Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

1

1 Department of Energy

2

3

4

5

6 Manufactured Housing Working Group

7 

8 

9 

10 8:00 a.m. to 2:15 p.m.

11 Friday, October 24, 2014

12 

13 National Renewable Energy Laboratory

14 15013 Denver W. Parkway

15 Golden, CO 80401

16 

17

18

19

20

21

22
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

2

1 APPEARANCES:

2 Eileen Hoffman - Moderator

3 Javier Ramirez - Moderator

4 Lois Starkey - Manufactured Housing Institute

5 Mark Ezzo - Clayton Homes

6 Rob Luter - Lippert

7 Kavita Vaidyanatham - DOE

8 Joe Hagerman - DOE

9 Ed Barbour - Navigant

10 Matthew Muller 

11 Robin Roy - Natural Resources Defense Council

12 Manuel Santana - CAVCO Industries

13 Eric Lacey - Responsible Energy Codes Alliance

14 Michael Lubliner - State University

15 Ishbel Dickens - NMHOA

16 Stacey Epperson - Next Step Network

17 Mark Weiss - Manufactured Housing Association

18 Lowell Ungar - American Council for an Energy Efficient

19 Economy

20 Emanuel Levy - Systems Building & Research Alliance

21

22
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

3

1 APPEARANCES CONTINED:

2 John Caskey - National Electrical Manufacturer's Association

3 David Tompos - NTA, Inc.

4 Michael Wade - Cavalier Home Builders

5 Pete Schneider - Efficiency Vermont

6 Richard Potts - Virginia Department of Housing and Community

7 Development

8 Bert Kessler - Palm Harbor Homes

9 Keith Dennis - National Rural Electric Cooperative Association

10 Rick Hanger - Housing Technology and Standards

11 Tom Eckman

12 Matthew Walker - Navigant

13 Keith Dennis

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21 

22
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

4

1 P R O C E E D I N G S

2 MS. HOFFMAN: Good morning. This is Eileen Barckas

3 Hoffman, one of your co-facilitators from FMCS. Welcome to our

4 homestretch meeting of the Manufactured Housing Working Group,

5 part of the Department of Energy's ASRAC FACA. 

6 What we're going to do today is quite a condensed program

7 from 8:00 in the morning until noon, to see if we can get this

8 all finalized. There's a slightly revised agenda up there. 

9 Javier, do you want to mention what the differences are?

10 MR. RAMIZREZ: Yeah. Actually, we made quite a few. As

11 you can see up here, as soon as we're done with these

12 introductions we're going to be doing public comment as well as

13 any working group comments. And then I'm happy to say that

14 Manny and his group were able to finish their homework and so

15 we're going to review the footnotes that they put together. And

16 then we're going to review the draft of the term sheet. And

17 with that I want to just remind you all that we've approved all

18 the components of what Matthew put together in the draft. So

19 what we're looking for are substantial changes to it, right.

20 Now if there's editing issues, I would suggest that we

21 don't get caught up on the editorial stuff here. You could take

22 up until Friday of next week, the 31st, to submit any editorial
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

5

1 corrections to DOE and they'll incorporate those. What we're

2 looking for are the substantive, if there's anything that we

3 need to change on that. And then we'll get the final formal

4 thumbs up on that.

5 Mark, you have a question on that?

6 MR. WEISS: Will that time period include our comments

7 with respect to our position on the term sheet?

8 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Indiscernible.)

9 MR. WEISS: That's part of that time?

10 MR. RAMIZREZ: I think that's actually not part -- all

11 we're talking about are the editorial changes. As far --

12 MR. WEISS: I assume we're taking a vote at some point.

13 MR. RAMIZREZ: Yes. Today.

14 MR. WEISS: My question is, when will that be because

15 indent to that I'll have some statements I want to make.

16 MR. RAMIZREZ: Sure. And I'll defer to DOE on that.

17 MS. VAIDYANATHAM: The final vote for the term sheet

18 should be for today. 

19 MR. WEISS: I understand. When?

20 MS. HOFFMAN: This is Kavita.

21 MS. VAIDYANATHAM: At the end of the day, I assume that

22 you'll look through the term sheet right now. If there's any
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

6

1 substantive comments, if there's something to add to the term

2 sheet, please speak up.

3 MS. HOFFMAN: Okay. 

4 MR. WEISS: So we'll have a closing comment period, 10:30

5 to 11:30?

6 MS. VAIDYANATHAM: Yes.

7 MS. HOFFMAN: Yeah. That was Mark Weiss.

8 MR. RAMIZREZ: All right. And then when we're done with

9 that we'll do the other recommendations and I sent that out last

10 night and I didn't get any additional comments. A couple folks

11 had asked me to add a few things on there before they left

12 yesterday and I added those. And then closing comments.

13 MS. HOFFMAN: Right. Before we get formally started we're

14 going to see who is in the room and who is online, so why don't

15 we start with you, John Caskey?

16 MR. CASKEY: John Caskey, National Electrical

17 Manufacturer's Association, and also the ASHRAC representative. 

18

19 MR. LEVY: Emanuel Levy, Systems Building and Research

20 Alliance.

21 MR. UNGER: Lowell Ungar, American Council for an

22 Energy-Efficient Economy.
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

7

1 MR. WEISS: Mark Weiss, Manufactured Housing Association

2 for Regulatory Reform.

3 MS. EPPERSON: Stacey Epperson, Next Step Networks.

4 MS. DICKENS: Ishbel Dickens, National Manufactured

5 Homeowner's Association. 

6 MR. LUBLINER: Michael Lubliner, State University.

7 MR. LACEY: Eric Lacey, Responsible Energy Codes Alliance.

8 MR. SANTANA: Manuel Santana, CAVCO Industries.

9 MR. ROY: Robin Roy, Natural Resources Defense Council.

10 MR. WALKER: Matthew Walker, Navigant.

11 MR. BARBOUR: Ed Barbour, Navigant Consulting.

12 MR. HAGERMAN: Joe Hagerman, DOE.

13 MS. VAIDYANATHAM: Kavita Vaidyanatham, DOE, General

14 Counsel's Office.

15 MR. LUTER: Rob Luter, Lippert Components. 

16 MR. EZZO: Mark Ezzo, Clayton Homes.

17 MS. STARKEY: Lois Starkey, Manufactured Housing

18 Institute.

19 MS. HOFFMAN: Okay. Thank you. And, remote, I guess I

20 can mention who they are. 

21 We have Peter Schneider, Bert Kessler, David Tompos,

22 Michael Wade, Richard Potts and also Jim Bauer as an alternate
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

8

1 to Michael Wade. And from the public we have Rich Medlin.

2 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Medlin.

3 MS. HOFFMAN: Medlin. Sorry. Excuse me.

4 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Medlin.

5 MS. HOFFMAN: Medlin. From HUD. Want to get started?

6 MR. RAMIZREZ: Yeah. Let's start off. Hopefully Rick's

7 mic is open. But we want to allow for a period of public

8 comment before we go into comments from the working groups.

9 MR. HANGER: Can everyone hear me?

10 MR. RAMIZREZ: Yes, Rick.

11 MR. HANGER: Hello?

12 MR. RAMIZREZ: Rick, we can hear you.

13 MR. HANGER: Oh, you can. Good. Thank you. Okay. 

14 MR. RAMIZREZ: Yes, Rick, if you have any public comments

15 you can do so now.

16 MR. HANGER: Okay. Well, first of all I wanted to

17 congratulate the ASHRAC working group on reaching consensus last

18 night on the majority of the components to be included in the

19 Manufactured Home Energy Efficiency Term Sheet. 

20 As a reminder, this is just a first step in the process

21 which would require the development of proposed rule by DEO,

22 obtaining approval of that proposed rule from the lendee,
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

9

1 publication of the proposed rule, obtaining comments from the

2 president, and most importantly consultation with HUD and its

3 Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee before a final rule can

4 be issued.

5 I would agree with other voices on the working group to

6 have cautioned not to overreach, particularly as it relates to

7 the affordability and first cost to low-income home buyers, and

8 to the impact on availability of affordable manufactured homes

9 and homeownership for all Americans as required by the

10 Manufactured Housing Act. 

11 To that end I would suggest moderation as you consider the

12 solar heat gain coefficient and other elements of the proposal

13 so that you don't overreach on the potential impact on

14 affordability to future low-income purchasers and would

15 recommend uniformity and simplicity wherever possible, including

16 the merger of the so-called red and green zones with an initial

17 solar heat gain coefficient of 0.33. 

18 I would also remind the working group that these issues

19 will be reexamined as the IECC is updated in the future, and

20 that further improvements can be assessed. The impact of the

21 initial changes on affordability is better understood once

22 initial energy efficiency standards are adopted and implemented.
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

10

1 I think we look forward to future dialog with DOE on all of

2 these issues, on standards, and their enforcement. Thank you

3 very much. 

4 MR. RAMIZREZ: Thank you, Rick. Any other public

5 comments?

6 MS. HOFFMAN: Okay. Then we have Mark Weiss. Mark Weiss.

7 MR. WEISS: Following up on what Rick said, I'd like to

8 ask OGC if they're doing any further consultation with HUD or

9 any further development of a plan on your part for that

10 consultation, when that will occur.

11 MS. VAIDYANATHAM: This is Kavita Vaidyanatham

12 representing the General Counsel's office at DOE. There hasn't

13 been further discussion because we are waiting for a term sheet

14 to be approved by this point in ASRAC. Once that term sheet is

15 approved and sent to the secretary then we will consider what

16 kind of consultation, depending on what's in the term sheet,

17 what information, and how to best engage HUD, their general

18 council's office, and any appropriate program in HUD.

19 MS. HOFFMAN: Thank you. Ishbel? Oh, you want to follow

20 up?

21 MR. WEISS: And that's fine. I appreciate that. But as I

22 have stated a number of times previously, mostly in the early
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

11

1 meetings, our expectation is that that consultation will be

2 substantive and a meaningful phase of the proceedings and not as

3 effectively as an afterthought. So something that's already a

4 done deal. And if that is what occurs, if it's not in a

5 meaningful stage, that will become an additional point of

6 opposition for us, to this proceeding, in addition to the

7 multiple other ones that I'll get into later.

8 MR. RAMIZREZ: Thank you.

9 MS. HOFFMAN: Okay. Ishbel?

10 MS. DICKENS: I just -- this is Ishbel from NMHOA. I just

11 had a point of clarification. Rick Mendlin was introduced as a

12 member of the public, but was he speaking as a member of the

13 public or as a representative of HUD?

14 MR. RAMIZREZ: Rick, would you like to --

15 MR. MENDLIN: I'm a representative of HUD. I'm sorry.

16 MS. DICKENS: Okay. Thank you.

17 MR. WEISS: He's a member of the public like I'm a member

18 of the public at MHCC.

19 MS. DICKENS: I guess (indiscernible)

20 MS. HOFFMAN: Oh, Lois?

21 MS. STARKEY: Lois Starkey, MHI. I guess this is sort of

22 following on just a clarification and maybe we'll get into it
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

12

1 later. But assuming that we have approved the term sheet today,

2 is there any problem with, you know, members of this committee

3 who are also on MHCC to discuss this at the meeting that will be

4 held of the MHCC in December. 

5 MS. VAIDYANATHAM: This is Kavita Vaidyanatham of DOE, GC.

6 Once the term sheet has been sent to ASHRAC, that will be put

7 on to the public docket so all of the information that's on the

8 docket is public record, so any person in this room or any

9 member of the public can discuss any of the information that's

10 been on the docket or any other information that you would like

11 to. So there is no restriction.

12 MS. HOFFMAN: Okay. And no more further comments,

13 or, Mark did you --

14 MR. WEISS: This is going to be, "let it all hang

15 out" day. You know, I understand the position of DOE. What I

16 have a problem with is getting the term sheet the day we're

17 going to vote on it and having 45 minutes for discussion. I

18 recognize that it incorporates elements that we've already

19 talked about, but you know, the language of the term sheet is

20 important to me as well. I understand you said we have until

21 Friday to make comments on that, but that's not going to be in

22 front of this group with an opportunity for discussion and
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

13

1 consideration by all, and I don't think that's an adequate

2 substitute. And I just having us come in today, the day of the

3 vote, with effectively no time to review it, is jus consistent

4 with the overall process I've seen. And again, relayed in my

5 comments later. Thank you.

6 MR. RAMIZREZ: Any other working group comments? 

7 MR. CASKEY: Just, yeah. John Caskey.

8 MR. RAMIZREZ: John.

9 MR. CASKEY: The point of clarification, were you

10 saying that the process relative to voting on the term sheet is

11 consistent with the way the group has been running for the other

12 X months, or are you saying it was inconsistent with the way it

13 has been run today?

14 MR. WEISS: What I'm saying is the presentation of

15 the term sheet today --

16 MR. CASKEY: Yeah.

17 MR. WEISS: -- and 45 minutes for review and

18 consideration, is consistent with the limitations that have been

19 placed on this committee in terms of time --

20 MR. CASKEY: Oh, okay.

21 MR. WEISS: -- and scope.

22 MR. CASKEY: Great. Thank you for sharing that.
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

14

1 MR. RAMIZREZ: Okay. If there are no other public

2 comments, then we'll go ahead and move on to the first point in

3 the agenda, which is the -- 

4 MR. HAGERMAN: Just a point of clarification. If we

5 need to spend more time on the term sheet we can spend more

6 time. We can spend all day on that, right? So, I don't think

7 when you get it they're trying to pronounce it right now, right?

8 Yeah, it's just a summation of everything you've already voted

9 on. There's no new material. So, I know, wait and see. 

10 MR. WEISS: I'm not suggesting there is new

11 material. All I'm saying is the language of the way it's

12 presented is potentially relevant and I'd like to see it and

13 have a chance to consider it, but --

14 MR. RAMIZREZ: Yeah, we have to put at least a

15 ballpark time estimates on here and I think all of you have

16 seen, throughout the process, that these are just guesstimates. 

17 We run well over many of these time limits, but hopefully there

18 are no surprises in the draft term sheet, but that's what we're

19 going to be looking for, right? And anything that's of

20 substance.

21 All right. So, well, we're going to go ahead and

22 pull up the documents that were submitted on the footnotes, and
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

15

1 then once those are up, Manny, if we could have you lead the

2 discussion on that I'd appreciate that. Which one do you want

3 first, the chart or the --

4 MR. SANTANA: The chart. 

5 MR. RAMIZREZ: Okay.

6 MS. STARKEY: So, let's blow up the chart.

7 MR. SANTANA: Okay. Let me explain first what we

8 did here. Whatever you see that's red and struck -- well, first

9 of all the footnotes that are below the chart match the

10 footnotes that are in the IECC. Whatever is red and struck is

11 text that exists in the IECC that was removed or recommended to

12 be removed. Whatever is in black is existing, remaining

13 language. And whatever is underlined, we left it in black so

14 you could see it better with the contrast. But whatever is

15 underlined are additions. So all the black underlined stuff is

16 additions. 

17 And then if you go back to the table, whatever is

18 highlighted -- well, that table should reflect the values that

19 we voted on yesterday for the prescriptive table, with the

20 exception of the skylight Uo Value. 

21 When we sat down we realized -- when we started to

22 go through the footnotes we realized that several of the
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

16

1 footnotes addressed skylights, and that was something that we

2 failed to discuss yesterday, so we added some values there. 

3 Swag numbers, you know. 

4 So anyway, so I guess we'll start with eight. So

5 starting with Footnote 8, it reads, "R-values are minimums,

6 U-factors and solar heat gain coefficients are maximums."

7 You know, we took this in pieces and so there

8 shouldn't be any argument with those two statements. So, I

9 think maybe we have to take this the same way. John?

10 MR. CASKEY: This is John Caskey at NEMA and first I

11 appreciate all the work you did. I did see you guys working

12 late into the night last night. So, thanks for doing that. 

13 MR. SANTANA: We didn't see you; we'd invite you.

14 MR. CASKEY: This, I put into my picky-ass category

15 but I think it's good for the future of the table, is that I do

16 see inconsistencies where I see like, you know, in one case

17 you're talking about U-factors, and then up in the table you're

18 talking about U-values, and it would be nice if you could -- I

19 don't know if they're always the same or not, but it would be

20 good to be consistent with terminology. And like under the

21 window, under the -- here you say U-factors and SHGC are

22 maximums, but then up in the table you actually call them SHGC
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

17

1 values, I think. And just picky little things like that.

2 MR. SANTANA: Sure.

3 MR. CASKEY: Like, it would be great for the reader

4 to make it really idiot proof if you will, so that they know

5 exactly what you mean when you're relating the table to the

6 definitions or to the footnotes. 

7 The other thing is, to me personally, I know we had

8 the discussion about could it be average of all of the window

9 glazing and things like, and doors, or was it just the maximum

10 or the minimum? And I'm not sure that from reading this I

11 understand that yet.

12 MR. SANTANA: Okay. And good comments, and that

13 brings up a few items I wanted to interrupt. One is, there's

14 going to be errors editorially with this thing. What we did is

15 we tried to get down concepts that we agreed on. We didn't all

16 agree on the exact language or the way it was to be presented,

17 but we agreed on the need to address that issue. So we're

18 expecting some feedback from the community here as to how it's

19 supposed to read or -- but the concepts that we're presenting

20 are what we felt was important. 

21 With respect to U-values and U-factors and stuff

22 like -- inconsistencies like that, yeah, they should be cleared
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

18

1 up. We didn't do that intentionally. So, yeah, if you see that

2 I think it would be good to fix that now according to those term

3 sheets.

4 MR. HAGERMAN: Right. Joe Hagerman, DOE. That's

5 why we're saying by next Friday for those editorial comments. 

6 MR. SANTANA: Right. But it's actually -- 

7 MR. HAGERMAN: But our --

8 MR. SANTANA: -- secondary to the concept that we're

9 trying to --

10 MR. HAGERMAN: Right. I think it's secondary too,

11 so it's just a little editorial thing. We want this thing to be

12 professional, of course. 

13 MR. SANTANA: And to the point of averages, in

14 conjunction with the footnote table we also have additional

15 sections that we're presenting, some of which deal with weighted

16 Uo alternatives or Ua alternatives. So this chart is supposed

17 to stand on averages, as some of the footnotes will explain. 

18 That will be clear as we go on.

19 MR. HAGERMAN: Okay. Thanks. 

20 MR. SANTANA: Okay. So again, so footnote 8 was

21 changed to read, "R-values are minimum, U-factors and Solar Heat

22 Gains are maximums." Everything else was struck.
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

19

1 MR. RAMIZREZ: All right. So let me ask, since

2 we're right here, do we want to change factors right now,

3 quickly to values?

4 MR. SANTANA: I think it should be --

5 MR. RAMIZREZ: That could be a quick editorial

6 change. 

7 MR. SANTANA: Okay. It should be U-factor.

8 MR. RAMIZREZ: Okay. So up on the chart we need to

9 change values to factors?

10 MR. SANTANA: Yeah. For the U -- yeah, where it

11 says U-value it should be U-factor. 

12 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Its R-value and then

13 U-factor.

14 MR. SANTANA: Yeah, it's R-value, U-factor.

15 MR. RAMIZREZ: R-value, U-factor. Okay.

16 MR. LUTER: This is Rob at Lippert. If I could add

17 something else. Typically SHGC is just referred to as SHGC, not

18 SHGC Value, so you can strike value and that would be consistent

19 with industry jargon.

20 MR. RAMIZREZ: Okay. All right. So we just did

21 those quick. If that was on the computer I wouldn't suggest to

22 do that, but since Ted is here, so he's doing that real quick. 
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

20

1 All right.

2 So then there's a couple things here, right? One of

3 them is to make sure that everyone is okay with the Skylight

4 U-factors because that's one thing that technically we didn't

5 nail down with the group, right? So let me see a show of thumbs

6 if everyone is okay -- well, before we do that -- 

7 MR. SANTANA: Yes, because Footnote B --

8 MR. RAMIZREZ: Okay.

9 MR. SANTANA: -- deals with solar heat gain.

10 MR. RAMIZREZ: All right. Go ahead.

11 MR. SANTANA: And that was the one that dealt with

12 skylights. So, you know, if we can get buy-in on A, then we can

13 move on and then hit the skylight U-factors. 

14 MR. RAMIZREZ: All right. So focusing on A, let's

15 see a show of thumbs if you're okay with the recommendations

16 from the Subcommittee for A.

17 (Vote taken.)

18 MR. RAMIZREZ: Okay. Is anyone online with their

19 thumbs down? Okay. Mark, do you want to comment?

20 MR. WEISS: Yeah, it's just necessarily part of the

21 costing issue, so.

22 MR. RAMIZREZ: Costing issue. Okay. So note that
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

21

1 Mark Weiss is a no-vote, everyone else was okay with that. 

2 MS. HOFFMAN: Also, we will have copies made but

3 we're using the board. So can everyone see this? Okay. We're

4 getting copies made as we speak.

5 Okay. And then --

6 MR. RAMIZREZ: All right. Then on B, do you want to

7 --

8 MR. SANTANA: Okay. So, B. B read, "The

9 fenestration U-factor column excludes skylights." We removed

10 that because we don't have a fenestration U-factor column

11 anymore. Now we have columns for windows, columns for doors,

12 and that was when we realized we didn't have a column for

13 skylights. You know, that was one thing that wasn't addressed. 

14 So the first part of that is unnecessary anymore. 

15 The solar heat gain column applies to all glaze

16 fenestrations. So then that means that the solar heat gain

17 coefficients for the windows would apply to all glaze

18 fenestrations, including skylights. And that's consistent with

19 the IECC, and that may require some discussions.

20 MR. LUTER: Yeah. Rob with Lippert. I'm not a

21 skylight manufacturer, but it's my understanding that the

22 skylight manufacturers have a tough time with window level solar
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

22

1 heat gain coefficients because of the angle of the sun and where

2 these things are placed. It would be worthy of some additional

3 research. I'd hate to exclude skylights by virtue of not being

4 able to meet a solar heat gain number.

5 MR. RAMIZREZ: All right. So is that one of those

6 issues that we need for DOE to do some of the research and plug

7 in that number later, on the skylight? Because I heard Manny

8 say that that points on five was a swag number and what I'm

9 hearing Rob say is that, well, let's make sure that that is the

10 correct number so we don't exclude anything. I don't know if

11 we're going to get that in the next half hour or so.

12 MR. LUTER: It's been the subject of some discussion

13 at NFRC meetings and ALMA (phonetic) meetings that skylights, by

14 virtue of where they are, are different than windows. I'll try

15 to do some quick research.

16 MR. RAMIZREZ: Eric. Eric then Manny.

17 MR. LACEY: So, I know Manny called this a swag, but

18 I don't think it's quite that far off. The numbers are based on

19 the 2015 IECC. There's a little break for Climate Zone 1B, just

20 so we could only have two values for the whole country. But,

21 you know, Climate Zone 1A is consistent with IECC Climate Zone

22 1, and the .55 is basically for climate zones -- most of the
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

23

1 rest of the northern climate zones. It's just in that Climate

2 Zone 1B where we weakened it just a little bit to match the 1A. 

3

4 Now skylights, Rob is right, there was a carve out,

5 which has been crossed out here. There was a carve out for

6 skylights SHGC that allowed you an exception to go up to a .30

7 SHGC to allow a few more skylights to qualify. What we faced

8 with skylights was, you know, this group really didn't address

9 it. Not every home has a skylight and so it's kind of hard to

10 do cost-benefit analysis and so on when it's not something like

11 a window or a door that every single house is going to have. 

12 And so, what are you left with? You can either

13 include them in a total fenestration calculation and say, okay,

14 all fenestration needs to get a U-factor on average of,

15 whatever. Or you can set a separate column and say, in those

16 cases where you have a skylight it doesn't have to meet the same

17 U-factor requirement as a window. It's a lot more challenging

18 for a skylight. But we're going to carve out this special

19 U-factor. You're not allowed to trade between this and the

20 window. However, when you use the Uo calculation, you could.

21 So the idea here was to try to match the

22 prescriptive value from the IECC 2015 as much as possible. You
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

24

1 know, if it would help to put the exception back in for a 30

2 SHGC, you know, I don't think that would be a big deal. But,

3 you know, the only SHGC we've kind of landed on was Climate Zone

4 1A, and the others are still kind of up in the air. 

5 So that's maybe a little more background on where

6 this comes from.

7 MR. LUTER: Well, and Rob again. Just for a quick

8 reference, I'm looking at the Energy Star 6.0 Program for

9 windows, doors, and skylights, and I'm seeing in like zones, the

10 solar heat gain requirements for skylights being .03 or higher

11 in the southern and south central Energy Star zones. I'm going

12 to infer that that speaks to the difficulties that they face by

13 virtue of their location. But in 1A, for example, Energy Star

14 is calling for less than a .28. We're saying a maximum of .25

15 if we go with this. 

16 Now, I'm talking about solar heat gain.

17 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Oh, okay. 

18 MR. LUTER: Not the U-factor. The U-factors are in

19 line. 

20 MR. SANTANA: Well, could we vote on the U-factors

21 as suggested? It sounds like there's some buy-in.

