are confident that such a study will prove that the 1% level of lead in modern paints is not a hazard to children. However, as evidence of good faith and to provide an additional margin of safety, we would support a reduction to .5% effective after December 31, 1972. This provision has also been incorporated in the Senate version of the bill, and we ask its adoption by the Committee. The interim standard of .5% lead would cover the limited use of lead driers and environmental and raw material contaminants.

I do not want to dwell on the very serious impact which the imposition of the .06% standard would have on the industry for, as stated earlier, if this is established as the level necessary to provide safety for our children, all manufacturers must comply or cease making the product. However, I do want to touch briefly on some of these problems to illustrate why we feel it is so important that the standard be based on reliable data and not just arbitrarily imposed.

As previously stated, .06% means for all practical purposes that the manufacturer can add no lead during the manufacturing process. Inasmuch as there is no fully tested "off the shelf" substitute, at the very outset, extensive and costly testing and reformulation of entire product lines would be necessary. Any substitutes would themselves have to be tested, not only for effectiveness, but also toxicity. As stated, before the Senate committee, by the President of a mediumsized, west coast manufacturer: "At this time, we have no fully-tested substitute for lead dryers. These dryers would have to be replaced in order to reach the .06% level; therefore, approximately one-half of the paint we manufacture and sell, would have to be temporarily discontinued. This discontinuance would last until we could thoroughly test the lead dryer substitutes we now have in order to be certain of their performance. In addition, we would have to discontinue most of our outside purchases of paint products until those suppliers were also able to reformulate their products to the legal lead limit. Many of the smaller paint companies could be severely penalized by the tremendous expense in research, testing and reformulation."

In view of the contamination problem previously mentioned, it would be necessary, in order to prevent an inadvertent violation, for the manufacturer to install very expensive pharmaceutical-type analysis and testing equipment into the production line or in the alternative have each batch of his product tested by outside laboratories before marketing. As stated before the Senate Committee by the President of a small manufacturer in Philadelphia, "It would require us to spend every cent of our next two years' allotment for laboratory equipment on analytical instruments alone. Further, it would expose paint manufacturers to civil suits that could bankrupt us." The Chairman of the Board of a small Southern based manufacturer put it this way: "Quality control under the proposed stringent lead regulations would require an accurate analytical determination of the lead content of each batch of consumer paints manufactured. We presently have almost no analytical equipment and no analytical chemist on our staff. For quality control we rely on physical testing plus process control. Our analytical work is done for us by an outside laboratory. Each analysis requires a matter of weeks and the cost of the test could easily equal our present total manufacturing cost including all testing for a given batch of paint... This would place an unbearable burden on the small manufacturer."

These comments are typical to the problems facing the vast majority of paint manufacturers. Also to be considered, is their vulnerability resulting from products above the .06 level already in warehouses and in the market place.

The immediate result therefore is a complete disruption of an industry with grave doubt as to the ability of many manufacturers to survive. The ultimate result is a more costly, less satisfactory product. If this is necessary from a health standpoint, so be it, it should and must be accomplished. However, we urge only that the necessity be established, by competent, thorough research and not just assumed.

Lastly, we urge one additional change in the bill under consideration. We ask that a full Federal preemption provision be inserted, similar to that in the Federal Hazardous Substances Act. This is extremely important to avoid the undue and unnecessary burden of being required to comply with the proliferating and varying State and locally-established standards. Many of these differ in both content standard and effective date, resulting in confusion and obstacles for those manufacturers moving their products in interstate commerce. Certainly, the scientific evidence which the HEW research would produce could serve as the basis nationwide.

In summary, we are vitally concerned with the lead poisoning problem of today and strongly support efforts to eradicate it. This can be accomplished by the removal or masking of the old paint peeling from the surfaces of dilapidated housing. The generations of tomorrow, yet unborn, must be protected by the production of safe products today. The safe level then is the key and should be finally and conclusively determined by adequate scientific research. This safe level. once determined should become our nationwide standard. The changes to the bill urged in this statement would accomplish these objectives and are as follows: (a) Incorporation of the requirement for the research by HEW to determine the safe level of lead in residential paint products with the additional requirement of a timely report to Congress.

