or cornice deflection for uplift shall be measured at the design uplift of 9 psf (430 Pa) for Wind Zone I and at a design uplift pressure cited in 6.5.3.1.2 for Wind Zone II and Wind Zone III. The allowable deflection shall be (2 x Lc)/180, where Lc is the measured horizontal eave projection from the wall.

6.5.5.2 For Wind Zones II and Wind Zone, III and IV roof framing members shall be securely fastened at the vertical bearing points to resist design overturning, uplift, and sliding forces. When engineered connectors are not installed, roof framing members shall be secured at the vertical bearing points to wall framing members (studs), and wall framing members (studs) shall be secured to floor framing members with 0.016 in. (0.4 mm) base metal minimum steel strapping or engineered connectors, or by a combination of 0.016 in. (0.4 mm) base metal minimum steel strapping or engineered connectors and structural-rated wall sheathing that overlaps the roof and floor systems. Steel strapping or engineered connectors shall be installed at a maximum spacing of 24 in (610 mm) on center in Wind Zones III and IV.

6.6.1 Provisions for Support and Anchoring Systems. Each manufactured home shall have provisions for support and anchoring or foundation systems that, when properly designed and installed, will resist overturning and lateral movement (sliding) of the manufactured home, as imposed by the respective design loads. For Wind Zone I, the design wind loads to be used for calculating resistance to overturning and lateral movement shall be the simultaneous application of the wind loads indicated in 6.5.3.1.1, increase by a factor of 1.5. The 1.5 factor of safety for Wind Zone I shall also be applied simultaneously to both the vertical building projection, as horizontal wind load, and across the surface of the full roof structure, as uplift loading. For Wind Zone II and Wind Zone III, the The resistance shall be determined by the simultaneous application of the horizontal drag and uplift wind loads, in accordance with 6.5.3.1.1. The basic allowable stresses of material required to resist overturning and lateral movement shall not be increased in the design and proportion in of these members. No additional shape or location factors shall be needed to be applied in the design of the tie-down system. No more than 60 percent of the dead load of the structure shall be permitted to be used to resist these wind loading effects in all wind zones.

6.6.4 Requirements for Ties. Manufactured homes in Wind Zone I shall require only diagonal ties. These ties shall be placed along the main frame and below the outer side walls. All manufactured homes designed to be located in Wind Zones II, and Wind Zone III, and IV shall both vertical and diagonal ties below the outer side walls.

7.2.5.2 Apply the uplift load to the top chord of the truss. For Wind Zone I, the net uplift load for the clear span of the truss is 9 psf (431 Pa) and 22.5 psf (1.1 kPa) for the eave or cornice projections of the truss. For Wind Zones II and III, The net uplift load for the clear span and eave cornice projections shall be determined by subtracting the minimum dead load from the uplift load provided in Table 6.5.3.1.2. Measure and record deflection 5 minutes after the net uplift load has been applied. Design load deflection shall be less than L/180 for simply supported clear span and less than Lo/90 for eave or cornice projections.

7.3.6* Protection of Primary Window and Sliding Glass Door Openings in High Wind Areas. For homes designed to be located in Wind Zones II, and Wind Zone III, and IV, manufacturers shall design exterior walls surrounding the primary window and sliding glass door openings to allow for the installation of shutters or other protective covers, such as plywood, to cover these openings. The manufacturer…” (no further changes to the section)

7.4.6* Protection of Egress Window Openings in High Wind Areas. For homes designed to be located in Wind Zones II, and Wind Zone III, and IV, manufacturers shall design exterior walls surrounding egress window openings to allow for the installation of shutters or other protective covers, such as plywood, to cover these openings. The manufacturer…” (no further changes to the section)

7.5.6* Protection of Exterior Doors in High Wind Areas. For homes designed to be located in Wind Zones II, and Wind Zone III, and IV, manufacturers shall design exterior walls surrounding the exterior door openings to allow for the installation of shutters or other protective covers, such as plywood, to cover these openings. The manufacturer…” (no further changes to the section)

501-15

Report on Proposals — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 501 14.1.2.10 ASCE Publications. American Society of Civil Engineers, 1801 Alexander Bell Drive, Reston, VA 20191. ASCE 7, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, 1988 2002 ASCE 8, Design of Cold-Formed Stainless Steel Structural Members, 1990.Committee Statement: The Technical Committee made minor editorial modifications, which improved clarity of the proposal. In addition, several corrections were made to the county list. Number Eligible to Vote: 16Ballot Results: Affirmative: 11 Negative: 2 Abstain: 1 Vote Not Returned: 2 BRADFIELD, WELDYExplanation of Negative: BRYANT: See my Explanation of Negative Vote on Proposal 501-6 (Log #1). FARISH: Wind Construction. •Too expensive - The economic analysis, while crude, does show a $ 59,000,000 annual cost. This is too high for a depressed industry. • No Benefit Analysis - There is no justification offered for this expense. The wind zones and loads would more closely approximate those of the latest ASCE 7 document, but there needs to be more examination of tangible benefits to the consumer. It is true that the existing 501 winds are based on a version of ASCE 7 that is now several revisions behind, but there should be better justification. One study of Hurricane Georges by Porter showed that homes built and installed to HUDʼs existing WZ3 wind loads performed quite well. • Loss of Market - Studies in the mid to late 90ʼs showed that when the retail price of an individual home increases jumps several hundred dollars many consumers are excluded from their only loss-cost home owner choice, manufactured housing. Todayʼs financial situation makes the impact on home ownership even more severe. This proposal shows that an existing Wind Zone I home will increase in cost $290. And for the 18,000 homes a year that will be redesignated from Wind Zone to Wind Zone II the increase is projected to be $900 per home. This will exclude many home buyers from the market altogether. Comment on Affirmative: JONES: Acceptance of this proposal by the TC is essential to the development of a meaningful standard. This proposal, which represents the work of the NFPA 225/501 wind subcommittee, corrects inequities in design between manufactured housing and other types of housing governed by residential building codes. Presently, manufactured homes are designed and constructed to resist wind loads using HUDʼs criteria, which are based on an obsolete wind map, and out-of-date design procedures. The HUD wind map and wind design procedures are based in part on ASCE 7-88, which has been updated on four occasions since the manufactured home wind design procedures were established (the ASCE wind map and design procedures were updated in 1993, 1995, 1998, and 2002). This proposal adopts the latest wind speed map for the United States, which has been redrawn by the ASCE-7 committee to more accurately predict design winds, particularly near the coast. A comparison of the HUD wind criteria with the ASCE 7-02 criteria reveals that many HUD Wind Zone I homes placed in the southeastern United States do not receive the same level of protection offered to other homes built to newer wind standards. This proposal addresses that inequity by bringing the wind provisions used to design manufactured homes up to todayʼs state of practice.Explanatin of Abstention: MENDLEN: See my abstention on 501-6.

________________________________________________________________501-11 Log #30 MAN-STR Final Action: Accept in Principle( 6.2.5, 6.3 and 14.1.1 )________________________________________________________________NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee (MAN-AAC) letter ballot did not support the Technical Committee action on this proposal. This proposal will be reconsidered as a comment. See the ballot statement at the front of this report.TCC Action The TCC directs that MAN-STR clarify the intent of paragraph 6.2.5.5, which is currently understood to be that the seismic requirements do not apply to the design of the overall structure but rather to the interface between the foundation and the anchoring system. Submitter: David K. Low, Greenhorne & OʼMara, Inc.Recommendation: Add new definition as follows: 6.2.5.4 Earthquake Load. The lateral and vertical forces and displacements resulting from earthquake ground motions. 6.2.5.5 Seismic Forces. The assumed forces prescribed herein, related to the response of the structure to earthquake motions, to be used in the design of the structure and is components. [ASCE 7:9.2.1 and NFPA 5000: 3.3.476] The definitions in 6.2.5 may be renumbered to preserve alphabetical order. Add new text as follows: 6.3.4 Foundation Anchorage for Earthquake Loads. Where installation of the manufactured home in accordance with NFPA 225 requires design for earthquake loads, the manufacturer shall provide drawings and printed instructions for at least one system of anchoring the manufactured home to its foundation in a way that is capable of transferring the required foundation design seismic forces between the manufactured home and is foundation.

Add a new referenced publication as follows: 14.1.1 NFPA Publications. (No change to address) NFPA 225, Model Manufactured Home Installation Standard, 200x edition.Substantiation: Purpose: To provide correlation between NFPA 225 and NFPA 501. Reason: A proposal has been submitted for NFPA 225 to require that foundations for manufactured homes must be designed for earthquake loads in the higher seismic design categories. Some manufacturers rely on unique or proprietary foundation connection details for the installation of their manufactured homes. For a foundation design to comply with NFPA 225, the foundation designer needs information regarding the connection details and installation requirements. The most appropriate source for this information is the manufacturer.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Insert new definitions as follows: 6.2.5.4 Earthquake Load. The lateral and vertical forces and displacements resulting from earthquake ground motions. 6.2.5.5 Seismic Forces. The assumed forces prescribed herein, related to the response of the structure to earthquake motions, to be used in the design of the structure and its components. [ASCE 7:9.2.1 and NFPA 5000: 3.3.476] Add new text as follows: 6.3.4 Foundation Anchorage for Earthquake Loads. Where installation of the manufactured home in accordance with NFPA 225 requires design for earthquake loads, the manufacturer shall provide drawings and printed instructions for at least one system of anchoring the manufactured home to its foundation in a way that is capable of transferring the required foundation design seismic forces between the manufactured home and its foundation. Add a new referenced publication as follows: 14.1.1 NFPA Publications. (No change to address) NFPA 225, Model Manufactured Home Installation Standard, 200x edition.Committee Statement: The Technical Committee made one minor editorial correction at the end of Section 6.3.4.Number Eligible to Vote: 16Ballot Results: Affirmative: 11 Negative: 2 Abstain: 1 Vote Not Returned: 2 BRADFIELD, WELDYExplanation of Negative: BRYANT: 1. No economic analysis presented. This proposal would add requirements for seismic design considerations that extend beyond the design of the home itself. This represents additional cost for development of a foundation support system to resist seismic forces. 2. No benefit analysis presented. Studies in California have shown that repairs to damaged manufactured homes after an earthquake are relatively minor. 3. No “zone” designations to aid in implementation. Would need Seismic I, Seismic II, etc. rather than the A, B, C, D1, D2, E shown on map. 4. No county-by-county maps developed for the suggested “zones”. 5. Too many references to ASCE and NFPA. There should be default loads by region that an engineer could use to for designs, similar to the wind section. 6. Should not be based on 2nd worst soils in the country. 7. An analysis of wind loads should be done to show which areas of the country have wind loads higher than seismic, and therefore, seismic can be ignored. FARISH: • No economic analysis presented. • No benefit analysis developed. Studies in California have shown that repairs to damaged manufactured homes after an earthquake are relatively minor. • No “zone” designations to aid in implementation. Needs Seismic 1, Seismic II, etc not the A, B, C, D1, D2 e as shown on map. • No county-by-county maps developed for the suggested “zones”. • Too much dependence on references to ASCE and NFPA. There should be a set of leads by region in a table in 501 that an engineer can use to properly design a home, similar to the wind section. • An analysis of present (or proposed) wind loads should be done to show which areas of the country have wind loads higher than seismic, and therefore, seismic can be ignored.Explanatin of Abstention: MENDLEN: See my abstention on 501-6.________________________________________________________________501-12 Log #30a MAN-ADM Final Action: Accept in Principle( 6.2.5, 6.3 and 14.1.1 )________________________________________________________________Note: Since the ballot on this Proposal did not confirm the Committee Action, the Committee is soliciting public comment for review when the proposal is reconsidered by the Committee as a Public Comment.TCC Action The TCC directs that the action on this proposal be Accept-in-Principal as originally proposed by those members of MAN-ADM present at their ROP meeting, and that the final action on the subject matter raised by this proposal be addressed by MAN-STR. The subject matter of this proposal is not within the scope of MAN-ADM.Submitter: David K. Low, Greenhorne & OʼMara, Inc.Recommendation: Add new definition as follows: 6.2.5.4 Earthquake Load. The lateral and vertical forces and displacements resulting from earthquake ground motions.