22 MR. RAMIZREZ: Yeah, that may be in line. Let's get
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

25

1 Lowell done and then we'll do that.

2 MR. UNGER: So, I'm just curious on U-factor and if

3 we're going to -- even if we're going to combine 1A and 1B and

4 don't want it to have different numbers, glancing at IECC, which

5 has .75 for Zone 1, .65 for Zone 2, .55 for Zone 3, from what we

6 said yesterday I think a weighted average would be around .6 or

7 .62. I'm curious why you settled on .75 rather than what would

8 be the --

9 MR. LACEY: I'm not as quick at math as you.

10 MR. UNGER: -- roughly (indiscernible.)

11 MR. LACEY: I mean, these are, you know --

12 there's nothing magical about the numbers, I think, in Climate

13 Zones 1A and 1B. If the group feels like one or another -- I

14 won't speak for Manny or anyone else. If the group feels like

15 another number is fine, you could have the same for the whole

16 country. But we kind of started with the IECC and then just

17 combined those two zones.

18 MR. UNGER: I have no idea what the costs are. 

19 Off-hand, just looking at the chart I would say, you know, to be

20 lenient in .65.

21 MR. SANTANA: You know, and I will say, we did this

22 last night and we didn't have any cost added and we didn't have
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

26

1 any, you know, analysis. We just looked at what was in the

2 skylights and with the stakeholders that were there we tried to

3 come up with some numbers that were reasonable to present. You

4 know, and I think we're openly soliciting suggestions. You

5 know, if the numbers don't look adequate what's the suggestion?

6 MR. HAGERMAN: You know, my suggestion would be

7 either let's vote on this with the current numbers and failing

8 the vote there, just mark it to be determined DOE because it's

9 certainly no different than the other solar heat gain

10 coefficient study.

11 MR. SANTANA: We're talking about the -- we're

12 actually talking about both.

13 MR. UNGER: My question was on U-factor. Sorry. 

14 SHGC, I agree, it should probably be, you know --

15 MR. HAGERMAN: Our analysis for solar heat gain

16 coefficient is going to have to -- I mean, let us study U-factor

17 too at the same time, but you know, that's beside the point.

18 MR. UNGER: That would be fine.

19 MR. HAGERMAN: You know what I mean by that? I

20 mean, it's --

21 MR. RAMIZREZ: All right. I'm sorry, let's get

22 Robin and then Michael.
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

27

1 MR. ROY: Robin Roy. I was going to also suggest

2 deferring to DOE to do some analysis because we haven't done any

3 of this one. But I had a second -- Joe is done so, but also the

4 question for the manufacturers, how common are skylights and do

5 they tend to be the most affordable end of the manufactured

6 housing world, or are they higher -- are they higher end

7 options?

8 MR. SANTANA: Well, Manny here. Only speaking under

9 my experience, of course, the use of skylights regional, I've

10 seen them used widely in the southwest where there's a lot of

11 sun and they want more light. And they're usually not an

12 element that's part of a base product. You know, they're

13 usually because people want nicer -- more light in a kitchen or

14 in the living room space. And that's only based on my

15 experience. 

16 MR. RAMIZREZ: I'm sorry. Let's get Michael then

17 Lois.

18 MR. LUBLINER: I had the same question Robin had so

19 --

20 MR. RAMIZREZ: Okay. Lois.

21 MS. STARKEY: Lois Starkey, MHI. We did some

22 research a few years ago of the industry practices and it comes
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

28

1 and goes with the market. In the last few years we haven't seen

2 as much skylight building but when the market is better, there's

3 more activity. And it tends to be, you know, not in the

4 lower-end product.

5 MR. RAMIZREZ: So I've heard two different

6 recommendation. One of them was to let the DOE do the research,

7 similar to what they were doing with Climate Zone 1B. But I've

8 also heard, let's see where we're at on these numbers since it

9 appears that the U-factors are pretty much in line with 2015

10 IECC and what Rob's quick peak was. 

11 MR. LUTER: Rob with Lippert. If I could offer one

12 more comment? Just looking at the U-values for skylights

13 specifically, comparing the values that are offered appear with

14 the Energy Star 6.0, which is effective the first of the year,

15 while they are not as stringent as the Energy Star, they're not

16 off by much. I mean, considering they forego the aspect I think

17 they look very reasonable.

18 MR. RAMIZREZ: Well, let's go ahead and see your

19 thumbs on the numbers that are up here for the skylight

20 U-factors that are highlighted. Let's see a show of thumbs if

21 you're okay with this.

22 (Vote taken.)
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

29

1 MR. RAMIZREZ: Okay. I see Lowell, Mark Weiss, and

2 Robin with thumbs down. Anyone online with your thumbs down? 

3 All right, Lowell.

4 MR. UNGER: Yeah. These aren't fully consistent

5 with IECC and we don't have any justification for changing, so I

6 --

7 MR. HAGERMAN: Do you want to take a vote. Do you

8 want to take a vote on -- not punting, sorry? Deferring to DOE?

9 MR. RAMIZREZ: I here to --

10 MR. HAGERMAN: You have consensus right now

11 (indiscernible). I think, but -- 

12 MR. RAMIZREZ: Yeah, we do. 

13 MR. ROY: Javier, could you take a vote on having us

14 defer to DOE?

15 MS. HOFFMAN: We're also going to -- oh, sorry. 

16 Eileen Hoffman. We're going to take a vote on deferring these

17 values to more research by DOE to see what they come up with. 

18 So let's see a showing of thumbs for that.

19 MR. LUTER: One comment first.

20 MS. HOFFMAN: Yes. Sure, Rob.

21 MR. LUTER: Just reach consensus on the numbers? 

22 MS. HOFFMAN: You have, actually.
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

30

1 MR. LUTER: Okay. And was it determined that that

2 was unacceptable and we need to punt?

3 MR. RAMIZREZ: No, because there was three --

4 MR. WEISS: Three no votes.

5 MR. RAMIZREZ: -- no votes. And then the rest were

6 okay with it. And, let me see here.

7 MR. LUTER: Pretty strong consensus.

8 MS. HOFFMAN: That is strong, but we were going to

9 see if we could get the strongest consensus. That's what we're

10 working toward.

11 MR. RAMIZREZ: Yeah. And so right now we have

12 counted -- there were 18 folks that were either here or online

13 for voting purposes. So technically that is consensus. 

14 But if you remember, even like yesterday, we had

15 consensus and then we went around in a full circle. That's the

16 muddy process of consensus, right? So that way when you're done

17 you know that you've at least discussed and you've explored and

18 you've gotten the strongest consensus possible. I think what

19 Eileen is about to do here is just check the other one, see

20 which one is a stronger -- 

21 MS. HOFFMAN: A stronger -- 

22 MR. RAMIZREZ: -- consensus, and then we'll take the
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

31

1 stronger of the two.

2 MR. LUTER: Okay. So will the vote be on deferring

3 rather than accepting what we've already accepted, or just the

4 principle of deferring?

5 MS. HOFFMAN: No. It will be on deferring this

6 particular -- 

7 MR. LUTER: We're rejecting the previous consensus

8 --

9 MS. HOFFMAN: Right.

10 MR. LUTER: -- and deferring instead.

11 MS. HOFFMAN: Right. Any other questions?

12 MR. CASKEY: Yes, this --

13 MS. HOFFMAN: Yes, John.

14 MR. CASKEY: -- is John Caskey at NEMA. No offense,

15 but I have a little bit of a concern with the process because,

16 you know, right now whatever it is you have 18 out of --

17 MS. HOFFMAN: Yeah, right.

18 MR. CASKEY: -- 21, or whatever, that have agreed to

19 these specific numbers. If you defer to DOE then the people

20 that are sitting in this room have no vote on those numbers in

21 the future. You know, other than providing comments --

22 MS. HOFFMAN: Uh-huh.
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

32

1 MR. CASKEY: -- after the thing is put together by

2 Department of Energy. So I'm just a little bit concerned with

3 that process. It's really what we want -- from my perspective

4 what our objective is, if we have three no votes, 

5 (No audible response.) 

6 (Vote - Mark Weiss, Robin Roy, Lowell Unger) 

7 MR. CASKEY: Is there something we can do today with

8 those numbers that we see in front of us that would give you a

9 vote, give you -- that you would agree with those numbers, or is

10 there no way possible today that you can support any numbers

11 that we would put up there unless they're the same as what's in

12 the other document?

13 MS. HOFFMAN: Lowell?

14 MR. UNGER: Speaking for myself, one, we did

15 yesterday have multiple consensus votes where you try different

16 approaches and so what I was reading, this was a -- you know,

17 try a couple different approaches, see which has strongest

18 consensus. That said, I don't care strongly on this issue. 

19 I'm fine, whatever. 

20 I did say before in my comments that if that was .65

21 and .55, that would seem to me almost the same as IECC and then

22 I would be fine with just going ahead with that. 
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

33

1 MR. HAGERMAN: So Joe at DOE. Just look at the HUD,

2 I'm sure you have the IECC.

3 MS. HOFFMAN: That's Joe Hagerman.

4 MR. HAGERMAN: It's just 1B that's different from

5 IECC. So.

6 MS. HOFFMAN: Eric, did you have a --

7 MR. UNGER: Right. I was assuming again there is a

8 desire to keep 1A and 1B the same.

9 MR. HAGERMAN: That's right. That's right.

10 MR. UNGER: So I tried to combine -- I looked at

11 IECC and tried to say, if you did a weighted average what would

12 it be and it came out 1 something -- 

13 MR. HAGERMAN: 1B is .65.

14 MR. ROY: .65 or .55?

15 MR. HAGERMAN: .65. 

16 MR. UNGER: No, well, no, 1B is in Zone 3.

17 MR. HAGERMAN: Oh, right. 

18 MR. UNGER: So largely its .55.

19 (Several speaking at once.)

20 MR. UNGER: So I was averaging and came up --

21 thought .65 would be roughly the average.

22 MS. HOFFMAN: Okay. Eric, you --
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

34

1 MR. LACEY: I was just going to say, I would be

2 fine. If they need those approaches it won't change my thumb. 

3 You know, you have a competing balance between trying to stay as

4 closely -- my interest is staying as close as we can to the

5 IECC, try to balance that against minimizing the number of

6 climate zones, and trying to make a match. So, if you wanted to

7 make that .55 or .65, or whatever, I'm fine. Or if you wanted

8 to average them, I guess that's fine too. That won't change how

9 I vote. If it earns us a couple more thumbs, wonderful. But

10 that wasn't the big deal to me.

11 MS. HOFFMAN: Okay.

12 MR. UNGER: So, and to be clear, my suggestion was

13 for 1A and 1B to be .65. Again, I don't care as strongly as --

14 MS. HOFFMAN: Okay. Manny.

15 MR. SANTANA: I think that just eliminating no votes

16 doesn't exactly call for a stronger vote if you have a lot of

17 yes votes that go sideways. You know, we don't account for

18 those. You know, so if we had, you know, 18 yes votes, one

19 sideways, three nos and we replaced that for 10 yes and eight

20 sideways, you know, I wouldn't necessarily call that a stronger

21 vote.

22 MS. HOFFMAN: Okay, so --
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

35

1 MR. CASKEY: So, John Caskey at NEMA.

2 MS. HOFFMAN: Yeah. Let's keep it down.

3 MR. CASKEY: I think the ideal solution would be to

4 have option A is what we see in front of us, option B might be

5 another proposal, and then to vote between those two and see

6 which one has the strongest consensus, because again, nothing

7 against DOE but if you kick it back to DOE then still have no

8 votes or whatever, other than what they've heard in the room

9 today.

10 MS. HOFFMAN: Okay. So what -- go on, Joe.

11 MR. HAGERMAN: Joe Hagerman, DOE. We're also trying

12 to get out of here with it being the most complete document

13 possible --

14 MS. HOFFMAN: Sure.

15 MR. HAGERMAN: -- so DOE doesn't have to go do that,

16 because we don't want to do that. Right. 

17 MS. HOFFMAN: Okay. Mike Lubliner.

18 MR. LUBLINER: I heard that this is not as frequent

19 in affordable homes, so it's not as big of an issue. And I

20 suspect that when the market plays out the skylight market plays

21 out for this industry, and this is a fairly moot point. They're

22 going to build one product and it's going to be what it is. So,
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

36

1 I don't know how much time we want to spend on it.

2 MR. RAMIZREZ: So let's go ahead and -- what do you

3 want to have option B as?

4 MS. HOFFMAN: Or do we want to just keep with the

5 vote we had, which was three nos and everyone else supporting

6 going with this proposal? Let me just make sure. Rob?

7 MR. LUTER: Just one comment. Rob with Lippert. 

8 There's been a couple of comments on tweaking Zone 1B to a .65

9 or some other number, and I would have no problem with another

10 vote seeing if we would have stronger consensus on that versus

11 the first consensus we reached.

12 MS. HOFFMAN: Okay.

13 MR. LUTER: My concern was just kicking a can down

14 the road to DOE.

15 MS. HOFFMAN: I know we have a lot to do, but let's

16 then vote on that proposal and then make sure we can put this to

17 bed. 

18 So what is the new proposal to check on? Why don't

19 you restate it? Or Lowell.

20 MR. UNGER: So, my suggestion was 1A and 1B, because

21 I think people want to keep those the same, should both -- just

22 assuming people do want to keep those the same, it should both
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

37

1 be --

2 MS. HOFFMAN: Uh-huh.

3 MR. UNGER: -- .65.

4 MS. HOFFMAN: Point 65. So we're voting now on this

5 proposal with that change. And we'll see if we have -- what

6 kind of consensus we have. Can we see what thumbs we have?

7 (Vote taken.)

8 MS. HOFFMAN: There's more down. Let's see. One,

9 two, three, four, five -- let's see. I'm going to count again. 

10 One -- Manny, no? Two; Rob, three; Mark, four, and Lois, five. 

11 Okay. 

12 MR. RAMIZREZ: There's another one over here, so --

13 MS. HOFFMAN: And six. 

14 MR. RAMIZREZ: Yeah. All right.

15 MS. HOFFMAN: Okay. 

16 MR. RAMIZREZ: So what you have up here of the .75,

17 .75, .55, .55, was the strongest consensus.

18 MS. HOFFMAN: Yes.

19 MR. RAMIZREZ: So, Rick, there are your numbers

20 then.

21 MS. HOFFMAN: We're going with that.

22 MR. RAMIZREZ: Okay. 
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

38

1 MS. HOFFMAN: We're going to make sure everyone is

2 okay with that process. We're going with the original vote and

3 with the three nos on that. Okay.

4 MR. RAMIZREZ: Where do you want to go next, Manny?

5 MR. SANTANA: Okay. We're starting on Footnote B,

6 and we took care of the U-factors, so now I think we have to

7 discuss solar heat factor for skylights.

8 Right now what the footnote reads is that the solar

9 heat gain column for the windows applies to skylights as well. 

10 I don't know any better. But I hope members of the Committee

11 do.

12 MS. HOFFMAN: Any discussion?

13 MR. LUTER: Rob at Lippert. If only anecdotally

14 that the skylight people do have some challenges. I could

15 consult industry colleagues I have and get their take on it,

16 report back likely by Friday.

17 MR. SANTANA: So, you know, it sounds like we want

18 to get the exception that was struck. We want to get some

19 version of the exception back to account for the skylight

20 manufacturers that have difficulty meeting the solar heat gain

21 coefficient. Probably going to have to tweak the language a

22 little bit because it refers to the old zones. So if you could
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

39

1 strike that. So it's the exception on Footnote B. 

2 MS. HOFFMAN: So your proposal is now to strike --

3 MR. SANTANA: Unstrike.

4 MS. HOFFMAN: Unstrike.

5 MR. RAMIZREZ: Where is says exceptions to that.

6 MS. HOFFMAN: Where it says exceptions. Let's see

7 about consensus about that.

8 MR. RAMIZREZ: Yeah, so let's unstrike that and then

9 let's modify the climate zone. So the climate zones would have

10 to be 1A and 1B?

11 MR. SANTANA: I don't know. What zones?

12 MR. LACEY: Well, depends on how far out the 25 SHGC

13 goes. This is really an exception to the 25 SHGC, which in the

14 IECC applies to Climate Zones 1, 2, 3, and it was just a carve

15 out for, you know, to allow more products to comply. There are

16 skylights that meet 25 SHGC that are readily available. Here, I

17 don't think you have the same limitations you might have on, you

18 know, vertical windows because there's no egress of the

19 skylight.

20 MR. LUTER: Rob again.

21 MR. LACEY: But, you know, for now if you want to

22 leave that exception in there to keep the market a little
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

40

1 broader, that's fine, and then kind of leave that TBD, you know,

2 along with 1B and Zone 2.

3 MR. LUTER: Rob with Lippert. 

4 MS. HOFFMAN: Rob, yes.

5 MR. LUTER: I concur. These products are available,

6 no question about it. The question in my mind is, are the

7 products that are currently used or economically suitable for

8 use in this marketplace, available with this kind of

9 performance, and I don't know that. I suspect not. 

10 MS. HOFFMAN: I see. Manny?

11 MR. SANTANA: So it sounds like that what we're

12 talking about is for the exception to read, skylights may be

13 excluded from glazed fenestration -- well, I -- yeah, from

14 glazed fenestration solar heat gain requirements in climate

15 zones to be determined. And then strike one through three, and

16 leave everything else.

17 MS. HOFFMAN: Okay. Let's vote on that proposal.

18 MR. RAMIZREZ: And that to be determined --

19 MS. HOFFMAN: To be determined --

20 MR. RAMIZREZ: -- would be in brackets.

21 MR. SANTANA: Would be along with DOE's to be --

22 well, yeah, we don't want it to read, "To be determined." 
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

41

1 MS. HOFFMAN: Okay. Yeah. 

2 MR. LACEY: It should say fenestration SHGC

3 requirements, and then cross out any climate zones because it

4 really only applies if it's something below .30.

5 MS. HOFFMAN: Let's make sure we're comfortable with

6 the proposal. Do you want to read it again?

7 (Pause.) 

8 MS. HOFFMAN: Ishbel, did you have a comment?

9 MS. DICKENS: I mean, you don't want to have "To be

10 determined" in the term sheet, so I'm just wondering if you

11 could just say the exception is skylights may be excluded from

12 glaze fenestration SHGC requirements where the SHGC with such

13 skylights does not exceed 3.0, and just leave out any reference

14 to the climate zone.

15 MR. LACEY: Because if the requirement ends up being

16 .30 or .35, we want to be (indiscernible). Yeah. 

17 MS. HOFFMAN: Yes, Manny, do you want to comment?

18 MR. SANTANA: Well, does doing that -- well, I guess

19 I'm okay. You know, my original concern was, would that face an

20 artificial cap of .30 for a skylight even in zones where there

21 is no solar heat gain coefficient, like Zone 3? But since it's

22 an exception it probably wouldn't. So yeah, I don't have an
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

42

1 issue.

2 MS. HOFFMAN: So we have another reading of Ishbel's

3 language. Do you want to repeat that so we can see where we are

4 and discuss it and move on? We can get a vote.

5 MR. RAMIZREZ: Yeah, Ted actually captured it on the

6 board here.

7 MS. HOFFMAN: Oh, okay.

8 MR. RAMIZREZ: So it says, "The SHGC column applies

9 to all glazed fenestration." And then, "Exception, skylights

10 may be excluded from glaze fenestration SHGC requirements where

11 the SHGC for such skylights does not exceed .30."

12 MS. HOFFMAN: Any discussion on that proposal?

13 How about our people in remote? Any? 

14 Well, then let's have a vote on that so we can move

15 ahead. All in favor of that proposal as you see on the board

16 here.

17 MR. RAMIZREZ: For, we're talking about B.

18 MS. HOFFMAN: B, yes. 

19 (Vote taken.)

20 MR. RAMIZREZ: All right.

21 MS. HOFFMAN: And let's vote. If you're not, tell

22 us, you know. 
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

43

1 MR. RAMIZREZ: Any thumbs down on line? 

2 (No audible response.) 

3 MR. RAMIZREZ: All right. Then we'll note that

4 there is one no vote, Mark Weiss, and everyone else is okay. 

5 Mark, did you want to make a comment on that?

6 MR. RAMIZREZ: And Rob is sideways to deal with it.

7 MR. WEISS: It incorporates an unknown.

8 MS. HOFFMAN: Uh-huh. Okay. Okay. That passes. 

9 Let's move on, then. Thank you, Manny. Go on. And Ishbel,

10 thank you.

11 MR. SANTANA: Footnote C. Footnote C was struck in

12 its entirety because it deals with continuous insulation, which

13 isn't a part of the prescriptive table, so it no longer applies.

14 MS. HOFFMAN: Okay. Do we need a vote on that? 

15 (No audible response.) 

16 MS. HOFFMAN: Lowell, do we need a vote on that? 

17 MR. UNGER: Let's collect them or --

18 MS. HOFFMAN: Let's collect the whole thing and see

19 --

20 MR. RAMIZREZ: Okay.

21 MS. HOFFMAN: -- if there's anything controversial. 

22 Keep going, Manny.
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

44

1 MR. SANTANA: Footnote D, it deals with insulation

2 on a slab and it also references footings, both of which aren't

3 applicable to the structure itself. So that is struck in its

4 entirety because it doesn't apply. 

5 Footnote E, we no longer have a marine zone, and

6 this addresses the marine zone. So this was struck in its

7 entirety because it doesn't apply.

8 Footnote F deals with basements, which aren't a part

9 of the structure, so this was struck in its entirety because it

10 doesn't apply. 

11 Footnote H deals with continuous insulation as well,

12 and that was struck in its entirety because it doesn't apply.

13 Footnote I -- 

14 MR. RAMIZREZ: I'm sorry, Manny.

15 MS. HOFFMAN: What about G? 

16 MR. SANTANA: Well, that has some -- 

17 MS. HOFFMAN: Oh, okay, so we'll go back to that. 

18 Okay.

19 MR. SANTANA: Yes. 

20 MS. HOFFMAN: Keep going. Sorry.

21 MR. SANTANA: Footnote I deals with mass walls,

22 which isn't in our table, so that was struck in its entirety
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

45

1 because that doesn't apply. So Footnotes C, D, E, F, H, and I

2 were struck in their entirety because they don't apply to our

3 table.

4 MS. HOFFMAN: So this may be appropriate for a vote

5 on this group, right Lowell? On this group. Okay. Let's see

6 what your vote is, everyone.

7 MR. RAMIZREZ: Is everyone okay with the

8 recommendation?

9 MS. HOFFMAN: If we're okay with the Committee's

10 recommendation. Lois.

11 MR. RAMIZREZ: Anyone online with your thumbs down.

12 MS. HOFFMAN: So it's just one no, Mark.

13 MR. RAMIZREZ: Mark Weiss.

14 MS. HOFFMAN: Weiss. Okay. Now, Manny, back to

15 you.

16 MR. SANTANA: Okay. So new Footnote C, this

17 footnote addresses -- 

18 MR. RAMIZREZ: I'm sorry, Manny. C or G?

19 MR. SANTANA: Well, C. C, it's a new footnote --

20 MR. RAMIZREZ: I got you. I got you.

21 MR. SANTANA: -- We struck all that. So new

22 Footnote C. C addresses -- well, first of all old Footnote G,
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

46

1 we ought to talk about that. Footnote G in the IECC was an

2 exception for the R-value that's in the floor. It was the

3 exception for R30 in the floor, and it read, "Or insulation

4 sufficient to fill the framing cavity, R19 minimum." And that

5 was struck in its entirety and replaced with another alternate

6 to the R30 in the floor. And the R30 in the floor, the option

7 is or R21 bat, plus R14 blanket, assumed to account for a

8 compression. 

9 And the justification behind that is different from

10 a conventionally built house. Manufactured homes are required

11 to have a frame. So this frame consists of steel I beams that

12 run parallel to the length of the unit when in transit, and it

13 also has steel members called outriggers that flare out from the

14 outside of the I beams towards the edge of the house that help

15 support the floor and the wall during transport. 

16 And all the interfaces where the steel meets the

17 framing, you don't have any room for blanket insulation

18 underneath, so you're going to have thermal shorts. And calling

19 out for a prescriptive table that has R30, you can't get R30 in

20 a two by six bay. So, you need to -- so in order to achieve the

21 R30 you need to have blanket in the bay, or in the cavity --

22 well, you need to have a bat in the cavity and blanket
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

47

1 underneath, and when you add those up you achieve your R30,

2 right. 

3 At all the points where the steel meets the framing

4 and is fastened to it, you're not going to have anything

5 underneath the joist. So we have to account for that in one

6 way, and this is going to be an issue in the area that's known

7 as a catlever or outboard of the main I beams. So from the main

8 I beams to the outside of a wall is where you're going to have

9 your constricted height area for the blanket. So this attempts

10 to address that by requiring R21 bat in the cavity, plus an R14

11 blanket without -- and the R14 blanket, if you have those two

12 you get more R30, but that should account for the thermal shorts

13 when you have it compressed at the edges and around. That's the

14 concept behind it.

15 MS. HOFFMAN: Any discussion? Should we go ahead to

16 the next one or vote on this?

17 MR. RAMIZREZ: Let's vote on it.

18 MS. HOFFMAN: Let's vote on this one, then. Okay? 

19 The Committee has recommended this proposal. What did the

20 working group members want to vote on? This proposal? 