(b) Reduction of the present 1% to 5% effective after December 31, 1972, but deletion of the provision to move to .06% immediately pending the results of the HEW study.

(c) Provision for Federal preemption.

I would welcome the opportunity to appear before your Committee at any time to answer questions or provide any additional information desired.

BUILDING CODE COUNCIL,

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
Raleigh, N.C., June 19, 1972.

Re H.R. 14716 Safety Standards for Mobile Homes and Interstate Commerce Bill. Mr. PAUL NELSON, Clerk and Staff Director, U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Banking and Currency, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. NELSON: Thank you for your letter of June 13, 1972, stating that the public hearings covering the above bill were over but that you would be happy to print any statement which we might submit in the Hearing Record.

Since the Bill was only introduced on May 2, 1972, and the time for written statement to be submitted for the record is short, I have not had time to meet with the National Conference of States on Building Codes and Standards Reciprocity Committee (composed of state officials who have the authority and responsibility to implement codes and standards to protect the public on conventional buildings, manufactured buildings and/or mobile homes) but I have been in contact with several of these members by telephone and they are in agreement with some comments which I sent out to them on June 8, 1972. (Copy enclosed.) Speaking from the point of view of a state official who has responsibility to administer state codes to protect the public health and safety of citizens who live in and pay for buildings of all types including mobile homes, it is my own personal opinion that the above Bill, although written for the purposes of protecting the public health and safety, would serve as the vehicle for manufacturers who do not want to comply with standards to self certify their units to a Federal agency and circumvent all state and local inspection and regulations. The Bill either proposes to set up an army of inspectors or proposes only token inspection by the Federal agency.

The Bill provides that even if the Federal agency does inspect a plant, it is required to give the manufacturers notice in writing before such inspection and if variations from the standard are found, the manufacturers would not have to make changes if he could show that the variations would not cause injury or death to the owner. Even if the Federal agency was to fine a manufacturer, the Federal agency could reduce the fine for those manufacturers who had the financial backing to plead their cases.

The manufacturer is required to buy back the units which the dealer finds which are not in compliance but I can find no provisions for the owner who lives in and pays for these units to have recourse against the manufacturer for noncompliance and variations with the Federal standard. In my opinion the Bill would destroy any attempts by the state or local governments to protect their citizens because the intra-state manufacturer under an effective state inspection system could not compete with multi-state manufacturers under a self-certification system to the Federal agency.

I hope the members of the Committee will give consideration to providing protection to the persons who live in and pay for mobile homes. I would appreciate it if you would make this letter and a copy of the attached comments a part of the Hearing Record on the above Bill.

Yours very truly,

KERN E. CHURCH, P.E.,

Chief Engineer and Secretary to Building Code Council.

COMMENTS ON H.R. 14716-SAFETY STANDARDS FOR MOBILE HOMES IN

INTERSTATE COMMERCE

These comments by Kern E. Church, P.E., Chief Engineer, North Carolina Department of Insurance are from the point of view of a State official who has the responsibility to administer codes to protect the public health and safety of citizens who live in and pay for buildings of all types including mobile homes.

The Honorable Congressman Frey from the state of Florida made a very eloquent, informative and convincing speech as contained in the May 2, 1972 Congressional Record emphasizing the very urgent need for construction of mobile homes to be regulated to protect the public health and safety. The desire to protect the public from unsafe mobile homes as outlined in the speech should cause everyone to be in favor of the purpose of such legislation.

However, if Congress decides on Federal intervention and preemption of the rights of state and local government to protect their citizens, it is my own personal opinion that those persons who desire that the public health and safety of persons who live in and pay for mobile homes be protected should consider the following general comments:

(1) Model state legislation on manufactured building was jointly prepared and has been endorsed by the National Conference of States on building codes and standards, the three national building official organizations. The National Association of Building Manufacturers, The Department of Housing and Urban Development, and The Department of Commerce. This action was taken on April 19, 1972, and the recommended model legislation has been sent to the Council of State Government. In my opinion, any federal action should be directed to encourage the individual states to asume their responsibilities to protect the public and cooperate with each other, with federal agencies, and with the industry most affected and much has already been accomplished as per the model legislation on manufactured buildings.

