To Mr. Neil Moyer,
The University of Central Florida
Re: "Moisture Problems in Manufactured Housing"

It is improper to give an opinion on any part of a passage without examining the whole [Legal Maxim]. In the interest of fairness, and given your resume, it will be assumed that you were presented with what you believed to be the whole, when in fact you were only given by those what they knew or thought would bring about an opinion favorable to their objective. Given this assumption, it can be said that it was not your intention to promulgate inaccurate or untruthful information in regards to the requirements of the HUD-Code.

Before telling you why they need creditable people like you to aid them in promulgating inaccuracies or untruths about the HUD-Code, you first need to understand their motivation and the objective for wanting to promulgate inaccuracies or untruths, in regards to the requirements of the HUD-Code.

If the HUD-Code were not at fault, HUD would have to in accordance with the Manufactured Housing Act, take action against the manufacturers to bring about remedy for those injured by the manufacturers failure to comply with the HUD-Code. Given the magnitude of this problem, any action by HUD to require the manufacturers to bring the affected homes into compliance would be of too large a scale to go undetected by the public at large. In short, HUD would prefer this problem to go undetected by the public at large. However, if detected, the public has shown to be forgiving of inadequate or bad law so long as that law is corrected, but on the other hand, the public has shown to be very unforgiving of public officials that violate the public trust, which would be the only reasonable conclusion if what was written in the law was not the cause or at fault.

For the manufacturers, they do not want to be held financially liable for designing and constructing those defective manufactured homes. One also needs to understand that this building code, unlike other building codes, is not only enforceable by civil penalties, but by criminal penalties if such failure to comply jeopardizes the health and safety of any purchaser of their product. Given what is known about mold in homes and the numbers affected by this problem are of such a magnitude, it is unlikely that the public would be satisfied with civil penalties that max at 1.2 million dollars.

Nothing serves both better than for it to appear that, the cause of this debacle lies with the HUD-Code. In short, if the light of day is shined upon this problem, they both want it to appear as if they all did their job in accordance with public law to legitimize their actions in the creation of this debacle.   

They need professionals outside of their inner circle to support their version of the cause of this debacle for the following reason. The Manufactured Housing Act was amended in 2000, but until the new Consensus Committee is appointed, and new standards can be promulgated in accordance with this new law, Congress ordered that nothing be changed unless an emergency exists. However, there is no guarantee that the new consensus committee will agree with the notion that the HUD-Code is responsible for this debacle, and once such disagreement occurs, there would be little if any chance that HUD and the Manufacturers could succeed in carrying out their objective. The industry and HUD with the utmost of urgency need to establish that an emergency that jeopardizes the public health or safety [42 USC 5403(b)(5)] exists in order to prevent outside interference with their objective to issue a waiver that minimizes their role in the creation of this debacle.

The current standards already provide the necessary information to properly design and construct a home suitable for Zone 1. The only way that they can hope to defeat the legal challenges that have been promised should they issue a waiver for 24 CFR 3280.503, is to legitimize the issuance of such a waiver based on the opinions of professionals such as you, which appear to be outside of their inner circle.

The Performance Nature of the HUD-Code

Unlike the CABO Code, which is primarily prescriptive, the HUD-Code is primarily a performance code. Manufacturers are given great latitude to design utilizing innovative techniques and materials. Designs are based upon accepted Engineering practices and tests. Standards are written in terms of performance outcomes. A defect in performance does not always reveal itself to an inspector. Performance can only be measured as the home undergoes some stress such as transportation, installation, or normal operation of the home as its resists the forces of the elements (wind, snow, rain, temperature, etc). Conformance to the HUD-Code can only be confirmed as the home or any part thereof performs as intended. Under the Manufactured Housing Act, Congress defines "defect" to mean:

42 USC 5402 (3) "defect" includes any defect in the performance, construction, components, or material of a manufactured home that renders the home or any part thereof not fit for the ordinary use for which it "was" intended.

Congress defines "Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standard" to mean:

42 USC 5402 (7) ''Federal manufactured home construction and safety standard'' means a reasonable standard for the construction, design, and performance of a manufactured home, which meets the needs of the public including the need for quality, durability, and safety.

Any defect in the performance of a manufactured home, which renders the home or any part thereof not fit for the ordinary use for which it "was" intended is a failure to comply with the MHCSS, for the MHCSS is a standard that requires a manufactured home to perform in a manner that meets the needs of the public, including the need for durability, quality, and safety.

The performance requirement for durability, quality, and safety was established in the standard in the following manner.

24 CFR 3280.1 Scope. This standard covers all equipment and installations in the design, construction, transportation, fire safety, plumbing, heat producing and electrical systems of manufactured homes, which are designed to be, used as dwelling units. This standard seeks to the maximum extent possible to establish performance requirements. In certain instances, however, the use of specific requirements is necessary.

24 CFR 3280.303(b) Construction. All construction methods "shall" be in conformance with accepted engineering practices to insure durable, livable, and safe housing and shall demonstrate acceptable workmanship reflecting journeyman quality of work of the various trades.