21 MR. RAMIZREZ: You okay with this recommendation?

22 MS. HOFFMAN: Can you agree with this
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

48

1 recommendation? 

2 MR. RAMIZREZ: All right. Any -- 

3 MS. HOFFMAN: Manuel, can you -- 

4 MR. RAMIZREZ: -- thumbs down online? 

5 MS. HOFFMAN: Okay. So it's all except one. Okay. 

6 Thank you.

7 MR. RAMIZREZ: Mark Weiss. 

8 MS. HOFFMAN: Yeah, Mark Weiss. Thank you, Manny. 

9 Moving ahead to D.

10 MR. SANTANA: Okay. Well, going back to C you'll

11 notice that the footnote only applies -- if you go up to the

12 chart, I should have said this before the vote, the footnote

13 only applies to Zone 3 and R30 in the floor. Right? It should

14 be important to note where the footnotes are referenced as being

15 applicable in the table.

16 MS. HOFFMAN: Uh-huh.

17 MR. SANTANA: Footnote A applies to everything,

18 Footnote B only applies to -- I forgot where I put that. It

19 should also apply to everything. So I missed that. That should

20 be next to A in the title.

21 Footnote C only applies to the R30, and I've

22 forgotten what the title for the table was, so I just brought in
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

49

1 a placeholder, title for two.

2 MS. HOFFMAN: Okay. Rob.

3 MR. LUTER: Just one suggestion for clarification. 

4 Could I suggest that for Climate Zones 1A and B we use capital A

5 and B so no one confuses the Zone A with the Footnote A? 

6 MR. RAMIZREZ: Yeah.

7 MS. HOFFMAN: Okay. So capital A and capital B. 

8 Yes. Okay. Let's move on, please. Thank you.

9 MR. SANTANA: We have a new Footnote D. So now the

10 next two footnotes address the roof, and the practical

11 restrictions that we have with typical roof construction. So if

12 you scroll down to the Footnote D -- well, first looking at the

13 table, the requirements for the ceiling R-value are 30, 30, 30,

14 and 38. Using conventional construction it's going to be hard

15 to get 30 uniformly distributed across the entire roof. We need

16 to account for that in some way.

17 So the next two footnotes attempt to do that, and

18 again, these are conceptual. So Footnote D, what that does is

19 that is a -- it introduces a restriction to the heel height. So

20 that guarantees that you have a minimum R-value at the heel, and

21 so what that reads is, it reads, "Truss heel height of five and

22 a half inches minimum."
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

50

1 So if you want to use the prescriptive table your

2 truss can't have a heel height of less than five and a half

3 inches, so when you account for one inch of every gap that you

4 have, you have a minimum R-value at the roof. There's going to

5 be, you know, consistent if you want to use the table. 

6 MR. RAMIZREZ: Mark?

7 MR. EZZO: Mark Ezzo. Let's make that more clear

8 and say, "Truss heel height five and a half inch minimum at

9 outside base of exterior wall," so there's no confusion about

10 where do I measure this five and a half inch heal. 

11 MR. ROY: I concur. 

12 MR. RAMIZREZ: At outside base of exterior wall.

13 MS. HOFFMAN: Outside base of exterior wall. Okay. 

14 Any discussion? 

15 MR. ROY: Robin. Quick question.

16 MS. HOFFMAN: Yes.

17 MR. ROY: What does that make the insulation at the

18 outside heel height? What's the R-value there, then?

19 MR. SANTANA: Depends on the density of the

20 insulation you're installing. You know, if you assume an R3 for

21 blown insulation and you have, what four and a half inches, so

22 you have an R, you know, R15 or so. You know. Depends, you
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

51

1 know. 

2 And then if you have bat or height density, right. 

3 MS. HOFFMAN: Okay. Yes, Michael. 

4 MR. LUBLINER: Also, I think that second footnote

5 helps to address the density assumptions. 

6 MR. SANTANA: Do you want to vote on both D and E

7 together, since they both --

8 MS. HOFFMAN: Sure. Why don't you --

9 MR. SANTANA: -- use the roof. Okay. So that was

10 --

11 MS. HOFFMAN: -- go on to E now and we'll put them

12 together to vote.

13 MR. SANTANA: Okay. Footnote E, now the concept

14 behind Footnote E -- it's a little wordy. You know, but the

15 concept behind Footnote E is to address, you know again, the

16 uniform distribution or the uniform depth of the insulation. 

17 When you install insulation into the roof, you can get R30 where

18 you have the proper clearance. You're not going to get it as

19 the height starts getting restricted. 

20 So the footnote reads, "R-value to comply with

21 insulation manufacturer's published values. Uniform depth not

22 mandatory as long as the required volume of installation is
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

52

1 installed with uniform density." 

2 So now the intention behind that is, the insulation

3 manufacturers have values which say for a given area of a roof,

4 in order to achieve a desired R-value you need to install X

5 amount of bags or volume of insulation. And their assumptions

6 are all based on uniform depth, so you have a uniform R-value. 

7 We can't do that in all situations because of the

8 roof profile of the truss that we build. So what this is

9 suggesting that you do is, accounting for the minimum height of

10 the truss at the heel, if you get per the insulation

11 manufacturer's values, if you can install the volume of

12 insulation that they want, distribute it as evenly as you can,

13 as evenly as you can physically distribute it, that would comply

14 with the requirements in the table.

15 MS. HOFFMAN: Any discussion? Yeah, Michael

16 Lubliner.

17 MR. LUBLINER: Yeah, I think this is a way to try to

18 address those issues that we were talking about with, you know,

19 original Lubby (phonetic). It is what it is, but do it in a way

20 that there's some specifics. And I think the important

21 specifics were that we recognize that tapering is going to exist

22 and this is a way of acknowledging that. And also that it's
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

53

1 very important that we understand what the density is that we're

2 targeting and installing in these homes to achieve whatever that

3 value is, and that should be consistent with what we've

4 analyzed.

5 MS. HOFFMAN: So that's in support of this language.

6 MR. LUBLINER: Support it. I think we did this one

7 at about 11:00 last night, 11:30.

8 MS. HOFFMAN: Great work. Let me ask, is there any

9 more discussion or can we vote on then both D and E together? 

10 Any questions? Or if not then I'd suggest a vote, please, on

11 both D and E.

12 MR. RAMIZREZ: Is everyone okay with the Committee's

13 recommendation?

14 MS. HOFFMAN: With the Committee's recommendation. 

15 All in favor, and if you're voting against let us know too. 

16 Sideways.

17 John, voting -- 

18 MR. TOMPOS: Dave Tompos. 

19 MS. HOFFMAN: Okay. Dave? 

20 MR. TOMPOS: Dave Tompos from NTA.

21 MS. HOFFMAN: Yes.

22 MR. TOMPOS: I just have concerns about, how are we
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

54

1 going to measure the density and make sure that it's uniform? 

2 We just have a lot of experience with lawsuits in this industry

3 and I would advise that DOE checks with the FTC on this language

4 before they put this into law, so I will not stop the vote, but

5 I'm just making you guys aware that there could be problems with

6 lawsuits and being able to defend this in a court of law.

7 MR. RAMIZREZ: So is that a sideways or a down?

8 MR. HAGERMAN: So I'll just -- so thanks, Dave, for

9 your -- this is Joe Hagerman. Thanks, Dave, for your comments. 

10 Let me just remind people, after we do a term sheet and then we

11 write the rule, the rule goes out, before it all goes final it

12 goes to all the other federal agencies as well, because it would

13 be a -- so we all can get, you know, comments back from the

14 different groups to explain things or to have the discussion and

15 then tweak things.

16 MS. HOFFMAN: Okay.

17 MR. HAGERMAN: There is an internal process through

18 the government that will instruct that. 

19 MS. HOFFMAN: Okay. Thank you.

20 MR. HAGERMAN: But notwithstanding, we'll still

21 reach out.

22 MS. HOFFMAN: And there was -- thank you. Dave,
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

55

1 there was a question. Was that a sideways or a vote no?

2 MR. TOMPOS: It was a sideways. Although I'll give

3 you just some -- to help with the legal aspect of it, CFR16,

4 Section 460.16 and 460.17 is where the FTC requires a bag count

5 and depth. So those would be where DOE needs to look into on

6 the disclosure of those R-values.

7 MS. HOFFMAN: Okay. Thank you. All right. So that

8 one passed and --

9 MR. RAMIZREZ: Yeah, I just want to know, just for

10 the record.

11 MS. HOFFMAN: Yeah.

12 MR. RAMIZREZ: There was one no vote. Mark Weiss.

13 MS. HOFFMAN: Mark Weiss. 

14 MR. RAMIZREZ: And everyone else was okay.

15 MS. HOFFMAN: Okay. So, Manny, moving right along.

16 MR. SANTANA: Okay. So that concludes the work on

17 the table. 

18 MS. HOFFMAN: Okay. Is there a name for the table,

19 by the way, or -- 

20 MR. SANTANA: I think the Prescriptive Compliance

21 Table. I don't know what the actual name is, but that's what I

22 call it.
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

56

1 MS. HOFFMAN: Prescriptive Compliance Table.

2 MR. SANTANA: Yeah, I don't know what it is in the

3 IECC, but I think the Prescriptive Compliance Table would be a

4 fit.

5 MS. HOFFMAN: Okay. Ishbel, did you have a name?

6 MS. DICKENS: We were just joking, we're going to

7 call it the Manny.

8 MS. HOFFMAN: Manny Table. All right. Well, at

9 this moment it's the Prescriptive Compliance Table. Okay. 

10 Moving right along, Manny. Wait, Emanuel. 

11 MR. LEVY: Did you consider setting a limit on the

12 -- or a cap on the window area?

13 MR. SANTANA: We didn't discuss it. No.

14 MR. LEVY: Because the logic behind that would be

15 that you want to make sure that none of those -- and we have a

16 standard that's about Uo value, first and foremost. And this is

17 an equivalent package, an alternative path for meeting

18 compliance. You want to make sure that somebody following this

19 path doesn't end up with a Uo value that's significantly above

20 what is in the U path the O path. There is a danger doing that

21 if there's no accountability.

22 MR. SANTANA: I think the reason why that wasn't
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

57

1 considered is because it wasn't currently included in IECC. So

2 we tried to model what was in the IECC. 

3 MR. LEVY: The IECC conceptually is formulated

4 differently. It's a compliance path that's primarily about the

5 prescriptive. And then the alternatives are performance. We've

6 kind of taken the other approach, taking a performance standard

7 and setting a limit on the building thermal envelope

8 performance, and then that's kind of the basis for what we're

9 doing.

10 So I think there might be logic in setting a window

11 area, but -- 

12 MR. SANTANA: It might be a beneficial discussion to

13 have offline, maybe.

14 MS. HOFFMAN: Michael. Michael Lubby. 

15 MR. LUBLINER: Now, we looked at this in our

16 voluntary program for a while, and we looked at fleet averages

17 and kind of how many people were -- because we had this

18 unlimited glazing exemption and we kind of felt like, well,

19 these guys are so cost-constrained that not many people are

20 actually using that. And we found that there was a really small

21 percentage of those special orders where we were going very far

22 beyond 12. But I appreciate what you're saying. Technically
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

58

1 it's totally correct that, you know, somebody could build under

2 this path and put in large blazing. Because I didn't think it

3 was a frequent thing, you know, it didn't hit our radar screen. 

4 It's big enough importance to constrain the manufacturer and the

5 consumer's choice. 

6 MS. HOFFMAN: Okay. Thank you for the discussion. 

7 Moving right along. Manny?

8 MR. SANTANA: Well, after we were done with the

9 table we got our second wind and another round, so we decided to

10 keep going.

11 MR. RAMIZREZ: Okay.

12 MR. SANTANA: So the next attachment is as

13 additional sections of the IECC that we felt were important, and

14 we thought we can address, and we thought we can come to --

15 well, we thought were worth discussing and bringing up. 

16 So the first one is Section R402.1.4, which is a

17 U-factor alternative. And I think it's -- you want to explain

18 it?

19 MR. LACEY: Yeah. So the way the IECC works is you

20 have an R-value table which is just the R-value of the

21 insulation, for example. It's not the R-value of the whole

22 wall, it's just the R-value of the insulation. And you can
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

59

1 comply with that. 

2 Or if you have a wall and we'll say that requirement

3 is an R13 and for whatever reason you want to put an R11 in

4 there, you can look down and there's a second table called

5 Equivalent U-factors. And you can instead, rather than meet

6 that R-value for the insulation you can take a U-factor of the

7 whole assembly. You know, you're including the framing members,

8 the insulation, everything in that assembly. And it's a way of

9 providing a little more flexibility by keeping the overall

10 efficiency of that assembly consistent, so the assembly being

11 the wall, or the ceiling, or the floor, or the window. 

12 So I think the thought was, you know, last night we

13 had talked about either putting a second table in there of the

14 equivalent U-factors, like the IECC has, or putting the

15 equivalent U-factor right next to the R-value in the simple

16 prescriptive table. I've seen it done both ways and most states

17 have two tables. There are a couple of states where they've put

18 the U-factors right next to them. And this would be short of,

19 this would be kind of a path where you wouldn't go all the way

20 to the Uo, you know, where you'd have to calculate everything. 

21 But let's say, you know, your design, everything lines up at the

22 prescriptive path except for the wall and you want to make this
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

60

1 one wall equivalent, you know, using a different kind of

2 insulation or something. You would just do the U-factor

3 calculation for that wall and everything else could be built

4 prescriptively. Am I capturing the sense there?

5 MS. HOFFMAN: Okay. Discussion? Questions? Rob? 

6 MR. RAMIZREZ: Mark.

7 MS. HOFFMAN: Mark. I'm sorry. I apologize. Mark.

8 Mark Ezzo.

9 MR. EZZO: I think my suggestion would be that

10 instead of having the U number next to the R-value in one table,

11 I like the way IECC has laid out, where it's a separate table,

12 to just keep from confusion. If you're going to do it this way,

13 where you use the alternate U-value component -- my suggestion

14 would be the U-values are in a separate table, which is what's

15 referred to up there, an assembly with U-factor equal to or less

16 than, as specified in, we're going to have it --

17 MR. LACEY: Have another table.

18 MR. LEVY: So, Mark let me (indiscernible).

19 MS. HOFFMAN: Emanuel.

20 MR. LEVY: What Eric said was there could be mixing

21 and matching.

22 MR. EZZO: That's correct.
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

61

1 MR. LEVY: In a separate table you get the

2 impression to the one -- the whole (indiscernible).

3 MR. EZZO: Well, I think you need the same language

4 that the IECC had. So an assembly with the U-factor equal to or

5 less than that specified in a table shall be permitted in an

6 alternative to the R-value. 

7 MR. LEVY: So it doesn't mean you have to follow the

8 whole table -- 

9 MR. EZZO: No, no, it would be any one component you

10 want. 

11 MR. SANTANA: So if you don't want to -- so if the

12 table requires -- this is Manny. So in Zone 2, if you're

13 required to have R21 in the wall, and you want to -- you think

14 you can get -- you can hit the U-value and instead of doing the

15 two by six wall with R21, then you calculate it. If you can

16 prove it, you use that U-value for that component. So that

17 would be the benefit of it.

18 The drawback to this option right now in this

19 Committee, is that it has to work in tandem with a table that

20 has established U-factors for the assembly, so we're going to

21 have to figure out what those numbers are, and we don't have

22 them right now.
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

62

1 MS. HOFFMAN: Okay. Thank you. Lubby.

2 MR. LUBLINER: Yeah. I think two tables and then

3 language that the line code had in there will be sufficient to

4 address that. And I really think that when we get these

5 U-values you're talking about, we really need to defer back to

6 what was assumed in some of the analysis, those U-factors. And

7 then make sure that those are consistent with what you guys

8 thought. 

9 MR. RAMIZREZ: Well, I'm a bit unclear. What do we

10 have to do with the verbiage here in order to take a vote?

11 MS. HOFFMAN: Yeah. Mark.

12 MR. EZZO: I think we need to change -- you guys

13 tell me if I'm -- 

14 MR. RAMIZREZ: So, you're looking at the first line?

15 MR. EZZO: Yeah, the very first line. I think where

16 we have in red, where it starts and says, "The prescriptive

17 table," I think that needs to say, "The equivalent U-factor

18 table." 

19 MR. RAMIZREZ: Yeah.

20 MR. EZZO: Because the prescriptive table is the

21 table we've already done that has the R-values. 

22 MR. SANTANA: Correct.
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

63

1 MR. EZZO: Right? So what we're talking about here

2 is another table, and the name of that other table is exactly

3 what it is in the IECC, which says Equivalent U-factor Table.

4 MS. HOFFMAN: Right. Manny, do you accept that

5 change? 

6 (No audible response.) 

7 MS. HOFFMAN: Okay. Anything else? 

8 MR. RAMIZREZ: Emanuel. 

9 MS. HOFFMAN: Yes, Emanuel? 

10 MR. LEVY: I think we had the U-values. And it came

11 out of the cost analysis we did when we put together real

12 construction, corresponded to each one of those R-values. So I

13 think we have the information now.

14 MR. RAMIZREZ: Yes, I would view that, then, as an

15 editorial thing that right -- if we're referring to that table

16 and we had those numbers and later on they could be plugged in

17 --

18 MR. LEVY: Yes.

19 MR. RAMIZREZ: -- am I mistaken that that would be

20 editorial?

21 MR. LEVY: That's editorial.

22 MS. HOFFMAN: Okay. Then if that's true then can we
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

64

1 vote on this and move ahead? Voting on the amended proposal.

2 MR. RAMIZREZ: Manny. Manny, do you have a

3 question?

4 MS. HOFFMAN: Manny, yeah.

5 MR. SANTANA: there is a second part to the section

6 that was added, and so the purpose behind the addition was to

7 account for thermal bridging. The HUD Code currently has

8 language that accounts for that. It says that you need to

9 account for that in your calculation, and it tells you how to go

10 about doing that. And so we added that language in here just to

11 make sure it was accounted for.

12 MR. RAMIZREZ: Okay. Any questions on that?

13 MS. HOFFMAN: Ishbel.

14 MS. DICKENS: Ishbel, NMHOA. So do you read the

15 whole of that piece, I'm wondering if the way it tells you how

16 to find the U-factor calculation using this constant message,

17 and I'm wondering if that's consistent with the table that

18 Emanuel says already exists. Is that how you factored your

19 calculated using a method that's described here?

20 MR. LEVY: Yes.

21 MS. DICKENS: Okay. So, there's no inconsistency if

22 I go back, looking at that table?
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

65

1 MS. HOFFMAN: Manny?

2 MR. SANTANA: Yeah. One thing that I forgot to add

3 is that the second part of that section, the addition, wasn't

4 exactly made up. We got it from another section of the IECC

5 which was R402.1.5. I don't know if you have that to bring up,

6 but those of you that have the IECC in front of you can see that

7 the second part of that section reads, "The Ua calculation shall

8 be done using a method consistent with AHRAE Handbook of

9 Fundamentals and shall include the thermal bridging effects of

10 framing material." 

11 So that, we tried to incorporate that section into

12 this one and brought it out of the water. Okay. 

13 MS. HOFFMAN: Okay. Do you want to read the whole

14 proposal so we can have a vote on it?

15 MR. SANTANA: Okay. "U-factor alternative. An

16 assembly with a U-factor equal to or less than that specified in

17 the equivalent U-factor Table shall be permitted as an

18 alternative to the R-value. The U-factor calculation shall be

19 done using a method consistent with the ASRAC Handbook of

20 Fundamentals and shall include the thermal bridging effects of

21 framing materials."

22 Then there's a note to DOE that the calculation
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

66

1 method should be consistent, all shall consistent with the one

2 carved out in the HUD Code. They refer to a PNNL analysis, or

3 method of analysis.

4 MR. HAGERMAN: Well, I think it's actually the Patel

5 Right? 

6 MR. SANTANA: The Patel. Yeah, but it's still PNNL

7 referenced.

8 MS. HOFFMAN: Mark?

9 MR. EZZO: Yeah, I -- 

10 MS. HOFFMAN: So Mark Ezzo first, then Mark

11 Lubliner.

12 MR. EZZO: The second line, Manny, I think where we

13 say, "Shall be permitted as an alternative to the R-value," I

14 think after that it needs to say, "And the prescriptive table,"

15 or "From the prescriptive table."

16 MR. SANTANA: Okay.

17 MR. EZZO: So we're referencing our other.

18 MR. RAMIZREZ: So right where the cursor of is

19 flashing in the prescriptive table.

20 MS. HOFFMAN: Mark Lubliner.

21 MR. LUBLINER: I just wanted to note that we have

22 that actual reference of the PNNL document. It's overall
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

67

1 U-values at heating/cooling loads, manufactured homes, February,

2 1992, PNNL, 8006. 

3 MR. RAMIZREZ: Does that have to go in here? 

4 MR. LUBLINER: I think that's what he was saying. 

5 Note to DOE, consistent with that called out in 3280, that's

6 what I'm reading. The 3280.

7 MR. RAMIZREZ: Okay. So -- 

8 MS. HOFFMAN: So we don't need the warning.

9 MR. RAMIZREZ: -- this reference is okay then?

10 MR. LUBLINER: Yeah, it's editorial.

11 MS. HOFFMAN: Okay. All right. With those

12 amendments can we have a vote, please, on the Committee's

13 recommendation? Let's see a show of thumbs, please. 

14 (Vote taken.)

15 MS. HOFFMAN: Okay. And make sure if we know if

16 anyone is opposed that -- it looks like our --

17 MR. RAMIZREZ: Anyone online? 

18 MS. HOFFMAN: Okay. So we have one opposed.

19 MR. RAMIZREZ: Mark Weiss.

20 MS. HOFFMAN: Mark Weiss. Okay, Manny, moving right

21 along. 

22 MR. SANTANA: Okay. Moving right along. The
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

68

1 Section R402.2.2, ceilings without attic spaces, we thought this

2 was an easy one to strike, save DOE some trouble because it

3 doesn't apply. 

4 MS. HOFFMAN: Any discussion from our working group?

5

6 (No audible response.) 

7 MS. HOFFMAN: Then do you agree with their

8 recommendation to strike this?

9 (No audible response.)

10 MR. RAMIZREZ: Any no votes online? 

11 (No audible response.) 

12 MS. HOFFMAN: Okay. 

13 MR. RAMIZREZ: And, Mark, where were you at on that

14 one? 

15 MR. WEISS: They're striking it, so just to be on

16 the safe side.

17 MS. HOFFMAN: Okay. Mark is going to be consistent.

18 Okay.

19 MR. RAMIZREZ: Okay. So one no vote from Mark

20 Weiss.

21 MS. HOFFMAN: Okay. Okay. Thank you. Manny, next

22 one?
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

69

1 MR. SANTANA: Okay. The next one is in respect to

2 eave baffles. So R402.2.3, what that does is it requires an

3 eave baffle to ensure that you maintain your air -- what's that

4 called? Your one inch air zone. Your air gap?

5 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Your air gap.

6 MR. SANTANA: Air gap, right? And just to keep the

7 insulation in place and from falling out. 

8 MS. HOFFMAN: Any discussion? Would we want to vote

9 on this, or keep going for more of the -- let me just ask our

10 working group. Let's keep going. Okay. Manny, thank you.

11 MR. SANTANA: So now the next section is the last

12 one that we recommended to include is R402.2.4, and it's in

13 respect to access hatches and doors. So what that is, whenever

14 you have an access, an attic access, it requires that you have

15 it weather-stripped, and you have it insulated to the same

16 levels as a surrounding roof area. It also requires that you

17 have baffles along the sides, so that when you open it you don't

18 get a bunch of insulation falling out.

19 MR. RAMIZREZ: All right. So then the two

20 recommendations are 402.2.3 and 402.2.4. Is everyone --?

21 MS. HOFFMAN: Let's get agreement on that and then

22 we just have a few more to finish here. So let's just have a
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

70

1 vote on that.

2 MR. RAMIZREZ: Everyone okay with those

3 recommendations?

4 MS. HOFFMAN: If you're okay with the recs. All

5 right. 

6 MR. RAMIZREZ: Any no votes online? 

7 MS. HOFFMAN: We have the one no, Mark Weiss. Okay.

8

9 So, Manny, we've got just three more here. 

10 MR. SANTANA: Okay. And what I should have said,

11 there was an exception on a section we just voted on and I

12 apologize. And that dealt with vertical doors. And we don't

13 have a whole lot of vertical doors going from conditioned space

14 to unconditioned space. An example of one of these would be if

15 you have an unfinished attic, you know, that has an E wall, and

16 you have a door into the new -- that would be a vertical door. 

17 To my knowledge we don't have that situation in HUD

18 construction. So we recommended to strike. 

19 MS. HOFFMAN: Does that change any votes? No. Then

20 let's go on.

21 MR. SANTANA: Okay. R402.2.5 was -- 

22 MS. HOFFMAN: Oh, Emanuel.
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

71

1 MR. LEVY: Let me just one question about -- if we

2 can all back up one second, to the baffles. Right there. The

3 sentence says, "Baffles shall maintain an opening equal or

4 greater than the size of the vent." Can you interpret that? 

