[Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee]{.underline}

NFPA 1 Batterymarch Park Quincy, MA 02269

*Phone*: + 1(617) 984-7404 *Fax*: +1 (617) 984-7110
[www.nfpa.org](http://www.nfpa.org/)

June 23, 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

RIN 2502 -- A125

[Model Manufactured Home Installation Standards]{.underline}

The following comments, shown in the enclosure are submitted on behalf
of the Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee (MHCC) and reflect the
actions taken by the MHCC during their conference call meeting on 25 May
2005 regarding these proposed rules.

The MHCC asks that the Department consider these comments as you proceed
toward final rule adoption.

Sincerely

![](media/image1.png){width="1.2708333333333333in"
height="0.6666666666666666in"}

Robert E. Solomon, PE

Project Manager

Administering Organization

RES:jtm

C: MHCC Members

ENCL: MHCC Comments -- 4928-P-01

**[MHCC COMMENTS]{.underline}**

**[1. GENERAL COMMENT:]{.underline}** The Installation Standards should
be considered as manufactured home construction and safety standards and
be included as a subpart of 24 CFR 3280, Manufactured Housing
Construction and Safety Standards. The Installation Standards should not
be a separate part -- (i.e. 3285) and should not be considered separate
from the manufactured housing construction and safety standards as
contained in the proposed rule..

**[REASON]{.underline}**: The Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of
2000 (MHIA 2000) defines the federal manufactured home construction and
safety standard as "a reasonable standard for the construction, design
and performance of a manufactured home which meets the needs of the
public for quality, durability, and safety."

The proposed installation standards definitely affects the manufactured
home's construction performance in meeting the consumers need for safe,
quality housing and for home installation on its foundation. A standard
that is separate and distinct from Part 3280,could definitely cause
safety problems for the home owner.

Additionally, all other housing construction codes include foundations
as part of the construction standards for the home. Manufactured housing
should treat installing the home on its foundation the same and have the
installation standards be considered part of the manufactured home
construction and safety standards.

By having the installation standards considered as a continuation of the
manufactured home construction and safety standard would eliminate a
number of problems that are currently in the proposed rules. Major
problems with the proposed rules that would be alleviated include the
following:

First and foremost, federal preemption of installation standards would
apply in default states and the manufacturer's instructions that comply
with these installation standards would be the typical way a home would
be installed.

The proposed rule considers installation standards separate and distinct
from the Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards-24 CFR
Part 3280 and consequently preemption would not apply. The proposed rule
as presented would not mandate compliance with Part 3280 and
consequently, pre-emption would not apply.

The unintended consequence of this would permit individual jurisdictions
in default states to impose additional regulations, over and above those
specified in these federal installation standards. This can easily
result in multiple levels of quality, design features and safety being
provided in multiple jurisdictions (town, city, county) in a default
state.

Local jurisdictions could use their regulations to discriminate against
Manufactured Housing by imposing standards that could not be met.

Further, it would then be incumbent on HUD to determine how to monitor
these individual levels of performance. Realistically, human resource
limitations and financial resource limitations imposed on HUD simply
would not allow these multiple levels of performance to be adequately
scrutinized and enforced by the HUD Program Staff.

Second, by having installation standards considered as a continuation of
the manufactured home construction and safety standards, the full
enforcement and administrative authority under the MHIA of 2000 that is
contained through out the MHIA of 2000 would apply to installation
standards.

And Third, the MHIA of 2000 requires the manufacturer in Section 605 (a)
to provide design and instructions for installing the manufactured home
that have been approved by a design approval agency that has determined
the manufacturer's design and instructions provide equal or greater
protection than the protections provided under the installation
standards. Preemption would then allow the manufacturers installation
instructions to be utilized and not subject to rejection by local
jurisdictions as suggested in the proposed rule.