The individual states are well under way with cooperative programs to provide for interstate reciprocity of manufactured buildings and mobile homes and the system is based on the states being assured that the manufacturer's plants are under an unbiased approval of plans and inspection program conducted by unbiased qualified personnel.

By this action, the states have expressed their willingness to work with organizations of officials of local government which have responsibility to protect the public health and safety, the building manufacturers organization and the Federal Government to solve common problems of national concern. It is my own personal opinion that Federal legislation to protect citizens of the cities, counties, and states should be jointly drafted by state organizations and local officials and organizations which have experience in enforcing standards to protect the public health and safety together with manufacturers and Federal officials in the same manner as the "model state legislation for manufactured buildings" which was jointly drafted as referred to above before it is considered by Congress.

(2) If it is considered by Congress advisable and feasible for a Federal agency to be involved in implementation of safety standards for mobile homes, provisions should be made to accept state or local enforcement of equal standards strictly on the basis of whether the state or local agency actually requires the plans and specifications built by each mobile home manufacturing plant to be evaluated and approved by unbiased engineers competent to evaluate the structural, mechanical and electrical features of the standard and whether such engineers have confirmed that such plant is actually complying with the standard and such plans and specifications and also whether the state requires sufficient unbiased inspection of manufactured production to assure that all units produced and labeled comply with the standard. The state should also have the right to apply the same evaluation and inspection program for all units sold within the

state, whether manufactured inside the state or not, in order for a state plan to succeed.

(3) This bill would establish a precedent and probably be a first step to encourage Federal agencies to preempt state and local rights to regulate mobile homes and other factory built buildings and building products and appliances and then the entire construction industry because most of the construction industry might be construed by manufacturers who want to self-certify as coming under the heading of Inter-State Commerce. It is my opinion that the act as proposed would either require a large federal army of qualified engineers who can interpret and apply the structural, mechanical and electrical features of the Standard and a tremendously large number of Federal inspectors to inspect all the mobile home plants in the country or the Act proposes to allow manufacturers to self-certify with only token inspection by a small staff of Federal employees whose qualifications are not specified.

(4) This bill is written more like it would apply to truly mobile structures similar in mobility to automobiles when, in fact, it applies to year-around homes and could apply to any structure which could be moved on its own running gear regardless of size or how many you might stack horizontally together.

Most inspectors and engineers accept and even the National Industry recognize that truly mobile structures such as travel trailers not used as homes may be built to lower standards and under different inspection procedures because of their intermittent occupancy moving around so much, but even the single-wide mobile home used as a home is seldom moved after it is occupied and they are usually the only home the owner has.

(5) The bill provides for a Federal system of accepting self-certification by manufacturers with no specific program of qualification of federal inspectors or frequency of inspectors and with the provision that even if there is a factory inspection made, the manufacturer must be notified in writing before such inspection may be made.

(6) Although this Federal act does not have a positive program of qualified unbiased evaluation of plans and factory inspections to protect the public, it has the possibility of replacing state systems which do provide qualified unbiased evaluation of mobile home plans and unbiased factory inspections of manufacturing plants to protect the public.

Encouragement should be given to state systems which accept mobile homes built in any state provided they meet the state procedures for unbiased competent evaluation and inspection. The state of North Carolina has provided “independent third party agencies" to provide for unbiased evaluation of each manufacturer's plans and specifications and confirm that manufacturer's products in each plant are in compliance with the National Mobile Home Standard. The agency is also required to make factory inspections of the structural, plumbing, heating or electrical features of each unit on the assembly line in order to assure continued compliance with the standard. The inspections by the state of North Carolina of plants labeled by approved third party agency indicates that even this frequency of factory inspections is not sufficient to assure complete compliance with the Standard. because our state staff still finds several small deviations and if we find deviations which are hazardous, our approved third party agency is audited more often. There are 135 plants located in 21 different states which are labeled under this program and all units so labeled are required by state law to be accepted throughout North Carolina.