501-16

Report on Proposals — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 501 6.2.5.5 Seismic Forces. The assumed forces prescribed herein, related to the response of the structure to earthquake motions, to be used in the design of the structure and is components. [ASCE 7:9.2.1 and NFPA 5000: 3.3.476] The definitions in 6.2.5 may be renumbered to preserve alphabetical order. Add new text as follows: 6.3.4 Foundation Anchorage for Earthquake Loads. Where installation of the manufactured home in accordance with NFPA 225 requires design for earthquake loads, the manufacturer shall provide drawings and printed instructions for at least one system of anchoring the manufactured home to its foundation in a way that is capable of transferring the required foundation design seismic forces between the manufactured home and is foundation. Add a new referenced publication as follows: 14.1.1 NFPA Publications. (No change to address) NFPA 225, Model Manufactured Home Installation Standard, 200x edition.Substantiation: Purpose: To provide correlation between NFPA 225 and NFPA 501. Reason: A proposal has been submitted for NFPA 225 to require that foundations for manufactured homes must be designed for earthquake loads in the higher seismic design categories. Some manufacturers rely on unique or proprietary foundation connection details for the installation of their manufactured homes. For a foundation design to comply with NFPA 225, the foundation designer needs information regarding the connection details and installation requirements. The most appropriate source for this information is the manufacturer.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Defer all action on this proposal to the Technical Committee on Structural for Manufactured Housing.Committee Statement: While a portion of this proposal recommends changes to Chapter 14 which is within the scope of this Technical Committee, the subject matter of the proposal pertains to structural design of manufactured homes which is outside the scope of this Technical Committee. The proposal has been deferred to the appropriate Technical Committee.Number Eligible to Vote: 10Ballot Results: Affirmative: 6 Negative: 4 Explanation of Negative: GHORBANI: Manufactured homes are some of the safest structures in earthquake and seismic conditions. I am not convinced that cost (no details of which were presented) vs. benefits, which is one of the key factors for changes to manufactured home standards, would justify these changes. GILCHRIST: Negative response for following reasons, even though it is recognized that this has been deferred to the technical committee on structural. 1. Feel this relates to specific areas of the country and is very locational related. Therefore should be dependent upon alternatives provided by the manufacturer and approved by the local jurisdictional agency approving the installation. 2. Each state may also have jurisdictional requirements for seismic design that have to be complied with. 3. A majority of areas in the nation are not seismic related conditions. GORMAN: Requires considerations beyond the actual design of the home. Increases costs unnecessarily. Already covered by DAPIA requirements. ROBERTS: While this proposal has been deferred to the TC-STR for its consideration, I am voting negative on this item. This change is dependent on NFPA 225-2 (Log #71). Reasons for this negative are listed below. 1. The proponent has the proposal backwards. If the manufactured home is designed to withstand seismic loads, then the foundation needs to be able to transfer those loads to the ground. 2. If seismic loads are to be considered, than language is needed in the construction standard to determine which loads govern. Most often wind loads would govern over seismic. 3. As part of any proposal to consider seismic loads in the construction of the home, the proponent needs to discuss the issue of cost and how that effects the affordability of the home. 4. the proponent did not provide any supporting documentation that current problems in the construction of the home would be resolved through adoption of this proposal.

________________________________________________________________501-13 Log #CP401 MAN-STR Final Action: Accept( 6.2.5.2 )________________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Committee on Structural for Manufactured HousingRecommendation: Correlate the definition and use of the term ʻLive Load ̓ between NFPA 501 and ASCE 7-02.Substantiation: The Technical Committee recognizes the need to correlate the current definition of Live Load, as used in NFPA 501 Section 6.5.2, with the term as it is defined and used in ASCE 7-02. At this time, the Technical Committee has established a Live Load Task Group to look at the definition and use of live load throughout NFPA 501 and report back with suggested comments during the ROC phase of this cycle.

Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 16Ballot Results: Affirmative: 13 Abstain: 1 Vote Not Returned: 2 BRADFIELD, WELDYExplanatin of Abstention: MENDLEN: See my abstention on 501-6._______________________________________________________________501-14 Log #8 MAN-STR Final Action: Accept in Principle( 6.2.8.1 (New) )________________________________________________________________Submitter: Fulton Desler, APA -The Engineered Wood AssociationRecommendation: Add a new section to read: 6.2.8.1 Wood Structural Panel. A panel manufactured from veneers, or wood strands or wafers, or a combination of veneer and wood strands or wafers, bonded together with waterproof synthetic resins or other suitable bonding systems. Examples of wood structural panels are: Composite Panels. A structural panel that is made of layers of veneer and wood-based material: Oriented Strand Board (OSB). A wood structural panel that is a mat-formed product composed of thin rectangular wood strands or wafers arranged in oriented layers; or Plywood. A wood structural panel comprised of piles of wood veneer arranged in cross-aligned layers.Substantiation: These panels are used in manufactured housing and covered by the referenced standards PS 1 or PS 2 and mentioned in other places within the standard yet the various types of wood structural panels are undefined. This can be confusing when interpretations of NFPA 501 are required.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Add a new section to read: 6.2.8.1 Wood Structural Panel. A panel manufactured from veneers; or wood strands or wafers; or a combination of veneer and wood strands or wafers bonded together with waterproof synthetic resins or other suitable bonding systems, including composite panels, oriented strand board, and plywood. 6.2.8.1.1 Composite Wood Structural Panel. A structural panel that is made of layers of veneer and wood-based material. 6.2.8.1.2 Oriented Strand Board (OSB) Wood Structural Panel. A mat-formed wood structural panel product composed of thin, rectangular wood strands or wafers arranged in oriented layers and bonded with waterproof adhesive. 6.2.8.1.3 Plywood Wood Structural Panel. A wood structural panel comprised of plies of wood veneer arranged in cross-aligned layers.Committee Statement: The Technical Committee agreed to add the new definitions for wood structural panels; however, they chose to use the definitions found in NFPA 5000, Section 3.3.389. This was done to ensure consistency between the two documents.Number Eligible to Vote: 16Ballot Results: Affirmative: 13 Abstain: 1 Vote Not Returned: 2 BRADFIELD, WELDYExplanatin of Abstention: MENDLEN: See my abstention on 501-6.

________________________________________________________________501-15 Log #CP402 MAN-STR Final Action: Accept( 6.4 )________________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Committee on Structural for Manufactured HousingRecommendation: Delete the following language in Section 6.4: 6.4 Materials. See Table 6.4 for some generally used materials and standard methods of construction.Substantiation: This eliminates unenforceable language.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 16Ballot Results: Affirmative: 13 Abstain: 1 Vote Not Returned: 2 BRADFIELD, WELDYExplanatin of Abstention: MENDLEN: See my abstention on 501-6.

501-17

Report on Proposals — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 501 ________________________________________________________________501-16 Log #11 MAN-STR Final Action: Accept( Table 6.4 )________________________________________________________________

TCC Action The TCC directs that MAN-STR identify which referenced documents are standards and which are guides. The TCC further directs that MAN-STR identify which reference documents are mandatory for compliance for NFPA 501 and which are advisory in nature. Submitter: Fulton Desler, APA -The Engineered Wood AssociationRecommendation: Update the following to Table 6.4:

Substantiation: Publication form numbers and dates are updated to current editions and formats. Form N375B is added to provide a commonly used reference for the design capacities of structural-use panels. USDOC PS 2-92 is moved to the wood section from the “Unclassified” section of the table, where it belongs. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 16Ballot Results: Affirmative: 13 Abstain: 1 Vote Not Returned: 2 BRADFIELD, WELDYExplanatin of Abstention: MENDLEN: See my abstention on 501-6.

________________________________________________________________501-17 Log #43 MAN-STR Final Action: Accept( Table 6.4 )________________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Correlating Committee Manufactured HousingRecommendation: This proposal is a result of a TCC note as indicated in the November 2002 ROC (501-21 Log #CC100). The Manufactured Housing Technical Correlating committee (MAN-ACC) directs that the NWWDA publications and information in Table 6.4 and paragraph 14.1.2.27 be updated as follows: Changes needed as, NWWDA Publications changed to WDMA Publications: 1. NWWDA Publications. National Wood Window and Door Association WDMA Publications. Window and Door Manufacturers Association. 1400 East Touhy Avenue, Suite G-54 470, Des Plaines, IL 60018. 2. NWWDA I.S.1, Wood Flush Doors. 3. NWWDA I.S.la, ANSI/WDMA I.S. 1-A-97, Architectural and Wood Flush Doors, 1993 1997. 4. NWWDA I.S.2, Wood Windows, 1993.ANSI/AAMA/NWWDA 101/I.S.2-97. Voluntary Specifications for Aluminum, Vinyl) PVC) and Wood Windows and Glass Doors ʻ97. 5. NWWDA I.S.3, Wood Sliding Patio Doors, 1995. 6. NWWDA I.S.4, WDMA I.S.4-00, Water-Repellant Preservative Non-Pressure treatment for Millwork, 1994 2000.Substantiation: 1. Reason: Organization name change and new suite location. 2. Reason: Was ʻ87 standard that has been withdrawn. Is included in I.S.1-A-97. 3. Reason: Updated standard.

4. Reason: I.S.2 was incorporated into new industry standard, 101/I.S.2-97. 5. Reason: Discontinued standard - contents included in 101/I.S.2-97 (above). 6. Reason: Updated standard.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 16Ballot Results: Affirmative: 13 Abstain: 1 Vote Not Returned: 2 BRADFIELD, WELDYExplanatin of Abstention: MENDLEN: See my abstention on 501-6.

________________________________________________________________501-18 Log #CP400 MAN-STR Final Action: Accept( Table 6.4 )________________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Committee on Structural for Manufactured HousingRecommendation: Update the Table 6.4 reference of AF&PA T101-97 as follows: Allowable Stress Design (ASD) Manual for Engineered Wood Construction, 2001 Edition, including: ANSI/AF&PA National Design Specification® (NDS®) for Wood Construction, 2001 Edition NDS® Supplement: Design Values for Wood Construction, 2001 Edition ASD Manual for Engineered Wood Construction, 2001 Edition ASD/LRFD Special Design Provisions for Wind and Seismic, 2001 Edition ASD Supplement: Structural Lumber, 2001 Edition ASD Supplement: Structural Glued Laminated Timber, 2001 Edition ASD Supplement: Wood Structural Panels, 2001 Edition ASD Supplement: Timber Poles and Piles, 2001 Edition ASD Supplement: Wood Structural Panel Shear Wall and Diaphragm, 2001 Edition ASD Guideline: Metal Plate Connected Wood Trusses, 2001 Edition ASD Guideline: Pre-Engineered Metal Connectors, 2001 Edition ASD Guideline: Structural Composite Lumber, 2001 Edition ASD Guideline: Wood I-Joists, 2001 EditionSubstantiation: This proposal updates the reference to AF&PA̓ s Allowable Stress Design Manual in NFPA 501.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 16Ballot Results: Affirmative: 13 Abstain: 1 Vote Not Returned: 2 BRADFIELD, WELDYExplanatin of Abstention: MENDLEN: See my abstention on 501-6.

________________________________________________________________501-19 Log #9 MAN-STR Final Action: Accept in Part( 6.5.7.2 )________________________________________________________________Submitter: Fulton Desler, APA -The Engineered Wood AssociationRecommendation: Revise text to read: Wood, wood fiber, or plywood wood-structural-panel floors or subfloors in kitchens, bathrooms (including toilet compartments), laundry rooms, water heater compartment, and any other areas subject to excessive moisture shall be moisture resistant or shall be made moisture resistant by sealing or by an overlay of nonabsorbent material applied with water-resistant adhesive. Wood structural panels do not require sealer.Substantiation: Wood structural panels include plywood and OSB. Limiting the structural portion of the floor to plywood is unwarranted. Wood structural panels are made with waterproof adhesives and are recognized as moisture resistant.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Part Accept: Deletion of term ʻplywood ̓in favor of term ʻwood-structural panel.ʼ Reject: Addition of sentence: “Wood structural panels do not require sealer.”Committee Statement: The Technical Committee chose to reject the addition of the last sentence, because the proponent did not provide sufficient technical justification. Specifically, are all types of wood structural panels made with waterproof adhesives and recognized as moisture resistant?Number Eligible to Vote: 16Ballot Results: Affirmative: 13 Abstain: 1 Vote Not Returned: 2 BRADFIELD, WELDYExplanatin of Abstention: MENDLEN: See my abstention on 501-6.

________________________________________________________________501-20 Log #4 MAN-PLU Final Action: Accept( Table 7.4.1 [Tabl3e 9.4.1] )________________________________________________________________Submitter: Jack Beuschel, Studor, Inc.Recommendation: Add new text to table to read: Performance requirements for gravity operated mechanical vents (air admittance valves) ASSE 1051-2002.

