Questions for the Montana Building Codes Bureau

One consolidated set, merged from the question lists at the end of 01-statute-and-rules.md, 02-approval-process.md, 03-codes-and-classification.md and 04-quality-manual-requirements.md. Duplicates removed, anything the research already answers removed, and anything that belongs to somebody other than the bureau moved out (see the bottom of this file).

Ordered so the earliest answers unblock the most work. Questions 1 to 4 are the ones that decide whether there is a business here and what it costs. If the bureau will only answer a few things, those are the four.

Who to send it to#

Ask for the Factory-Built Building program by name. DLI does not publish staff names on that page, so do not address a person. Do not use a physical street address: the research found two different Helena addresses on DLI's own site (301 South Park Ave, and 2705 Skyway Drive) and could not confirm which is the office. The PO Box is the same in both.

Ask for answers in writing. For anything touching how a code applies, MCA 50-60-117 provides a central registry of formal building code interpretations, so it is worth asking whether an issue warrants a registered interpretation rather than an email reply.

The questions#

1. Classification of a complete building on a steel skid#

How does the bureau classify a complete bathroom and shower building, built finished in our plant on a welded structural steel skid, with all plumbing, DWV, water heater, electrical panel and branch circuits installed in the plant, hauled to the site as one piece and set by crane or forklift? Specifically: does a steel skid defeat the element in ARM 24.301.1205(4) and MCA 50-60-101(9)(a) that a factory-built building be "not made so as to be readily movable as a unit or units and designed to be used with a permanent foundation"? If our professional engineer designs and stamps the skid as the permanent foundation system, with a bearing diagram, a maximum support spacing, a minimum bearing pressure and an anchorage detail with a stated device capacity, does that satisfy the "designed to be used with a permanent foundation" element? And if such a building is not a factory-built building, what regime does the bureau consider it to fall under?

Why it matters: everything on this product waits on the answer. If it is a factory-built building we register, get a model plan approved and buy insignia. If it is not, there is no state route at all, and every destination becomes a site permit with a local inspector asked to approve plumbing and wiring cast into concrete they cannot open. Turns on: ARM 24.301.1205(4), MCA 50-60-101(9)(a), ARM 24.301.1245.

2. Whether the off-site construction standards reach a panel plant#

Our other product is a house assembled on site from cast cellular concrete wall, floor and roof panels. Nothing volumetric leaves the plant, the panels carry no service connections, and the wiring and plumbing are installed on site in the open stud cavity before the cavity is filled. On the plain words of MCA 50-60-101(9)(a) we do not read the finished house as a factory-built building, and the panels are not "units" as ARM 24.301.1205(6) now defines that word. However, the panels appear to be a "panelized system" and therefore off-site construction under ICC/MBI 1200 and 1205 as adopted at ARM 24.301.1203, because the stud connections, mesh position and pour depth cannot be inspected at the building site without destroying the panel. ARM 24.301.1221(1) also requires application by "any manufacturer of modular buildings or modular building components," and ARM 24.301.1205(2) defines components as prefabricated wall, floor, ceiling or roof panels. Does the bureau require a panel manufacturer to register, obtain model plan review, submit an in-plant quality assurance manual and retain an approved third-party inspection agency? Does a panelized system carry an insignia, or is it covered by the "panelized system reviews" referred to in ARM 24.301.1237?

Why it matters: it decides whether the house panel line is a second approval track with its own fees and in-plant inspection, or whether the panels only need documents for the site official. Turns on: ARM 24.301.1203, 24.301.1221(1), 24.301.1205(2) and (6), 24.301.1237, 24.301.1241.

3. The 2026 code adoption and the transition#

Your Building Codes Program page carried notice of a public hearing on a code adoption on Friday, 28 August 2026, with written comment closing 4 September 2026. What does that rulemaking change, has it been adopted, and what is its effective date? Given ARM 24.301.1233(2)(a), which revokes a plan review when the department adopts a different code version, and ARM 24.301.1231(3), which bars renewal of plans reviewed under the previous codes, what is the transition for a manufacturer whose first model plan is approved under the current 2021 editions shortly before a new adoption? Is the 90-day insignia window in ARM 24.301.1233(3) the only relief? Would the bureau accept a first submittal designed and reviewed against the incoming editions rather than the current ones?