The States of Virginia, South Carolina, Maryland, Connecticut, North Dakota. Indiana, and Nevada have approved at least one "common third party agencies" which is approved by North Carolina and these states also accept such units. It is also our understanding that several other states are considering acceptance of unbiased competent third party agencies and will provide for state monitoring of such third party agencies. The state of California has recently added the structural features of the Standard to their inspection program and it is my opinion that "state programs" which provide competent evaluation and inspections would also be accepted by other states under the same joint monitoring system being provided by the states to assure themselves that state approved "unbiased third party agencies" require manufacturers to comply with the National Standard.

COMMENTS APPLYING TO SPECIFIC SECTIONS OF H.R. 14716-SAFETY STANDARDS FOR MOBILE HOMES AND INTERSTATE COMMERCE WHICH SHOULD BE CONSIDERED BY PERSONS PROVIDING SAFER MOBILE HOMES FOR PERSONS LIVING IN AND PAYING FOR SUCH HOMES

Section 102(4).—The definition of Interstate Commerce might include any manufacturer which manufactures or sells in two or more states. By this definition of interstate commerce, a state might not have the authority to regulate the construction of mobile homes of the larger manufacturer even though they are built within the state and sold within the state if such manufacturer has other plants and does business through other states. This would allow the manufacturer with plants in several states to utilize the weakest of federally approved state systems or the self-certification Federal system. Manufacturers with plants only in one state could not compete with manufacturers which are able to circumvent a state system (enforced by unbiased qualified agencies and protects the public better) by self-certification to the Federal agency. This would tend to destroy state systems (now) fully supported by small manufacturers and many multiple state manufacturers with the exception of a few of the large multi-state manufacturers, designed to protect the public.

Section 102(6). The definition of mobile home would make the act apply to actual mobile units such as motor homes and travel trailers but it would also apply to any factory assembled structure of any size which could be moved on its own running gear which might include an unlimited number of such units stacked horizontally so long as each unit could be moved on its own running gear. It is my opinion the Bill is written as if it were meant to apply to actual mobile units as automobiles or motor homes and travel trailers and does not consider that the large, single wide mobile homes and other units placed horizontally together are not that mobile but are actually buildings where people are making their home in lieu of a part time recreational vehicle. The definition of travel trailers and recreational vehicles used in several state laws would be a unit less than 8' wide or less than 32′ long and these can be readily moved by a stock automobile. The 12' x 60' single wide "mobile homes" with a chassis or units placed double or more together are no more readily moved by the owner than 12' x 60' structures without a chassis. However, by this definition, if manufacturers could self-certify and circumvent all state and local codes, they may attach a chassis to all units and furnish an unlimited number of units which could individually be moved on their own running gear and stacked horizontally into any size buildings.

Section 103 (d).—This Section preempts any state or local government from providing regulations for mobile homes which are not equal to or greater than the Federal system. Who would decide whether a state standard was equal to or great than the Federal Standard?

Section 103 (f). This section limits the scope of the Federal agencies' consideration of safety standards and might ignore many valuable contributions of public interest bodies which would contribute toward public health and safety. The Federal agency is seemingly limited to the Mobile Home Manufacturers Association and Trailer Coach Association sponsored structural and plumbing standards and the National Fire Protection Association sponsored heating and electrical standards as outlined in the American National Standards Institutes Mobile Home Standard. There are many public interest groups which have written standards of safety for buildings and structures in the field of structural and plumbing safety. These include the Building Officials and Code Administrators, International, International Conference of Building Officials, Southern Building Code Congress and American Society of Testing Materials. Under this section, the Federal agencies could also ignore any state or interstate agencies he wished to as per Section 103 (f) (2).

Section 104(a).—The Federal agency is apparently limited to MHMA sponsored ANSI Committee for structural and plumbing representation on the Advisory Committee. In my opinion, the mobile home standard is a building code and should be written by a balanced consensus Committee consisting of specialists representing the manufacturer, supplier, local and state enforcement agencies, independent consulting engineers, independent testing organizations, insurance industry and representatives of the public not connected with the construction industry. Each of the structural, plumbing, heating and electrical sections of standard should be written by specialists who are experts in their own engineering and inspection disciplines, based on the above representation.