ICC 1215 Disregards HUD Preemption

I recently submitted a HUD preemption inquiry to the International Code Council (ICC) regarding language contained within ICC publications and the ICC/THIA 1215 standard that I believe conflicts with federal manufactured housing law and HUD’s exclusive interpretive authority.

My inquiry focuses specifically on statements suggesting that tiny houses on wheels may somehow “opt out” of HUD jurisdiction through compliance with model building codes or through adoption of ICC standards by local Authorities Having Jurisdiction (AHJs). This is tucked away in the forward of the standard and does not go through consensus, public review, or ANSI review. In my view, this creates a misunderstanding of federal law. Structures that meet the statutory definition of a manufactured home under 42 U.S.C. § 5402(6) are subject to HUD’s Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards unless they properly qualify under an existing federal exclusion established by HUD regulation.

The concern is not theoretical. Manufacturers often rely upon ICC publications when making compliance decisions, and inaccurate statements regarding federal preemption or HUD applicability could expose manufacturers to serious compliance and enforcement consequences. Local jurisdictions do not possess the authority to create exemptions from federal statutes or federal regulations, and voluntary standards cannot override federal law.

My inquiry also highlights that HUD already established a very specific exclusion process for certain modular structures under 24 CFR § 3282.12. That federal pathway exists independently of ICC/THIA 1215 and contains detailed requirements involving permanent foundations, removal of running gear, and qualifying code compliance.

At its core, this issue is larger than a single standard. Tiny houses on wheels occupy a complex intersection between transportation law, building codes, HUD regulation, zoning, placement, lending, and occupancy. If the industry is going to move forward responsibly, these overlapping legal frameworks must be acknowledged honestly and integrated carefully rather than blurred through regulatory ambiguity.