Why it matters: it decides when we submit. Submitting under editions that are about to be superseded buys an approval that gets revoked and a full set of new application fees to redo it. Turns on: ARM 24.301.1233(2)(a) and (3), ARM 24.301.1231(3).

4. How parts, sections, units and modules are counted#

How does the bureau count "parts" for the plan review fee tiers in ARM 24.301.1261, and "sections" for the insignia fee in ARM 24.301.1263, for (a) a building shipped as one complete piece and (b) a building that ships as individual cast wall, floor and roof panels and is assembled on site? Given that ARM 24.301.1205(6) now defines "unit" as having the same meaning as "module" in the ICC/MBI standards, and the repealed ARM 24.301.566 used "per part" where the current ARM 24.301.1263 uses "per section," are "part," "section," "unit" and "module" the same thing in this program?

Why it matters: a panelized house counted per building is a few hundred dollars. Counted per panel it is several times that in review fees and, if insignia were counted the same way, well over a thousand dollars of labels per house. We cannot price the product until this is settled. Turns on: ARM 24.301.1261, 24.301.1263, 24.301.1205(6).

5. IBC or IRC for a factory-built single-family house#

Does a factory-built single-family house require a Montana insignia of approval even though MCA 50-60-102(1)(a) exempts residential buildings containing fewer than five dwelling units from the state building code? If it does, which code does the bureau review it to under ARM 24.301.1201(2)(a), the IBC or the IRC, and who decides?

Why it matters: it decides the code the engineer designs to. The two routes give different snow load rules: on the IBC route ARM 24.301.146(26) sends the design snow load to ASCE 7-22 outside certified jurisdictions, and on the IRC route ARM 24.301.154 replaces R301.6 with ASCE 7-22 plus a minimum 30 psf design roof snow load. Turns on: MCA 50-60-102(1)(a) against MCA 50-60-402(1); ARM 24.301.1201(2)(a).

6. Design loads when the site is unknown#

For a model whose permanent site location is unknown, ARM 24.301.1221(3) sets 115 MPH wind, seismic design category D and 30 psf snow. Is a model approved at that floor sellable and sitable anywhere in Montana, or can an authority having jurisdiction reject it at a higher-load site? How does a site-specific submittal differ at plan review, and if we design above the floor to a stated envelope, is that handled as one model or as a plan supplement under ARM 24.301.1261(1)(g) for each site?

Why it matters: it decides whether we can build to stock or must build to order. Much of Montana carries a ground snow load well above 30 psf. Turns on: ARM 24.301.1221(2)(e) and (3), ARM 24.301.1261.

7. Approval route for a construction material the model codes do not cover#

Our panel is a cast low-density cellular concrete skin and cladding on cold-formed steel studs. Neither the IBC nor the IRC has a prescriptive chapter for that assembly. ARM 24.301.519 (product standards) and ARM 24.301.520 (alternatives) were repealed effective 21 September 2024 with no direct successor, yet ARM 24.301.1233(2)(c) still revokes a plan review where materials are "not listed and reviewed by a listing agency, or reviewed as an alternate or equivalent by the bureau." What is the current route? Is it an Approved Alternative Methods and Materials submission, a code interpretation under MCA 50-60-117, a testing and approval action under MCA 50-60-103(4), or is it handled inside the model plan review by our professional engineer and the third-party agency on the strength of ASTM test data?

Why it matters: if the answer is that the material needs a listing agency evaluation report, that is significant money and a long lead, and we need to know before we submit rather than after the review comes back. Turns on: ARM 24.301.1233(2)(c); repealed ARM 24.301.519 and .520; MCA 50-60-103(4), 50-60-117.

8. Professional engineer seal#

Does the bureau require a Montana-licensed professional engineer's seal on a model plan submittal, and if so on which documents? ARM 24.301.1205(3) defines "Engineer" but we could not find a live rule stating when a seal is required.

Why it matters: it sets the engineer's scope and cost, and whether an out-of-state engineer can do any part of it. Turns on: ARM 24.301.1205(3), ARM 24.301.1221(2).

