Reference · living document
Modular Reciprocity Tracker
The standards exist. Acceptance of them does not travel. This table records, jurisdiction by jurisdiction, who approves factory-built buildings, under which programme, whether the ICC/MBI off-site standards have been adopted, and what — if anything — a neighbouring jurisdiction's approval is worth. Every row carries a verification status; unverified cells are an open request for correction, not a claim.
1200/1205 — whether the state has adopted ICC/MBI 1200-2021 (planning, design, fabrication) and 1205-2021 (inspection and compliance) by reference. TPIA — whether the programme relies on state-approved third-party inspection agencies for in-plant inspection. Reciprocity — whether the jurisdiction accepts another's plan approval or label, and on what terms. Status — Verified means we confirmed the row against a primary source on the date shown; Partial means some cells are confirmed; Unverified means the row is populated from secondary sources or general knowledge and should not be relied on until confirmed. The Modular Building Institute's government-affairs desk tracks state activity continuously and is the best single source for changes; this table adds the reciprocity column that no trade body publishes.
United States
| State | Agency · programme | 1200/1205 | TPIA | Reciprocity | Status | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Virginia | DHCD · Industrialized Building Safety Regulations | Adopted — first state (with ASTM E541), 2024 code cycle | Yes | Terms not confirmed | Partial | MBI · DHCD |
| Colorado | Division of Housing (DOLA) · Factory-Built Structures; factory incentives via OEDIT's Innovative Housing Incentive Program | Adopted 1200, 1205 and 1210 plus Guideline 6, effective Jan 1, 2025 — second state, first to adopt 1210 | Not confirmed | Not confirmed | Partial | BD+C · OEDIT |
| California | HCD, Division of Codes & Standards · Factory-Built Housing (FBH) | Not adopted (as far as we can determine) | Yes — HCD-approved third-party agencies (called TPAs) | California is an approval-of-record state; other states' approvals are not accepted in lieu of HCD plan approval | Verified | HCD FBH · TPAs |
| Texas | TDLR · Industrialized Housing & Buildings (IHB) | Not confirmed | Yes — approved design-review and inspection agencies | Formal reciprocity mechanism: 16 TAC §70.65 lets TDLR recognise another state's programme that "meets the objectives" of Occupations Code ch. 1202; reciprocal units still carry a Texas decal alongside the home state's | Verified | TDLR · 16 TAC §70.65 |
| Utah | DFCM · Modular Building Program | Not confirmed | Yes — published roster of approved agencies (forms updated Jan 2026) | Not confirmed | Partial | DFCM |
| New York | Department of State, Codes Division · Factory Manufactured Buildings | Not confirmed | Yes — DOS-approved TPIAs | Not confirmed. Note Dec 2025 prevailing-wage expansion (Labor Law §220) to off-site fabrication, narrowed by amendment and preliminarily enjoined June 2026 | Partial | NY DOS |
| Pennsylvania | DCED · Industrialized Housing & Modular Program | Not confirmed | Yes | Not confirmed. SB 908 (2025) would extend prevailing wage into modular plants; not enacted | Partial | DCED · SB 908 |
| New Jersey | DCA · Bureau of Homeowner Protection, Modular Program | Not confirmed | Yes | Not confirmed | Partial | NJ DCA |
| Oregon | BCD · Manufactured & Modular Structures | Not confirmed | Yes | Not confirmed. HB 2688 (effective Jul 1, 2026) applies Oregon prevailing wage to off-site fabrication including out-of-state plants; challenged in MBI v. Stephenson (Aug 20, 2026) | Partial | MBI · PLF |
| Ohio | Board of Building Standards · Industrialized Units | Not confirmed | Yes | Not confirmed | Unverified | — |
| Florida | DBPR · Manufactured Buildings Program | Not confirmed | Yes | Not confirmed | Unverified | — |
| Washington | L&I · Factory Assembled Structures | Not confirmed | Yes | Not confirmed | Unverified | — |
| Arizona | Dept. of Housing · Office of Manufactured Housing | Not confirmed | Not confirmed | Not confirmed | Unverified | — |
| Idaho | Division of Building Safety | Not confirmed | Not confirmed | Not confirmed. Home to Autovol and Guerdon, both multi-state shippers | Unverified | — |
| Massachusetts | BBRS · Manufactured Buildings Program | Not confirmed | Not confirmed | Not confirmed | Unverified | — |
| North Carolina · Georgia · Minnesota · Illinois · Michigan | State modular programmes exist; agency and terms not yet confirmed | — | — | — | Unverified | — |
The Interstate Compact on Industrialized/Modular Buildings, a model law drafted through NCSBCS, provides that a building approved by one compacting state "shall be deemed approved by all," and lets non-member states sign interim reciprocal agreements to accept compliance labels. The mechanism exists on paper. We have not been able to confirm a current, authoritative list of participating states, which is itself a finding: if the industry's reciprocity instrument has no public membership roster, it is not doing much reciprocating. Source: compact text (PDF).
