AMHI

*Alabama Manufactured Housing Institute*

**P.O. Box 241607 Montgomery, AL 36124-1607 (334) 244-7828 Fax (334)
244-9339**

June 24, 2005

Regulations Division

Office of General Counsel

Room 10276

Department of Housing and Urban Development

451 Seventh Street, SW

Washington, DC 20410-0500

Re: Docket No. FR-4928-P-01; HUD-2005-0006

> RIN Number 2502-AI25

[Model Manufactured Home Installation Standards]{.underline}

**Introduction**

The Alabama Manufactured Housing Institute (AMHI) respectfully submits
comments in response to the proposed rulemaking notice in the ***Federal
Register*** of April 26, 2005, (70 FR 21497 -- 21559).

AMHI is a non-profit state trade association representing all segments
of the manufactured housing industry in Alabama. This includes the
following member segments: manufactured home producers, material and
service suppliers, retailers, community developers and owners, insurance
companies, installers, financial service providers and associates. AMHI
is a member of the national industry associations, MHI and MHARR. AMHI
manufacturer members produce HUD-Code manufactured homes for Alabama and
the nation. Alabama plants are second in the nation in total production
of HUD-Code homes. Alabama has more manufactured housing plants (15)
located in the state than any other state in the country. Alabama
exports 75% HUD Code homes produced to other states in the nation. This
confirms that Alabama is a major state producer of manufactured housing.

Alabama has had a state installation law since January 1, 1976 and it
was amended in 1990, 1993, and 2000. This law requires installers to be
certified by the SAA which includes training and continuing education
every two years. It also provides for the Alabama Manufactured Housing
Commission (SAA) state inspectors to inspect every HUD Code manufactured
home installed in the state. This law requires the home to be installed
according to the manufacturer's installation instructions that are
approved and certified by the DAPIA, or the minimum state installation
law. The regulations also cover in detail site preparation, soil
classification,

Page 2

minimum blocking standards and anchoring standards, installation of
ground anchors and tie-down devices, standards for the manufacture of
ground anchors and tie-down devices, wind zone standards, inspections
and penalties. This Alabama installation law was the first in the

nation. Since 1976, it has worked and been updated and amended as
needed. It works well for Alabama consumers and the industry.

Alabama's manufactured housing industry supports the inclusion of the
Model Installation Standards in the 2000 Manufactured Housing
Improvement Act. This support is due to the fact that the Alabama
installation law has been beneficial for the manufactured housing
industry and the homeowners of HUD Code homes in the State of Alabama.
However, AMHI sees some major problems with some of the proposed model
installation standards and would like to make the following comments on
these items proposed in the Federal Model Installation Standards:

Page 21499 - Column 3 - Paragraph 2

> How can the manufacturer be responsible for close- up work when the
> person installing the home may not be under contract with that
> particular manufacturer. Manufacturers can only control the close-up
> activity when they use their own set-up crews to install homes (as
> some often do). However, to make the manufacturer responsible for
> every one of their home's installations is not practical or possible
> without an extraordinary expense to hire third-party agencies to
> perform the inspections. It is too difficult for manufacturers to
> control the activities of installers not under their contract or
> supervision. Close-up should be a part of the installation of the home
> and the responsibility of the installer.

Section 3285.1(c) (2) -- Page 21518 -- Column 2

> This section would permit "local jurisdictions" to enforce
>
> more stringent requirements for home installation over and
>
> above what HUD would enforce as the minimum. This could possibly be a
> way for local jurisdictions to "zone out" HUD Code homes in certain
> areas under their realm if they make installation requirements
> unreasonable for the community owner or individual tenant/homeowner to
> bear the initial cost.
>
> Section 3285.204 (c) (3) - Page 21523 -- Column 1
>
> This section was not from any of MHCC recommendations. This is
>
> open to differing interpretations no matter who is overseeing the
> installation program (HUD or SAA). What would be considered a minor
> tear (2", 6" or 12") considering the overall area of the vapor
> retarder underneath the home?