Material Reference Standard

Wood and Wood ProductsVoluntary Product Standard PS 1-95, Construction and Industrial Plywood

USDOC PS- 1-95

Voluntary Product Standard PS 2-92, Performance Standard for Wood-Based Structural-Use Panels, Performance Standard for Wood-Based Structural Use Panels

USDOC PS-2-92

Engineered Wood Construction Guide APA Design/Construction Guide, Residential and Commercial

APA- E-30P30S-1996 2003

Design and Fabrication of All-Plywood Beams, Supp. 5

APA- H-815E-1995

Plywood Design Specification APA- Y-510T-1999Design and Fabrication of Glued Plywood-Lumber Beams, Supp. 2

APA- S-812R-1998

Design and Fabrication of Plywood Sandwich Panels, Supp. 4

APA- U-814H-1993

PRP-108, Performance Standards and Policies for Structural Use Panels

APA- PRP-E-108Q-94 E445S-2002

Design and Fabrication of Plywood Stressed-Skin Panels, Supp. 3

APA- U-U-813L-1996

Design Capacities of APA Performance Rated Structural-Use Panels

APA N375B-2001

UnclassifiedVoluntary Product Standard PS 2-92, Performance Standard for Wood-Based Structural-Use Panels,

USDOC PS-2-92

501-18

Report on Proposals — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 501 Substantiation: Section 7.11.4.2 references gravity-operated mechanical vents (air admittance valves). Therefore the applicable ASSE performance standard 1051 must be referenced in Table 7.4.1 - Minimum Standards for Plumbing Fixtures.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 8Ballot Results: Affirmative: 5 Vote Not Returned: 3 CARROLL, MASTERS, PASCHAL

________________________________________________________________501-21 Log #3 MAN-PLU Final Action: Reject( 7.11.4.2 [9.11.4.2] )________________________________________________________________Submitter: Jack Beuschel, Studor, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read: Gravity-operated mechanical (air admittance valves) vents shall conform to ASSE 1051 and comply with the following:Substantiation: The nationally recognized consensus performance standard for gravity-type mechanical vents (air admittance valves) is ASSE 1051, 2002 edition. To ensure that only gravity-type mechanical vents that conform to this standard are permitted to be used, the standard must be referenced.Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The committee notes that reference to ASSE 1051 has been added to Table 9.4.1 in the acceptance of proposal 501-20 (Log #4). That reference is sufficient. Section 9.4.1 already requires conformance with the ASSE standard.Number Eligible to Vote: 8Ballot Results: Affirmative: 5 Vote Not Returned: 3 CARROLL, MASTERS, PASCHAL

________________________________________________________________501-22 Log #CP100 MAN-MEC Final Action: Reject( 8.4.2.1 )________________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Committee on Mechanical for Manufactured HousingRecommendation: 1. Revise section 8.4.2.1 to read as follows: “8.4.2.1 Vapor Retarders. Exterior walls shall be provided with a system or method to manage moisture and vapor accumulation with one of the following either 8.4.2.1.1, 8.4.2.1.2 or 8.4.2.1.3. For the purposes of this requirement, the mating wall of each single family attached dwelling unit shall be considered to be an exterior wall.” 2. Delete current section 8.4.2.1.2 in its entirety and renumber existing sections 8.4.2.1.3, 8.4.2.1.3.1, 8.4.2.1.4 and 8.4.2.1.5 accordingly. 3. In current section 8.4.2.1.5 (which is to be renumbered as section 8.4.2.1.4), revise the following references a. 8.4.2.1.6 to read 8.4.2.1.4.1 b. 8.4.2.1.5 to read 8.4.2.1.4 c. 8.4.2.1 to 8.4.2.1.1 4. Renumber current section 8.4.2.1.6 to 8.4.2.1.4.1, and revise the reference to 8.4.2.1.5 to read 8.4.2.1.4. Substantiation: These are editorial changes that reflect the proper application of the requirements for vapor retarders. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 11Ballot Results: Affirmative: 6 Negative: 2 Abstain: 1 Vote Not Returned: 2 BOYCE, STILLWAGGONExplanation of Negative: HEIMAN: The Committee does not meet the requirements of the NFPA “Regulations Governing Committee Projects.” Specifically Section 3-2.5, last sentence reading, “No more than 1/3 of the voting members shall represent any one interest.” Of the 8 voting members of the Committee, 5 are “M”, manufacturing interest. The HUD Rep. does not vote and the Chair has not voted. SMITH: Disagree with Committee. Rather than deleting Section 8.4.2.1.2, I would rather see a definitive statement that the mating wall is not considered an exterior wall. Otherwise, there remains the question of whether a mating wall of a single-family dwelling is an exterior or interior wall.Comment on Affirmative: ZIEMAN: Editorial comment. To be certain that all the section renumbering take place properly an item 5 should be added to read as follows. 5. Both current Table and Figure 8.4.2.1.5 are renumbered to 8.4.2.1.4.Explanatin of Abstention: STEVENS: I am abstaining for the reason there could be a potential conflict with the Improvement Act of 2000 if HUD staff vote.

________________________________________________________________501-23 Log #38 MAN-MEC Final Action: Reject( 8.5 )________________________________________________________________NoteNote: Since the ballot on this Proposal did not confirm the Committee Action, the Committee is soliciting public comment for review when the proposal is reconsidered by the Committee as a Public Comment.Submitter: Michael Lubliner, Washington State University Energy Program / Rep. Northwest Energy Efficiency AllianceRecommendation: Move Appendix A.8.5.1.1 to section 8.5.1.1 and change wording as follows: 8.5.1.1 The home manufacturer DAPIA approved plan and QA manual should shall state address each of the following considerations for each type of penetration encountered in the home design and construction. (1) Location(s) in the envelope and the expected size of the penetration to be sealed (2) Type of material to seal the penetration (3) material application technique and steps required to ensure that the seal is not damaged (4) Whether the material will be applied during construction or setup (5) Quality control inspections to ensure proper workmanshipSubstantiation: In NFPA-501-2002 ROP page 600 the committee rejected this by stating that “The recommended language is in unenforceable code language”. I contend that the changes proposed make are clear and more enforceable than the “non-specific” current practice. The committee rejection does not dispute the following substantiation points of the proposal: · The Manufactured Housing Research Alliance (MHRA) publication “Moisture Problems in Manufactured Homes - Understanding their Causes and Finding Solutions - Manufacturers Checklist states “Specify production details that minimize moisture damage.” · Attention to detail is the most important measure that can be taken during a home construction to avoid moisture problems. No matter how well engineered a design is for moisture control, it can be defeated by incorrect installation of materials. · This proposal would require the manufacturer to address the specifics of air leakage control, so that there is no question as to what is acceptable practice to plant staff, IPIA, DAPIA and HUD. · Testing of air leakage on hundreds of manufactured homes in the Pacific Northwest suggests that in many cases manufacturers are unaware of the need for better focus on attention to details as recommended by MHRA and this proposal. · In addition to improving moisture control, reducing infiltration will save energy and improve occupant comfort, particularly during severe weather. · Drafts and cold air on windy days are common homeowner complaints, directed at plant service technicians, SAA representatives and others. These types of complaints can be avoided with improved QA specifications and a few tubes of sealant. · Since manufactured homes are required to have occupant controlled mechanical ventilation systems there is little concern that the home will be build “too tight”. Most energy efficient manufacturers “build tight and ventilate right”, but not all. This proposal would help to level the industry playing field and help to promote good practice. It concerns me that many on the committee believe that “best practice” is not suitable for todayʼs manufactured housing minimum energy standards. The Manufactured Housing Research Alliance (MHRA) publication “Moisture Problems in Manufactured Homes - Understanding heir Causes and Finding Solutions - Manufacturers checklist states; “Specify production details that minimize moisture damage. Attention to detail is the most important measure that can be taken during a home construction to avoid moisture problems. No matter how well engineered a design is for moisture control, it can be defeated by incorrect installation of materials. This proposal would require the manufacturer to address the specifics of air leakage control, so that there is no question as to what is acceptable practice to plant staff, IPIA, DAPIA and HUD. Testing of air leakage on hundreds of manufactured homes in the Pacific Northwest and the Southeast suggests that in many cases manufacturers are unaware of the need for better focus on attention to details as recommended by NMRA MHRA, and this proposal. In addition to improving moisture control, reducing infiltration will save energy, and improve occupant comfort especially during severe weather. Drafts and cold-air on windy days are common complaints of homebuyers received by plant service technicians, SAA representatives and other. These types of complaints can be avoided with improved QA specifics and a few tubes of sealant. since manufactured homes are required to have occupant controlled mechanical ventilation systems there is little concern that the home will be built “too tight”. Most energy efficient manufacturers “build tight and ventilate right”, but not all. this proposal would help to level the industry playing field and help to promote good practice.Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The committee does not believe that the information proposed by the submitter is appropriate for inclusiion in NFPA 501. The language as proposed is unenforceable. Additionally, the committee believes that the requirment proposed by the submitter would be more appropriately located in 24 CFR 3282.203.C. Number Eligible to Vote: 11Ballot Results: Affirmative: 5 Negative: 3 Abstain: 1

501-19

Report on Proposals — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 501 Vote Not Returned: 2 BOYCE, STILLWAGGONExplanation of Negative: HEIMAN: See my Explanation of Negative on 501-22 (Log #CP100). LUBLINER: By rejecting this proposal the committee is again ignoring The Manufactured Housing Research Alliance (MHRA) publication “Moisture Problems in Manufactured Homes- understanding Causes and Finding Solutions which states “Specify production details that minimize moisture damageʼ”. The proposal seeks to specify moisture details because often moisture damage and molds result when “devils are in the details”. The committee rejection is based on the notion that the proposal is unenforceable. The committee ignores the fact that this level of detail is currently enforced on thousands of Energy Star homes in the Pacific Northwest. The attached in-plant Energy Star Quality Assurance checklist is an example of how one might implement this proposal. Since the committee believes that the requirement proposed by the submitter would be more appropriately located in 24 CFR 3282. 203, I request the committee formally forwarding this proposal to HUDʼs consensus committee as part of the rejection. I will change accept the rejection of this proposal, if and when it is accepted in HUD in 24 CFR 3282.203. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA headquarters. SMITH: Agree with Committee. The proposed change incorrectly references Appendix A. Rather, it should be Annex A. Material in an Annex is explanatory and, as such, should not include mandatory language such as “shall”.Explanatin of Abstention: STEVENS: See my reason of abstention on 501-22.

________________________________________________________________501-24 Log #37 MAN-MEC Final Action: Reject( 8.6.1.1 )________________________________________________________________Submitter: Michael Lubliner, Washington State University Energy Program / Rep. Northwest Energy Efficiency AllianceRecommendation: Revise Table 8.6.1.1 as follows:

Substantiation: The proposal addresses all reasons for rejections made in NFPA 2002 ROP, where that proposal only focused on electric heat homes in Uo thermal zone 3. “The proposed recommendation requires a more comprehensive study in order to evaluate the entire scope of Zone 3 and document for consistency zone 1 and 2 requirements.” The new proposal is based on a national scope research study funded by the USDOE consistent with the methodology by HUD/Pacific Northwest National Laboratory documenteda 1992 study. The 1992 study resulted in the existing HUD-Uo tables and saved HUD-code homebuyers billions of dollars in energy savings. A decade later, this new proposal is expected to save new manufactured homeowners billions of dollars in avoided energy use, protect our national security by reducing reliance on imported oil, improve durability, improve resale value, improve financing and insurance options. The proposal uses conservative economic assumptions and reasonable incremental costs. Although not considered in the analysis, the proposal has additional benefits for the US energy security and the environmental externalities. The proposal is based in part on DOEʼs analysis performed by DOEʼs Pacific Northwest national Laboratory, using the same methods and staff that performed the analysis to set the existing HUD requirements. New manufactured homes are often built to thermal efficiency lower than site built homes. This is because HUD FMHCSS Manufactured Housing “Maximum Coefficient of Heat Transmission” are less stringent and preempts state energy codes. For over 12 years a regional partnership called Super Good Cents (SGC) involving utilities and all 20 manufacturing plants built and sold over 100,000 energy efficient manufactured homes, demonstrating that energy-efficient homes can be profitably build by the manufactured home industry. SGC are cost effective to new homebuyers without utility incentives. As a result of the construction of these homes, the current NADA Manufactured Housing Appraisal Guide and blue Book both show that the original (SGC) investment is recovered at if the home is resold. Pacific Northwest utilities partners have market transformation programs designed to reduce the number of less cost-effective manufactured homes. Over 60 percent of the homes in the Pacific Northwest are built to Uo standards of 0.054 similar to site built state energy codes efficiency levels. This proposal for electric furnaces in the colder climate zone 3 is justified by recent western states electric crisis and power plant greenhouse gas emissions associated with electric space heating. This proposal is consistent with the Housing and Community Development Act of 1987 (HCDA) section 569. Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards states that cost effective conservation standards should be established. It reads as follows:

“The energy conservation standards established under this subsection shall be cost-effective energy conservation performance standards designed to ensure the lowest total construction and operating costs.” Summary: The proposal saves new manufactured homebuyers, millions of dollars each year in reduced electric bill each year over the homes useful 30 year life, and reduces environmental problems associated with the producing electricity to space heat homes in the colder US climate zones.Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: See Committee Action and Statement on Proposal 501-25 (Log #33). Number Eligible to Vote: 11Ballot Results: Affirmative: 6 Negative: 2 Abstain: 1 Vote Not Returned: 2 BOYCE, STILLWAGGONExplanation of Negative: HEIMAN: See my Explanation of Negative on 501-22 (Log #CP100). LUBLINER: The proposal complements Log 33 with the exception that this proposal has a specific Uo for electrically heated homes in Zone 3. Log 33 is based on a more comprehensive study as suggested in NFPA 2002 ROP. Iʼm confident that this study will show the proposed Uo to be cost effective when the 2003 breaks out an electric resistance Uo in Zone 3 (without averaging it with the higher gas Uo). This will occur with input from the new task group. The rejection focuses only on the home buyer and ignores resale values, environmental concerns and nation energy security issues.Explanatin of Abstention: STEVENS: See my reason of abstention on 501-22.