5 Does that mean that the opening, the end opening has to be --?

6 MR. SANTANA: What I take that to mean is if you

7 have an eave vent that comes into the attic, you want the baffle

8 to be at least as wide as the eave vent so you don't have a

9 direct path for insulation to escape. That's my understanding

10 of it.

11 MR. LEVY: Okay. So it's no the continuity of the

12 vent area itself above the insulation?

13 MR. SANTANA: I don't take that to be. So you're

14 saying if you have an opening for a roof mounted vent. I won't

15 take that to be at the same location, but I could be wrong. 

16 MS. HOFFMAN: Does that change the proposal? 

17 MR. SANTANA: If it does say that the baffles should

18 be installed adjacent to the soffet and eave vents. So my

19 understanding is that it's intended to protect insulation from

20 falling out of the eave vents. Not so much roof vents. 

21 MS. HOFFMAN: Emanuel, does that answer your

22 question?
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

72

1 MR. LEVY: Yes.

2 MS. HOFFMAN: Okay. Thank you. Let's move on then.

3 MR. RAMIZREZ: All right. Ted, could you scroll up

4 to 402.1.4 real quick? Okay. Yeah, I'm sorry. Yeah, we

5 reached consensus on that one already so you could go back down.

6 MR. SANTANA: Okay. 402.2.5 refers to mass walls. 

7 And this is not applicable to MH and we decided it was easy to

8 remove. Not real substantive to what we're doing, but it was an

9 easy thing to help the DOE out with.

10 MS. HOFFMAN: Any discussion? Okay. Then, let's go

11 to the next two.

12 MR. SANTANA: R402.2.6, steel frame ceiling, walls,

13 and floors, same thing. It's not a common practice. I don't

14 know that there are any steel frame ceiling, walls, or floors,

15 and it's not currently addressed in the HUD Code, hasn't been an

16 issue to my knowledge, and so we wanted to strike that as well.

17 MS. HOFFMAN: And then the last one. 

18 MR. SANTANA: Same thing. Walls with partial

19 structural sheathing. We don't have anything in the term sheet

20 that addresses structural sheathing. So then it didn't apply to

21 MH and voted to strike it.

22 MS. HOFFMAN: So we have the three proposals that
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

73

1 the Committee has voted to strike. Let's get a vote on that on

2 the recommendation and then we will be finished with this part

3 of it. Can I see all -- okay. Mark Weiss is down, but no one

4 -- anyone else?

5 MR. RAMIZREZ: Anyone online? Okay. So not that --

6

7 MS. HOFFMAN: Do you have a question?

8 MR. RAMIZREZ: -- Mark Weiss is a no vote.

9 MS. VAIDYANATHAM: I just have a comment. This is

10 Kavita Vaidyanatham.

11 MS. HOFFMAN: Yes.

12 MS. VAIDYANATHAM: DOE representative, Joe Hagerman,

13 is out of the room so he is not voting on this.

14 MS. HOFFMAN: Oh, okay.

15 MR. RAMIZREZ: Should we wait? Do you want us to

16 wait? 

17 MS. VAIDYANATHAM: You can if --

18 MS. HOFFMAN: Sure. I think we can wait a moment.

19 MR. RAMIZREZ: Eric, did you have a comment?

20 MR. LACEY: In the meantime there were a couple that

21 got, unfortunately, left off; left off this sheet. It was

22 getting late and I think we -- so I could introduce those while
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

74

1 we wait for Joe to get back.

2 MS. HOFFMAN: Okay.

3 MR. LACEY: If you want. But I --

4 MR. RAMIZREZ: Do you have -- 

5 MS. HOFFMAN: Can you e-mail it?

6 MR. RAMIZREZ: So we're going to have to type them

7 up or --

8 MR. LACEY: No, they're pretty simple and they're

9 something we talked about already. And I could type them up and

10 send them to you but I think it's pretty easy to explain, and

11 deals with the ability to have an area weighted average of the

12 U-factor and SHGC of windows and doors. And we made a reference

13 to this earlier with the doors, and we gave the doors a little

14 higher U-factor, you know, recognizing that you would b probably

15 averaging the U-factor of the front and the back door. And so I

16 think I would propose adding, in the section referenced in the

17 2015 IECC is R402.3.1. 

18 And in there it says, "An area weighted average of

19 fenestration products shall be permitted to satisfy the U-factor

20 requirements." 

21 I think we should be a little more specific and say

22 an area weighted average of windows shall be permitted to meet
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

75

1 the window U-factor requirements, and an area weighted average

2 of the doors should be permitted to meet the door U-factor

3 requirements. Just so that they're not all lumped in together.

4 MS. HOFFMAN: Before we discuss that we have -- 

5 MR. RAMIZREZ: Joe.

6 MS. HOFFMAN: -- Joe Hagerman back. So let me just

7 -- let's just, we want to make sure we have a vote that includes

8 you. And it's the last three issues that Manny mentioned,

9 striking on your page here, 402.2.5, 402.2.6, and 402.2.7. 

10 Okay?

11 MR. HAGERMAN: Yes. I typically follow Mark's lead,

12 but this time I'm going to break the mold and go positive.

13 MS. HOFFMAN: Okay. So he is -- okay. So, thank

14 you. 

15 All right. So we had now, an additional change from

16 Eric Lacey.

17 MR. LACEY: Yeah. And this is something we

18 discussed and I didn't want it to fall off. And I think this

19 would ease some of the concerns that were raised about the

20 U-values and SHGC's that we adopted. You know, it would simply

21 allow you to use an area weighted average for the window

22 U-factors and to use an area weighted average for the door
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

76

1 U-factors, and I suppose if you thought we needed it you could

2 do that with skylights too, though I don't know how often you

3 get multiple skylights with different U-factors. But anyway

4 this just allows you, you know, if you have one window that has

5 a little bit of a higher U-factor and another one that's a

6 little low, it lets you average those. 

7 And then I would purpose the same thing for the

8 SHGCs, allowing area weighted average window SHGCs.

9 MS. HOFFMAN: Discussion on this proposal to use

10 area -- allow, I guess, area weighted averages for doors, for

11 windows, and also for SHGCs? Rob Luter.

12 MR. LUTER: Just a comment. I support the area

13 weighted averaging tool, but the question I would have is --

14 maybe this is a bit out of scope, on the compliance or

15 verification side, how does the individual that's reviewing the

16 home, does he do the math right on site to see if the area

17 weighted average is right, or versus just looking at all the

18 labels and saying, yes, everything meets. Just a comment.

19 MS. HOFFMAN: Sure. Eric, you want to answer? 

20 MR. LACEY: Yeah. We're trying to balance, you

21 know, the simplicity and enforceability against a little bit

22 more flexibility. I'd be fine with that in an area weighted
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

77

1 average. But this gives you a little more leniency if you've

2 got, you know, a patio door -- 

3 MR. LUTER: I'm fine with this too.

4 MR. LACEY: Yeah.

5 MR. LUTER: I just wanted to interject that.

6 MS. HOFFMAN: Sure.

7 MR. LACEY: It will require some more calculation if

8 --

9 MS. HOFFMAN: Sure.

10 MR. LACEY: But it will only come into play, by the

11 way, if one window or door doesn't meet it. You know, if all of

12 them meet the standard, you're okay.

13 MR. LUTER: Right.

14 MR. LACEY: It's just, it will be in those cases

15 where you've got a patio door that doesn't quite meet the

16 U-factor and you could say, well, I've got all these others that

17 do.

18 MS. HOFFMAN: Discussion? Yes, Rob. Mike. Mark. 

19 Mike. 

20 MR. LUBLINER: I'll support this again because it

21 does provide more flexibility and addresses some of the issues

22 that we talked about over the last couple of -- 
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

78

1 MS. HOFFMAN: Okay. Let's have a vote on this, and

2 then we're going to have to get some language, but I think we

3 can work on that. But let's have a vote on this proposal, which

4 is to allow area weighted averages for doors, for -- 

5 MR. RAMIZREZ: Doors and windows.

6 MS. HOFFMAN: -- windows, and for SHGCs.

7 MR. RAMIZREZ: So, everyone okay with that

8 recommendation? 

9 MS. HOFFMAN: Okay. We have --

10 MR. RAMIZREZ: One no vote.

11 MS. HOFFMAN: -- one no vote.

12 MR. RAMIZREZ: Mark Weiss. And any others online? 

13 MS. HOFFMAN: Okay. Emanuel, did you have a

14 question? 

15 MR. LEVY: Eric, there's also a 402.3.3, allows up

16 to 15 square feet of glazed area per dwelling to be exempt from

17 the U-value in the solar heat gain requirements. Are we

18 suggesting putting that too?

19 MR. LACEY: We discussed those last night. There

20 were a couple of exemptions like that, that were kind of

21 designed for the prescriptive table. And at least I felt like

22 there was already enough flexibility in here and there had been
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

79

1 enough, kind of concessions given the construction type and so

2 on. But I didn't think we needed to add that. There's a door

3 exception right after that too. There's cathedral ceiling

4 exception for insulation. There are a bunch of these that were,

5 you know, in the IECC. They're in there because the

6 prescriptive path is much more rigid than what we're doing here.

7 So at least that was my opinion on those.

8 MS. HOFFMAN: Rob Luter. 

9 MR. LUTER: Rob with Lippert. I would like to

10 advocate that that be included. From time to time we're asked

11 to produce specialty products that are outside our NFRC

12 certified product line. Other window manufacturers see the same

13 thing. Special decorative units and that sort of thing, that

14 don't have the certified U-value that the code is looking for. 

15 And to have an exception for a window or a particular decorative

16 door light, I think is a good thing. 

17 MS. HOFFMAN: So, Emanuel, your proposal is to

18 include what exceptions? Do you want to mention what they are?

19 MR. LEVY: Well, the exception would be that

20 language that's in here for --

21 MS. HOFFMAN: Just give us the citation.

22 MR. LEVY: its 402.3.3, but this is the 2012.
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

80

1 MR. RAMIZREZ: 2012?

2 MR. LEVY: Yeah. I'm not sure. I think that's the

3 same. Same reference in the 2015.

4 MR. RAMIZREZ: Same reference in 2015?

5 MR. SANTANA: Yeah, the same one.

6 MR. RAMIZREZ: All right. So let's put the 2015

7 then, in there. 

8 MS. HOFFMAN: Lubby. Yes.

9 MR. LUBLINER: I do have a little concern about

10 that.

11 MS. HOFFMAN: Uh-huh.

12 MR. LUBLINER: Because it seems like that's a pretty

13 large square footage as it related to the overall square footage

14 of the house. What's that exception, square footage there? 

15 MR. LACEY: Yeah, it's over 10 percent of the square

16 feet of the -- 

17 MR. LUBLINER: It's over 10 percent of the glazing,

18 which drives the U-values significantly so. I'm just wondering,

19 I'm all right with addressing your issue. But do we need that

20 much exemption?

21 MR. LUTER: I'm guessing it had it's origins in a 15

22 light, a door light.
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

81

1 MR. LUBLINER: Yeah.

2 MR. LUTER: You know, which is about three by five. 

3 So.

4 MS. HOFFMAN: Well, help us with this. Eric?

5 MR. LACEY: Yeah. I'm going to oppose it because

6 there is a Uo path that would allow that flexibility. Like I

7 said, this was designed for a very rigid prescriptive path that

8 doesn't have some of the options that you have here. 

9 I understand that, you know, wanting to be able to

10 put a piece of decorative glass in, or an old stained glass or

11 something that does happen from time to time. In those special

12 cases I'd suggest going to the Uo, but the light, Lubby said,

13 you know, when you're talking about 100 or 140 square feet of

14 glazing area and you exempt 15 of them, that's a pretty high

15 percentage to have no U-factor or SHGC requirement. So.

16 MS. HOFFMAN: Lowell.

17 MR. UNGER: Do I understand the concern is you'd

18 have a product that isn't rated so you --

19 MR. LUTER: Right. For example, I can give you a

20 perfect example. We had a customer, a home builder in the State

21 of Texas that wanted to have a door lay in their front doors

22 that had the Texas Star, think of the Dallas Cowboys. And it
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

82

1 was a triple glazed thing that we had not conducted thermal

2 simulations on. It's a pretty regimented approach to get your

3 certified numbers, and it was going to cost many times more the

4 value of the door light to get it all certified so we could give

5 an official number. To have an exemption for that, a one-time

6 fee to be --

7 MR. UNGER: So can I ask, how would that be treated

8 in the Uo if you don't know what the -- 

9 MR. LACEY: Yeah, there's a default table. If you

10 have a product that's not labeled, you go to a default table

11 that's in chapter 3, and take kind of a default. You know, so

12 it would probably be like a .80 U-factor.

13 MR. UNGER: It's pretty punitive.

14 MR. LACEY: It is. It's designed to kind of push

15 people towards getting their windows rated. So in those cases

16 you'd go to the Uo and, which by the way gives you -- has a lot

17 more leniency than what's allowed in the total Ua path. You

18 could reduce your glazing area a little bit and get a lot of

19 credit for that. So I --

20 MR. UNGER: So there is a pathway to handle --

21 MR. LEVY: Yes.

22 MR. UNGER: -- nonrated products.
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

83

1 MS. HOFFMAN: Manny. Oh, sorry.

2 MR. UNGER: Yeah, It's not clear to me what the real

3 problem is.

4 MS. HOFFMAN: Okay.

5 MR. SANTANA: Manny with CAVCO. So is there a square

6 footage that would be more acceptable if the 15 is too large?

7 MR. LACEY: I mean, if you're asking me, I don't

8 think you need the exception in here. I don't know if you'd be

9 able to have a useful -- well, my issue is, this would allow

10 you, in every home to exempt square feet or five square feet, or

11 whatever it is. And that, you know, having going through a

12 laborious process of setting the U-factors and SGHCs right where

13 we want them, I think, I'd hate to just give a blanket exception

14 like that everywhere.

15 MS. HOFFMAN: Robin?

16 MR. ROY: In such an unusual and exceptional case as

17 the beautiful Dallas -- 

18 MR. LUTER: Yes, that's just one example, but it

19 came up.

20 MR. ROY: I know. I understand. Would it be overly

21 burden -- I can't imagine this comes up all that often. Would

22 it be overly burdensome to use the Uo approach?
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

84

1 MR. SANTANA: I don't know. I can't think of a

2 scenario where we've had to, especially with that done. But,

3 you know.

4 MR. ROY: But Uo is not so hard, right? It's a good

5 approach?

6 MR. SANTANA: No, I wouldn't think so. 

7 MS. HOFFMAN: Well, let's see in terms of our

8 timeframe for today. A little more discussion and then we'll

9 make, hopefully a decision on this. Emanuel.

10 MR. LEVY: Just one point of clarification, assuming

11 that somebody who wants to use one of these windows now has to

12 go through the Uo approach, do we have language in the Uo path

13 that says there's 15 feet excluded and its area weighted and

14 those kinds of things? Because we need to put it someplace or

15 else these products will never be able to be used.

16 MS. HOFFMAN: Eric.

17 MR. LACEY: I think the short answer is no. You

18 don't need that because if you have the default fenestration

19 values that are in Chapter 3, if your product is not labeled,

20 you apply that value, and whatever that value is gets worked

21 into your Uo calculation. So if it's a .55, that's what your

22 window value is.
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

85

1 MR. LEVY: Yeah.

2 MR. LACEY: Are you familiar with that?

3 MR. LEVY: I was asking a two-part question, whether

4 we have revision for area weighting now in the Uo path, whether

5 DOE was expecting to include that or not. 

6 MS. HOFFMAN: Okay. We have -- 

7 MR. LEVY: That tool would be taken out, right? 

8 Even if you had a default value for the U-value.

9 MR. LACEY: Yeah. I mean, the Uo is an area

10 weighting, you know, calculation. 

11 MR. LEVY: Uo?

12 MR. LACEY: Uo I said. Right. 

13 MR. RAMIZREZ: Just as a reminder --

14 MR. LEVY: Do we need to include the default? We

15 haven't talked about the default table. Do we need to include

16 those then? 

17 MR. LACEY: I thought we included those during our

18 mandatory discussion.

19 MR. LEVY: All right.

20 MR. LACEY: If we didn't, we should. 

21 MS. HOFFMAN: Okay. Hold on to the default table

22 issue. Let's hear from Mark Ezzo.
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

86

1 MR. EZZO: Mark Ezzo. And that was my issue. I

2 mean, I agree with Eric, saying there is another path to make

3 this work for that rare occasion where you've got some really

4 awkward product. We've got the Uo approach which is fine, but I

5 want to make sure that the default, the default part is in our

6 term sheet.

7 MS. HOFFMAN: And so what would your proposal say?

8 MR. EZZO: What section is it, Eric?

9 MR. LACEY: its R303.1.3 deals with fenestration

10 ratings, and that includes all of the default tables. I thought

11 we had at least discussed it, if not adopted it during the

12 mandatory. So, if we haven't, we should. 

13 MR. HAGERMAN: That's how I remember it. Let's

14 just keep in mind, like, how many times right now do you follow

15 the prescriptive path in the HUD? 

16 MR. SANTANA: We don't have prescriptive path.

17 MR. HAGERMAN: Exactly. Right? So you're used to

18 doing Uo, right? 

19 MR. SANTANA: Yeah.

20 MR. HAGERMAN: So, yeah, we have -- you're right. 

21 We have it now. 

22 MR. HAGERMAN: I just wanted to make sure.
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

87

1 MS. HOFFMAN: Okay. Let me, in the interest of

2 time, thank you. There's a proposal to make sure that the

3 default tables are included in the term sheet. Is that what I'm

4 hearing, R303.1.1? Yes.

5 MR. BARBOUR: This is Ed Barbour. Point of

6 clarification.

7 MS. HOFFMAN: Ed Barbour. 

8 MR. BARBOUR: Do you know if all of section R303 is

9 considered, or do you -- 

10 MR. LACEY: I think you need all of it.

11 MR. BARBOUR: You need all of it if you're just

12 going to do a table typed up.

13 MR. LACEY: I think you need all of it to understand

14 how the tables work.

15 MR. BARBOUR: Just asking a question. 

16 MR. RAMIZREZ: For the context?

17 MR. LACEY: Yeah. And if you want to take a few

18 minutes and look at that section, that's fine. 

19 MS. HOFFMAN: Rob Luter.

20 MR. LUTER: In the interest of clarity, it might

21 require another vote, I'd be happy to withdraw my suggestion for

22 the exemption for 402.3.1.
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

88

1 MS. HOFFMAN: Okay.

2 MR. LUTER: It sounds like we have general consensus

3 that -- 

4 MS. HOFFMAN: Okay.

5 MR. LUTER: -- it's not really required.

6 MS. HOFFMAN: Okay. Thank you. So you're

7 withdrawing that. Help me on the flow of this discussion. Do

8 we need to read that section in total, or can we go along with

9 including it as the default table? Mike Lubliner? 

10 MR. LUBLINER: I think that some of the editorial

11 catches we'll get if there's some disconnects in that table. I

12 don't know that we need to go through it, but I'd defer to

13 others. And, you know, that -- 

14 MS. HOFFMAN: Lowell.

15 MR. UNGER: I think our intent is clear and it would

16 be for the DOE to actually write the rule.

17 MS. HOFFMAN: Okay. All right. Manny.

18 MR. SANTANA: Yeah, I'd suggest that we accept in

19 principle.

20 MS. HOFFMAN: Okay.

21 MR. SANTANA: Yeah. 

22 MS. HOFFMAN: We're accepting the principle of
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

89

1 establishing -- of using the default tables in the IECC, 2015. 

2 Okay. Well, with that would it be fair to say the

3 Committee report is finished?

4 MR. SANTANA: Committee report is concluded.

5 MS. HOFFMAN: Has concluded. I want to thank Manny

6 and the whole crew. Who else was on the Committee, just so we

7 can --? 

8 MR. SANTANA: Eric Lubby, and Mark Ezzo.

9 MS. HOFFMAN: Thank you all. And now I would

10 suggest -- we've got a lot to do but I'd suggest a 10 minute

11 break and then we're going to move into -- 

12 MR. RAMIZREZ: We're going to move into the term

13 sheet.

14 MS. HOFFMAN: Term sheet. Okay. So a 10 minute

15 break and then we get back to work. Thank you. 

16 (Break at 1:37 p.m.)

17 MR. RAMIZREZ: Okay. We're going to get started

18 with the term sheet and the term sheet has been passed out, and

19 what I'd like to do is give the folks about 15 minutes or so

20 just to review it, right, before we start talking about it and

21 then you're trying to figure out what's on there. Matter of

22 fact, what I'm going to do is I'm going to go ahead and forward
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

90

1 this to the folks at home as well. So let's take about 15

2 minutes just for you're to review it and then we'll start

3 talking about it. And folks online, I will get this to you in

4 just a minute.

5 MS. HOFFMAN: So be ready to discuss this at, what,

6 10:30?

7 MR. RAMIZREZ: Yeah.

8 MS. HOFFMAN: 10:30. 

9 MR. RAMIZREZ: I wouldn't necessarily call this a

10 break, right, but -- 

11 MS. HOFFMAN: It's a reading break.

12 MR. RAMIZREZ: Yeah, it's just to give you an

13 opportunity to review it.

14 MS. HOFFMAN: And that's 10:30, Colorado time.

15 (Reading break.) 

16 MR. RAMIZREZ: All right. For the folks that are --

17 I guess this is everyone. The document that's up on the screen

18 right now -- and I would ask if, Ted, could you make it a little

19 bit larger? The documents up on the screen right now is one

20 that Matthew just sent to us and he has highlighted the changes

21 from the document that you all have. And the changes that were

22 made were items that we discussed this morning. So that's why
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

91

1 he was doing it during that 15 minute review period.

2 Now, what I want to do is, you know, as you walk

3 through this I want to remind you again that this is stuff that

4 we've already reached agreement on, and so let's not get hung up

5 on editorial items. Do you want to make a quick note that, you

6 know, of an editorial, you know, that's fine but I don't want

7 any -- well, we shouldn't have to debate that, right? 

8 We're looking more for substance. If there is

9 something that was captured inaccurately, if you identify

10 anything like that, let's discuss that. 

11 So, what I would ask, at least just for a general

12 review, Joe, would you mind just reviewing the document that's

13 up on the screen? 

14 MR. HAGERMAN: Yeah, I can walk you through it.

15 MR. RAMIZREZ: Okay.

16 MS. HOFFMAN: If you want to walk us through.

17 MR. RAMIZREZ: At least to start out the

18 conversation, right?

19 MR. HAGERMAN: Sure. Sure. I'll do my best here. 

20 So, right, so this is the term sheet. And just a little

21 background here, remember that the term sheet doesn't really

22 necessarily need to explain the process by which we went
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

92

1 through, or nor does it need to capture the discussion around

2 those sensitivities that we all considered when we developed the

3 rule. So, those are all obviously super important, captured in

4 the record. This is really just the end product. This is the

5 end result, not the process making the sausage. This is just

6 the finished sausage.

7 With that said, the first background is really just

8 an intro background about the formation of this working group,

9 and it's just factual. There's no -- you can't dispute facts. 

10 There's no sense in taking a vote here on Section 1. 

11 Then we go to Section 2, which could easily be

12 renamed the Manny Subcommittee Section because this contains

13 everything. So, Ted, if you could just scroll to Section 2? 

14 Section 2 is all the IECC, is all the IECC

15 provisions and changes that your subcommittee considered that we

16 already voted on. We voted on them in past meetings and we

17 voted on them today. And you know, as you see here we just

18 listed the codes, the code references, and then marked it with

19 revisions. And so we'll work to clean up the other document we

20 explained, which your subcommittee did and all the track changes

21 that we've been going through. So there was no surprises there.

22 But since seeing that we've individually kind of
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

93

1 reached consensus on all these individual items, we thought it

2 was good to, again, just take the vote from the entire package

3 so the entire Section 2. So maybe we can take a vote on that

4 right now and then close that out. So that was --

5 MS. HOFFMAN: Lois has a question.

6 MS. STARKEY: Will we be able to have copies of the

7 actual revisions?

8 MR. HAGERMAN: Yes. Absolutely. I'm sorry. I

9 failed to mention that. So, we're going to clean those up and

10 send those out Monday, right, and really, you know, all we're

11 cleaning up is, you know, you have track changes and strike

12 outs. We're just cleaning that up and making it clean. We're

13 not changing anything.

14 MS. STARKEY: Yeah, no. 

15 MR. HAGERMAN: So, if you have changes on that we

16 see them as editorial changes because we have individually had

17 the consensus vote on all of that. 

18 Yes, Mark?

19 MR. WEISS: When these originally came up, also in

20 the subcommittee, I made it clear that my vote at the time was

21 just based on what's in, what's out, this is applicable to

22 manufactured housing or not. I said that that was subject to
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

94

1 the receipt of the cost information. So at that time I voted

2 yes, or abstained, whatever, with respect to these provisions. 

3 But now we have the cost information. So if you're making me

4 vote on this again it's going to show a yes vote then and a no

5 vote now. 