One would have to argue that the affected homes were designed in accordance with accepted engineering practices in order for such homes to have complied, and to now comply with 24 CFR 3280.303(b), for 3280.303(b) is a federal standard for which the manufacturer certified compliance with.

Venting

You noted that the pressure on the inside of the homes in Zone 1 that you examined had negative air pressure on the inside of the building envelope. These homes do not comply with the HUD-Code. HUD issued a final rule, which was issued on April 24, 1994, that explained in great detail methods and the reason for venting, to the extent of 5 pages worth of information on venting [FR-2622-N-06]. Given the extent and detail of the information contained in the final rule, it is easier to attach the final rule to this letter, and address only the negative pressure on the inside of the homes in Zone 1 that you examined. The HUD-Code states:

In zones 2 and 3, a one-way register should be set to relieve a positive interior pressure. In zone 1, a one-way register should be set to relieve a negative interior pressure.

Consistent with a performance code, a method(s) and an objective are provided. The objective in Zone 1 is to relieve negative interior pressure, and one method of accomplishing this is by THE PROPER use of one-way registers.

Vapor Retarders

There is ample information in the HUD-Code to enable the professionals charged with designing, and those employed by the manufacturers to approve the compliance of such designs, to properly locate the vapor retarder on homes to be located in Zone 1.

24 CFR 3280.4 Incorporation by reference.

(a) The specifications, standards and codes of the following organizations are incorporated by reference in 24 CFR part 3280 (this Standard) pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51 as though set forth in full. The incorporation by reference of these standards has been approved by the Director of the Federal Register. Reference standards have the same force and effect as this Standard (24 CFR part 3280) except that whenever reference standards and this Standard are inconsistent, the requirements of this Standard prevail to the extent of the inconsistency.

(b) The abbreviations and addresses of organizations issuing the referenced standards appear below. Reference standards which are not available from their producer organizations may be obtained from the Office of Manufactured Housing and Regulatory Functions, Manufactured Housing and Construction Standards Division, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., room B-133, Washington, DC 20410.

ASHRAE--American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning
Engineers, 1791 Tulle Circle, NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30329

Incorporated on Dec. 15, 1987

In the ASHRAE handbook in a section that was referenced in part in the waiver that the manufacturers are seeking, excluding the following part, which would not be conducive to their objective, it states:

"Where vapor retarders are used, they should be on the outside. Therefore, any water that does enter the construction can flow through to the inside of the building where it can be removed by the air-conditioning system instead of accumulating in the wall or roof construction. Note that this is the reverse of the recommended practice for cold climates".

The question would be, is this reference standard in conflict with the standard, and the answer is no. First, the performance objective of 24 CFR 3280.504 is "condensation control", which no one can argue that using a design practice known to trap water in the wall cavity of homes located in Zone 1 is what is meant by "condensation control". Next, HUD issued an interpretive bulletin in 1976 in regards to 3280.504, which states:

Interpretative Bulletin F-1-76
In unventilated wall cavities, the exterior covering and/or sheathing may have a combined permeance of less than 5.0 perms, provided that there is a vapor barrier of one perm (dry cup method) or less on the warm side of the wall, and that neither the sheathing nor the exterior covering have an individual perm rating less than < the vapor barrier installed on the warm side of the wall>.

And finally, 24 CFR 3280.504 (b)(2) states:

Formed exterior siding applied in sections with joints not caulked or sealed shall not be considered to restrict water vapor transmission.

One would have to wonder why the standard would be concerned with assuring that it was understood that "Formed exterior siding applied in sections with joints not caulked or sealed shall not be considered to restrict water vapor transmission preventing water vapor transmission" if such water vapor transmission deterrent was only permitted on the interior side of the wall. Unless of course, as is pointed out in the ASHRAE handbook and as you and I both know, it is an accepted engineering practice to manipulate a cold or hot climate standard to make it suitable for use in the opposite climate.

In short, this standard does not require the manufacturers of this product to install the vapor barrier in the wrong location. They made this choice in order to use a cheaper building material that increased their profit margin, and disguised its use as needed to assure a source of affordable housing.

In the law, maxims are traditional legal principals that have been frozen into a concise expression. I will conclude this letter by citing some of these legal maxims, which are relevant to this discussion. They are not intended to be legal advice, but rather to invoke thought the next time someone tells you what it is.

"It is improper to give an opinion on any part of a passage without examining the whole".

"Great negligence is fault; great fault is fraud".

"Necessity makes lawful what otherwise is unlawful".

"Nothing that is against reason is lawful"

"Nothing that is improper is lawful".

"Whatever is prohibited by the nature of things can be confirmed by no law".

"Whatever is against the rule of right is a wrong".

"What is unsuitable or contrary to reason is not allowed in law".

"A person who does not repel injury when he can brings it on".

"When in doubt, do not do it".

"There is no mandate for a thing immoral (or illegal). Hence there is no action for failing to act upon such a mandate"

"The words can be faulted - indeed, it is permitted to depart from them in order that the words may be restored to a sensible meaning"

Sincerely,

John M. Taylor
Founder - The American Internet Society of Manufactured Home Owners (TAISMHO)