9. Submission sequence and turnaround#

ARM 24.301.1223(2) says the quality assurance manual must be reviewed and approved by the bureau prior to the approval of plan review. Can the manual and the model plan review application be submitted at the same time, or must the manual clear first? What turnaround should we plan for on the quality assurance manual review, on model plan review, and on issuing insignia after a complete insignia application? We understand the 30 business day plan correction notice in ARM 24.301.1225(1) is a deadline for a correction notice rather than a target for approval. What else does the bureau want to see before listing a manufacturer as approved under ARM 24.301.1217(2)?

Why it matters: the manual is a hard gate on the plan review, so the answer changes the project schedule by months. Montana publishes no turnaround targets for this program. Turns on: ARM 24.301.1223(1) and (2), 24.301.1225(1), 24.301.1217(2).

10. What the quality assurance manual must contain#

ARM 24.301.1223(2) requires the manual to include all applicable items listed in chapter 5 of the ICC/MBI 1205 Standard. Your Factory-Built Buildings web page still displays an eleven-item quality control manual list (scope and purpose, inspection procedure for basic materials, material storage and stock rotation, drawings and bill of material, types and frequency of product inspection, sample inspection control form, record-keeping procedures, list of major production equipment, where responsibility lies, test procedural manual, list of test equipment). Should we write the manual to chapter 5 of ICC/MBI 1205, to the web page list, or to both? Does the bureau publish or hand out a quality manual checklist or a preferred format? Is there guidance on what Section 601 of ICC/MBI 1205 requires of a manufacturer under ARM 24.301.1217(1)? And is an owner or consumer manual, or a written warranty, required as part of the submission?

Why it matters: the rule and the web page disagree, and an incomplete manual is the most common reason one gets sent back. One answer here could save a rejection round. Turns on: ARM 24.301.1223(2), ARM 24.301.1217(1).

11. Data plates and unit identification after the 2024 repeals#

ARM 24.301.525 required a data plate showing model, serial number, date of completion and design load maximums, and ARM 24.301.549 required a manufacturer's serial number and placement of the insignia on the exterior wall adjacent to the rear or side exit. Both were repealed effective 21 September 2024 and we found no successor in subchapter 12. Are data plates and unit identification still required, and if so under what authority, ICC/MBI 1200, ICC/MBI 1205, or elsewhere? Where does the bureau want the insignia placed on a unit?

Why it matters: it is a physical thing that has to go on the building and a section in our quality manual, and we would rather build it in than retrofit it. Turns on: repealed ARM 24.301.525 and .549; ARM 24.301.1241.

12. Where oversight of third-party agencies and manufacturers now sits#

ARM 24.301.516 (third party inspections to be monitored) and ARM 24.301.517 (inspection of manufacturer) were repealed effective 21 September 2024. Does that oversight now live inside ICC/MBI 1205, or does it rest on the department's general authority under MCA 50-60-103? What should an in-state manufacturer expect in the way of bureau visits, and is there any fee for a bureau visit to an in-state plant? The only inspection fee lines we can find in ARM 24.301.1265 are field technical service and the out-of-state on-site review.

Why it matters: it tells us what audits to plan for and whether to budget for them. Turns on: repealed ARM 24.301.516 and .517; ARM 24.301.1211, .1215, .1265; MCA 50-60-103.

13. The local option under MCA 50-60-404#

Is MCA 50-60-404 an alternative to state factory-built building approval, or an additional layer on top of it? If a Montana plant meets all four conditions in 50-60-404(2), can it sell without a state insignia, or does MCA 50-60-402(1) still require one? Note we read 50-60-404(3) as saying other jurisdictions may recognise a local approval, where 50-60-402(3) says a state-approved building is acceptable statewide without further inspection or fees.

Why it matters: if the local route is genuinely available it could get a first unit built while state approval is in process. If it is an extra layer, it is a trap. Turns on: MCA 50-60-404, 50-60-402(1) and (3).

14. Reciprocity and out-of-state sales#

Which states does Montana currently hold reciprocal agreements with under ARM 24.301.1235, and what does "HUD-approved Category III states" in ARM 24.301.1235(3) mean in current practice? Which states will accept a Montana review transmitted under ARM 24.301.1237? Is Montana a member of any interstate compact or multistate programme for factory-built or industrialised buildings? Now that Montana, Virginia, Utah and the GSA have all adopted ICC/MBI 1200 and 1205, does a Montana approval travel any more easily?

Why it matters: we need it before quoting anything outside Montana, but nothing inside Montana waits on it. Turns on: ARM 24.301.1235, 24.301.1237.