6 MR. HAGERMAN: Okay. That's fine.

7 MR. WEISS: So, I just wanted that clear.

8 MR. HAGERMAN: Yeah, you can have a no vote now. 

9 That's no problem. 

10 MR. RAMIZREZ: Rob?

11 MR. LUTER: Rob with Lippert. Just in observation. 

12 We had some conversation regarding skylights earlier in the

13 footnotes that seemed to be absent from the term sheet that I

14 have. Was that a conscious omission or -- 

15 MR. RAMIZREZ: No, we printed this 

16 before --

17 MS. HOFFMAN: The latest one is up there. 

18 MR. LUTER: Okay.

19 MR. RAMIZREZ: Yeah, Matthew was just incorporating

20 those during the break, during that 15 minute review period. 

21 MR. HAGERMAN: This is real-time government.

22 MR. LUTER: All right. The reason I bring that up
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

95

1 is in the spirit of real-time government, I just heard back from

2 a skylight guy who has got some real concerns about omitting the

3 exemption for skylights and assigning the same solar heat gain

4 as the rest of the glazing. So, I can get into that in a little

5 more detail when that's appropriate. 

6 MR. RAMIZREZ: Okay.

7 MR. LUTER: But without it right in front of me I --

8

9 MR. RAMIZREZ: Yeah. We can have a discussion on

10 that, but let's see how that pans out. But I would tell you

11 that that's one of those items that the group has reached

12 consensus on, so let's see how big of a hang-up this might be. 

13 But we'll cover that when we get there. 

14 MS. HOFFMAN: But just to review, this is the latest

15 that's up here. You have one, the pen ultimate. This is the

16 latest one. 

17 MR. HAGERMAN: And the highlighted things are just

18 the items we covered in the last 30 minutes. If you disagree

19 with how you originally voted it's (indiscernible). So I think

20 -- yes?

21 MR. EZZO: I wanted to ask a question about one of

22 the times it says that we're including.
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

96

1 MR. RAMIZREZ: I'm sorry, Mark. Could I -- Mark,

2 could I pause you on that? I'd like to see if we can go in

3 order.

4 MR. EZZO: Okay.

5 MR. RAMIZREZ: And so when we get there then we can

6 note it.

7 MR. EZZO: That's fine.

8 MR. RAMIZREZ: Okay? Thanks. All right. So what

9 we're talking about right now is Item No. 2, which was the work

10 that Manny's subcommittee did and we all reviewed each of these

11 item by item. So the recommendation is to get a final consensus

12 vote on the way that it was captured here in the term sheet for

13 Section 2. Let's see a show of thumbs if you're okay with

14 Section 2. 

15 MR. EZZO: R403.6, I believe it should be 403.6.1. 

16 We agreed to keep the efficacy requirement, but I don't remember

17 us agreeing to keep the mechanical ventilation requirement that

18 refers to the IRSE. So I'm thinking 403.6 should say 403.6.1.

19 MR. HAGERMAN: Can we ask Manny to -- 

20 MR. WEISS: I don't remember.

21 MR. LACEY: Well, we did yesterday. Well, yesterday

22 we revised it a lot.
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

97

1 MR. WEISS: Just with respect to my no vote. My no

2 vote is based on cost issues, with respect to the included

3 items. 

4 MR. LACEY: It was revised heavily. Yes. Yes. I

5 think we revised it pretty heavily. The number might be the

6 same, but all the references to the IRC, my recollection, those

7 were all taken out.

8 MR. SANTANA: But I think you're right. I think the

9 -- well --

10 MR. LACEY: It would be in yesterday's notes. 

11 MR. SANTANA: Yeah, the 403.6 was the mandatory

12 section that we reviewed the first go-around, and then 403.6.1

13 was -- we originally adopted that in principle because that one

14 dealt with efficacy tables and that was what we dealt with

15 yesterday. So then this should really include both 403.6. 

16 When we first went through the 403.6 as one of the

17 mandatory sections, we approved it with revisions to strike

18 things like references to the IRC. And then the other one we --

19 then we adopted the principle, yesterday we worked on and

20 completed. So that one should probably be added, 403.6.1. 

21 MR. RAMIZREZ: Okay. If you look up on the screen

22 here, this is what Mark is talking about. 
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

98

1 MR. HAGERMAN: I think we might have just settled

2 that. I think that it stays as 403.6 and then you should, just

3 for clarity, add 403.6.1.

4 MR. RAMIZREZ: Right. Okay. Let's go back to the

5 document, Ted.

6 MR. HAGERMAN: So, whoever is doing it. It's good. 

7 It's right. 

8 MR. RAMIZREZ: All right. So on the document we

9 need to add 403.6.1 as well?

10 MR. HAGERMAN: That's right.

11 MR. RAMIZREZ: Okay. So 403.6 is -- 

12 MR. TOMPOS: This is Dave Tompos from NTA. That was

13 my subcommittee and I gave you completely -- I gave you language

14 that we voted on. 

15 MR. RAMIZREZ: Right.

16 MR. TOMPOS: I don't think we adopted those sections

17 as they are in the IRC. 

18 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It will say, with revisions. 

19

20 MR. HAGERMAN: Yes, so it would say, with revisions.

21 I'm sorry. I'm sorry, David. 

22 MR. RAMIZREZ: So 403 -- so right 
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

99

1 there --

2 MR. HAGERMAN: The language you gave us is

3 considered with the revision as part -- 

4 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Is that right, Dave?

5 MR. TOMPOS: As long as we use the language that we

6 voted on and not -- 

7 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes, that's correct.

8 MR. TOMPOS: I'm not at the part of the term sheet,

9 so I don't know where it is. There you go. That's fine. 

10 MR. RAMIZREZ: All right.

11 MR. TOMPOS: Because I proposed something and then

12 we made minor revisions to it. 

13 MR. RAMIZREZ: All right. So I think we need to add

14 a, I guess an 11B. Right? We have 11A would be what's up

15 there, and then 11B is 403.6.1 as revised with Tompos language. 

16 Is that accurate? 

17 MR. HAGERMAN: Yes. 

18 MR. RAMIZREZ: Okay. Rob?

19 MR. LUTER: Just a quick point of clarification. 

20 We're about to vote on Section 2, applicable aspects of the 2015

21 IECC. Are we voting to affirm that in fact the record shows we

22 reached a consensus on these? For those of us without a
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

100

1 photographic memory, moi --

2 MR. HAGERMAN: Yes. 

3 MR. RAMIZREZ: Yes.

4 MR. LUTER: -- you know, without actually going back

5 and looking at all these, I couldn't necessarily tell you. I'm

6 going to have to rely on this being an accurate reflection of

7 the record.

8 MR. RAMIZREZ: Yeah. And also the minutes have all

9 been posted, and if there is any conflict, you know, I'm sure

10 that it can be reconciled based on the minutes. But that's

11 where all this was pooled from.

12 MR. LUTER: So will this vote then be any more

13 binding than the previous votes we've taken?

14 MR. RAMIZREZ: No. This is just to capture how it's

15 actually being looking at in the term sheet.

16 MR. LUTER: Understood. Thank you. 

17 MR. RAMIZREZ: Right? Because we've already --

18 technically we've already agreed to all this stuff. 

19 Manny, and then Lowell.

20 MR. SANTANA: Manny here. My vote on this section

21 is going to be a vote that states that whatever I voted for

22 these sections, I'm not going to change the original vote, but I
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

101

1 can't attest that the sections listed are complete. Right? 

2 MR. HAGERMAN: Right. And you also should -- you'll

3 be getting those complete sections on Monday, right?

4 MR. SANTANA: Okay.

5 MR. HAGERMAN: That reflect what we've already

6 reached consensus on. 

7 MR. SANTANA: Right. So just, you know,

8 conceptually speaking --

9 MR. HAGERMAN: What we're trying to do is -- yeah, I

10 mean, you can see the machinery here is kind of difficult,

11 right, since we're doing this in real time and everything. So. 

12

13 MR. SANTANA: Yeah.

14 MR. HAGERMAN: You know, we're trying to get

15 everybody to agree that yeah, your subcommittee, we're just

16 taking what your subcommittee already voted on and we reached

17 consensus on. Let's just memorialize, yes, that's what we're

18 doing.

19 MR. SANTANA: Right. Okay.

20 MR. HAGERMAN: And at the end, after going through

21 all these sections we're going to say, all right, let's take a

22 vote on the term sheet, right? 
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

102

1 MR. ROY: This will be an appendix to --

2 MR. HAGERMAN: Yeah, absolutely. This will be an

3 appendix.

4 MR. ROY: Because it doesn't say that here, but I

5 assume it would be.

6 MR. HAGERMAN: Yeah. It would be. It would be. It

7 would say -- well, I'd add that much.

8 MR. RAMIZREZ: Okay. So with -- I'm sorry, Lowell?

9 MR. UNGER: Yeah. Manny, I guess I would be more

10 comfortable saying we support whatever we supported, whatever

11 we've already voted on.

12 MR. RAMIZREZ: And that's what we're trying to do.

13 MR. UNGER: Yeah. And, I mean, if we're going to

14 have this list, and you know, again I haven't had time yet to

15 review this in real-time either. But I note we talked about

16 chapter 3 provision today that I can't read what was added. I'm

17 not sure if that got in here. 

18 MR. RAMIZREZ: Oh, you're talking about on the

19 climate zones?

20 MR. UNGER: On the default tables. 

21 MS. HOFFMAN: Default tables.

22 MR. UNGER: And I think we talked about 404.1 and
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

103

1 404.1.1, I didn't see those on here and I'm guessing that there

2 may be, you know -- 

3 MR. HAGERMAN: So would it be more helpful if we

4 strike all of these individual numbers and just say appendix? 

5 You know, subcommittee appendix? It's already been reached

6 consensus, and then you'll see that document. I mean, is the --

7

8 MR. UNGER: I have no objection conceptually to

9 having this --

10 MR. HAGERMAN: Right.

11 MR. UNGER: -- listing here. 

12 MR. HAGERMAN: You see what we're talking about,

13 right?

14 MR. UNGER: I guess I have a concern about

15 finalizing this list and --

16 MR. HAGERMAN: Right.

17 MR. UNGER: -- at this time. So as long as we can

18 change this list so that it corresponds to what we voted on then

19 I'm fine.

20 MR. HAGERMAN: Right.

21 MS. HOFFMAN: Lois?

22 MR. HAGERMAN: I agree it's clunky.
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

104

1 MS. STARKEY: I don't want to get shot by the DOE

2 people, but I'm just going to throw this out. Would it be

3 appropriate to -- because I have questions too? I feel

4 uncomfortable without really looking at the language of the term

5 sheet with the revisions. Would it be appropriate to have a

6 conference call like sometime this week, approve the term sheet

7 in principle but actually have a call with the group next week?

8 MR. HAGERMAN: Well, let's just -- instead of doing

9 that let's just pull up the striked out versions of everything

10 you've reached consensus on already and just scroll through it,

11 and then you'll have assurance that that's what's going to be

12 the appendix. Right? And we can just take a vote now.

13 I mean, do we really want to open up the fact that

14 we're going to send you out the strike-out copies and you have

15 buyer's remorse on the vote you've already taken?

16 MS. STARKEY: Well, I think that would be off the

17 table. 

18 MR. RAMIZREZ: Michael.

19 MR. LUBLINER: I could understand where you're

20 coming from. I would really -- I'm not going to be able to make

21 any more conference calls. I've exhausted my resources and in

22 between now when we need to do it to meet your deadline, so that
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

105

1 doesn't work for me.

2 MS. STARKEY: Okay.

3 MR. LUBLINER: But I'm just wondering, like I think

4 that if we really have agreed to all these things it should be

5 pretty quick if we can go through. 

6 MR. HAGERMAN: Do you want to just say that the

7 working group review the 2015 IECC for residential buildings for

8 applicable manufactured over the course of six meetings and made

9 such good changes and recommendations that they voted and

10 reached consensus on period, all those agreed upon votes are

11 deemed a part of this term sheet?

12 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yeah.

13 MR. HAGERMAN: Do you like something like that for

14 this?

15 (All speaking at once.)

16 MR. RAMIZREZ: All right. Hold on a second. 

17 MR. HAGERMAN: Real time government.

18 MR. RAMIZREZ: All right. Hold on a second. So

19 let's add that verbiage in here somewhere so that way we can all

20 see it and -- 

21 MR. HAGERMAN: It says to delete all the references.

22 MR. RAMIZREZ: Right.
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

106

1 MR. HAGERMAN: Delete all abstained. Everything. 

2 Yeah, right. 

3 MR. RAMIZREZ: Right there?

4 MR. HAGERMAN: Delete all that. Right.

5 MR. RAMIZREZ: Okay. And then repeat the verbiage?

6 MR. HAGERMAN: I think you say for applicability --

7 so the very first sentence, "To manufactured housing over the

8 course of the six public meetings." 

9 MR. RAMIZREZ: And then, Ted, could 

10 you -- okay. I'm going to ask Joe to hold on for a second and

11 give Ted a second to enlarge -- just bring up that one sheet and

12 then make it larger so we can all read it. Thanks.

13 And you can see the part that he -- if you could

14 just highlight it for us, Ted, with your cursor. 

15 MR. HAGERMAN: So you just say that the working

16 group identified sections of the 2015 IECC that were not

17 applicable or were revised, and consensus was reached.

18 MS. HOFFMAN: And then on Monday you're going to get

19 all of the text?

20 MR. HAGERMAN: Right. You'll get that record. 

21 MS. HOFFMAN: The record to -- 

22 MR. HAGERMAN: Right. That will be the record.
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

107

1 MS. HOFFMAN: And there will be a phone call if

2 there is an issue or whatever.

3 MR. HAGERMAN: There should not be an issue.

4 MS. STARKEY: Did we want to say, see appendix, or

5 --

6 MR. HAGERMAN: Right. Right.

7 MS. STARKEY: See appendix.

8 MS. HOFFMAN: See appendix. Where would that go? 

9 At the end?

10 MR. HAGERMAN: Yeah.

11 MR. RAMIZREZ: And then put that in parenthesis.

12 MR. CASKEY: Yeah, Joe, isn't that redundant of

13 what's directly under the red area?

14 MR. HAGERMAN: Yeah.

15 MS. STARKEY: That needs --

16 MR. HAGERMAN: Right. That's right. He just

17 created a new sentence, though. You need to strike that. 

18 MR. RAMIZREZ: Strike the red part? 

19 MR. HAGERMAN: No, strike this review, identify

20 sections. Okay. 

21 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: And the following sentence. 

22 MR. HAGERMAN: Yeah, and the following sentence. 
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

108

1 MR. RAMIZREZ: Yeah, strike that following sentence

2 as well, Ted.

3 MR. HAGERMAN: I think he should also say -- well,

4 strike that next sentence, Ted, the --

5 MR. RAMIZREZ: After the strike-out.

6 MR. HAGERMAN: Yeah, strike that out. And I think

7 just to make this absolutely clean we need to say, "The working

8 group identified sections of the 2015 IECC that were not

9 applicable or that the Committee modified."

10 MS. HOFFMAN: Modified. Yeah. 

11 MS. DICKENS: I'd make it WG, working group --

12 MS. HOFFMAN: Excuse me, Ishbel?

13 MR. HAGERMAN: Working group. Thank you.

14 MS. HOFFMAN: Working group.

15 MR. HAGERMAN: Or you could say consensus was

16 reached on these items and the record is Appendix X, X, X. 

17 And then you will get that record on Monday, and

18 please, you know, highlight editorial changes right, because as

19 John already flagged, sometimes we said U-value and U-factor and

20 stuff like that, right? Not looking for material changes.

21 MR. RAMIZREZ: Okay. So with that modification

22 let's see -- I'm sorry, Ted. Could you -- okay, there it is. 
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

109

1 Number 2. So, with those modifications let's see a show of

2 thumbs for those of you that are comfortable with the language

3 that's up there on two. Okay.

4 MR. WEISS: Subject to my prior comment.

5 MR. RAMIZREZ: All right. So, Mark is a no vote. 

6 Anyone else online? 

7 Okay. So one no vote from Mark Weiss.

8 MS. HOFFMAN: Nineteen votes. 

9 MR. HAGERMAN: So now the next section is Section 3,

10 or Climate Zones. The map we obviously have discussed a lot. 

11 The one thing that we identified that we all got confused with

12 yesterday was the labeling of the map. Sometimes we labeled it

13 1, 2, 3, 4, sometimes we labeled it red, blue, green, orange,

14 sometimes we labeled it 1A, 1B, et cetera, et cetera. So we

15 need to take up a clear vote on the actual label; how we label

16 these. And so we adopted the labels that I think we were

17 talking about the most and were in the manufacturer's proposals.

18 So we're adopting 1A, 1B, two and three.

19 MR. RAMIZREZ: So let's see a show of thumbs if

20 you're okay with that labeling of the zones. Okay.

21 MR. HAGERMAN: Sideways, that's good.

22 MR. RAMIZREZ: Yeah, that's okay. Anyone online a
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

110

1 no vote? 

2 Let the record show that that's a unanimous vote. 

3 MR. HAGERMAN: Ted, it goes under Section 3.2, not

4 3.1. 

5 The next one is -- the longer paragraph is pretty

6 simple. It's just saying that we're having two compliance

7 pathways, the prescriptive and the performance base. And

8 obviously we already took a vote on that. 

9 MR. RAMIZREZ: All right, Lowell.

10 MR. UNGER: This might be editorial but you have a

11 prescriptive pathway and then you have prescriptive requirements

12 which are independent. The IECC calls them mandatory.

13 MR. HAGERMAN: Right.

14 MR. UNGER: Should we use mandatory?

15 MR. HAGERMAN: Yes, absolutely. You jumped ahead. 

16 In fact we wanted to flag that.

17 MR. UNGER: Well, it's in the last line of this uses

18 -- is the first place where I saw it come up.

19 MR. HAGERMAN: Right. So do you want to all agree

20 that we change the word prescriptive requirements in that last

21 sentence there, to mandatory requirements? And then we also

22 make that change to Section 7 of this document, and say
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

111

1 mandatory requirements. Follow me? We've used the word

2 prescriptive twice so it confused people. 

3 MR. RAMIZREZ: All right. So let's, just for

4 clarity, let's take them one at a time, right. Just make sure

5 that everyone is okay, and assuming that we do it up above,

6 seven should be fine as well. But -- 

7 MR. HAGERMAN: I think it's easier if we jump to

8 seven and change the title on seven to Mandatory Requirements or

9 other Mandatory Requirements. It doesn't matter which one. 

10 MR. RAMIZREZ: Okay. And there is it right there.

11 MR. HAGERMAN: Those requirements were subject to

12 either pathway, the performance pathway or the prescriptive

13 pathway, which is described in the short paragraph right below

14 it.

15 MR. RAMIZREZ: Okay. So, Ted, could you just put

16 your cursor around where it says -- where you made the change? 

17 So you could see that he changed the title in seven

18 as well as over here in four. So with those editorial changes

19 are we okay with four and the title of seven?

20 MR. HAGERMAN: Does anybody disagree with those

21 editorial changes? I don't -- yes, I don't think we need to

22 retake that vote. 
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

112

1 MR. RAMIZREZ: Okay.

2 MS. STARKEY: Well, just go up to four. 

3 MR. RAMIZREZ: Ted, could you back up to four?

4 MS. STARKEY: Thanks.

5 MR. RAMIZREZ: Okay. All right. So then -- Mark?

6 MR. WEISS: Just, I'm not proposing any changes, but

7 to the extent that this shows 20 yes on approval, I believe this

8 again was something that I had indicated I would vote for

9 subject to cost information. Just that clarification. There

10 are a couple others like this further down.

11 MR. RAMIZREZ: Yeah. I think the one that you're

12 talking about where it was a 20 yes, was the names of the zones.

13 MS. HOFFMAN: You know, that we just did a few

14 moments ago.

15 MR. WEISS: No, I'm talking about on four. I'm

16 talking about --

17 MR. RAMIZREZ: On four? Let's go down a little bit,

18 Ted.

19 MR. WEISS: I'm not asking you to change it, I'm

20 just -- 

21 MR. HAGERMAN: Yeah, it might have been one that you

22 just abstained from, right? Because we don't always list the
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

113

1 abstains.

2 MR. WEISS: Yeah, I don't recall but -- 

3 MR. HAGERMAN: Right. Okay. 

4 MR. RAMIZREZ: All right. But you just wanted to

5 get clear that you still retain your costing concerns. Your

6 affordability concerns.

7 MR. HAGERMAN: Right. Just to clean up I'd call out

8 one more thing. So if you go to Section 7 again, Ted, the small

9 little paragraph should read, "The working group recommends that

10 the proposed regulations include the following." I want to

11 propose that we strike prescriptive here, just so it doesn't

12 confuse anybody. It's not really necessary. Requirements for

13 all manufactured homes, just to be consistent.

14 MR. RAMIZREZ: No mandatory then, just -- 

15 MR. RAMIZREZ: Okay. Strike that, Ted.

16 MR. HAGERMAN: Yes, strike that. I think that's --

17 does everybody agree? All right.

18 MR. RAMIZREZ: All right. So while we're here, does

19 seven look okay to everyone? A show of thumbs. Okay.

20 MS. HOFFMAN: Are you raising your thumb?

21 MR. WEISS: No, I'm going to make another

22 clarification because this is where there were a couple others. 
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

114

1 Similar to my comment a second ago, I believe it's the same

2 thing with respect to 7.2 and 7.3. Yes voted that time or

3 abstention was subject to receipt of cost data.

4 MR. RAMIZREZ: Okay. Noted. Thank you. Okay. All

5 right. So let's go back up.

6 MR. HAGERMAN: So we should be on Section 5 now. So

7 again, this differs from what -- the version you have in front

8 of you because we've added the skylight. I think Rob wants to

9 stop the skylights. From the previous comment.

10 MR. LUTER: Well, you got me -- Rob with Lippert. 

11 Just in consulting with an industry expert on the skylight, kind

12 of to compress his comments, skylights are very different than

13 windows in a lot of ways. The ability of them to reduce solar

14 heat gain to the extent of windows is problematic based on their

15 location and the angle of the sun. And if one looks at the

16 Energy Star requirements that are going in place the first of

17 this year, if we would match window solar heat gain as we've

18 been discussing it, Energy Star skylights would be unsuitable

19 for use in HUD Code homes because they're not good enough.

20 With the new Energy Star the folks at EPA are

21 promoting this as an elite performance class and I just wondered

22 what -- doesn't make sense to me. 
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

115

1 MR. RAMIZREZ: Eric?

2 MR. LACEY: This is Eric from RECA. Maybe some of

3 the confusion is, I thought we had left that .30 carve out in

4 there. Isn't the SHGC requirement for Energy Star skylights in

5 the .27 or .28 range? 

6 MR. LUTER: 28.

7 MR. LACEY: So this would -- 

8 MR. LUTER: But the exemption wasn't in there. What

9 my point was, is this solar heat gain, let's say for 1A and 1B

10 becomes .25, Energy Star skylights aren't any good.

11 MR. LACEY: But that's why that exception -- I

12 thought we had decided to leave the -- if you scroll down or

13 wherever it was, the exception that allowed you with an SHGC to

14 meet 30. That was specifically for that.

15 MR. UNGER: If I remember it correctly, but my

16 understanding was is that we had accepted the notion that the

17 skylight exemption for SHGC would be struck; that it would be

18 treated just like all other -- did I remember this wrong? It

19 says SHGC column applies to all glazed fenestration. 

20 MR. HAGERMAN: And you're reading.

21 MR. UNGER: Oh, okay. Okay. We did put that back

22 in then. 
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

116

1 MR. SANTANA: Yeah. 

2 MR. RAMIZREZ: Yeah. I see -- 

3 MR. HAGERMAN: That's the problem with the version,

4 you didn't have the right conversation this morning in that

5 section. So after you read it now are you comfortable?

6 MR. UNGER: I am comfortable. Thank you.

7 MR. HAGERMAN: Okay. 

8 MR. RAMIZREZ: Okay. Great. 

9 MR. UNGER: Yeah, the language in the footnotes

10 implies that there is a single SHGC column for fenestration. 

11 And in the table we now have a separate SHGC column for windows

12 and for skylights. 

13 MR. HAGERMAN: So should we just say SHGC columns

14 apply to all glaze fenestrations? 

15 MR. RAMIZREZ: Number 3, Ted.

16 MR. UNGER: And then we're not allowing trade-offs

17 between the window and skylight SHGC. I'm fine either way, I

18 just -- 

19 MR. RAMIZREZ: So, Lowell, you're talking about

20 number 3, under the footnotes?

21 MR. UNGER: Right. Number 3 doesn't seem to match

22 the way the table is currently constructed. That we would be --
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

117

1 either we need to go one way or the other.

2 MR. LUTER: The comment of my source was that this

3 came up in the code hearings and they decided to deal with the

4 footnote rather than an additional column. They didn't want to

5 add the additional column. So it was just an SHGC for

6 fenestration, period, with a footnote that offered the exception

7 for skylights, whether we'd want to mimic that approach or not. 

8

9 So the way we could that if we wanted is leave the

10 footnote in on the table, change the window SHGC to say,

11 fenestration SHGC --

12 MR. LACEY: Glazed fenestration SHGC.

13 MR. UNGER: -- delete this -- fenestration SHGC --

14 MR. LACEY: Yes. That would incorporate it.

15 MR. UNGER: Correct. 

16 MR. RAMIZREZ: So we need to change the chart title

17 name? Okay. 