\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*

**[2. P. 21499 SUMMARY - PART 3285 MODEL MANUFACTURED HOME INSTALLATION
STANDARDS SUBPART B - PRE-INSTALLATION CONSIDERATIONS]{.underline}**
(third column) The Department has posed a question in this section
concerning "close up" as follows: "*Since close-up consists of the work
and activities for completing the assembly of the home, is it consistent
with the rest of the Act to consider such work as construction and
therefore the responsibility of the manufacturer? Or is it too difficult
for manufacturers to control and monitor the close-up done by installers
so that it would be more appropriate to classify close-up as part of
installation? Will consumers be adequately protected if close-up is
classified as part of installation?*

**[COMMENTS]{.underline}**: The concept of "close-up" for multi-wide
manufactured homes needs to be considered as a part of the installation
standards as a subpart under the construction standards covering the
process of installing the home on its foundation, rather than the
portion of the construction standards that cover production and assembly
of the home in the factory. A clear delineation needs to be maintained
between the manufacturing process and the installation process covering
work activities facilitating the placement of the home for use and
occupancy by the consumer. It is unreasonable to expect and/or hold the
manufacturer totally responsible for the close-up work that will be
performed by another entity that is not under the control of or have a
contractual relationship with the manufacturer. The exception would be
for those circumstances where the manufacturer authorizes or licenses an
agent to serve in that role on behalf of the manufacturer to complete
work that normally would have been done in the factory except for the
real possibility of transportation damage to the home when it travels to
the building lot. In other cases, it does not seem practicable to hold
the manufacturer responsible -- either in a control or monitoring role
for what happens during the installation of the home unless a formal
arrangement has been made to do so. The installer should carry the
burden to be held accountable for the work the installer performs thus
it is appropriate for the installation standards to address the close-up
issues.

The MHCC is reiterating its position that such an installation rule
still needs to be a subpart of 24 CFR 3280, but that the close-up
responsibilities must remain with the installer.

\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*

**[3. P. 21518 Subpart A General. 3285.1 Administration.]{.underline}**
The MHCC recommends that the following concepts be added back into the
proposed rule as follow:

"The manufacturer's installation instructions shall apply under any of
the following conditions where they do not take the home out of
compliance with the federal Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety
Standards:

\(1\) To items not covered by this standard;

\(2\) Where the manufacturer's approved installation instructions
provide a specific method of performing a specific operation or
assembly;

\(3\) Where the manufacturers approved installation instructions exceed
this standard."

**[REASON:]{.underline}** This concept is embedded in Section 605(a) of
the MHIA of 2000 that states in part: *"A manufacturer shall provide
with each manufactured home, design and instructions for the
installation of the manufactured home that have been approved by a
design approval primary inspection agency...a design approval agency may
not give such approval unless a design and instructions provides equal
or greater protection than the protection provided under such model
standards."* As currently proposed by the Department, it would appear
that an installer could have their hands tied if any of the three
conditions noted above are present and that local jurisdictions could
reject the manufacturer's design and installation instructions in the
default states and substitute their own requirements.

The draft installation standard submitted to the Department on 18
December 2003 contained such scoping language. (See MHCC Draft Standard
at § 1.1, Scope) The MHCC wanted to address issues such as home specific
or installation specific procedures or circumstances that would
necessitate some level of over-ride or exception to the model
installation standards. Such departures from the proposed standard could
only be applied if one or more of the limited conditions were present.

While the proposed installation standard is very comprehensive it is
also performance based and the manufacturer needs to have the
flexibility to cover field installation circumstances that were not
contemplated by the standard or may require specific designs and
instructions providing the same or greater level of performance as that
contemplated in the installation standards. As required by the law, a
DAPIA approved set of design and installation instructions must still be
filed and made available. Without the above language, the installer
could potentially just follow the criteria of the installation standards
(the minimum) even if the manufacturer had specified a different method.
That is not the intent of the MHCC nor does the MHCC believe it was the
intent of the law to provide an avenue that can lead to a conflict with
approved methods of installation. Likewise, if the manufacturer has a
proprietary method for completing the on site installation, the language
of the installation standard may preclude that approach from being used
as well.