________________________________________________________________501-25 Log #33 MAN-MEC Final Action: Reject( Table 8.6.1.1and Figure 8.6 )________________________________________________________________Submitter: Christopher Early, US Department of EnergyRecommendation: Revise Table 8.6.1.1 as follows:

Substantiation: This proposal would update the minimum overall coefficient of heat transmission (Uo). The existing Uo values in the 2003 Standard on Manufactured Housing are based on a study completed in 1992 by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory for HUD. Since that time there have been many changes in the manufactured housing industry and related industries. For example, the cost of energy-efficient windows has dropped dramatically, mortgage rates have fallen and doublewide homes have become the most prevalent form of manufactured homes. A new analysis done for the U.S. Department of Energy using recent information shows that least-cost manufactured homes would include a higher level of energy-efficiency. These homes would be more affordable, with a first year positive cash flow to owner and would continue to save energy and energy costs for subsequent owners. In addition to benefiting the home owners, this energy efficiency is also good for the country. More than 100,000 homes, under such programs as Super Good Cents in the Pacific Northwest and Energy Star nationally, have demonstrated that the manufactured housing industry can profitably sell more energy efficient homes.

Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters.Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The committee believes that further study is needed in order to more appropriately consider the submitterʼs proposal. The committee has identified the following areas that they believe require further analysis by the submitter. 1. 30 year versus 50 year life of the manufactured home 2. Sensitivity analysis on fuel cost escalation (flat growth versus a 0.4% increase; 25 year versus a 30 year time horizon) 3. Analysis of single wide units. (The current study only considers multi-section homes) 4. Justification of R values. Questions were raised regarding the connection between the stated component R values for roof, walls and floors and the resultant Uo overall heat loss coefficient. 5. A broader range of property tax considerations (A 0% and 2% per year tax rate increase should be considered in addition to the 1% currently documented) 6. A broader range of costs for building components 7. Analysis of a broad range of window types and characteristics. 8. Consideration of efficiencies and expected life of heating and cooling appliances

Table 8.6.1.1 Coefficient of Heat Transmission (Uo)Uo Value Zone Maximum Coefficient of

Heat Transmission1 0.116 0.086 Btu/hr·ft2·°F2 0.096 0.076 Btu/hr·ft2·°F3 0.079 0.064 Btu/hr·ft2·°F3 (Electric furnace only)

0.054 Btu/hr·ft2·°F

Table 6.6.1.1 [8.6.1.1] Coefficient of Heat Transmission (Uo) and Figure 6.6 [8.6]

Uo Value Zone Maximum Coefficient of Heat Transmission

456

0.116 0.086 Btu/hr×ft2°F0.096 0.076 Btu/hr×ft2°F0.079 0.064 Btu/hr×ft2°F

501-20

Report on Proposals — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 501 9. Consideration of a land/home mortgages versus home only mortgages. 10. Description of fuel specific results as an intermediate process for gas and electricity. The committee suggests that the conclusions of this further study be included in the supporting material with any public comments to be submitted in response to the committeeʼs action on this proposal. The committee further notes that a task group has been appointed to further study the items identified above. Task group members are as follows: Chris Early (chair), Craig Conner, Mark Nunn, John Mikel, Larry Boyce and Jordan Heiman. Number Eligible to Vote: 11Ballot Results: Affirmative: 6 Negative: 1 Abstain: 2 Vote Not Returned: 2 BOYCE, STILLWAGGONExplanation of Negative: HEIMAN: See my Explanation of Negative on 501-22 (Log #CP100).Explanatin of Abstention: LUBLINER: The committee rejection and suggestion for a task force further delays the adoption of cost effective HUD-code energy standards. In 2002 ROP the committee rejected the need for a task group and now in 2003 the committee supports a task group. How long will the committee say” further study is needed in order to more appropriately consider the submitterʼs proposal? How many new homebuyers will pay higher monthly when PITI+E Principal Interest Taxes Insurance and Energy bills as a result of these rejections? Iʼm abstaining on this vote based on my position on Log 37, and also based on my comments on rejection reasons as follows: 1. 30 year versus 50 year life of the manufactured home, make little difference in the result given the discount rate. I think this is just economic “nit-picking” 2. Sensitivity analysis on fuel cost escalation is not needed since the study EIA numbers are the best available and project very nearly constant prices anyway. 3. Analysis of single wide units is not needed since the results are likely to be the same as the more typical and growing market share of multi-sections homes. Why no analysis of triple section homes, which would tend to negate the impact of single section homes? 4. Justification of U-value computation. Questions raised regarding the connection between component R values for roof, walls and floors and the resultant component U-values are often moot, and focused mostly on the smaller number of single section home designs. Since the U-values used were computed based on HUDʼs rules and represent reasonable values, including those U-values taken from HUDʼs 1992 analysis by Conner used to set the existing standard they should be used, unless inaccuracies were found. However, no significant inaccuracies were documented by the committee. 5. A broader range of property tax considerations (a 0% and 2% per year tax rate increase should be considered in addition to the 1% currently documented. The 1% value is a reasonable mid-point estimate of tax rates. I would rather use 0% since the tax assessment process does not include information on energy efficiency. 6. A broader range of costs for building components. This is a very general statement. Those on the committee who rejected the proposal did not suggest problems with any specific costs, even though specific costs were collected and well documented. 7. Analysis of a broad range of window types and characteristics. I donʼt know what is meant by “broad rangeʼ” since the only window type not included was single pane with storm windows. The Uo would likely be lower since single pane with interior storms are less expensive to achieve the same U-value as double pane vinyl, based on log 39 discussions. 8. Consideration of efficiencies is not germane as HUD does not regulate these. In addition, the expected life of equipment is not germane since no matter what equipment is used, the equipment will be replaced when it fails. The minimum efficiency allowed for manufactured homes should be used, since we are developing the standard. 9. Consideration of a land home mortgages versus home only mortgages. I agree this is an issue, but it will only reject the Uo further the lending trend toward a much lower interest rates that applies to land/home purchases. 10. Description of fuel specific results as an intermediate process for gas and electricity. See my Explanation of Negative on Comment 501-24(Log #37). Members of the committee noted that the gas fuel weighting was too high as compared to electric. Correcting this by weighting the electric higher will lower the Uo. STEVENS: See my reason of abstention on 501-22.

________________________________________________________________501-26 Log #39 MAN-MEC Final Action: Reject( 8.8.5 )________________________________________________________________Submitter: Michael Lubliner, Washington State University Energy Program / Rep. Northwest Energy Efficiency AllianceRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: U-values for any glazing (e.g., windows, skylights, and the glazed portions of any door) shall be based on tests using AAMA 1503.1, Voluntary Test Method for Thermal Transmittance and condensation Resistance of Windows, doors, and glazed Wall Sections, or the NFRC 100, Procedure for determining fenestration Product Thermal Properties. In the absence of tests, manufacturers

shall use the residential window U-values contained in Chapter 29, Table 5 of the 1997 ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamentals. In the event that the classification of the window type in indeterminate, the manufacturer shall use the classification that gives the higher U-value. Where a composite of materials from two different product types is used, the product shall be assigned the higher U-value. For the purpose of calculating V.-values, storm windows shall be treated as an additional pane.Substantiation: The committee rejected this based on two reasons: 1) The AAMA standard is a recognized consensus Standard 2) There are cost concerns associated with the elimination of the AAMA Standard. The committee does not dispute the fact that U-values based on AAMA testing are not recognized by USDOE when it comes to developing and publishing energy-related standards for fenestration products. Nor did it dispute the NFRC improved labeling over AAMA, thus assuring IPIAs, plant quality assurance staff, and consumers that the correct window has been installed. This is a “real-world” issue, particularly when a plant uses more than one level of window efficiency (U-value). The committee was unable to provide any data to support the position on cost concerns. In fact, most window manufacturers are members of NFRC which supports this proposal, and has submitted this proposal in NFPA-2002 and 2000. When the cost of testing is spread out over the costs of production for the entire window line, this is a non-issue especially since many manufactures offer Energy Star Homes which require NFRC testing. Relying on both AAMA and NFRC test methods produces inconsistencies and Quality Assurance and Customer confusion in marketplace. Unlike NFRC, AAMA has no labeling of U-values, so neither the customer, retailer, most manufacturer staff and IPIA donʼt know the DAPIA approved window U-value. In addition, most state energy codes and ICC and programs like the USEPA Energy Star program use NFRC not AAMA for U-values. NFRC not AAMA has become the industry standard for determining thermal properties. NFRC is a non-profit, public/private organization created by the window, door and skylight industry. It is comprised of manufacturers, suppliers, builders, architects and designers, specifiers, code officials, utilities and government agencies. NFRC provides consistent ratings on window, door and skylight products. NFRC primary goal is to provide accurate information to measure and compare the energy performance of window, door, or skylight products. NFRC has established a voluntary national energy performance rating and labeling system for fenestration products. The NFRC label rates: · U-factor, or how well a window keeps heat inside a building · Solar heat gain, or a windowʼs ability to block warming caused by sunlight · Visible light transmittance, or how much light gets through a product · Air leakage, or heat loss and gain by infiltration through cracks in the window assembly. Products are rated and labeled through three NFRC programs that maintain the integrity and uniformity of the rating system. These programs are: The Laboratory Accreditation Program, The Certification Agency Program and the Products Certification Program. NFRC does NOT distinguish between a “good” window and a “bad” window, set minimum performance standards, or mandate performance levels. When a manufacturer decides to certify and label its products, it is committing itself to provide accurate, fair and reliable energy-related performance information. This helps consumers, architects, builders - and the fenestration industry itself. Since its inception in 1989, NFRC has successfully developed a rating system and certification program for the thermal performance of residential fenestration products, including windows, patio doors and skylights. The success is evident by the more than 81,000 products listed in the most recent edition of the NFRC Products Directory. The National Fenestration Rating Council has developed a number of key elements that ensure the accuracy and credibility of its rating and certification program as noted below: · NFRC develops standards for rating products that are technically sound and provide uniform rating for fenestration products. · NFRC reviews and approves up-to date computer simulation tools and thermal testing procedures for obtaining accurate thermal ratings for fenestration products. · NFRC maintains a list of accredited simulation and testing laboratories qualified to determine the thermal performance of fenestration products through computer modeling and thermal testing. · NFRC provides for a third party Independent Agent (IA) to review documentation, conduct inspections and approve products for certification and labeling. · NFRC licenses the manufacturers authorized to label products, permitting the use of the NFRC logo and ratings that appear on the certified product.Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Identification can be obtained from test protocols provided by the manufacturer. There is currently confusion regarding an available test method for single glazed primary windows with self storing storms as related to NFRC 100. Number Eligible to Vote: 11Ballot Results: Affirmative: 6 Negative: 2 Abstain: 1 Vote Not Returned: 2 BOYCE, STILLWAGGON

501-21

Report on Proposals — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 501 Explanation of Negative: HEIMAN: See my Explanation of Negative on 501-22 (Log #CP100). LUBLINER: 1) An AAMA U-window test report located in a file at the plant or corporate offices does not help either QA or consumers trying to use the best window. 2) The committee is confused about the available test method for single glazed primary windows with self storing storms because they ignored statements made during the meeting by window industry representatives that supported the fact that NFRC 100 can test storm windows.Explanatin of Abstention: STEVENS: See my reason of abstention on 501-22.

________________________________________________________________501-27 Log #20 MAN-PLU Final Action: Reject( 9.3.1.5.x )________________________________________________________________Submitter: John M. Halliwill, Intʼl Assn. of Plumbing & Mechanical Officials (IAPMO)Recommendation: Add a new section to read: 9.3.1.5.x Burred ends of all pipe and tubing shall be reamed to the full bore of the pipe or tube and all chips shall be removed. [UPC 310.3]Substantiation: Unless the pipe and or tubing are properly reamed there will be an increased probability of system failure.Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: This subject is covered in 9.5.3.Number Eligible to Vote: 8Ballot Results: Affirmative: 5 Vote Not Returned: 3 CARROLL, MASTERS, PASCHAL

________________________________________________________________501-28 Log #21 MAN-PLU Final Action: Accept in Part( 9.3.1.5.x )________________________________________________________________Submitter: John M. Halliwill, Intʼl Assn. of Plumbing & Mechanical Officials (IAPMO)Recommendation: Add a new section to read: 9.3.1.5.x Installation Practices. Plumbing systems shall be installed in a manner conforming to this Code Standard, other applicable standards, and the manufacturerʼs installation instructions. In instances where the Code Standard, other applicable standards, or the manufacturerʼs instructions conflict, the more stringent provisions shall prevail. [UPC 310.4]Substantiation: This new wording will give the user of this standard additional information on how these important systems are to be installed.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Part Accept the first sentence and renumber as follows: 9.3.1.8 Installation Practices. Plumbing systems shall be installed in a manner conforming to this Standard, other applicable standards, and the manufacturerʼs installation instructions.Committee Statement: The second sentence is not accepted because it is often difficult do determine which requirement is more stringent. Number Eligible to Vote: 8Ballot Results: Affirmative: 5 Vote Not Returned: 3 CARROLL, MASTERS, PASCHAL

________________________________________________________________501-29 Log #22 MAN-PLU Final Action: Accept( Table 9.4.1 )________________________________________________________________Submitter: John M. Halliwill, Intʼl Assn. of Plumbing & Mechanical Officials (IAPMO)Recommendation: Revise Table 9.4.1 as follows:

Table 9.4.1 Minimum Standards

Materials Reference Standards

Material and Property Standard IAPMO PS 5-1984 for Special Cast Iron Fittings

Material and Property Standard IAPMO PS 2-1989* for Cast Brass and Tubing P Traps*

Standard for Porcelain Enameled IAPMO TS 22-1997e1

Formed Steel Plumbing Fixtures

Material and Property Standard IAPMO PS 4-2002 2003a for Drains for Prefabricated and Precast Showers

*IAPMO PS 2-1989 was replaced by ASME A112.18.2-02

Substantiation: The referenced standards have either been discontinued or revised. These changes will also have to be made to 14.1.2.20. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 8Ballot Results: Affirmative: 5 Vote Not Returned: 3 CARROLL, MASTERS, PASCHAL

________________________________________________________________501-30 Log #23 MAN-PLU Final Action: Accept in Part( Table 9.4.1 )________________________________________________________________Submitter: John M. Halliwill, Intʼl Assn. of Plumbing & Mechanical Officials (IAPMO)Recommendation: Revise Table 9.4.1 as follows:



Plumbing Fixture Waste Fittings ASME A112.18.2-2002

Non-Metallic Shower Receptors, IAPMO TS 11-03 Shower Stalls, Lavatories, Sinks, Bathtubs, and Step Tub/Shower Combination Waste Holding Tank and Shower Receptor Units

Drains for Prefabricated IAPMO TS 26-97e1

Manufactured Home1 Showers

Substantiation: These changes will also have to be made to 14.1.2.12 and 14.1.2.20. These new standards will be used by listing agencies to evaluate products used in manufactured homes. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Part Accept the proposed addition of ASME A112.18.2 to Table 9.4.1.Committee Statement: TS 11 appears to be applicable to recreational vehicles and may not be applicable to manufactured housing. TS 26 is not accepted. This subject appears to be covered in the ASME A112 series of standards.Number Eligible to Vote: 8Ballot Results: Affirmative: 5 Vote Not Returned: 3 CARROLL, MASTERS, PASCHAL

501-22

Report on Proposals — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 501 ________________________________________________________________501-31 Log #24 MAN-PLU Final Action: Accept( Table 9.4.1 )________________________________________________________________Submitter: John M. Halliwill, Intʼl Assn. of Plumbing & Mechanical Officials (IAPMO)Recommendation: Revise Table 9.4.1 as follows: (Proposed because of a proposal to amend 9.9.4)



Polyethylene (PE) Plastic Pipe, ASTM D 2239-2001 (SDR-PR) Based on Controlled Inside Diameter

Plastic Insert Fittings for Polyethylene ASTM D 2609-2002 (PE) Plastic Pipe

Chlorinated Poly (Vinyl Chloride) ASTM D 2846-99 (CPVC) Plastic Hot- and Cold-Water Distribution Systems

Socket-Type Chlorinated Poly (Vinyl ASTM F 438-2002e1

Chloride) (CPVC) Plastic Pipe Fittings, Sch. 40

Socket-Type Chlorinated Poly (Vinyl ASTM F 439-2002 Chloride) (CPVC) Plastic Pipe Fittings, Sch. 80

Chlorinated Poly (Vinyl Chloride) ASTM F441-2002 (CPVC) Plastic Pipe, Sch. 40 and 80

Solvent Cements for Chlorinated ASTM F 493-97 Poly (Vinyl Chloride) (CPVC) Plastic Pipe and Fittings

Crosslinked Polyethylene (PEX) Tubing ASTM F 986-2002

Crosslinked Polyethylene/Aluminum/ ASTM F 1281-2002e2

Crosslinked Polyethylene (PEX-A1- PEX) Pressure Pipe

Polyethylene/Aluminum/Polyethylene ASTM F 1282-2002e2

(PE-A1-PE) Composite Pressure Pipe

Metal Insert Fittings with Copper ASTM F 1807-2002a Crimp Ring for SDR 9 Crosslinked Polyethylene (PEX) Tubing

Cold Expansion Fittings with PEX ASTM F 1960-2003 Reinforcing Rings for Use with Cross- Linked Polyethylene (PEX) Tubing

Metal Cold Flare Compression Fittings ASTM F 1961-99 with Disc Springs for Crosslinked Polyethylene (PEX) Tubing

Metal Insert Fittings for Polyethylene/ ASTM F 1974-2002 Aluminum/Polyethylene and Crosslinked Polyethylene/Aluminum/Crosslinked Polyethylene Composite Pressure Pipe

Cold-Expansion Fittings With Metal ASTM F 2080-2001 Compression Sleeves for Cross-Linked Polyethylene (PEX) Pipe

Substantiation: These changes will also have to be made to 14.1.2.14. These new standards will be used by listing agencies to evaluate products used in manufactured homes.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Accept the additions to Table 9.4.1, and replace any standards already in the table with the proposed, i.e., ASTM D2846 replaces ASTM D2846M.Number Eligible to Vote: 8Ballot Results: Affirmative: 5 Vote Not Returned: 3 CARROLL, MASTERS, PASCHAL

________________________________________________________________501-32 Log #25 MAN-PLU Final Action: Accept( 9.5.4 )________________________________________________________________TCC Action The TCC directs that MAN-PLU clarify its intent with regard to the proposed reference to the Uniform Plumbing Code and that MAN-PLU consider Mr. Ziemanʼs negative comment to proposal 501-34 (log #26) in this regard. Submitter: John M. Halliwill, Intʼl Assn. of Plumbing & Mechanical Officials (IAPMO)Recommendation: Delete the existing standard language and replace with the following proposed new language: 9.5.4 Solder Joints. Joints in copper tubing shall be made by the appropriate use of approved copper or copper alloy fittings. Surfaces to be joined by soldering shall be cleaned bright by manual or mechanical means. The joints shall be properly fluxed with an approved type flux and made up with approved solder. All solder and fluxes shall be manufactured to approved standards. Solders and fluxes with a lead content which exceeds two-tenths (0.20) of one (1) percent shall be prohibited in piping systems used to convey potable water. [UPC 316.1.3]Substantiation: The new proposed language recognizes new terminology for fluxes and adds the requirement for all installation to comply not just those on a public water system. Installations on non-public water systems should afford the same protections as public water systems.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptCommittee Statement: The committee notes that the Standard covers manufactured housing, regardless of the water supply.Number Eligible to Vote: 8Ballot Results: Affirmative: 5 Vote Not Returned: 3 CARROLL, MASTERS, PASCHAL

________________________________________________________________501-33 Log #17 MAN-PLU Final Action: Reject( 9.7 )________________________________________________________________Submitter: Earl A. Gilson Port Angeles, WARecommendation: Add new text to read: Single hand kitchen faucets shall be installed in all kitchen sinks. Single handle lavatory faucets shall be installed in all bathroom lavatories.Substantiation: Single handle faucets allow greater temperature and volume control than regular two faucet installation. There is a high regard for safety for individuals, adults, persons with restricted mobility, and children. Cost is negligible if accomplished at time of factory installation.Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The standards allows the use of single and two handle faucets. No substantiation is provided to support that two handle faucets are unsafe. Two handle faucets are available that allow use by persons with restricted mobility.Number Eligible to Vote: 8Ballot Results: Affirmative: 5 Vote Not Returned: 3 CARROLL, MASTERS, PASCHAL

________________________________________________________________501-34 Log #26 MAN-PLU Final Action: Reject( 9.9.4 )________________________________________________________________Note: Since the ballot on this Proposal did not confirm the Committee Action, the Committee is soliciting public comment for review when the proposal is reconsidered by the Committee as a Public Comment.Submitter: John M. Halliwill, Intʼl Assn. of Plumbing & Mechanical Officials (IAPMO)Recommendation: Delete the existing standard language and replace with the following proposed new language. Renumber accordingly. 9.9.4 Materials. [UPC 604.0] 9.9.4.1 Water distribution pipe, building supply water pipe, and fittings shall be of brass, copper, cast iron, CPVC, galvanized malleable iron, galvanized wrought iron, galvanized steel, PEX, or other approved materials. Asbestos-cement, PE, PVC, PEX-AL-PEX, or PE-AL-PE water pipe manufactured to recognized standards may be used for cold water building supply distribution systems outside a building. PEX-AL-PEX water pipe, tubing, and fittings manufactured to recognized standards may be used for hot- and cold-water distribution systems within a building. PE-AL-PE water pipe and fittings may be used for cold-water distribution systems within a building. All materials used in the water supply system, except valves and similar devices, shall be of a like material, except where otherwise approved by the authority having jurisdiction. 9.9.4.2 Copper tube for water piping shall have a weight of not less than Type L. Exception: Type M copper tubing may be used for water piping when piping is above ground in, or on, a building or underground outside of structures. 9.9.4.3 All hard-drawn copper tubing, in addition to the required incised marking, shall be marked in accordance with 19.3.1 and 19.3.2 of ASTM B Seamless Copper Water Tube 88-99. The colors shall be: Type K, green; Type L, blue; Type M, red; Type DWV, yellow.

501-23

Report on Proposals — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 501 9.9.4.4 Listed flexible copper water connectors shall be installed in readily accessible locations, unless otherwise listed. 9.9.4.5 Cast iron fittings up to and including two (2) in. (51 mm) in size, when used in connection with potable water piping, shall be galvanized. 9.9.4.6 All malleable iron water fittings shall be galvanized. 9.9.4.7 Piping and tubing which has previously been used for any purpose other than for potable water systems shall not be used. 9.9.4.8 Approved plastic materials may be used in water service piping, provided that where metal water service piping is used for electrical grounding purposes, replacement piping therefore shall be of like materials. Exception: Where a grounding system acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction is installed, inspected, and approved, metallic pipe may be replaced with non-metallic pipe. 9.9.4.9 Solder shall conform to the requirements of 316.1.3 9.5.4. (See additional proposal for 9.5.4.) 9.9.4.10 Water pipe and fittings with a lead content which exceeds eight (8) percent shall be prohibited in piping systems used to convey potable water. 9.9.4.11 PEX. Cross-linked polyethylene (PEX) tubing shall be marked with the appropriate standard designation(s) listed in Table 14-1 for which the tubing has been approved. PEX tubing shall be installed in compliance with the provisions of this section. 9.9.4.11.1 PEX Fittings. Metal insert fittings, metal compression fittings, and cold expansion fittings used with PEX tubing shall be manufactured to and marked n accordance with the standards for the fittings in Table 14-1. 9.9.4.11.2 Water Heater Connections. PEX tubing shall not be installed within the first eighteen (18) in. (457 mm) of piping connected to a water heater. 9.9.4.12 Flexible Corrugated Connectors. Flexible corrugated connectors of copper or stainless steel shall be limited to the following connector lengths: Water Heater Connectors — twenty-four (24) in. (609 mm). Fixture Connectors — thirty (30) in. (762 mm). Washing Machine Connectors — seventy-two (72) in. (1827 mm). Dishwasher and Icemaker Connectors — one hundred twenty (120) in. (3048 mm). 9.9.4.13 PEX-AL-PEX and PE-AL-PE. Crosslinked Polyethylene-Aluminum-Crosslinked Polyethylene (PEX-AL-PEX) and Polyethylene-Aluminum-Polyethylene (PE-AL-PE) composite pipe shall be marked with the appropriate standard designations listed in Table 14-1 for which the piping has been listed or approved. PEX-AL-PEX and PE-AL-PE piping shall be installed n compliance with the provisions of this section. 9.9.4.13.1 PEX-AL-PEX and PE-AL-PE. Fittings used with PEXAL-PEX and PE-AL-PE piping shall be manufactured to and marked in accordance with the standard for the fittings n Table 14-1. 9.9.4.13.2 Water Heater Connections. PEX-AL-PEX or PE-ALPE tubing shall not be installed within the first eighteen (18) in. (457 mm) of piping connected to a water heater. [UPC 604.0]Substantiation: The new proposed language recognizes materials that are not in the current standard and gives additional guidance on how to install the potable water systems.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise 9.9.4 to read: 9.9.4 Materials. [UPC 604.0] 9.9.4.1 Water distribution pipe, building supply water pipe, and fittings shall be of brass, copper, cast iron, CPVC, galvanized malleable iron, galvanized wrought iron, galvanized steel, PEX, PEX-AL-PEX or other listed or approved materials. Asbestos-cement, PE, PVC, PEX-AL-PEX, or PE-AL-PE water pipe manufactured to recognized standards may be used for cold water building supply distribution systems outside a building. PEX-AL-PEX water pipe, tubing, and fittings manufactured to recognized standards may be used for hot- and cold-water distribution systems within a building. PE-AL-PE water pipe and fittings may shall be used only for cold-water distribution systems within a building. All materials used in the water supply system, except valves and similar devices, shall be of a like material, except where otherwise listed or approved by the authority having jurisdiction. 9.9.4.2 Copper tube for water piping shall have a weight of not less than Type L. Exception: Type M copper tubing may be used for water piping when piping is above ground in, or on, a building or underground outside of structures. 9.9.4.3 All hard-drawn copper tubing, in addition to the required incised marking, shall be marked in accordance with 19.3.1 and 19.3.2 of ASTM B Seamless Copper Water Tube 88-99. The colors shall be: Type K, green; Type L, blue; Type M, red; Type DWV, yellow. 9.9.4.4 Listed flexible copper water connectors shall be installed in readily accessible locations, unless otherwise listed. 9.9.4.5 Cast iron fittings up to and including two (2) in. (51 mm) in size, when used in connection with potable water piping, shall be galvanized. 9.9.4.6 All malleable iron water fittings shall be galvanized. 9.9.4.7 Piping and tubing which has previously been used for any purpose other than for potable water systems shall not be used. 9.9.4.8 Where Approved plastic materials may be is used in water service piping, provided that where metal water service piping is used for electrical grounding purposes, replacement piping therefore shall be of like materials. Exception: Where a grounding system acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction is installed, inspected, and approved, metallic pipe may be replaced with non-metallic pipe. 9.9.4.9 Solder shall conform to the requirements of 316.1.3 9.5.4.