Canada
| Jurisdiction | Regulator · mechanism | CSA A277 | Certification | Reciprocity | Status | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Federal | No federal regulator; National Building Code is a model code adopted provincially. CSA A277 is the factory-certification standard; Build Canada Homes (launched Sept 2025) issued an MMC request for information Feb 2026; CMHC Housing Design Catalogue (Oct 2025) offers 50 pre-reviewed designs | Standard-setter | Bodies accredited by the Standards Council of Canada | A277 label is recognised in most provinces but compliance is always to the code in force at the installation site — no automatic interprovincial acceptance | Verified | CHBA · BCH RFI |
| Alberta | Municipal Affairs · Safety Codes Council | Mandatory for prefabricated buildings (ministerial bulletin) | SCC-accredited bodies | Accepts A277 label; local AHJ permits still required | Verified | Alberta bulletin (PDF) |
| Quebec | RBQ · Certification des bâtiments usinés (Construction Code, Building chapter) | Mandatory | Accredited certification bodies (organismes de certification) | No explicit mutual-recognition agreement with other provinces found | Partial | RBQ |
| Yukon | Community Services · Building Safety | Mandatory (per CHBA) | SCC-accredited bodies | Not confirmed | Partial | CHBA |
| British Columbia | Building & Safety Standards Branch; BC Housing as major buyer | Recognised / accepted | A277-accredited agencies (e.g. QAI, LabTest) | Accepted at AHJ discretion; no formal interprovincial mechanism found | Partial | CHBA |
| Ontario | Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing · Ontario Building Code; municipal chief building officials | Recognised / accepted | A277-accredited agencies | Municipal discretion; Toronto's Modular Housing Initiative is the reference case for procurement friction | Unverified | — |
| Manitoba · Saskatchewan · Nova Scotia · other | Provincial codes reference A277 | Recognised / accepted | A277-accredited agencies | Not confirmed | Unverified | — |
What the table shows so far
Three things stand out even with half the rows incomplete. First, only two US states — Virginia and Colorado — have adopted the ICC/MBI off-site standards five years after publication, and Colorado's adoption of 1210 makes it the more complete of the two. Second, Texas is the only state we have confirmed with a formal, rule-based reciprocity mechanism, and even there the reciprocal unit carries two decals. Third, Canada's A277 regime is the closest thing on the continent to a portable factory label, and it still stops at every provincial border because compliance is always to the destination code.
The practical consequence for a multi-state manufacturer is the one we described in Pillar 03: approvals are a product-catalogue decision. Pick the jurisdictions you will serve, hold those approvals continuously, and treat a one-off project three borders away as the cost it is.
Help us fill it in
If you are a manufacturer, third-party agency or state official and you can confirm or correct a cell — with a link to the regulation or programme page — write to editor@volumetricbuilding.com. We will credit sources on request and date every change. Rows marked unverified will be removed rather than left stale if we cannot confirm them within ninety days.