18 MR. UNGER: Well, the chart. There is currently a

19 window SHGC column and a skylight SHGC column. It would be

20 separated from the overall window, so you would have a window

21 U-value, and then a fenestration SHGC.

22 MR. RAMIZREZ: Okay. So where it says SHGC put on
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

118

1 there -- I heard fenestration and I heard glazing.

2 MR. LACEY: I would say glazed fenestration SHGC,

3 because that -- well, whatever it says in the --

4 MR. UNGER: The IECC has glazed fenestration -- 

5 MR. LACEY: Yes. 

6 MR. UNGER: -- SGHC.

7 MR. LACEY: Because otherwise you'd be capture doors

8 and -- 

9 MR. RAMIZREZ: Okay. So glaze fenestration SHGC.

10 MR. UNGER: And I believe the SHGC column under

11 skylight. 

12 MR. RAMIZREZ: All right. So is everyone following

13 this?

14 ALL: Yes.

15 MR. RAMIZREZ: Thank God, because I am not. Okay. 

16 All right. 

17 MR. UNGER: So getting rid of the skylight SHGC? 

18 Not the -- 

19 MR. RAMIZREZ: No, there's a strikethrough on that. 

20 Just -- 

21 MR. LACEY: And one more tweak, you want to take the

22 word window and put it down next to U-value and skylight, put it
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

119

1 under U-value. Minor thing but that way the --

2 MR. UNGER: And you probably want to move the glazed

3 -- this becomes editorial. Move the glazed fenestration column

4 up.

5 MR. RAMIZREZ: Yeah, make sure we're clear.

6 MR. UNGER: Skylight. 

7 MR. LUTER: You have to take a look at how it's

8 shown in the IECC.

9 MR. HAGERMAN: Okay. So just delete those and yeah,

10 absolutely, we'll do the graphic stuff. Editorial stuff, so and

11 that's what we mean by editorial stuff, right? Just strike it

12 out, Ted, and we'll clean it up.

13 MR. RAMIZREZ: Okay.

14 MR. HAGERMAN: So again, just for a reminder, we

15 have just voted on that and then Section 5.1, Ted, if you keep

16 on scrolling, we voted on that. Keep on scrolling. This is

17 Section 6 and we just voted on that and the highlight is what

18 was added. 

19 MR. BARBOUR: Editorial change, you want to change

20 that to glazed fenestration and SHGCs all have to match.

21 So delete windows, skylights, and doors, and change

22 that to glazed fenestration.
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

120

1 MR. RAMIZREZ: Okay. And the highlight part, Ted,

2 and 6.1. 

3 MR. BARBOUR: Is that right? 

4 MR. SANTANA: Well, then we'd be omitting doors. So

5 the question is, do we want to keep doors, or no? 

6 MR. LACEY: I think -- 

7 MR. HAGERMAN: Why does it have to reflect the

8 prescriptive --?

9 MR. LACEY: I think the only thing you need to add

10 here is the SHGC, and I actually put some language together that

11 I've run by a couple of people here, because the windows and

12 door U-factors are going to be already in the part of -- well,

13 the only thing that's not part of the Uo calculation is the SHGC

14 right now. 

15 And so I mean, I put some language together to deal

16 with that that I could read out loud. 

17 MR. HAGERMAN: Yeah, propose it so we can close this

18 out.

19 MR. LACEY: Okay. So here is what it would say. 

20 This is just for the Uo section. It would say, "The SHGC

21 requirements shall be met in addition to Uo compliance. An area

22 weighted average SHGC of windows, skylights and doors of more
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

121

1 than 50 percent glazed --

2 MR. RAMIZREZ: Yeah, Ted is good. 

3 MR. HAGERMAN: Did you just e-mail that to Ted? 

4 It's only two sentences long.

5 TED: The volume cut out there. 

6 MR. RAMIZREZ: Yeah, so -- 

7 TED: Can you start over? I apologize. 

8 MR. RAMIZREZ: Yeah, so just read it slow enough so

9 he can type it.

10 MR. LACEY: So it says, "The SHGC requirements shall

11 be met in addition to Uo compliance. An area weighted average

12 SHGC of windows, skylights, and doors, more than 50 percent

13 glazed shall be permitted to satisfy the SHGC requirements of

14 the prescriptive table." Or, let's see -- 

15 MR. UNGER: And that's not true of the prescriptive

16 path?

17 MR. LACEY: I have different language for the

18 prescriptive path. 

19 MR. RAMIZREZ: Now, does that substitute the

20 highlighted language? 

21 MR. LACEY: I think so. 

22 MR. RAMIZREZ: Emanuel?
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

122

1 MR. LEVY: I guess I'm not clear. The solar heat

2 gain coefficient requirements that correspond to the Uo

3 performance path, right now it's only in the table with the

4 prescriptive requirements?

5 MR. LACEY: You could put another column in for the

6 Uo that would be -- 

7 MR. LEVY: I think you have to. Otherwise there are

8 none.

9 MR. LACEY: That's why it references the

10 prescriptive table in that last sentence there.

11 MR. UNGER: You could either -- 

12 MR. LACEY: We could have a separate table. 

13 MR. UNGER: -- (indiscernible) SHGC permits. 

14 MR. HAGERMAN: Yeah, so that paragraph right now,

15 6.1 doesn't actually announce table 6.1 anymore. Actually, it

16 never did. Never mind. Strike that. Let's move on.

17 So can we take a vote on this again? We just voted

18 on this, but -- 

19 MR. RAMIZREZ: Emanuel, did you get your question

20 answered?

21 MR. HAGERMAN: It just refers back to the

22 prescriptive table.
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

123

1 MR. LEVY: I would like to see the solar gain

2 coefficient information repeated down here, but its fine.

3 MR. RAMIZREZ: Okay. So you're saying you could

4 take care of that in the edits?

5 MR. LEVY: I think so.

6 MR. RAMIZREZ: Okay. So let's see a show of thumbs

7 if we're okay with the modification that Eric had suggested,

8 verbiage. Okay. Mark Weiss is a no vote. Online are there any

9 no votes, thumbs down?

10 All right. Then -- 

11 MS. HOFFMAN: I don't think we questioned the

12 default tables. Where does that come in? That Lowell had

13 mentioned. 

14 MR. LACEY: That only comes in when you have an

15 unlabeled or unrated fenestration product. And that could

16 happen either in the prescriptive path or in the Uo, but most

17 likely the Uo. 

18 MR. UNGER: I think those will be -- sorry, this is

19 Lowell. I think those will be in the appendix.

20 MS. HOFFMAN: In the appendix. Okay. 

21 MR. UNGER: They should be. But we talked about

22 U-value table as well as the R-value table. We haven't agreed
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

124

1 on what it is. I don't know what --

2 MR. LACEY: Didn't we agree it was the values that

3 PNNL had been using.

4 MR. SANTANA: Good U alternate? 

5 MR. UNGER: Right. That's something we need to -- 

6 MR. LACEY: Should we say that? 

7 MR. UNGER: -- put back in, or does that not need to

8 be here? 

9 MR. HAGERMAN: It probably should be in. 

10 MR. LEVY: Have those values.

11 MR. HAGERMAN: Yeah 

12 MR. UNGER: Okay. They'll be inserted later or

13 something? 

14 MR. SANTANA: Probably be pretty easy to add a chart

15 now. It's just going to be thee columns. 

16 MR. RAMIZREZ: All right. So three columns and how

17 many rows? 

18 MR. SANTANA: Four rows.

19 MR. RAMIZREZ: All right. Ted, could you insert a

20 table? 

21 MR. BARBOUR: Actually, can I suggest that we

22 develop a table here and e-mail it to Ted? 
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

125

1 MR. RAMIZREZ: Okay. 

2 MR. BARBOUR: Yeah, that might be the easiest way to

3 go, and it actually goes in a section previous to this one,

4 correct?

5 MR. RAMIZREZ: Okay. So then if it's all right with

6 everyone, we'll move on while you're developing that and then

7 we'll come back to it. 

8 MR. BARBOUR: We can work with Emanuel on this. 

9 MR. RAMIZREZ: And, Ted, Matthew is going to develop

10 a table and send it to you, and then you could cut and paste it

11 in here when we're ready for that. 

12 So where do we go next, Joe?

13 MR. HAGERMAN: We go to the next, which should be

14 6.2. Can you scroll down, Ted? 6.2. We've never clearly voted

15 on the calculation method for Uo. We've always used the Patel

16 calculation, which I think everybody has been using that. We

17 just would like it cleaned up on that.

18 MR. RAMIZREZ: All right. So is everyone okay with

19 using the Patel method for Uo?

20 MR. HAGERMAN: This is the same methods already used

21 by the HUD Codes.

22 MR. RAMIZREZ: Let's see a show of thumbs. 
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

126

1 MS. HOFFMAN: Mark has agreed to --

2 MR. RAMIZREZ: Yeah. Anyone online with a no, a

3 thumb down?

4 MS. HOFFMAN: That's 20.

5 MR. RAMIZREZ: Yeah, so that one is unanimous.

6 MS. HOFFMAN: Unanimous. Matthew, are you

7 (indiscernible)?

8 MR. HAGERMAN: All right. Now Section 7, the

9 mandatory requirements. The first set, 7.1, is the air

10 exchanges, old building tightness. This is for the reminder. 

11 The second section is the duct leakage.

12 MR. RAMIZREZ: Can you scroll down, Ted?

13 MR. HAGERMAN: This is 7.2, this is duct leakage. 

14 7.3 we had talked about just real quick, I believe. There is a

15 yellow here that's left out in the document you have. 

16 Previously we just said, shall be insulated, but we realized

17 that we didn't include the R-value to previously approved R3. 

18 But -- 

19 MR. SANTANA: Doesn't it say that in the first

20 sentence? At least R3?

21 MR. HAGERMAN: I guess it does. Well, I need to

22 learn how to read better.
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

127

1 MR. RAMIZREZ: Is there a difference between that

2 outside --

3 MR. UNGER: It doesn't in the first sentence, but

4 the second sentence implies that it's separate. The way I read

5 it without the addition is that hot water pipes from the water

6 heater distribution manifold would be required to be insulated,

7 but are not under the R3 requirement, because it says in

8 addition. And you could either say they are included, or --

9 MR. HAGERMAN: Let's just say it's at least R3. Is

10 everybody comfortable with that?

11 MR. UNGER: It can't hurt.

12 MR. HAGERMAN: Yeah. Just make this really clear. 

13 MR. RAMIZREZ: All right. Let's see a show of

14 thumbs if you're okay with that modification. 

15 All right. And then anyone online with thumbs down?

16 Then, let's show a unanimous recommendation on that. 

17 MR. HAGERMAN: And then on eight we need to add

18 other -- we need the title to read, Other Recommendations

19 Outside the Scope.

20 MR. RAMIZREZ: I'm sorry, Joe. Could you give Ted

21 just a second to catch up here? 

22 MR. HAGERMAN: Yeah, so Kavita wants to know, do we
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

128

1 need to take a new vote on 7.3 --

2 MR. RAMIZREZ: We just -- 

3 MR. HAGERMAN: -- as far as R3? I think we do.

4 MR. RAMIZREZ: We just did.

5 MR. SANTANA: We just did. 

6 MR. RAMIZREZ: And that was unanimous, Ted. Yeah,

7 Ted, you're right with putting that note in there; the

8 highlighted part.

9 MR. HAGERMAN: Other recommendations outside the

10 scope of the charter. Of the charter. Of the working group

11 charter. WG charter. 

12 And then my opinion is, since this is outside the

13 scope of the charter, you're just really signaling to DOE and

14 the secretary that you should consider these sayings. We don't

15 need to take individual votes if you don't want to, or we can. 

16 However you want to deal with this. We could just make a list

17 and take votes --

18 MR. RAMIZREZ: So --

19 MR. HAGERMAN: -- on the whole verbiage. So it's up

20 to you guys. 

21 MR. RAMIZREZ: So is this the final section? 

22 MR. HAGERMAN: This is the final section, yes.
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

129

1 MR. RAMIZREZ: All right. So, Ted, I had sent you a

2 -- or there's a document in the file that has recommendations. 

3 If you could open up that one? 

4 Okay. These were the ones that we had sent out

5 yesterday and we had added some in here. Now, Matthew, the ones

6 that I had sent out, are those the ones that are in the term

7 sheet as well?

8 MR. MULLER: Yes.

9 MR. RAMIZREZ: Okay. All right. So let's just look

10 at these then. 

11 MR. HAGERMAN: I can redo these. I don't think

12 they're anything that we --

13 MR. RAMIZREZ: Yeah. Go ahead. The only reason I

14 added the other document was because there were some that folks

15 added.

16 MR. HAGERMAN: Ted, can we just go to the term

17 sheet? So, since they're all the same let's just go to the term

18 sheet. So, the first one is the working group recommends that

19 DOE charter a new working group through ASRAC to develop

20 recommendations regarding certification testing enforcement.

21 MR. RAMIZREZ: Is everyone okay with that

22 recommendation?
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

130

1 MR. HAGERMAN: I take offense to new, meaning that I

2 guess this working group is not good enough. So.

3 MR. RAMIZREZ: Yeah.

4 MS. HOFFMAN: So, do we want to take a vote on this?

5 MR. RAMIZREZ: Is everyone okay? Let's see your

6 level of consensus with this recommendation. All right. So

7 Mark Weiss is a no vote. Anyone online with your thumbs down?

8 MR. HAGERMAN: Mark, could we ask what the objection

9 there was? Just curious.

10 MR. WEISS: Again, just consistency with my previous

11 objections regarding the division of standards and -- 

12 MR. HAGERMAN: Oh, okay. Just in relationship with

13 HUD.

14 MR. WEISS: -- standards and enforcement.

15 MR. HAGERMAN: All right. So 8.2, the working group

16 recommends that DOE modify REScheck software, application to

17 specifically address manufactured housing. The working group

18 observed that both inputs and calculation assumptions would

19 require modification to account for the factory construction of

20 manufactured homes, and modify application. Also we provide

21 recommendation for equipment sizing. 

22 MR. RAMIZREZ: Are you all okay with that
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

131

1 recommendation? Let's see a show of thumbs.

2 MR. HAGERMAN: REScheck is a DOE code software for

3 people who don't know. It's heavily used by everybody. 

4 MR. RAMIZREZ: And you know what?

5 MR. HAGERMAN: Free software.

6 MR. RAMIZREZ: You know what? I'm sorry, where were

7 you on that one, Mark?

8 MR. HAGERMAN: Abstained.

9 MR. RAMIZREZ: And then anyone that is online, any

10 thumbs down? All right. That one was unanimous, even though

11 Emanuel was out of the room. 

12 But Lois, you may know, he had something on a

13 software. Is this the same --? 

14 MS. STARKEY: It is. It might go a little bit

15 beyond. It addresses some of the provisions that we've talked

16 about and haven't really specifically talked about with respect

17 to a label that would be required, and opportunities for a

18 consumer label. I think it's a more of a comprehensive

19 approach, and I think it would be worth talking about, but maybe

20 in another, you know, compliance sense.

21 MS. HOFFMAN: What we might do is go through all

22 these and then once this is done, then have that discussion.
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

132

1 MR. RAMIZREZ: Yeah, we would even see if that's

2 probably something that would be for the other committee, and

3 that something Emanuel put together may be the good starting

4 point, right, for that committee. But I think there's two

5 components there, right? One is the software, the REScheck

6 software, but then the other one is, you talked about the

7 labeling which I believe comes under the compliance of

8 components, so it's kind of straddling two different ones there,

9 correct? Okay.

10 MR. SANTANA: Yeah, I was going to suggest that we

11 have a placeholder because I know he might have some --

12 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yeah, remarks.

13 MR. SANTANA: -- comments on it, so --

14 MR. RAMIZREZ: Yeah. Emanuel, we were just

15 discussing the RESCheck software. We're on the recommendations

16 to the ASRAC for additional considerations, right, whether it be

17 subcommittees or what have you. And right now we're on 8.2. 

18 And you had a separate one that you had given some detail on

19 some software. Would that be dealt under this recommendation to

20 ASRAC?

21 MR. LEVY: Yeah. I mean, actually the

22 recommendation that we're making would integrate a number of the
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

133

1 different items on here and add a couple other addition ones.

2 MR. RAMIZREZ: Okay.

3 MR. LEVY: So I think it's consistent with what's

4 here.

5 MR. RAMIZREZ: Okay.

6 MR. LEVY: This just breaks it up into parts. We

7 propose something more clearly. 

8 MR. RAMIZREZ: Okay. 

9 MR. HAGERMAN: Let's move on, on this and then we

10 can take that up.

11 MR. RAMIZREZ: Sure.

12 MR. HAGERMAN: I think since these are outside the

13 scope if, you know, recommendation 5 is a duplicate of

14 recommendation 3, I think that's okay. Right?

15 MR. RAMIZREZ: Okay.

16 MR. HAGERMAN: The 8.3, the working group recommends

17 that DOE considered development of a depth sizing took,

18 potentially based on the ACA Manual D (phonetic).

19 MR. RAMIZREZ: Let's see if everyone is okay with

20 that recommendation.

21 MS. HOFFMAN: Okay. We have one opposed.

22 MR. RAMIZREZ: We have two.
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

134

1 MS. HOFFMAN: Two?

2 MR. RAMIZREZ: We have Mark Weiss and Manny Santana.

3 Anyone online with your thumbs down? Okay.

4 MR. HAGERMAN: Let's move on to 8.4 and I'm just

5 going to skim this. The working group has three recommendations

6 involving building thermal and envelope ceiling. 

7 My one question, this one recommendation is a little

8 bit odd because it's just really a statement of fact to the

9 secretary, right? I mean, are you saying that after we do this,

10 what do we do, right? I mean, so it says, DOE conduct testing

11 to confirm an average DCH of 5. DOE conduct a WUFI (phonetic)

12 analysis to assess potential moisture concerns. DOE consider

13 approach to address a scenario in which an exterior surface of a

14 wall cannot be sealed.

15 So after we were to do that work what would we do

16 with the results, I guess? You're saying they would affect the

17 standard or -- because some of that might take a year or two to

18 do.

19 MR. UNGER: Well, on one it has -- the second

20 sentence in one does say what --

21 MR. HAGERMAN: Okay. That's one. That's easy. 

22 MR. UNGER: The other two, though.
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

135

1 MR. HAGERMAN: What are the other two?

2 MR. SANTANA: Well, Manny here. Item 3 can have an

3 effect on 7.1, the requirement to seal air (indiscernible), you

4 know so that was a sense of -- we weren't exactly sure, you

5 know, how things like stayed metal siding installed. You know,

6 so that could have an affect on the final report.

7 MR. HAGERMAN: So we'll add to three, at the very

8 end, something about, "And the result's impact to section 7.1." 

9 The results, apostrophe maybe, impact to section 7.1. Does that

10 capture? I mean, it is kind of clunky but -- and then the WUFI

11 analysis, where does that impact? 

12 You know, I'm not hopeful that some of these can be

13 resolved and what's your expectation of how long this would take

14 to resolve? Actually you have it in three. What about number

15 1?

16 MR. LUBLINER: So I had some concerns about the

17 elimination of the requirement in the I Codes for loader testing

18 in the factory, and we would negotiate it and I said, okay, I

19 can live with that. But I wanted to make sure that we had some

20 feedback so that if there was issues going on that DOE could

21 identify those issues and address them with HUD. So it's more

22 of a compliance enforcement thing.
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

136

1 MR. HAGERMAN: All right. Okay. 

2 MR. LUBLINER: So maybe it could be, you know,

3 deferred. You know, it's just problem solving. Things like

4 p-traps, and other things, so just making sure that we're there.

5 That's in Item 1.

6 Item 2 the concern was that we had some discussion

7 about do you want to seal the receptacles or can you get the

8 skin sealed and not have to seal the receptacles. And I had to

9 say, I thought there may be some issues because moisture gets

10 transferred through mass -- you know, through leakage. So

11 that's where I was going.

12 MR. HAGERMAN: Yeah, so could we on, maybe line two,

13 just copy the last sentence that's on line one and put it on

14 two? It would read, "This analysis could inform future

15 decisions and regulations regarding the building code."

16 MR. LUBLINER: Absolutely. 

17 MR. RAMIZREZ: So instead of testing it would be

18 analysis on that one?

19 MR. HAGERMAN: Yeah. Instead of testing it needs to

20 say analysis. 

21 MR. RAMIZREZ: So is that it for 8.4, then? So,

22 Joe, is that it for 8.4 then?
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

137

1 MR. HAGERMAN: I think so.

2 MR. RAMIZREZ: All right. Let's see a show of

3 thumbs if you're okay with the recommendations in 8.4. Okay. 

4 Manny stepped out but Mark is a no vote. Anyone online with

5 your thumbs down?

6 MR. HAGERMAN: So Kavita just made note of something

7 else that reflects back to -- it's fine for this. We're done

8 with this. It goes on to another thing. So back on table 5.1

9 where we have the note pending DOE analysis, we need to add some

10 type of note after the vote that says DOE will do that analysis,

11 right? 

12 MR. RAMIZREZ: Okay. So put in --

13 MR. HAGERMAN: We will propose a note since it

14 doesn't affect the -- 

15 MR. RAMIZREZ: All right. So in the box there it

16 says pending DOE analysis. What do you need to add in there?

17 MR. HAGERMAN: We need to define what that means.

18 MR. RAMIZREZ: Okay. So we'll put a note. Ted,

19 could you highlight those again and then we'll add a note?

20 MR. HAGERMAN: Yeah.

21 MR. RAMIZREZ: And what do you want as the note?

22 MR. HAGERMAN: We'll just write the note out
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

138

1 (indiscernible). It's not going to change your vote. It's

2 going to reflect what we promised we would do. 

3 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: So did we need to go around

4 8.4?

5 MR. RAMIZREZ: It's done. It was 18 to one. 

6 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Point five?

7 MR. HAGERMAN: We'll describe that analysis, so. 

8 MR. RAMIZREZ: Okay. 

9 MR. HAGERMAN: And then the last one on 8.5, "The

10 working group recommends that DOE consider labeling approaches

11 that provide 1. whole performance building information." I'd

12 assume that means to the consumer? "And 2. heating and cooling

13 equipment sizing parameters capable of servicing a home with the

14 highest expected heating and cooling load." Is that to the

15 installer or to consumer and installer? 

16 MR. LUBLINER: I think we might want to leave it

17 more general because I think there are other potential uses. 

18 MR. RAMIZREZ: So on one do you -- so the way that

19 it's worded right now, is that okay? Okay. All right. So

20 let's see the recommendation. I'm sorry, Lowell, you have a -- 

21 MR. UNGER: Yeah, you sent out a document with more

22 details of this, but the one thing which I think is missing here
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

139

1 is there actually were a few pieces of information like current

2 data. Like it doesn't have window information that's not quite

3 captured here. So if we're going to condense it into something

4 brief like this I would just add additional information on

5 (indiscernible) or something.

6 MR. RAMIZREZ: So, Lowell -- 

7 MR. UNGER: And there's a longer discussion there,

8 but if we just want to draft this up -- 

9 MR. RAMIZREZ: Could you repeat your comment, Lowell

10 so we could capture it up on the chart? You said additional

11 information.

12 MR. UNGER: On building components and equipment. 

13 MR. RAMIZREZ: Additional information on building

14 components and equipment. 

15 MR. HAGERMAN: Manny is saying -- 

16 MR. UNGER: I'm sorry. That would be as a three. 

17 That's not a separate sentence. That's a, added three -- 

18 MR. RAMIZREZ: Oh, okay.

19 MR. UNGER: -- in the first sentence.

20 MR. HAGERMAN: Manny is saying that we already sort

21 of discussed that in one of the sections, so we could just, we

22 could say, additional information on building components
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

140

1 equipment as discussed in -- 

2 MR. SANTANA: Right. One of the mandatory -- this

3 is Manny. One of the mandatory sections of the IECC that we

4 discussed dealt with certification label. And what we voted on

5 and approved was to include parts of what the IECC required that

6 the HUD Code did not, and those were window U-values and solar

7 heat gain coefficients into the language. So we have addressed

8 that concern.

9 MR. UNGER: I think there might be additional, but I

10 don't know that we've completed this discussion. It wasn't

11 clear that everything else was currently in HUD code, but it

12 might be and I might have missed it.

13 MR. HAGERMAN: Also, if there's some uncertainty

14 there let's just include that last red sentence and just vote on

15 it. I mean, you could say -- you could just put, after the

16 equipment, put a period, I think, and then -- 

17 MR. RAMIZREZ: So let's see a show of thumbs with

18 the modified 8.5 recommendation. All right. Mark is a no. 

19 Mark Weiss and Mark Ezzo -- oh, I'm sorry, Manny. 

20 MR. LEVY: May I add a friendly amendment?

21 MR. RAMIZREZ: Yeah.

22 MR. LEVY: Can we say voluntary labeling approaches?
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

141

1

2 MR. RAMIZREZ: Where is that at? 

3 MR. LEVY: First sentence. 

4 MR. RAMIZREZ: Okay. Is that where some of the

5 concern was? 