9.9.4.10 Water pipe and fittings with a lead content which exceeds eight (8) percent shall be prohibited in piping systems used to convey potable water. 9.9.4.11 PEX. Cross-linked polyethylene (PEX) tubing shall be marked with the appropriate standard designation(s) listed in Table 14-1 9.4.1 for which the tubing has been approved. PEX tubing shall be installed in compliance with the provisions of this section. 9.9.4.11.1 PEX Fittings. Metal insert fittings, metal compression fittings, and cold expansion fittings used with PEX tubing shall be manufactured to and marked n accordance with the standards for the fittings in Table 14-1. 9.9.4.11.2 Water Heater Connections. PEX, PEX-AL-PEX, or PE-ALPE tubing shall not be installed within the first eighteen (18) in. (457 mm) of piping connected to a water heater. 9.9.4.12 Flexible Corrugated Connectors. Flexible corrugated connectors of copper or stainless steel shall be limited to the following connector lengths: Water Heater Connectors — twenty-four (24) in. (609 mm). Fixture Connectors — thirty (30) in. (762 mm). Washing Machine Connectors — seventy-two (72) in. (1827 mm). Dishwasher and Icemaker Connectors — one hundred twenty (120) in. (3048 mm). 9.9.4.13 PEX-AL-PEX and PE-AL-PE. Crosslinked Polyethylene-Aluminum-Crosslinked Polyethylene (PEX-AL-PEX) and Polyethylene-Aluminum-Polyethylene (PE-AL-PE) composite pipe shall be marked with the appropriate standard designations listed in Table 14-1 for which the piping has been listed or approved. PEX-AL-PEX and PE-AL-PE piping shall be installed in compliance with the provisions of this section. 9.9.4.13.1 PEX-AL-PEX and PE-AL-PE. Fittings used with PEXAL-PEX and PE-AL-PE piping shall be manufactured to and marked in accordance with the standard for the fittings n Table 14-1. 9.9.4.13.2 Water Heater Connections. PEX-AL-PEX or PE-ALPE tubing shall not be installed within the first eighteen (18) in. (457 mm) of piping connected to a water heater. [UPC 604.0]Committee Statement: 1. Proposed 9.9.4.1 is revised to add listed or approved, as in currently allowed. Provisions relating to piping outside the manufactured house is deleted as is outside the scope of the standard. Other editorial revisions are also made. 2. The exception for Type M copper tubing underground is deleted as it is not applicable led to manufactured housing 3. Proposed 9.9.4.8 is not accepted as replacement of piping is not covered by this standard. 4. The last sentence of 9.9.4.11 is deleted as installation is covered separately. 5. 9.9.4.13.2 is replaced by revising 9.9.11.2.Number Eligible to Vote: 8Ballot Results: Affirmative: 3 Negative: 2 Vote Not Returned: 3 CARROLL, MASTERS, PASCHALExplanation of Negative: VIOLA: I agree with the comments made to 501-34 and would like to revise my vote from approve to negative. ZIEMAN: This proposal was taken directly from the UPC apparently without any attempt by the submitter to revise the content to make it compatible with Manufactured Housing. As can be seen the committee had to make numerous revisions to this proposal to try and adopt it to factory built Manufactured Housing. In hindsight the committee should have just rejected the proposal. I now urge the committee to reject the proposal and allow the submitter to resubmit it for consideration at the ROC. Besides the numerous changes made by the committee additional changes need to be made to make this proposal acceptable. They include: 1. At 9.9.4 Delete the term “UPC 604.0”. It was agreed by the committee during our discussions on this and other proposals that a reference to other codes, such as the UPC should not be included due to the confusion such references would create with the users of the standard. 2. At 9.9.4.1 first sentence delete the phrase “...building supply water pipe...” This standard (NFPA-501) does not cover water pipe outside the house. Similar references were deleted by the committee, however, this one was missed. Editorial correction to the Committee Statement item 5. The reference to 9.9.11.2 should read 9.9.4.11.2.

________________________________________________________________501-35 Log #27 MAN-PLU Final Action: Accept( 9.9.5.5 )________________________________________________________________Submitter: John M. Halliwill, Intʼl Assn. of Plumbing & Mechanical Officials (IAPMO)Recommendation: Amend the existing standard language and replace with the following proposed new language: 9.9.5.5 Plastic Pipe and Fittings. Plastic pipe and fittings shall be joined by installation methods recommended by the manufacturer or in accordance with provisions of a listed standard. 9.9.5.5.1 CPVC Solvent Cement Plastic Pipe Joints. CPVC pipe and fittings shall be cleaned and then joined with listed primer(s) and solvent cement(s). Exception: Listed solvent cements that do not require the use of primer shall be permitted for use with CPVC pipe and fittings, manufactured in accordance with ASTM D2846, 1/2 in. through 2 in. in diameters. [UPC 316.1.6]Substantiation: The new proposed language recognizes a new method for the joining of certain CPVC piping systems.

501-24

Report on Proposals — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 501 Committee Meeting Action: Accept Accept and number the proposed exception as 9.9.5.5.2.Number Eligible to Vote: 8Ballot Results: Affirmative: 5 Vote Not Returned: 3 CARROLL, MASTERS, PASCHALComment on Affirmative: ZIEMAN: The term “UPC 316.1.6” should be deleted at the end of the exception. It was agreed by the committee during our discussions on this and other proposals that a reference to other codes, such as the UPC should not be included due to the confusion such references would create with the users of the standard.

________________________________________________________________501-36 Log #40 MAN-MEC Final Action: Accept( Chapter 10 )________________________________________________________________Submitter: Richard Watson, SSHC, InvRecommendation: Add UL-2021, 2002 edition “Standard for Fixed and Location Electric Room Heaters” to Chapter 10, Heating, Cooling and Fuel Burning Equipment, Table 10.3 minimum standards.Substantiation: The proposal provides the applicable and current UL Standards for Fixed and Location Electric Room Heaters installed in HUD-code housing. The existing Table 10.3 does not include a Reference Standard. Fixed and location electric room heaters can provide quite, energy efficient, safe and reliable zone radiant space heating in todayʼs manufactured homes. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 11Ballot Results: Affirmative: 7 Negative: 1 Abstain: 1 Vote Not Returned: 2 BOYCE, STILLWAGGONExplanation of Negative: HEIMAN: See my Explanation of Negative on 501-22 (Log #CP100).Explanatin of Abstention: STEVENS: See my reason of abstention on 501-22.

________________________________________________________________501-37 Log #14 MAN-MEC Final Action: Accept( Table 10.3 )________________________________________________________________Submitter: Bob Eugene, Underwriters Laboratories Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read: Central Cooling Air Conditioners UL 465 seventh edition 1984 with revisions through December 24, 1987 Heat Pumps UL 559 fourth edition 1985 as amended through Sept. 6, 1985 Electric Central Air Heating Equipment UL 1096 fourth edition 1986 with revisions July 16, 1986 and January 30, 1988 Electric Air Heaters UL 1025 second edition 1987 with revisions July 13, 1989, February 6, 1990, and December 3, 1991 Heating and Cooling Equipment UL 1995 second edition with revisions through July 31, 1998 Substantiation: UL 465, UL 559, UL 1096, UL 1025 have been withdrawn and replaced by UL 1995.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 11Ballot Results: Affirmative: 7 Negative: 1 Abstain: 1 Vote Not Returned: 2 BOYCE, STILLWAGGONExplanation of Negative: HEIMAN: See my Explanation of Negative on 501-22 (Log #CP100).

Explanatin of Abstention: STEVENS: See my reason of abstention on 501-22.

________________________________________________________________501-38 Log #28 MAN-MEC Final Action: Accept in Principle( Table 10.3 )________________________________________________________________Submitter: John M. Halliwill, Intʼl Assn. of Plumbing & Mechanical Officials (IAPMO)Recommendation: Revise text as follows: Standard for Gas Supply Connectors for Manufactured Homes IAPMO TS 9-1997e1

Substantiation: This change will make this Table consistent with 14.1.2.20.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle No change necessary. The text currently reads as proposed by the submitter. Committee Statement: The text currently reads as proposed by the submitter. Number Eligible to Vote: 11Ballot Results: Affirmative: 7 Negative: 1 Abstain: 1 Vote Not Returned: 2 BOYCE, STILLWAGGON

Explanation of Negative: HEIMAN: See my Explanation of Negative on 501-22 (Log #CP100).Explanatin of Abstention: STEVENS: See my reason of abstention on 501-22.

________________________________________________________________501-39 Log #5 MAN-MEC Final Action: Accept in Principle( 10.8.1.4(e) (New) )________________________________________________________________NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee (MAN-AAC) letter ballot did not support the Technical Committee action on this proposal. This proposal will be reconsidered as a comment. See the ballot statement at the front of this report.Submitter: Richard Weinert, California Deptartment of Housing & Community DevelopmentRecommendation: Add paragraph (e) to 10.8.1.4 to read: All water heater appliances installed in manufactured homes designed or constructed for sale in the states of California, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Utah and Alaska, shall be braced, anchored or strapped to resist =>200 lb seismic lateral loads to prevent falling or horizontal displacement due to earthquake motion. The water heater bracing, anchors or strapping shall include mechanical connections to a structural member, and/or wall studs, adjacent to the appliance, in order to prevent tipping or rotation of the appliance along the center axis of the appliance.Substantiation: The manufactured housing construction standards do not include the strapping of water heaters to resist seismic forces. Seismic strapping of water heater appliances is a proven method to protect homeowners from dangers from fire resulting from overturning of water heaters during an earthquake. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Defer all action on this proposal to the Technical Committee on Structural for Manufactured Housing, and the Technical Committee on Plumbing for Manufactured Housing. Committee Statement: While this proposal pertains to chapter 10 which is within the scope of the technical committee on Mechanical for Manufactured Housing, the subject matter of the proposal pertains to the restraint of water heaters against seismic forces. This subject is outside the scope of the committee and action on this proposal has been deferred to the appropriate technical committees. Number Eligible to Vote: 11Ballot Results: Affirmative: 7 Negative: 1 Abstain: 1 Vote Not Returned: 2 BOYCE, STILLWAGGONExplanation of Negative: HEIMAN: See my Explanation of Negative on 501-22 (Log #CP100).Explanatin of Abstention: STEVENS: See my reason of abstention on 501-22.

________________________________________________________________501-40 Log #5a MAN-STR Final Action: Accept in Principle( 10.8.1.4(e) (New) )________________________________________________________________NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee (MAN-AAC) letter ballot did not support the Technical Committee action on this proposal. This proposal will be reconsidered as a comment. See the ballot statement at the front of this report.TCC Action The TCC directs that MAN-STR consider revising proposed paragraph 10.8.1.4(e) so that all water heater appliances installed in manufactured homes be braced, anchored or strapped regardless of where the manufactured home is intended to be sold. The TCC believes that this load requirement is generally not difficult to meet, and it would eliminate the necessity for having to define the seismic design categories in NFPA 501.Submitter: Richard Weinert, California Deptartment of Housing & Community DevelopmentRecommendation: Add paragraph (e) to 10.8.1.4 to read: All water heater appliances installed in manufactured homes designed or constructed for sale in the states of California, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Utah and Alaska, shall be braced, anchored or strapped to resist =>200 lb seismic lateral loads to prevent falling or horizontal displacement due to earthquake motion. The water heater bracing, anchors or strapping shall include mechanical connections to a structural member, and/or wall studs, adjacent to the appliance, in order to prevent tipping or rotation of the appliance along the center axis of the appliance.Substantiation: The manufactured housing construction standards do not include the strapping of water heaters to resist seismic forces. Seismic strapping of water heater appliances is a proven method to protect homeowners from dangers from fire resulting from overturning of water heaters during an earthquake. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Add paragraph (e) to 10.8.1.4 to read: All water heater appliances installed in manufactured homes designed or constructed for sale in Seismic Design Categories Do, D1, D2 and E, as defined in NFPA 225, shall be braced, anchored or strapped to resist not less than 200 lb equivalent static lateral loads to prevent falling or horizontal displacement

501-25

Report on Proposals — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 501 due to earthquake motion. The water heater bracing, anchors or strapping shall include mechanical connections to a structural member, and/or wall studs, adjacent to the appliance, in order to prevent tipping or rotation of the appliance along the center axis of the appliance.Committee Statement: The Technical Committee made minor modifications which further clarified the language and kept it consistent with the seismic zones detailed in NFPA 225-3 (Log #71a).Number Eligible to Vote: 16Ballot Results: Affirmative: 13 Abstain: 1 Vote Not Returned: 2 BRADFIELD, WELDYExplanatin of Abstention: MENDLEN: See my abstention on 501-6.