15. Forms and web page citing repealed rules#

Some of the published material still cites rules repealed on 21 September 2024. The insignia application (Rev. 7/24) cites ARM 24.301.558, which was repealed; the live rule appears to be ARM 24.301.1243. The Factory-Built Buildings web page cites ARM 24.301.565 through .567, of which .566 was repealed and .565 and .567 were transferred to .1261 and .1265. ARM 24.301.1261(1)(a) refers to a "quality control manual review" while ARM 24.301.1221 and .1223 call it the "quality assurance manual"; we take these to be the same document at the same $20 fee. Are the current forms correct in substance, and is there a revised set we should be using?

Why it matters: we do not want a submission returned unprocessed over a citation, and the application form warns that incomplete applications come back unprocessed. Turns on: ARM 24.301.1243, 24.301.1261, 24.301.1265; repealed ARM 24.301.558 and .566.

16. Other Montana requirements for the manufacturing entity#

Beyond the factory-built building programme, are there Montana licensing or registration requirements for the manufacturing entity itself, for example construction contractor registration, that the bureau expects to see in place before listing us as an approved manufacturer?

Why it matters: cheap to ask now, expensive to discover halfway through a plan review. Turns on: ARM 24.301.1217(2).

The covering email#

Subject line: Factory-Built Building programme: classification and process questions from a prospective Montana manufacturer

Fill in the square brackets. Do not invent a recipient name.

To: buildingcodes@mt.gov
Subject: Factory-Built Building programme: classification and process questions from a prospective
Montana manufacturer

To the Factory-Built Building Program, Building Codes Program,
Building and Commercial Measurements Bureau:

My name is Ken [surname]. I am setting up [company name] in [city], Montana, to manufacture cast
cellular concrete building panels and complete buildings made from them. Before I commit to a plant
and to engineering, I would like to get a few things straight with your office in writing.

We have two products.

The first is a house. Wall, floor and roof panels are cast flat in our plant, four feet wide, from
low-density cellular concrete on cold-formed steel studs. The panels ship flat. They carry no
plumbing and no wiring. They are stood and screwed together on a slab on site, the trades work in the
open stud cavity, and the cavity is then pumped full. The finished building is a two bedroom, two
bathroom house of about 40 by 30 feet on a permanent foundation.

The second is a shower and restroom building for RV parks, campgrounds and job sites. It is built
complete in our plant on a welded structural steel skid, with the plumbing, drain waste and vent,
water heater, electrical panel and branch circuits all installed in the plant, and it is hauled to
the site as one piece and set by crane or forklift. The reference unit is 12 by 20 feet with two
bathrooms, one of them accessible, and it weighs about 33,000 pounds.

We have read ARM subchapter 24.301.12 as rewritten effective 21 September 2024, and MCA Title 50
chapter 60 part 4. We understand that the bureau has adopted ICC/MBI 1200-2021 and ICC/MBI 1205-2021
by reference at ARM 24.301.1203, that there is no separate manufacturer registration fee, that we
must retain an approved third-party inspection agency, and that our in-plant quality assurance
manual has to be approved before a model plan review can be approved. We are buying both ICC/MBI
standards.

What we cannot work out from the published material is how our two products are classified, and I do
not want to design or tool up against a guess. I have attached a short list of questions. The first
four are the ones that decide whether this is a business, so if it helps I am happy to take those on
a phone call and follow up in writing.

If any of these would be better handled as a formal code interpretation under MCA 50-60-117 rather
than an email, please say so and I will file it that way.

Attached, and linked:

  1. Shower house, product description and dimensions, with the fixture and equipment schedule
  2. House, product description and the panel build-up
  3. Our questions, numbered
  4. Animation of the wall panel system: https://wall-panel-animator.pages.dev
  5. All of our panel designs and drawings in one place: https://panel-designs-hub.pages.dev

Our full engineering package is in preparation with a Montana-licensed professional engineer and I
can send it as soon as it is stamped, or in draft now if that is more useful to you.

Thank you for your time.

Ken [surname]
[company name]
[address]
[phone]
[email]

Suggested attachments, from what exists in this repo today#

Questions deliberately not on this list#

These came out of the research question lists but do not belong to the Building Codes Bureau. They still need answering, by somebody else.