6 MR. UNGER: I would oppose that because some of this

7 at least might be -- some of this I think very clearly would be

8 mandatory, some of it might be voluntary, but I would rather

9 leave it labeling -- I mean, it's extremely vague. I don't know

10 how you want to handle it. But I think to say voluntary some of

11 this wouldn't necessarily be voluntary. So I -- 

12 MR. RAMIZREZ: Okay. Mark Ezzo? 

13 MR. EZZO: I'm fine with voluntary for the

14 performance part. I'm against mandatory requirement for

15 manufacturers to put performance rating on it. I'm fine with

16 manufacturers putting information on regarding heating, cooling,

17 sizing parameters, et cetera, but I would only vote for this if

18 the performance part was voluntary.

19 MR. RAMIZREZ: All right. So then we would have to

20 change the voluntary from where it's at currently into one. 

21 Correct? 

22 MR. HAGERMAN: I mean, Joe Hagerman DOE. I mean, we
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

142

1 could just -- 

2 MR. RAMIZREZ: Voluntary labeling.

3 MR. HAGERMAN: This is really, again, this section

4 is not really binding on the Department. This is just outside

5 of the scope of the charter. This is just saying, hey,

6 secretary, you should consider thinking about labels. Right? 

7 Voluntary, involuntary, you know, it's not obligating DOE to do

8 anything, right? In fact DOE has no obligation to even to

9 consider it right? You're just signaling to them that this

10 committee discussed it and there was interest. Right? 

11 MR. LEVY: Beating a dead horse, but Don had

12 suggested that as a member of the working committee we're

13 suggesting that there be a labeling program that might be

14 mandatory. 

15 MR. RAMIZREZ: All right. So let's, Ted, I think

16 that would be a voluntary labeling for in number 1. So seeing

17 that it's just a way to put this, you know, on the radar and the

18 voluntary is distinct to one versus two, let's take a consensus

19 vote on the recommendations as modified, 8.5. 

20 All right. So let's note that Mark Weiss is a no

21 and Manny is a no. And is anyone online with a no vote? 

22 All right. So two no votes, Mark Weiss and Manny
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

143

1 Santana, and -- 

2 MR. HAGERMAN: Just as a point of background, DOE

3 has developed with industry, voluntary building labels and home

4 labels and I think we've done it in a really nice way by having

5 discussions with everybody and saying, is this important or not.

6 So, we have a track record, I think, of doing that. At least

7 successfully taking the labels off. 

8 MR. RAMIZREZ: All right. Ted, could you scroll

9 down for me? Is that it as far as the recommendations go that

10 you all had? Yeah. All right.

11 MR. RAMIZREZ: So, Ted, could I have you toggle to

12 the other recommendation sheet that I had put together? 

13 All right. So if you could scroll down. There were

14 just some others that we maybe do some cutting and pasting and

15 you know, put into the term sheet here if the group agrees. And

16 so I just put -- is there more? I'm sorry, there was another

17 one that was modified. Let me find it. I'm looking to see if

18 there is another one. 

19 Okay. I'm going to send it to you right now, Ted. 

20 All right. So if we could go -- let's go to 8.6. 

21 Actually, I'm going to skip that one. Let's go a little further

22 down. All right. There were some recommendations that were
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

144

1 submitted. One of the things that we try to expedite this, we

2 had put out there that hey, if you wanted to add anything as far

3 as recommendations go, submit them to me so that we could post

4 them up for discussion. And so these were the items that were

5 brought up. 

6 Subpart F, and I'll let the folks that submitted

7 them to make additional comments. And then 1.7 is Table C. 

8 Okay. And that's with Subpart F, so Ted, if you could do a cut

9 and paste for us there. Put Table C with -- as part of Subpart

10 F. 

11 Now, 1.8 was the Levy Software. Is that taken care

12 of under the REScheck recommendation that we've already

13 approved? 

14 MR. HAGERMAN: It's not exactly the same thing, but

15 I mean --

16 MR. RAMIZREZ: Would it be covered under that? 

17 Like, in other words, if the -- 

18 MR. HAGERMAN: That would just be -- jus to cut this

19 short, that would just be duplicative in this section since this

20 again is not binding for the secretary stuff.

21 MR. RAMIZREZ: Okay. Now what do we need to -- I'm

22 sorry. Let's just go through them real quick.
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

145

1 And then we have the education on energy efficiency

2 for potential owners of manufactured housing. 

3 MS. HOFFMAN: I think the Finance Committee came up

4 with something like that early on. Stacey, was that -- 

5 MS. EPPERSON: Stacy at Next Step. On the education

6 part -- or is that where we are, 1.9?

7 MR. RAMIZREZ: Yeah. We just want to get an idea of

8 what's up here.

9 MS. EPPERSON: In Committee we didn't actually

10 address it that I recall, talking about education. 

11 MS. DICKENS: This is Ishbel NHMOA. I remember we

12 looked at the (indiscernible) label, or the Energy Star label. 

13 We looked at the yellow Energy Star label and to see if there

14 was any additional information that perhaps could be put on that

15 or something similar to that that could be used to educate

16 potential purchasers about the efficacy of the product they were

17 buying. 

18 MS. EPPERSON: I think we did that in Robin's

19 committee, but not in the Finance Committee, though. As a

20 technicality there.

21 MR. RAMIZREZ: So is that covered under labeling,

22 then? 
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

146

1 MS. EPPERSON: I think initially when we were

2 talking about it as a full group, we were talking about maybe

3 including information in the preamble if we were going to do a

4 preamble. But it could be under labeling too, yes. 

5 MR. RAMIZREZ: So I guess the question I have for

6 you, would you be okay with striking this knowing that's going

7 to be dealt with in labeling? 

8 MS. EPPERSON: Yeah, I think that's the place. Yes.

9 MR. RAMIZREZ: Okay. 

10 MR. LUTER: I would recommend not striking it. This

11 was something I brought up on the first -- Rob with Lippert,

12 sorry. Brought up on the first day when it was noted that all

13 of the more stringent performance requirements that we are -- or

14 at the time were proposing to make mandatory, were already

15 available for anyone that would want them, and they were not

16 being chosen. And they were not being chosen either for

17 economic reasons or because the buying public was unaware. In

18 other words, they didn't know they could do better. 

19 My recommendation at the time was, is that we in

20 addition to developing these requirements here, look at a

21 program of consumer information and consumer education, so those

22 people that didn't know they could do better would be made aware
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

147

1 that they could do better and not just rely on the government to

2 mandate these new performance requirements.

3 MR. RAMIZREZ: Okay.

4 MR. LUTER: Who's to say a buyer wouldn't want to go

5 beyond what we've got now?

6 MR. RAMIZREZ: So let's take a -- I'm sorry, Stacey,

7 go ahead.

8 MS. EPPERSON: So, Rob, Stacey, Next Step. Rob,

9 thank you for reminding me on that consideration. I would agree

10 with you that there needs to be education. I don't know whether

11 it's within our scope here but if we could work toward that in

12 our recommendations I concur.

13 MR. RAMIZREZ: Yeah, and none of this is within our

14 scope and that's why we're making the recommendations to the

15 secretary. 

16 All right. So, let's see a show of thumbs if you're

17 okay with keeping 1.9 in there as a recommendation to the

18 secretary. 

19 Okay. One, Mark Weiss, no. Anyone else online with

20 their thumbs down? 

21 Okay. So that one is one no vote. And then what

22 about 1.10? And the ones that were up on top, we'll come back
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

148

1 to those. I think those might -- I'm not sure how much

2 discussion we're going to have on those so that's why I'm doing

3 it in this order. 

4 1.10, recommendation, information on government

5 support, supports, grants, subsidies, et cetera, for energy

6 efficiency. 

7 Michael? 

8 MR. LUBLINER: Yeah, I think that it would be useful

9 to say something about the 

10 lack -- the problem that we dealt with, with the affordability

11 gap in this committee. And it was driven by the lack of what I

12 would believe is equitable financing for people buying

13 manufactured homes. 

14 I read the GAO report, not the indoor air quality

15 one, but the recent one talking about some of the workings or

16 lack of thereof of HUD functions in this office of manufactured

17 housing. And not just that office, but beyond that. And in

18 looking at whether or not they have met their targets for

19 affordable housing in this sector. And GAO was pretty critical,

20 in my opinion, in reading it and saying that, you know, the

21 reason that we're having to deal with this affordability gap in

22 part is lack of policy at HUD for affordable housing for this
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

149

1 sector. I'd like to see this committee make a statement that

2 DOE can decide where they want to take it to the Secretary of

3 Housing and say, we need to break some silos down there and

4 start getting these GSE reforms and recognize energy efficiency

5 as a component of that.

6 MR. RAMIZREZ: All right. So let's see a show of

7 thumbs, if everyone is okay with keeping that as a

8 recommendation to the secretary, 1.10.

9 Yeah, Robin? 

10 MR. ROY: I think it might fit here as well -- I

11 have no objection. But maybe it's also useful to recommend to

12 the secretary, considering increasing DOE's R&D budget that's

13 devoted to housing to have more of a goal specific to

14 manufactured housing commensurate with its share of the nation's

15 housing product. 

16 MR. RAMIZREZ: All right. So after efficiency,

17 comma, and R&D -- 

18 MR. LUTER: To find a go to.

19 MR. RAMIZREZ: R&D funding. Put a comma after

20 efficiency and R&D funding. 

21 MR. ROY: And R&D funding. I'd say DOE/R&D funding

22 specifically.
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

150

1 MR. RAMIZREZ: Okay.

2 MR. ROY: Because there's a bunch of other stuff. 

3 To levels commensurate with the role of manufactured housing in

4 the nation's housing mix. 

5 MR. RAMIZREZ: Okay. Then after funding,

6 commensurate with -- and could you repeat that, Robin? 

7 Commensurate with -- 

8 MR. ROY: I have to keep talking slower. Okay. To

9 levels commensurate with the role of manufactured housing in the

10 nation's housing mix. Either the role or the level. I'm not

11 sure which, but I think it's probably role because it's a bit

12 broader than level.

13 MR. RAMIZREZ: All right. Yeah, it's in there. All

14 right. So let's go ahead and take the consensus on that one

15 more time with those modifications. 1.10, let's see if you're

16 okay with recommending that to the secretary. And that was all

17 thumbs up. Anyone online with your thumbs down?

18 MS. HOFFMAN: No, Mark. Just Mark.

19 MR. RAMIZREZ: Oh, I'm sorry, Mark. So one no vote

20 with Mark Weiss. And then we'll do a cut and paste on these and

21 throw them into the term sheet when we're done. But 1.11,

22 mortgages. 
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

151

1 MR. SCHNEIDER: Yes, could I just revisit 1.9

2 quickly? I know we voted on it and I apologize if I missed it,

3 but as far as -- 

4 MR. RAMIZREZ: I'm sorry. Is this Peter? Peter? 

5 MR. SCHNEIDER: This is Peter Schneider.

6 MR. RAMIZREZ: Peter Schneider. 

7 MR. SCHNEIDER: Just expanding upon education on

8 energy efficiency, but education non-energy benefits as well,

9 which are clearly the result of, you know, better code

10 enforcement as well as code standards, but indoor air quality,

11 comfort, and durability, you know, with the idea that at some

12 point our manufactured housing sector will be offering, for

13 instance, zero energy ready homes, standard, and that you know,

14 we'll be looking to educate our homebuyers on the advantages of

15 choosing, you know, that superior housing over, you know, the

16 new sort of based in code and whether the group would object to

17 expanding upon education on energy efficiency to include those

18 other characteristics. 

19 MR. RAMIZREZ: Let me suggest that we do a 1.12 and

20 capture what you're talking about there and we could deal with

21 it separately.

22 So 1.12 recommendation. Peter, what's the verbiage
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

152

1 that you'd like to see on there? 

2 MR. SCHNEIDER: Just on non-energy benefits for

3 potential owners of manufactured housing, including indoor air

4 quality, comfort, and durability to pick three.

5 MR. RAMIZREZ: All right. So you're going to have

6 to say that a few times and make sure that we get it accurately

7 here. So, you can see what's on the screen there. What else do

8 you need to add?

9 MR. SCHNEIDER: Potential owners of manufactured

10 housing.

11 MR. UNGER: This is Lowell. I don't care but it is

12 part of 1.9 and I have no idea why you split it off. 

13 MS. HOFFMAN: Okay. Well, let's say if we put it

14 together, how do you all vote? Would we all agree to that

15 without that mark --? 

16 MR. RAMIZREZ: Well, let's capture the verbiage and

17 then we could cut and paste and throw it up there if we need to.

18

19 MR. SCHNEIDER: Sure. So education on non-energy

20 benefits for potential owners of manufactured housing, including

21 indoor air quality, comfort, and durability. 

22 MR. RAMIZREZ: Okay. Michael.
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

153

1 MR. LUBLINER: I've been thinking about when I got

2 my homeowner's manual as a manufactured home buyer, and I'm

3 wondering if the education needs to extend to -- these benefits

4 are -- it's really important to show this to potential

5 homeowners, but what about once they buy the home? Should we be

6 talking about making sure that the installation manuals or

7 things like this that DOE look at what's in these installation

8 manuals and whether or not they're giving people sufficient

9 information to ensure durability?

10 MR. RAMIZREZ: So potential and current?

11 MR. LUBLINER: Yeah, that's what I was going to say,

12 but I don't know if it's going to create some issues for you

13 guys. So, but I do think there are two important issues. One

14 is educating people on durability and energy efficiency before

15 they buy the home, and then if and when they buy the home, how

16 to operate it in a way that maintains those objectives. 

17 MR. RAMIZREZ: Yes, the part and -- 

18 MR. LUBLINER: A little mission (Indiscernible).

19 MR. HAGERMAN: So, just conscious of time here, we

20 have 15 minutes and we're spending a lot of time on the

21 nonbinding stuff, so.

22 MR. RAMIZREZ: Yeah. So -- 
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

154

1 MR. HAGERMAN: If we're going to dump it then move

2 on rather than to have so much discussion.

3 MR. RAMIZREZ: All right.

4 MR. HAGERMAN: We still have to clean up the Uo

5 Value table which is material to the term sheet, so.

6 MR. RAMIZREZ: All right. So, you know what? Let's

7 keep them separate for now, we can merge it later if we need to.

8 1.12, let me see if you're okay with that recommendation. 

9 MR. HAGERMAN: I mean, we could handle this another

10 way since this is, you know, outside the scope of the term

11 sheet, we can just include all these other recommendations as a

12 separate document to the secretary where we don't even have to

13 reach consensus on it. It's just like, here are the things that

14 you should think about. In between now and Friday we could,

15 you know, edit this list, right?

16 MR. RAMIZREZ: Is everyone okay with that, that you

17 --

18 MR. HAGERMAN: Does that make sense?

19 MR. RAMIZREZ: And then that way, Emanuel, you could

20 put a little bit more detail in yours as well.

21 MR. LEVY: Well, we've reached consensus on a number

22 of them.
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

155

1 MR. RAMIZREZ: Well, the ones that we've reached

2 consensus on that's fine, but is everyone okay with that

3 recommendation? Recommendation for the recommendations. Okay. 

4 All right.

5 So then, Ted, could you go to Matthew's e-mail and

6 cut or copy, rather, whatever is in that e-mail. And then we'll

7 see exactly where we need to throw it into the term sheet. 

8 All right. So, did you already copy it? 

9 TED: This is the table.

10 MR. RAMIZREZ: Okay. Where does that need to go in

11 the term sheet?

12 MR. MULLER: 5.2. 

13 MR. RAMIZREZ: Okay. It needs to go -- 

14 (Pause.) 

15 MR. RAMIZREZ: Okay. What are we looking at here? 

16 If someone would refresh our memory of what we were doing here? 

17

18 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: This is the U-value

19 (indiscernible) prescriptive bat.

20 MR. RAMIZREZ: Is everyone okay with this? Any

21 discussion? Let's see a show of thumbs. If everyone is okay

22 with the way that looks, then?
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

156

1 MR. EZZO: Can you hang on one second? 

2 MR. RAMIZREZ: Eric, you have a question?

3 MR. LACEY: So, I gather this is what was used for

4 the analysis done by PNNL, but it's not consistent with what's

5 in the IECC for the equivalent values. I'm a little puzzled as

6 to how they're so far off from each other. For example, an R13

7 wall U-value in the IECC is a .084, which is pretty far off of

8 the .094. Is there an easy explanation for that?

9 MR. LEVY: These are the U-values that we use to

10 calculate the Uo values, and they came out of the cost analysis

11 and all that detailed analysis that we saw. Now, I can't

12 explain why the IECC is different, except that this is based

13 upon the Patel method and its construction features that we had

14 put in the cost analysis. So everything pretty much follows

15 from these U-values. 

16 MR. LACEY: Right. I understand that. I'm just

17 wondering why there's such a --

18 MR. HAGERMAN: There's a lot of different things you

19 could change on the Uo values --(indiscernible).

20 MR. LACEY: I totally understand, but I guess what

21 I'm wondering is, do you assume a 20 percent framing fraction

22 instead of a 25 percent that PNNL would use. You know, are you 
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

157

1 assuming --

2 MR. HAGERMAN: That's all part of the assumption

3 too.

4 MR. LACEY: Yeah, and I guess I didn't see that

5 level of detail in the analysis. That's why I'm putting a red

6 flag on this because that's a big difference actually, .084

7 versus .094. 

8 MR. HAGERMAN: Is the 5.2 Section -- is it critical

9 that we have this section? 

10 MR. EZZO: Mark Ezzo. If we're saying that in lieu

11 of a prescriptive R-value you can use -- have the option of

12 using a component U-value, then yeah we've got to have a U-value

13 to use. 

14 MR. RAMIZREZ: Michael.

15 MR. LUBLINER: Yeah. So, we've been wanting the

16 details and that's what's been explained, some of this framing

17 factor, did you insulate the headers, what were the assumptions

18 in the base case, what was the R-value installed, nominal

19 R-value, and what are the assumptions of the other components to

20 the wall besides that. So these all never any -- I never saw

21 this, so it's hard for me, like Emanuel or anybody here to

22 explain why they're different.
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

158

1 MR. RAMIZREZ: Manny?

2 MR. SANTANA: You know, my understanding is that in

3 the analysis both that we got from PNNL and Emanuel, the

4 analysis that we've been discussing throughout, if I go back and

5 look at them you had the components R-value, then we had a

6 U-value next to it across the board, right? And this should be

7 consistent with what we've been seeing throughout. 

8 MR. LEVY: We've been looking at these numbers for

9 weeks.

10 MR. SANTANA: Been looking at them for weeks, right?

11 MR. LEVY: Yeah. Ever since the cost analysis when

12 we broke down all the components and all the U-value, you know

13 --

14 MR. LUBLINER: No question what we're looking at. 

15 Excuse me. Mike Lubliner. We've been looking at the numbers

16 but we haven't had the input, the details. So maybe you could

17 just explain what is that wall. It's an R, at what centers are

18 the -- are the headers insulated? What were the assumptions? 

19 MR. LEVY: All that was in the original cost

20 analysis.

21 MR. LUBLINER: Okay. Great. 

22 MR. SANTANA: And they were all in the Excel
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

159

1 spreadsheet, right? You know, so I guess my vote would be

2 dependent on this being consistent with what was in the PNNL

3 analysis and the Emanuel analysis. I mean, the format, I think,

4 is what we want. The values, you know, I don't have a way to

5 check them now, but you know, assuming that the values are

6 consistent with what is in the PNNL analysis that we've been

7 looking at for weeks, I don't see how -- which ended up in the

8 U-values, or the U-values that we already approved, which was

9 used backwards to come up with the R-values that we already

10 approved. As long as all that is consistent, which I'm being

11 told it is, I don't see how there could be a whole lot of

12 opposition.

13 MR. RAMIZREZ: Lowell, did you have something?

14 MR. UNGER: Yes. Basically what I raised earlier. 

15 I think these are consistent with what were in Emanuel's charts.

16 I don't think I've sent him PNNL equivalent numbers, but as

17 noted earlier the PNNL Uo Values were not exactly the same as

18 Emanuel's. They were quite close. They weren't anything like

19 the kind of difference from the IECC charts, but they weren't

20 exactly the same and I assume that's because they had in fact

21 slightly, very slightly different numbers, and I don't know what

22 they are so I can't comment. You know, they can be very
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

160

1 different because the ultimate Uo Values are quite close. But

2 -- 

3 MR. LUBLINER: So the siding assumption and I think

4 that insulated header assumption are the two that aren't here

5 that it would be interesting to be clear about that. So you

6 assume this certain type of siding in calculating -- what was

7 that? 

8 MR. LEVY: This is from recollection, I believe -

9 MR. LUBLINER: Right. Right. 

10 MR. LEVY: -- it was probably vinyl but I'm not

11 really sure. Is that what the question you're asking? 

12 MR. LUBLINER: Yeah. The two things that I think

13 that aren't described here that would be useful to help explain

14 this is -- and be clear as to what we really mean here, is did

15 these numbers assume that headers were insulated with foam like

16 we talked about, or that there's just that framing? And the

17 other question was the siding. And I just want to make sure

18 that the siding didn't have a significant effect, and it

19 shouldn't. But the header one, I'm not sure. 

20 And at one point we talked about whether or not, you

21 know, that was assumed in the framing factor or not. So, what

22 you costed out associated with this, did it have an assumption
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

161

1 of insulating the header or not? 

2 MR. LEVY: And I'm not going to answer that

3 question, Mike, without -- 

4 MR. LUBLINER: Right. I don't mean to be putting

5 you on the spot now. But that's kind of where it -- 

6 MR. HAGERMAN: So should this all just say pending

7 DOE, rectifying the performance and prescriptive paths? Is that

8 really what is at art here?

9 MR. SANTANA: Didn't PNNL, or Navigant develop that?

10

11 MR. LEVY: We developed it. We used the procedure

12 which is the same as the Patel principle procedure.

13 The fact that the U-values were within plus or minus

14 1,000th or 2,000th was very reassuring. You know?

15 MR. HAGERMAN: That's all dictated on those

16 assumptions that Lubby is talking about, so. I think here you

17 just have to -- we don't have enough yet. We're not going to

18 get the next negative two minutes because we're over time, a

19 vote on this. What we can get a vote on is to rectify this,

20 right? 

21 MS. HOFFMAN: Mark? 

22 MR. SANTANA: Or to reconcile, you mean? 
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

162

1 MR. HAGERMAN: Reconcile, yeah.

2 MR. EZZO: I'd suggest that we -- you've got two

3 component U-value databases to look at. One is PNNL, and from

4 one of the very first meetings spreadsheets were sent out and

5 there was a component U-value with every R-value. So I'd say

6 consider that and consider what is in all of the manuals, the

7 charts. And then I would say, DOE, look at all that, and then

8 you come back and tell us what (indiscernible).

9 MR. HAGERMAN: It's just the mathematics, right? 

10 MR. RAMIZREZ: All right. So the verbiage that we

11 have on there is pending DOE rectifying the performance and

12 prescriptive path.

13 MR. SANTANA: Well, I'd say reconciling.

14 MR. HAGERMAN: Yeah, reconciling. That leaves to

15 generate Table 5.2. 

16 MR. RAMIZREZ: To generate, okay. Let me hear Rob

17 and then Lois. Rob?

18 MR. LUTER: Just an extremely quick comment. Rob

19 with Lippert. Regarding the relationship with R and U, I'm sure

20 everybody knows here they're just the reciprocal of one another.

21 U-value is an extremely fine resolution measurement. R-value

22 is an extremely course resolution. As long as the baseline for
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

163

1 all this was U, my suspicion is that when it was converted to R,

2 came up to R13.1, well, nobody makes an R13.1. So it got put in

3 as R13, or it came in as R12.9.8. So it got loaded in as R13. 

4 I think if we're using the fine resolution as the

5 baseline, that being the U, that would explain these differences

6 here and how you can't convert back and forth.

7 MR. RAMIZREZ: That helps me understand a little bit

8 better. So, that's what the things that they would reconcile. 

9 MS. HOFFMAN: Well, maybe we should see, is this

10 something we can agree to with that language?

11 MR. RAMIZREZ: Lois.

12 MS. STARKEY: I would just like to add the

13 performance and prescriptives paths between PNNL and Levy.

14 MR. RAMIZREZ: Okay.

15 MS. STARKEY: So, you know, definitely what would --

16

17 MR. RAMIZREZ: Okay. So paths -- 

18 MS. STARKEY: Reconciling. 

19 MR. RAMIZREZ: After path, Ted, put PNNL and Levy. 

20 Dash, Levy.

21 MR. HAGERMAN: Just as they discussed at the indoor

22 (indiscernible) unless Levy wants to be on the term sheet. 
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

164

1 MR. RAMIZREZ: Ted, put dash, Levy. 

2 MR. BARBOUR: -- how to actually evaluate, because

3 I'm assuming that's going to come back to us. Each path is

4 going to have the same Uo, or very close to the same Uo but PNNL

5 individual calculations are -- so some are going to be a little

6 bit higher and some a little bit lower between ceiling, the

7 wall, and the floor. Do you want to pick one path and go with

8 that? You don't necessarily want to go with highest or lowest

9 for that. I guess I'm looking for a little guidance. 