________________________________________________________________501-41 Log #5b MAN-PLU Final Action: Accept in Principle( 10.8.1.4(e) (New) )________________________________________________________________NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee (MAN-AAC) letter ballot did not support the Technical Committee action on this proposal. This proposal will be reconsidered as a comment. See the ballot statement at the front of this report.TCC Action The TCC notes that this proposal pertains to the bracing, anchoring and strapping of water heater appliances and that it is the same as proposal 501-40 (log#5a) which was addressed by MAN-STR. The action taken by MAN-PLU is not consistent with the action taken by MAN-STR. The TCC believes that since proposal 501-41 pertains to structural requirements, it is not within the scope of MAN-PLU and that MAN-STR should hold responsibility for action on this proposal. Therefore, the TCC directs that action on this proposal be Accept-in-Principal with all action on the proposal deferred to proposal 501-40 (log#5a). Submitter: Richard Weinert, California Deptartment of Housing & Community DevelopmentRecommendation: Add paragraph (e) to 10.8.1.4 to read: All water heater appliances installed in manufactured homes designed or constructed for sale in the states of California, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Utah and Alaska, shall be braced, anchored or strapped to resist =>200 lb seismic lateral loads to prevent falling or horizontal displacement due to earthquake motion. The water heater bracing, anchors or strapping shall include mechanical connections to a structural member, and/or wall studs, adjacent to the appliance, in order to prevent tipping or rotation of the appliance along the center axis of the appliance.Substantiation: The manufactured housing construction standards do not include the strapping of water heaters to resist seismic forces. Seismic strapping of water heater appliances is a proven method to protect homeowners from dangers from fire resulting from overturning of water heaters during an earthquake. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Add a new 10.8.1.4 as proposed in 501-39 (Log #5) to the MAN-PLU Committee, to read: 10.8.1.4 In seismic design categories C, D, E, and F in NFPA 5000, storage water heaters shall be anchored or strapped to resist horizontal displacement due to earthquake motions. Strapping shall be at points within the upper one-third and lower one-third of its vertical dimension. At the lower point, a minimum distance of four (4) in. shall be maintained above the controls with the strapping.Committee Statement: The proposed text is extracted from the UPC, 508.2 in response to the proposal for specific requirement strapping water heaters in seismically active areas.Number Eligible to Vote: 8Ballot Results: Affirmative: 5 Vote Not Returned: 3 CARROLL, MASTERS, PASCHAL

________________________________________________________________501-42 Log #35 MAN-MEC Final Action: Accept in Principle( 10.14.5 )________________________________________________________________Submitter: Michael Lubliner, Washington State University Energy Program / Rep. Northwest Energy Efficiency AllianceRecommendation: Delete 10.14 5 and substitute a modified 10.14 5.1 to read revised text: Supply ducts shall be considered substantially airtight when duct pressurization testing demonstrates duct leakage of less than 60 cfm (1.7m3/min) per floor at a differential pressure of 1/10 in. water (25 Pa). Supply duct testing shall occur at a frequency determined by the quality assurance plan.Substantiation: Peer reviewed and published research conducted by ASHRAE TC 6.3, HUD PATH, DOE Building America, USEPA Energy star, MHRA/MHI and numerous other studies suggests significant energy savings can be achieved from tighter ducts in many new manufactured homes. Many HUD-code manufacturers now use the of duct leakage testing guidelines proposed. Duct testing results in less energy use, fewer consumer complaints and service expenses associated with moisture problems and fewer back-drafting fireplaces throughout the USA. Plus ducts testing reduces moisture related problems and manufacturer liabilities associated with mold.

This proposal focuses on pressurization testing (10.14.5.1), as a better way to define “substantially airtight”. While some HUD code plants test ducts tightness in every floor, this proposal only requires periodic testing at frequencies individual plants determine is needed to ensure “substantially airtight ducts”. In addition many plants employing testing can routinely achieve duct tightness of less than 30 CFM per floor, at no additional labor or material cost. These plants note it takes less than 30 CFM per floor, at no additional labor or material cost. These plants note it takes less than 10 minutes per floor to test and is done without changing or holding up the line. Over 30 HUD-code plants have purchased duct leakage testing equipment and are using duct pressurization instead of the old HUD test. This proposal seeks to eliminate the 10.14 5 HUD code duct test because it is rarely conducted, and is not an acceptable way to demonstrate “substantially airtight” in current residential construction. The comparative testing provided in the enclosed spreadsheet (HUD test vs. Duct blaster Test XLS) support the elimination of 10.14.5 testing protocol.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Delete the current text of sections 10.14.5 and 10.14.5.1 in their entirety, and provide new text for 10.14.5 to read as follows: “10.14.5. Air tightness of Supply Duct Systems. Supply ducts shall demonstrate duct leakage of less than 60 cfm (1.7 cubic meters per minute) per floor when tested at a differential pressure of 1/10 inches water (25 Pa). Supply duct testing shall occur at a frequency determined by the quality assurance plan.” Committee Statement: The action taken by the committee provides clarrification and improved language. It also meets the intent of the submitter and better clarrifies the committeeʼs intent with regard to airtightness of supply duct systems. Number Eligible to Vote: 11Ballot Results: Affirmative: 7 Negative: 1 Abstain: 1 Vote Not Returned: 2 BOYCE, STILLWAGGONExplanation of Negative: HEIMAN: See my Explanation of Negative on 501-22 (Log #CP100).Explanatin of Abstention: STEVENS: See my reason of abstention on 501-22.________________________________________________________________501-43 Log #36 MAN-MEC Final Action: Accept in Principle( 10.14.10 )________________________________________________________________Submitter: Michael Lubliner, Washington State University Energy Program / Rep. Northwest Energy Efficiency AllianceRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: Joint and Seams. Joints and seams of sheet metal and factory made flexible ducts, including trunks, braches, risers, crossover duct plenums, shall be mechanically secured, and made substantially airtight. slip joints in sheet metal ducts shall have a lap of at least 1 in. (25mm) and shall be mechanically fastened. Tapes or caulking compound shall be permitted to be used for sealing mechanically secured joints. Tapes used on the inside off metal duct joints shall be approved and listed for that specific duct joint type and application. Sealants and tapes shall be applied only to surfaces that are dry, dust-, dirt-, oil- and grease-free.Substantiation: Adoption of this proposal will help ensure that tapes will not be used unless they are engineered, approved and listed for specific applications. Peer reviewed and published research conducted by ASHRAE TC 6.3, HUD PATH, NIST, DOE Building America, USEPA Energy Star MHRA/MHI and numerous other studies suggests significant energy savings can be achieved from tighter ducts in many new manufactured homes. Tighter ducts result in less energy use, consumer complaints and service expenses associated with moisture problems in the humid southeast USA and back-drafting fireplace throughout the USA. reduced moisture related problems in manufactured homes reduce potential manufacturer liabilities associated with mold. Many HUD manufactured housing plants have moved away from inappropriate and short lived-tapes. The result has been double the tightness of ductwork at no incremental material or labor costs. doubling the tightness of supply ducts in manufactured homes will save new manufactured homeowners billions of dollars in avoided energy use, protect our national security by reducing reliance on imported oil, improve durability, improve resale value, improve financing and insurance options and reduce and health and safety problems. Furthermore, this change will help the industry avoid moisture and mold litigation problems currently plaguing the site-built and manufactured housing industries. As an added benefit the proposals will help the HUD-code industry to efficiently and consistently incorporate USEPA Energy Star and USDOE Building America voluntary construction standards, and to qualify the homes for proposed federal residential energy efficiency tax credits.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Do not accept the submitterʼs recommended change as submitted but rather add the phrase “listed for the use intended” so that paragraph 10.14.10 reads as follows: “10.14.10 Joints and Seams. Joint and Seams. Joints and seams of sheet metal and factory made flexible ducts, including trunks, branches, risers, crossover duct plenums, shall be mechanically secured, and made substantially airtight. slip joints in sheet metal ducts shall have a lap of at least 1 in. (25 mm) and shall be mechanically fastened. Tapes or caulking compounds listed

501-26

Report on Proposals — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 501 for the use intended shall be permitted to be used for sealing mechanically secured joints. Tapes used on the inside of metal duct joints shall be approved and listed for that application. Sealants and tapes shall be applied only to surfaces that are dry, dust-, dirt-, oil- and grease-free.”Committee Statement: This meets the intent of the submitter and clarifies the committeeʼs intent with regard to the use of tapes and caulking compounds. Number Eligible to Vote: 11Ballot Results: Affirmative: 7 Negative: 1 Abstain: 1 Vote Not Returned: 2 BOYCE, STILLWAGGONExplanation of Negative: HEIMAN: See my Explanation of Negative on 501-22 (Log #CP100).Explanatin of Abstention: STEVENS: See my reason of abstention on 501-22.

________________________________________________________________501-44 Log #42 MAN-ELE Final Action: Accept( 11.6.4(10) )________________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Correlating Committee Manufactured HousingRecommendation: This proposal is a result of a TCC note as indicated in the November 2002 ROC (501-45 Log #CC3). The TCC directs that paragraph 11-6-4(10) be revised to read as follows: Revise 11.6.4(10) to read as follows: “(10) On the underside of the unit for the connection of mobile home pipe heating cable(s), as follows:”.Substantiation: This action is for consistency in the manner in which this document references “listed pipe heating cables” that are used with a manufactured home. It is recognized that there is an ongoing effort to have the title of the current listing of these products be updated to use the term “manufactured home” in place of the current term “mobile home”. It was determined that a generic reference of “pipe heating cables” would establish the minimum requirement for these products. It is recognized that there are multiple listings of pipe heating cables and only the one listed for use with a manufactured home is permitted. By referencing the generic listing it would not establish an inconsistency in the document when the name change occurs. It is noted that when the title of the listing is updated, then these references will be revisited. The current text of 11.6.4(10) contains the preferred reference for pipe heating cables.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 10Ballot Results: Affirmative: 9 Vote Not Returned: 1 WHITTAKER

________________________________________________________________501-45 Log #41 MAN-MEC Final Action: Accept( 13.4.2 )________________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Correlating Committee Manufactured HousingRecommendation: This proposal is a result of a TCC note as indicated in the November 2002 ROC (501-27 Log #22). The Manufactured Housing Technical Correlating Committee (MAN-AAC) directs that the term “insulation” in 13.4.2 be deleted so that it reads as follows: “13.4.2* The requirements of Section 8.6 for heat / loss shall apply to the common wall on each single-family attached dwelling unit.”Substantiation: This is an editorial correction.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 11Ballot Results: Affirmative: 7 Negative: 1 Abstain: 1 Vote Not Returned: 2 BOYCE, STILLWAGGONExplanation of Negative: HEIMAN: See my Explanation of Negative on 501-22 (Log #CP100).Explanatin of Abstention: STEVENS: See my reason of abstention on 501-22.

________________________________________________________________501-46 Log #12 MAN-ADM Final Action: Accept( 14.1.2.7 )________________________________________________________________Submitter: Fulton Desler, APA -The Engineered Wood AssociationRecommendation: Update the following: American Plywood Association APA-The Engineered Wood Association, P.O. Box 11700 7011 S. 19th St., Tacoma, WA 98411 98466-5399 APA-Form No. E-30P30S, APA Design/Construction Guide, Residential and Commercial Engineered Wood Construction Guide, 1996 2003 APA-Form No. H-815E, Design and Fabrication of All-Plywood Beams, Supp. 5, 1996 1995 APA-Form No. E445SPRP-108Q, APA PRP-108, Performance Standards and Policies for Structural Use Panels, E 445R1997 2002 APA- S-Form No. S812R, Design and Fabrication of Glued Plywood-Lumber Beams, Supp. 2, 1998 APA-U Form No. U813L, Design and Fabrication of Plywood Stressed-Skin Panels, Supp. 3, 1996 APA -U-Form No. U-814H, Design and Fabrication of Plywood Sandwich Panels, Supp. 4, 1993

APA-Form No. Y510S510T, Plywood Design Specification, 1999 APA Form No. N375B, Design Capacities of APA Performance Rated Structural-Use Panels, 2001Substantiation: APA changed its name as shown and prefers to use the street address rather than the post office box number. Publication form numbers and dates are updated to current editions. Form N375B is added to provide a commonly used reference for the design capacities of structural-use panels. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 10Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10

________________________________________________________________501-47 Log #12a MAN-STR Final Action: Accept( 14.1.2.7 )________________________________________________________________Submitter: Fulton Desler, APA -The Engineered Wood AssociationRecommendation: Update the following: American Plywood Association APA-The Engineered Wood Association, P.O. Box 11700 7011 S. 19th St., Tacoma, WA 98411 98466-5399 APA-Form No. E-30P30S, APA Design/Construction Guide, Residential and Commercial Engineered Wood Construction Guide, 1996 2003 APA-Form No. H-815E, Design and Fabrication of All-Plywood Beams, Supp. 5, 1996 1995 APA-Form No. E445SPRP-108Q, APA PRP-108, Performance Standards and Policies for Structural Use Panels, E 445R1997 2002 APA- S-Form No. S812R, Design and Fabrication of Glued Plywood-Lumber Beams, Supp. 2, 1998 APA-U Form No. U813L, Design and Fabrication of Plywood Stressed-Skin Panels, Supp. 3, 1996 APA -U-Form No. U-814H, Design and Fabrication of Plywood Sandwich Panels, Supp. 4, 1993 APA-Form No. Y510S510T, Plywood Design Specification, 1999 APA Form No. N375B, Design Capacities of APA Performance Rated Structural-Use Panels, 2001Substantiation: APA changed its name as shown and prefers to use the street address rather than the post office box number. Publication form numbers and dates are updated to current editions. Form N375B is added to provide a commonly used reference for the design capacities of structural-use panels. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 16Ballot Results: Affirmative: 13 Abstain: 1 Vote Not Returned: 2 BRADFIELD, WELDYExplanatin of Abstention: MENDLEN: See my abstention on 501-6.