Page 3

> Section 3285.314(a) - Page 21538 - Column 1
>
> The first two sentences of this section are mainly commentary and
> provide
>
> no information on how or what to use when designing permanent
> foundation support systems for HUD Code homes. They should be deleted
> in their entirety. The model standard should make no mention of
> anything concerning how mortgage lenders or others can establish
> financing eligibility requirements for permanent foundations. This is
> for the financial institutions to decide. This standard needs to stay
> focused on the Act's premise of providing a model installation
> standard. Financing options for the model standard are outside the
> scope of the Act and should be deleted.

**General Comments**

The Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee (MHCC) was the organization
that provided the department with a draft model installation standard on
December 18, 2003. The MHCC was directed by the Manufactured Housing
Improvement Act of 2000 \[MHIA, section 605(b)(1)\] to perform this
activity as part of the department's development of a comprehensive
installation program for the entire country.

Under the MHIA, there are three basic components for the comprehensive
installation program. These are: 1) development of a model installation
standard \[MHIA, sections 605(a) and 605(c)(3)(A)\]; 2) training and
licensing/certification of manufactured home installers \[MHIA, Section
605(c)(3)(B)\]; and 3) inspections of the installation of manufactured
homes \[MHIA, section 605(c)(3)(C)\]. The last two aspects of the
comprehensive installation program are subject to different rulemaking.
Alabama's program has been in place since 1976 and has proven successful
for the homeowner and the industry.

Throughout its development of the draft model installation standard, the
MHCC used the MHIA's three elemental principles to serve as the
foundation for its draft document. These state that the model
installation standard would: 1) serve as the model installation standard
that a state-based installation standard must meet or exceed; 2) serve
as the model installation standard that a manufacturer's installation
instructions for each home must meet or exceed; and 3) serve as the
installation standards for installing homes in states where HUD is
responsible for operating a comprehensive installation program because
the state has elected not to do so.

Upon HUD publishing its proposed rule on April 26^th^, two highly
contentious and extremely important issues became apparent. These issues
were in direct opposition to the MHI and MHARR's established positions
taken during the MHCC development of its draft model installation
standard document for HUD consideration. These two issues involve the
underlying circumstances of how the installation program would be
codified and updated in future years and how HUD will intend to
define/enforce the HUD model installation standard in default states.

**Model Manufactured Home Installation Standard @ 24 CFR 3285**

AMHI strongly believes and asks that the federal model installation
standard [not be codified]{.underline} under 24 CFR 3285, but instead
should become subpart of 24 CFR 3280. By codifying the

Page 4

installation standard under Part 3285, the MHCC will not be privy and
involved (120-day comment period prior to publication) with any proposed
change by HUD in the future. The

MHCC is the entity Congress specifically assigned to develop the
installation standard and AMHI is certain that Congress fully intended
for the MHCC to be directly involved in its continued maintenance and
updating. As currently proposed, HUD has to only provide the MHCC review
period for construction and safety standards. In the definition for
manufactured homes (page 21520), HUD has embraced the fact that Part
3285 is for installation standards and Part 3280 is construction and
safety standards.

Construction/assembly of the home and installation of the home go
hand-in-hand. There should be no distinction in the federal regulations
at 24 CFR 3280. There should be no differentiation in the federal
manufactured housing program between construction/assembly and
installation. HUD will provide oversight for both components, so two
separate documents (regulations) are not necessary for construction and
installation.

Under the current 24 CFR 3282.14, the Alternate Construction (AC)
process, as an extension of installation at the site, is used to
ascertain that home installation conforms to local governing building
code practices if the home, when completed, does not conform to the HUD
Code. With respect to the model installation standard, this same process
occurs with the only difference being that the home will conform to the
HUD Code and its companion model installation standard once installed at
the installation site. It seems illogical to have the federal mandate
for homes not complying with the HUD Code to meet federal enforcement
criteria and have homes that comply with the federal installation
program outside of either the current construction (Part 3280) or
enforcement regulations (Part 3282).

If there any questions concerning AMHI's comments, please contact me.

Sincerely,

Sherry Norris

Executive Director