\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*

**[4.]{.underline} [P. 21523 3285.301 (d) (2).]{.underline}**

**[P. 21523 3285.301(d)(2)]{.underline}**

**[P. 21529 3285.306 (c)]{.underline}**

**[P. 21533 3285.310 (c)]{.underline}**

**[P. 21536 3285.312(c)(1)]{.underline}**

**[P. 21536 3285.312(c)(2)]{.underline}**

**[P. 21538 3285.314 (b)]{.underline}**

**[P. 21539 3285.401(b)]{.underline}**

**[P. 21540 3285.402(b)(2)]{.underline}**

[**P. 21543** **3285.402(c)**]{.underline}

In all of the noted Sections revise the language to read: "... [Must be
prepared by the manufacturer or by a register professional engineer or a
registered architect in accordance with the manufacture's home design
and the Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards
(3280)]{.underline}."

[**REASON:**]{.underline} As proposed by the department, "acceptable
engineering practice" can be broadly interpreted. This might range from
techniques that are appropriate for site built homes, modular homes or
even small footprint commercial buildings. It is the view of the MHCC
that design intended for the proper installation of a manufactured home
should be based on specific, manufactured home criteria and the
manufacturer's design for that home.

As proposed, the language suggested by the Department has 4 problems:

> A. First, the statement seems to require manufacturer's staff to be
> registered PE\' s or architects for all aspects of the design;
>
> B. Unless the PE or Architect is familiar with the design and
> construction of manufactured homes they may apply \"acceptable
> engineering criteria for site built residential construction\" to
> manufactured homes;
>
> C. Registered in what state? State of manufacture or installation?;
> and
>
> D. Requiring PE\' s or architects to do as much as the proposed
> installation standards seems to require for every installation rather
> than having the manufacturer provide this information drives up the
> cost of the installation significantly with no obvious benefit.
>
> \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*

**[5. P. 21536 3285.312 (c) (1)]{.underline}** Revise the section to use
similar language as used for flood such as: *"Footings placed in
freezing climates must be designed and installed using methods and
practices that prevent the effects of frost heaves in accordance with
the manufactured home design and the requirements of the Manufactured
Home Construction and Safety Standards (3280)."*

**[REASON:]{.underline}** Footings placed in freezing climates must be
designed and installed using methods and practices that prevent the
effects of frost heaves in accordance with the manufactured home design
and the requirements of the Manufactured Home Construction and Safety
Standards (3280).

The proposed language in this comment provides a better description of
the intended performance level of the particular feature and is in
keeping with other Construction and Safety Standards that are
performance based . In this case, the overall performance objective is
to integrate a design that will not result in a frost heave. A frost
heave is the mostly likely condition that would cause damage. The MHCC
approach for this particular design element is consistent with HUD's
proposed language with respect to flood hazards (See Proposed Section
3285.101 (d)). The MHCC recommends a similar approach for all related
environmental design loads that the Department decides to include in the
Installation standards such as seismic, flood, frost and wind.

\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*

**[6. P. 21538. 3285.314(a).]{.underline}** Delete (a) in its entirety
and replace with: ["The placement of a manufactured home on a permanent
foundation must be in accordance with the state requirements and
installed in accordance with their listing by a national recognized
testing agency based on a nationally recognized testing protocol or
installation in accordance with the manufacturer's approved permanent
foundation installation instructions and in all cases based on the
home's design and the load requirements of the Manufactured Home
Construction and Safety Standards (3280)."]{.underline}

**[REASON]{.underline}**: The changes recommended in this Section will
help to insure that the default states set a criterion for all
jurisdictions in that state that will establish minimum performance
levels for permanent foundation systems. As noted in an earlier comment,
allowing all manner of locally controlled and regulated permanent
foundation systems will lead to myriad options. A state specified
regulation will preclude such potential issues.

In addition, the changes also offer precise guidance to both the
manufacturer and the installer. A permanent foundation must be evaluated
by a nationally recognized testing laboratory or that has been
specifically designed, engineered and approved by the manufacturer.
Further, the language imposes a condition that will be specific to the
actual home design and that relates to the design load requirements of
the MHCSS.

The proposed language in these comments would delete the language in the
proposed rule concerning what lenders may or may not accept. What
lenders do is really up to the lenders and should not be a part of the
Installation Standards being adopted by the Department as required by
the MHIA of 2000.

\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*