10 MR. HAGERMAN: Just keep in mind, too, after we

11 rectify or after we do the analysis on the solar heat gain

12 coefficients, we're going to put that out and you're going to

13 have a chance to comment on it, right. So, I'd really just take

14 that offline and we can handle it.

15 MR. RAMIZREZ: All right. So Ted was having some

16 difficulty hearing me. So it's PNNL/Levy as discussed in the

17 working group. 

18 MS. HOFFMAN: Given that can we say we have finished

19 for a while? 

20 MR. HAGERMAN: You have to take out all the values,

21 so all the values are to be --

22 MS. HOFFMAN: Oh, the values should be removed.
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

165

1 MR. RAMIZREZ: All right. Ted, could 

2 you -- 

3 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Well, it says pending.

4 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yeah, it says pending. 

5 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Leave them. If anything they

6 could be changed.

7 (Everyone speaking at once.)

8 MR. RAMIZREZ: All right. Eric? 

9 MR. LACEY: I just wanted to clarify. I almost

10 never vote no on anything, but I just want to clarify that maybe

11 for purposes of the cost effectiveness analysis and paybacks and

12 everything, you know, I don't want to reverse all the votes that

13 I made in favor of that, but what is striking me about these

14 numbers is now that we're using them as a direct U alternative

15 to the R-values, my preference would be to stick with the IECC

16 values. But you know, I don't think we need to redo all of the

17 analysis that have been done. I just wanted to flag it.

18 And I was looking for a simple explanation as to why

19 there's a difference. Maybe there is something really simple

20 like the siding or the framing fracture or something. I didn't

21 hear that and so maybe we'll hear that later. 

22 MR. HAGERMAN: That's why I'd feel more comfortable
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

166

1 taking out all the values and not having to make a decision on

2 what we use the values we were just given or the IECC values,

3 table reconcile (indiscernible).

4 MR. RAMIZREZ: So, Ted, why don't you go ahead and

5 strike the numbers that are in there? In the chart.

6 MR. SANTANA: Manny. You know, I'd object to

7 removing the number. They're just, they're placeholders that

8 are close to what has been done to what we've seen. You know,

9 and in a previous recommendation I think it was recommended to

10 vote something through that then DOE can revise, and it's always

11 easier to have something to start off with and revise than to

12 have nothing. 

13 So, you know, I think you know, as Lowell said, it

14 says pending. You know, so that makes it clear that these

15 things aren't final.

16 MR. RAMIZREZ: Okay. Robin.

17 MR. ROY: I think we're trying to reconcile three

18 things that I hear from Eric, the IECC comes up with something

19 that's different from Levy and from PNNL, although IECC and PNNL

20 should be the same. So it would be helpful, perhaps, to put

21 IECC/PNNL/Levy in there because we're trying to reconcile those

22 three things which seem to be different from each other. It
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

167

1 just makes it clear on DOE whether to be considering.

2 MR. RAMIZREZ: Manny? 

3 MR. SANTANA: And I'd object to that because then

4 that is going to introduce a new variable that hasn't been a

5 factor in developing the U-value.

6 MR. ROY: Why the IECC, which was based upon site

7 build practices, should necessarily relate to these is beyond

8 me. I mean, our whole exercise was designed around manufactured

9 housing and manufactured housing values and practices. And

10 that's where these values come from. The fact that they're

11 similar or very close to the Patel numbers gives me much more

12 confidence that, you know, that internally we're consistent.

13 MR. HAGERMAN: No, I have no problem with that and I

14 suspect that we'll find those are good reasons that DOE will

15 reconcile for us. But the reason that we're talking about this

16 today is because we're trying to address something that was in

17 the IECC as an option for it. So that's why I think it's

18 actually useful to reference back to it. We're using IECC as

19 the basis for this inclusion that we just put in today. It

20 seems useful to understand 

21 So I mean, the sentence is IECC/PNNL/Levy as

22 discussed in the working group. So we discuss IECC a lot in
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

168

1 here, so --

2 MR. SANTANA: Right. But we didn't -- 

3 MR. HAGERMAN: -- I think that's a 

4 valid --

5 MR. SANTANA: -- discuss the U-value alternate

6 table. I didn't even compare the U-value alternate table in

7 IECC to what we were coming up with, because we were coming up

8 with it from scratch. You know, and to be honest with you, I

9 still haven't even compared how they look because it's never

10 been under -- it's never been under contention. It's never been

11 an issue.

12 MR. HAGERMAN: So you want to just strike IECC,

13 PNNL, and Levy and just say, as discussed in the working group?

14 MR. SANTANA: I think so, yeah. Yeah, because we

15 did discuss those values in the working group. 

16 MR. HAGERMAN: And I think, too, just you'd have to

17 throw out -- I mean, I think just to make everybody comfortable

18 to vote, you throw out all the values, right? 

19 MR. RAMIZREZ: Yeah, when we say throw out, they're

20 going to be there. There's going to be a strikethrough on them

21 though, right? But -- 

22 MR. LUBLINER: Mike Lubliner. I think you're
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

169

1 absolutely right. We're going to figure out why there's -- the

2 unique nature of the construction is what's driving the

3 difference between that, and we talked about compression in the

4 eaves since one of the factors, we talked about compression in

5 the floor was another factor. The walls is a little bit weird. 

6 I'm not sure exactly what's going on, but I suspect it's framing

7 factor assumptions.

8 I think what's really important for me isn't that

9 these two jive as much as the cost data that was used to derive

10 the cost effectiveness analysis, that that data, the assumptions

11 that went into that cost data, for example the R38HD was seven

12 and a half inch truss. It was a different truss, and so I want

13 to make sure that that's the level of performance that we're

14 actually going to get, something that's equivalent to those

15 assumptions in the cost. And so that's kind of my concern, is

16 making sure that one -- 

17 MR. LEVY: Well, Michael, just if I might address

18 that?

19 MR. LUBLINER: Yeah.

20 MR. LEVY: You said it was seven and a half inches.

21 MR. LUBLINER: Uh-huh.

22 MR. LEVY: Then when we modeled it, when we came up
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

170

1 with a U-value equivalent to that, it's seven and a half inches.

2 It's predicated on filling up that cavity with insulation of

3 seven and a half inches. So it's embodied already in the

4 U-value.

5 MR. LUBLINER: Okay. So those U-values reflect,

6 let's say, the 38 would reflect a seven and a half inch -- 

7 MR. LEVY: Or whatever is in the -- 

8 MR. LUBLINER: Whatever is in -- okay? Very good. 

9 That's understandable. Thanks.

10 MR. RAMIZREZ: So, looking at this the numbers are

11 stricken there, and then pending DOE reconciling the performance

12 and prescriptive path as discussed in the working group, or by

13 the working group, to generate Table 5.2. Manny? 

14 MR. SANTANA: I don't think the suggestion was to

15 strike the PNNL and Levy because we did discuss that. I think

16 this is just --

17 MR. RAMIZREZ: Yes, but I think the whole idea there

18 was to -- weren't not identifying which ones --

19 MR. SANTANA: Okay. I got you.

20 MR. RAMIZREZ: -- whichever ones that we've been

21 considering.

22 MR. SANTANA: Okay. 
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

171

1 MR. RAMIZREZ: Okay. So let's see a show of thumbs

2 if we're okay with the amendment.

3 MR. HAGERMAN: There's breakouts in the table and

4 then you're completely removing the IECC/PNNL/Levy --

5 MR. RAMIZREZ: Right.

6 MR. HAGERMAN: -- and it's just going to be as

7 discussed. Okay. 

8 MR. RAMIZREZ: Okay. So there is one no vote with

9 Mark Weiss. Anyone online with thumbs down? All right. Then

10 let's show -- it's 20 votes yes and one no. Dennis had just

11 jumped on.

12 MS. HOFFMAN: Oh, Dennis.

13 MR. RAMIZREZ: Keith Dennis.

14 MS. HOFFMAN: Oh, Keith. Hi, Keith. 

15 MR. RAMIZREZ: Okay. I think we're done.

16 MR. CASKEY: Somebody needs to wipe out the black. 

17 MR. HAGERMAN: Okay. Wipe out the black and we have

18 to go to the very end of the document to vote on the document.

19 MS. HOFFMAN: Yes. Okay. Let's vote on the whole

20 document and first I want to congratulate everybody for a lot of

21 hard work. It's not over yet. We'll be getting things on

22 Monday and we'll also get your material, Lois, and Emanuel. 
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

172

1 But let's vote on the whole document so we can go

2 home. Okay. And also, you've done very well, really, working

3 very hard. Both Javier and I, and Ted Mantel are amazed. So --

4 MR. RAMIZREZ: Let's see a show of thumbs.

5 MS. HOFFMAN: Let's see a show of thumbs. Okay. 

6 And Keith is here for this final showing.

7 MR. RAMIZREZ: All right. So Mark Weiss is a no

8 vote. Anyone online with a thumbs down? 

9 MR. HAGERMAN: Could you maybe just for 

10 a -- 

11 MS. HOFFMAN: Yes.

12 MR. HAGERMAN: -- just recordkeeping here, why don't

13 you walk through everybody's name online and just ask them,

14 their vote.

15 MS. HOFFMAN: Okay. 

16 MR. RAMIZREZ: Yeah, just a second. 

17 MS. HOFFMAN: So we have 19 -- 

18 MR. RAMIZREZ: All right. So --

19 MS. HOFFMAN: -- 13 people here. 

20 MR. RAMIZREZ: So, folks online, just to confirm,

21 hopefully all the mics are on. Keith Dennis, good; Richard

22 Hanger, yes; Bert Kessler, yes.
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

173

1 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Ed Bower, yes. 

2 MR. RAMIZREZ: And who are you a proxy for? 

3 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Michael Wade.

4 MR. RAMIZREZ: Okay. And then Richard Potts, yes;

5 Peter Schneider, yes; David Tompos, yes. 

6 MS. HOFFMAN: And Keith Dennis?

7 MR. RAMIZREZ: Yes, Keith Dennis. All right. 

8 Hearing on objections those are the yes votes, and

9 congratulations. Now it's official, official.

10 (Applause.) 

11 MR. RAMIZREZ: Hopefully we'll have a chance to work

12 with you next year. So we have a couple of closing things that

13 we need to do. Mark wants to make a comment and then we need to

14 see if there is any public comment as well. 

15 MR. WEISS: Thank you. I would have hoped to have

16 an opportunity to do this before now but I'll read this so it's

17 relatively quick. 

18 As I've indicated, MHARR opposes the recommendation,

19 will oppose it in all available forums. The 

20 The EISA law singles out manufactured housing, which

21 is specifically recognized in federal law as affordable housing,

22 for the most stringent available energy code criteria, exceeding
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

174

1 and likely to continue exceeding those applicable under state

2 and local law in most jurisdictions to other types of housing

3 that are not specifically deemed and recognized as an essential

4 source of affordable homeownership. This will harm consumers

5 who already have -- and the industry, but especially consumers

6 who already have difficulty obtaining financing in the current

7 market. 

8 For small manufacturers, as I indicated yesterday,

9 our numbers show consumer cost impacts larger than the numbers

10 developed by Emanuel and SBRA, figures ranging from over $4,000

11 for single-wides, over $6,000 for double-section homes in

12 northern areas. But even if we only use the figures developed

13 by Emanuel on cost, the resulting purchase price increases would

14 exclude potentially hundreds of thousands, if not millions of

15 consumers from the market. The only type of homeownership they

16 can afford based on the evidence in the record that we have

17 here. And as I have noted before, there are no lifecycle cost

18 savings for those excluded from the market.

19 For the industry this will eliminate a significant

20 portion of the clientele for its most affordable homes, just at

21 a time when it's beginning to slowly recover from historically

22 low production levels, or the higher end could well see a
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

175

1 migration of modular construction which are subject to less

2 stringent codes in many jurisdictions. I would note that 35

3 states have not adopted the IECC 2012. 

4 Further, within the industry the cost burden of

5 these mandates would fall the hardest on smaller producers who

6 do not have access to the same bulk discounts from suppliers

7 that are available to larger producers and as shown by the U.S.

8 Small Business Administration studies, are disproportionately

9 impacted by regulatory compliance costs. 

10 The impacts, though, will hit the hardest at the

11 lowest income consumers seeking a home of their own and for whom

12 manufactured housing is confirmed by HUD studies is the most

13 affordable housing available, both in terms of purchase price

14 and operating costs. More affordable than even rentals. 

15 The industry already offers enhanced energy packages

16 for those who want them. Instead this is a one-size-fits-all

17 mandate that will exclude those already at the margins for the

18 most affordable type of homeownership they can get. Our

19 government leaders speak of the need to protect those living in

20 the margins. This recommendation will just have the opposite

21 affect and will specifically hurt those living in the margins.

22 Now, to specific aspects of what we're dealing here.
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

176

1 With regard to the EISA Statute, EISA's manufactured home

2 provision is flawed from the start from a consumer perspective

3 that's shown by the American Housing survey data. The AHS data

4 shows that manufactured homes already have not only a lower

5 purchase price than other homes, but also lower operating costs

6 than other homes, lower equal energy operating costs than other

7 homes, and operating costs that consume a lower percentage of

8 owner income than other types of homes; 21 versus 23 percent,

9 according to the latest AHS. 

10 The AHS data, moreover, shows that manufactured

11 homes already have a median monthly energy operating cost lower

12 than or equal to site-built and other homes constructed within

13 four years of the AHS survey date, a substantial portion of

14 which have presumably been constructed in accordance with

15 earlier iterations of the IECC.

16 EISA is also ill-conceived by requiring ongoing

17 standards updates, and potentially testing and enforcement as

18 well, based on successive new versions of the IECC with

19 continually moving goal posts and ongoing regulatory compliance,

20 uncertainty for regulated parties that will inevitably have

21 price impacts that will be real for consumers and the industry,

22 but unlikely to be captured in any cost analysis, as I believe
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

177

1 is the case here. 

2 Regarding the process that's occurred, played out of

3 DOE over the past seven years, first DOE had a conventional

4 rulemaking process over the course of approximately four to five

5 years, culminating in the, "impermissible disclosure," as

6 described by the Office of General Council, of a draft proposed

7 rule to certain parties in interest, including, "many people in

8 this room," that ultimately led to OMB rejection and a directive

9 as stated by OGC in the record, "begin the process anew." 

10 This was followed by a request this year for a

11 negotiated rulemaking by eight of the interest groups

12 represented on this Committee, not including MHARR, which was

13 accepted by DOE.

14 However, based on the minimal time allotted to

15 negotiated rulemaking, Working Group, in contrast to the years

16 that DOE has had this issue and the arbitrary division of

17 standards and enforcement, the current process gives the

18 appearance of being little more than a fig leaf designed to

19 provide a veneer of legitimacy while ending up at essentially

20 the same place as the prior rejected process.

21 In that connection it's unfortunate that DOE has

22 refused to release the results of the prior conventional
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

178

1 rulemaking process for that record, which it claims is

2 predecisional despite the, "improper disclosure." Even if that

3 privilege can be properly invoked in this case any privilege

4 including predecisional privilege can be waived by the

5 Department. Disclosure of that record would potentially help to

6 address concerns about the DOE process while the continuing lack

7 of transparency only helps to sustain those concerns.

8 With regard to the numbers of the analysis here

9 within the Working Group, as I've indicated previously, instead

10 of DOE developing it's own information by the simple expedient

11 of having actual homes built by various sized manufacturers, the

12 2015 or even 2012 IECC, the Working Group has received partial

13 data that is not necessarily representative of costs across the

14 full spectrum of the industry. That date, moreover, has been

15 derived from undisclosed sources that cannot be independently

16 assessed and evaluated. 

17 Further, again, as I've indicated before, by

18 separating standards and enforcement the process the full

19 consideration of consumer cost impact, which are an amalgam of

20 standards, testing, and enforcement, base rated for compliance

21 costs all at the same time, thus ensuring a skewed picture of

22 purchase cost impacts versus lifecycle operating costs.
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

179

1 And even if one were to accept the numbers that have

2 been developed they show a multi-year event horizon for any

3 consumer anywhere to realize any cost savings while increasing

4 the purchase cost of the manufactured home, serving as

5 affordable housing by thousands of dollars. 

6 And finally, I'd just note this is only a partial

7 list of actual potential objections and we will submit a written

8 document for inclusion in the record of the Working Group. And

9 obvious, of course, comments when the time comes.

10 MR. RAMIZREZ: Just, I'm going to leave the card. 

11 The Court reporter, I assume that you have it typed up. If you

12 wouldn't mind getting it to him so that way you could help

13 reconcile his --

14 MR. WEISS: Sure.

15 MR. RAMIZREZ: Thanks.

16 MR. WEISS: If he can read this he can have it. 

17 MS. HOFFMAN: A couple of -- we're almost done. 

18 Mike?

19 MR. LUBLINER: Yeah, I'd like to thank all of the

20 colleagues here and for consensus. We worked really really hard

21 to get here. I think a lot of the problems that were identified

22 on the affordability front are the doing of HUD's lack of
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

180

1 leadership in their policy division and financing. I think

2 that's where the problem really lies, not with energy

3 efficiency. And I think that was described well in the

4 government accountability report.

5 I also think lack of leadership in the Office of

6 Manufactured Housing, which was described in the accountability

7 report as well, has created a situation where we've had to wait

8 20 years to update energy standards, like the wind standards

9 where we heard the same arguments. I think my personal opinion

10 is, the industry and the consumer will benefit, as will all of

11 society. Thank you.

12 MR. RAMIZREZ: Mark?

13 MR. WEISS: One hopefully final comment. Just

14 response to what Mike was saying, and I've said this before too.

15 Wind safety -- wind issues were a safety issue. This is not a

16 safety issue.

17 The HUD Code already produces homes that are built

18 safely and are durable and have quality construction. This is a

19 matter totally outside of that, any of that. It serves an

20 agenda that is not related to safety or construction durability

21 or quality. 

22 MS. HOFFMAN: All right. 
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

181

1 MR. RAMIZREZ: Joe?

2 MS. HOFFMAN: Joe.

3 MR. HAGERMAN: I'd just like to continue to thank

4 you for all your time and your comments and your thoughtfulness

5 and your diligence in working. There is one final vote we've

6 got to take, if I could just see if I could nominate this. But

7 just that we recognize and personally thank a few different

8 folks that worked particularly hard here. One, the young

9 Matthew Walker for his endless nights putting together the

10 (indiscernible). 

11 (Applause.)

12 MR. HAGERMAN: And then, they're not here, but Ping

13 Lu and her PNNL team for doing, you know, I think 10 or 15,000

14 different simulations. I don't know if you know this, but every

15 line that you see actually is backed up by hourly data, so the

16 massive amount of data sets that we have just are these little

17 single lines. It's super important. So, we also need to thank

18 them.

19 And then finally I just want to personally thank

20 every one of you all. I mean, you all are extremely important

21 leaders in the manufactured housing community and you have a

22 rich history. We're glad that the ASRAC family or group started
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

182

1 this working group for us to fulfill our obligations to the EISA

2 Statute. Right? Your representatives, your house and senate

3 representatives voted on EISA to improve manufactured housing

4 and now it's already is a working group to make that a reality. 

5 So we appreciate your comments and I think we've done an

6 exceptional job in an exceptionally short time period. So,

7 thank you. 

8 MS. HOFFMAN: Yes, John? 

9 MR. CASKEY: Well, on behalf of ASRAC certainly I

10 thank you all. I echo what -- why am I drawing a blank? What

11 Joe just said. Anyway, I echo everything that Joe just said. 

12 Thank you all for your, you know, what you've done here, all

13 your energy, and all your comments, and all the work that you

14 put in. And for me, sort of being a little bit of an outsider

15 and an observer, I think that it's wonderful that I personally

16 never observed sort of us versus them. It seems like from my

17 perspective everybody was working together towards a common goal

18 and I also appreciate DOE providing the opportunity because I'm

19 personally one that is concerned when you just give DOE a task

20 to do and they go off and do it on their own, as to has all

21 those inputs been vetted and has everything been done, you know,

22 accurately. And I think by providing an opportunity for this
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

183

1 kind of forum I think it really helps you all come to the table

2 and make sure that the information that they've got is in the

3 right ballpark and is reasonable and has been vetted through the

4 whole process. 

5 So I think the end result of what you and the

6 community and sort of America gets, is a better product than

7 what would have occurred if it had just been sort of behind

8 closed doors if you will. Even though there are opportunities

9 to comment and things like that. 

10 So again, thank you all for your time and energy and

11 the work that you put in to make this successful. 

12 MS. HOFFMAN: Lois?

13 MS. STARKEY: I have to, on behalf of -- 

14 MR. POTTS: Richard.

15 MS. HOFFMAN: Oh, Richard? 

16 MR. RAMIZREZ: I'm sorry, Richard. One second and

17 then let's just get Lois's comments and then we'll give you an

18 opportunity, Richard. 

19 MR. POTTS: Sure.

20 MS. STARKEY: Lois Starkey, MHI. On behalf of MHI,

21 which represents over 80 percent of the production and all of

22 the retailers, vendors, suppliers, we represent the broad part
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

184

1 of the industry, I do want to say that we -- it's been an eye

2 opening and really good experience and a positive one, I think. 

3 We often times are very negative about our regulators and about

4 what Washington does, but I think I could speak -- I could

5 probably speak for most of my fellow colleagues here at MHI who

6 have participated, that it's a positive way to move forward on

7 making regulations. Very transparent, its consensus oriented,

8 and it would be nice if we could do it on everything. Obviously

9 that's not possible, but we appreciate having the opportunity to

10 participate in the process, which will ultimately be a better

11 process than if it was done the normal way. So thank you.

12 MR. RAMIZREZ: Thank you. Richard?

13 MR. POTTS: Yes. Richard Potts, Virginia DHCD. 

14 Real quick question for Joe, and forgive me if you guys went

15 over this yesterday in the closing. I missed the closing

16 comments. But can we get, again, a summarization of the

17 timeline and steps from now until implementation and then when

18 that implementation date might be anticipated? 

19 MR. HAGERMAN: Absolutely. So this is Joe Hagerman.

20 We did not discuss implementation date or anything of that

21 nature. All we're here to do is to develop the standard energy

22 efficiency levels for the standard and then submit that to the
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

185

1 secretary. 

2 We're hoping to, you know, make that submission to

3 the secretary before the end of the year of course. I don't

4 know, I have no visibility in how long it will take ASRAC to

5 make that recommendation to the secretary, and for the secretary

6 to accept it or reject it. And so in that regard I have no idea

7 about implementation or follow-ups or continuations of this

8 committee or how DOE deals with enforcement and compliance,

9 which I think we all, you know, are recommending that we

10 continue to work like that help the Department work through

11 those issues to accept. I mean, that's my honest answer.

12 We're going to work hard to turn this term sheet

13 around. After we get all your editorial comments and submit it,

14 you know, a week after we, you know, get those comments through

15 to ASRAC. But it takes some time because ASRAC -- to throw all

16 those numbers to meet and to review and then have their

17 conversation and then submit it to the secretary. 

18 MR. RAMIZREZ: Any other comments from working group

19 members? 

20 All right. Just for the record I want to make it

21 clear, we're going to have to confirm Keith's vote just because

22 there were some technical issues where he was popping on and
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

186

1 off. It kind of happened yesterday as well, but so we'll

2 confirm that with him of what his vote was finally.

3 MR. HAGERMAN: So we just, generally at DOE, we just

4 ask that you do that over e-mail so we have a written record of

5 it.

6 MR. RAMIZREZ: Sure. And then comments from the

7 public? 

8 MR. LACEY: We thank our moderators. 

9 (Applause.) 

10 MR. RAMIZREZ: Our pleasure. This was my first

11 experience with the regulatory negotiations. 

12 MS. HOFFMAN: Wasn't he great? 

13 MR. RAMIZREZ: I think you may all may have spoiled

14 me. I hope that any future ones are as productive as this one

15 is, well functioning as this one was. So hopefully you haven't

16 scarred me that when I get into another one and it's

17 dysfunctional I'm not just in complete shock. So, thank you

18 very much. 

19 MS. HOFFMAN: Yes. And I want to just add to that,

20 we not only have met wonderful professionals but friends as

21 well. And we appreciate your interest, your professionalism,

22 your creativity, and we look forward to seeing you at some point
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

187

1 in the future. Thank you.

2 MR. RAMIZREZ: And, thank you, Ted. 

3 (Meeting concluded at 2:15 p.m.)

4 

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22
Manufactured Housing Working Group 10/24/2014

Washington, D.C. Baltimore, MD Florida

Olender Reporting, Inc. (888) 445-3376 WORLDWIDE

188

1 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER

2

3 I, Jordan Bruce, Professional Reporter, do

4 hereby certify that I was authorized to and did

5 technologically report the proceeding

6 and that the transcript is a true and correct

7 transcription.

8

9 I further certify that I am not a relative,

10 employee, attorney or counsel of any of the parties,

11 nor am I a relative or employee of any of the

12 parties' attorneys or counsel connected with the

13 action, nor am I financially interested in the

14 action.

15

16 Dated this 3rd day of November, 2014.

17

18

19 ______________________________

20 Jordan Bruce

21 Professional Reporter

22