________________________________________________________________501-48 Log #15 MAN-ADM Final Action: Reject( 14.1.2.10 )________________________________________________________________NoteNote: Since the ballot on this Proposal did not confirm the Committee Action, the Committee is soliciting public comment for review when the proposal is reconsidered by the Committee as a Public Comment.Submitter: John V. Loscheider, Loscheider Engineering CompanyRecommendation: Revise referenced standard as follows: 14.1.2.10 ASCE Publications. (No change to address.) SEI/ASCE 7, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, 1988 2002.Substantiation: ASCE 7 has been revised four times since 1988. The current version is 2002. SEI is the abbreviation for the Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Defer all action on this proposal to the Technical Committee on Structural for Manufactured Housing. Committee Statement: While this proposal recommends changes to Chapter 14 which is within the scope of this technical committee, the subject matter of the proposal pertains to structural design of manufactured homes which is outside the scope of this Technical Committee. The proposal has been deferred to the appropriate Technical Committee. Number Eligible to Vote: 10Ballot Results: Affirmative: 6 Negative: 4 Explanation of Negative: GHORBANI: The proposed change would affect many other aspects of a manufactured home. The details of which (particularly cost vs. benefits) are unknown at this time. More details/information on these other factors are necessary before this change can be considered. GILCHRIST: Negative response for following reasons, even though it is recognized that this has been deferred to the technical committee on structural. 1. Any changes in this item relate to a number of other factors that should also be coordinated and reviewed at the same time, including wind loading requirements, HUD requirements and the normal manufacturing design and approval process.

501-27

Report on Proposals — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 501 GORMAN: Increases load designs not required by HUD code. ROBERTS: While this proposal has been deferred to the TC-STR for its consideration, I am voting negative on this item. 1. There needs to be careful consideration for changes to any of the design loads in the standards. Simply updating a reference standard without considering the affect on the changes in design should not be permitted.

________________________________________________________________501-49 Log #15a MAN-STR Final Action: Accept( 14.1.2.10 )________________________________________________________________Submitter: John V. Loscheider, Loscheider Engineering CompanyRecommendation: Revise referenced standard as follows: 14.1.2.10 ASCE Publications. (No change to address.) SEI/ASCE 7, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, 1988 2002.Substantiation: ASCE 7 has been revised four times since 1988. The current version is 2002. SEI is the abbreviation for the Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 16Ballot Results: Affirmative: 11 Negative: 2 Abstain: 1 Vote Not Returned: 2 BRADFIELD, WELDYExplanation of Negative: BRYANT: Update of the reference to ASCE 7-2002 should not be permitted until other significant design changes (wind and seismic) are resolved. FARISH: • No analysis of the impact of the upgrade. • Should defer to 501-10 (Log #29) and 501-11 (Log #30) which are more specific as to the impact.Explanatin of Abstention: MENDLEN: See my abstention on 501-6.

________________________________________________________________501-50 Log #13 MAN-ADM Final Action: Accept in Principle( 14.1.2.31 )________________________________________________________________Submitter: Bob Eugene, Underwriters Laboratories Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read: UL 2021, Fixed and Location-Dedicated Electric Room Heaters, 1997, with Revisions 7/98, 12/2002.Substantiation: Update to the most current revisions of the referenced standard.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Defer all action on this proposal to the Technical Committee on Mechanical for Manufactured Housing. Committee Statement: While this proposal recommends changes to Chapter 14 which is within the scope of this technical committee, the subject matter of the proposal pertains to heating of manufactured homes which is outside the scope of this Technical Committee. The proposal has been deferred to the appropriate Technical Committee. Number Eligible to Vote: 10Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10

________________________________________________________________501-51 Log #13a MAN-MEC Final Action: Accept( 14.1.2.31 )________________________________________________________________Submitter: Bob Eugene, Underwriters Laboratories Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read: UL 2021, Fixed and Location-Dedicated Electric Room Heaters, 1997, with Revisions 7/98, 12/2002.Substantiation: Update to the most current revisions of the referenced standard.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 11Ballot Results: Affirmative: 7 Negative: 1 Abstain: 1 Vote Not Returned: 2 BOYCE, STILLWAGGONExplanation of Negative: HEIMAN: See my Explanation of Negative on 501-22 (Log #CP100).Explanatin of Abstention: STEVENS: See my reason of abstention on 501-22.

________________________________________________________________501-52 Log #31 MAN-MEC Final Action: Reject( A.8.7.1 )________________________________________________________________Submitter: Kathleen T. Spear, Brickfield Burchette, Ritts, & Stone PC / Rep. Cardinal Glass Industries, Inc.Recommendation: Revise Section A.8.7.1 to read: A.8.7.1 To minimize the cooling load in hot climates [>1500 Cooling Degree Days at Base 65°F (18.3°C] consideration should be given to using windows with a solar heat gain coefficient no greater than 0.60 0.40 .

Substantiation: The solar heat gain coefficient (SHGC) is an important measurement of how much solar heat is admitted through glazing in homes. Reducing solar gain is of particular importance in significant cooling climates, due to its beneficial effects on air conditioning load and sizing, energy cost and comfort. In Section A.8.7.1, NFPA has recognized that control of solar heat gain should be a consideration in attempts to increase the energy efficiency of manufactured homes, but unfortunately has selected an SHGC value that has limited practical effect. The suggested 0.60 SHGC is simply too high; a more meaningful requirement would be a 0.40 SHGC. In fact, in some cases a 0.60 SHGC can be reached by simply using a clear window, with no solar control characteristics. By changing the suggested SHGC value to 0.40, NFPA would be encouraging manufacturers to install glazing with solar control. The benefits of a 0.40 SHGC window are widely recognized. A number of state building/energy codes already require or use a 0.40 SHGC maximum for cooling climates - California, Florida, Georgia, Texas, and others. The United States Department of Energy has found that including a 0.40 SHGC requirement in model, national energy codes for stick-buillt homes was a major improvement in energy efficiency over previous model codes that did not have such provisions. See building Energy Standards Program: Determinations Regarding Energy Efficiency Improvements in the 1998 and the 2000 International Energy Conservation Codes for Residential Buildings, 66 Fed, Reg. 1,964, at 1,965, 1,968 (Jan. 10, 2001). The Efficient Window Collaborative recommends a 0.40 SHGC for cooling climates, as does the Energy Star program. Analyses show that a 0.40 SHGC window generates significant energy cost savings. See Carmody, John, et al., Residential Windows, 2nd ed., W.W.Norton and Company, 2000, at 184-86. In addition to energy cost savings and associated supply and environmental benefits, a lower SHGC permits the utilization of smaller HVAC systems, further reducing cost. Id. at 187-90. The lower SHGC also reduces peak electric demand on the electric grid, reducing the need for new electric power plants. An additional, positive effect of suggesting glazing with a lower SHGC value is that the combination of fenestration design and the coatings used to reduce solar heat gain have the added side effect of reducing the U-factor of the window as well. By suggesting that manufacturers consider low solar gain glazing, this proposal would typically result in the use of products that increase energy efficiency during both cooling and heating periods. This type of glazing is already widely available in all fifty states, as the market for low solar gain glazing has grown in recent years in response to both state building code requirements and consumer demand. A 0.40 SHGC can be achieved in any window frame with low solar gain glazing, and without noticeable tinting or reduction in visible light. Further, studies have shown that the upgrade costs (at retail) to add a low solar gain low-e coating to a double glazed window is less than $1.50 per square foot. 1 While not insignificant for low-income buyers, the costs of upgrading to high performance windows can be offset by lower energy bills within just a few years, not to mention the potential for reduced HVAC system costs. Finally, the SHGC provision is only a suggestion. As such, the SHGC value listed is one that manufacturers will consider striving toward as a way to market their manufactured homes as energy efficient. NFPA should suggest a value consistent with the recommendation of the experts in the field that can make a real difference by significantly increase energy efficiency and lowering homeowner energy bills by reducing consumption. 1Retailer surveys of Home Depot and Loweʼs across the country indicate upgrade costs at less than $1.50/sf - without discount pricing for stocked items. If the item is a stocked item, the upgrade charge is 10 - 15 percent less. Additional studies cited by the U.S. Department of Energy and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory peg upgrade prices at $1.24 to 41.65/sq ft. (Washington SEO Study (1995)), $0.65 sq ft (Ohio Study (1996)), $1.68/sq ft (Xenergy Study (California 2001)) and $0.89/sq ft (Quantec Study (Northwest 2002)).Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: See Committee Action and Statement for Proposal 501-53 (Log #34). Number Eligible to Vote: 11Ballot Results: Affirmative: 7 Negative: 1 Abstain: 1 Vote Not Returned: 2 BOYCE, STILLWAGGONExplanation of Negative: HEIMAN: See my Explanation of Negative on 501-22 (Log #CP100).Explanatin of Abstention: STEVENS: See my reason of abstention on 501-22.

________________________________________________________________501-53 Log #34 MAN-MEC Final Action: Reject( A.8.7.1, 8.6.1.4 )________________________________________________________________Submitter: Christopher Early, US Department of EnergyRecommendation: Revise text of A.8.7.1 to read as follows and relocate to new section 8.6.14. To minimize the cooling load in hot climates [1500 Cooling Degree Days Base 65°F (18.3°C)] consideration should be given to using windows with a the glazing in windows of homes located in Zone 1 of Figure 8.6 shall have with an average solar heat gain coefficient no greater than 0.60 0.40, based on tests using NFRC 100, Procedure for Determining Fenestration Product

501-28

Report on Proposals — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 501 Thermal Properties. Homes designed and constructed with overhangs, awnings, or other permanent shading devices that limit heat gain through the window by an amount equivalent to a 0.40 SHGC window without any shading devices shall be considered to comply with this section.Substantiation: Windows contribute a large portion of the cooling load. The cost of low-SHGC windows has dropped dramatically in the last several years. Low-SHGC windows are now required for residential buildings in a similar geographical area by the International Energy Conservation Code. An update of the analysis which originally set Manufactured Housing Uo requirements that are now in NFPA 501, was performed for the US Department of Energy by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. This analysis showed that low-SHGC glazing is cost-effective for the homeowner in Zone 1. The cost-effective product is a low-emissivity (low-E) glazing that provides both a low Uo and a low SHGC that would be affordable, with a first year positive cash flow to most owners. In addition to benefiting the homeowners, the low-SHGC also helps lower peak electrical loads and the electrical energy use of the country. The Manufactured Housing Research Allianceʼs Home Cooling Equipment Sizing Chart states “over sizing is a costly mistake” and goes on to say “in many cases, the use of low-E windows instead of clear glass will allow for a reduction of a ton of cooling capacity. The value of low-E glass increases as the cooling load increases and at larger window areas”. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters.

Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The committee believes that insufficient information has been provided to substantiate the proposd change. The committee specifically requests that a cost benefit analysis be conducted. Number Eligible to Vote: 11Ballot Results: Affirmative: 6 Negative: 2 Abstain: 1 Vote Not Returned: 2 BOYCE, STILLWAGGONExplanation of Negative: HEIMAN: See my Explanation of Negative on 501-22 (Log #CP100). LUBLINER: The committee was provided with sufficient information and cost benefit analysis in the proposal justification. The committee ignored information and analysis from; USDOE, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and even the Manufactured Housing Research Allianceʼs Home Cooling Equipment Sizing Charts. Those on the committee who rejected the proposal did not provide any information which disputed the proposal. When members are not well informed they should abstain not rejecting valid proposals. Cooling energy costs and comfort are very real problems in manufactured homes. If the committee members want to have an “equal footing” with site built homes then they should build to the same minimum level of quality. The same window requirements has applied to site built homes, as part of the ICC since 1998.Explanatin of Abstention: STEVENS: See my reason of abstention on 501-22.

Documents

Report on Proposals — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 501Box 11700 7011 South 19th Street, Tacoma, WA 98411 98466-5399. Substantiation: The name of APA, as currently shown, is incorrect. APA