Issue link: https://read.dmtmag.com/i/72467
mainly smaller manufacturers to substantially higher regulatory compliance costs and a major competitive disadvantage, while imposing needless costs on homebuyers and needlessly delaying move-in times. In response to an initial congressional in- quiry,HUD avoided any discussion whatsoever of the 2009 ruling, noting only that "the regu- lations for review and approval of AC requests … set forth at 24 C.F.R. 3282.14 … repre- sent HUD policy … and do not waive the re- quirement for inspection of manufactured homes." But, section 3282.14 of the Procedural and Enforcement Regulations (PER) says nothing about on-site "inspections" – or any other in- spection requirement specific to AC homes -- so there is no "inspection" requirement in PER section 3282.14 to "waive." And PER section 3282.363, which does address inspections of homes during the construction process, estab- lishes requirements for the inspection of homes within the manufacturing facility, stating that Primary Inspection Agency (PIA) "visits to the plant shall … be such that every manufactured home is inspected at some stage in its produc- tion." (Emphasis added). Again, therefore, there was and is no specific "on-site" inspection requirement to waive. Indeed, the only "on-site" inspection re- quirement contained in theHUDmanufactured housing regulations is the 100 percent on-site inspection requirement for the proper installa- tion of HUD Code manufactured homes con- tained in Part 3286 installation regulations but, as the January 26, 2009 ruling notes,HUD has drawn a distinction between construction of the home and installation, and HUD "treat[s] … completion of the roof ridge interconnections as construction rather than installation." (Em- phasis added). Consequently, the 100 percent on-site inspection requirement of Part 3286 is irrelevant to the issue of on-site roof ridge com- pletion under an AC approval as this entire thing has been set up by HUD. Instead, the real issue is the program's lack of consistency and failure to abide by applicable law, resulting in discrimination against similarly situated manufacturers and unnecessary costs for homebuyers. If HUD, at any point in this matter, had complied with section 604(b)(6) of the 2000 law, which specifically requires MHCC review and rulemaking for any "changes" to "policies, practices, or procedures relating to … inspections," this entire problem could have been avoided. Instead,HUD con- tinues to pretend that section 604(b)(6) does not exist or does not mean what it says. Al- ternatively, HUD could also have avoided this can of worms by simply adopting the on-site completion rule recommended by the MHCC years ago and published as a proposed rule back in 2010. But that proposal, like so much else, remains stuck in the black hole at HUD. In MHARR's view, this easily avoidable double standard is a prime example of the need- less burdens, hassles and costs the program im- poses on smaller industry businesses as well as consumers struggling to achieve the American Dream of home ownership. TJ Danny D. Ghorbani is President of the Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform. MHARR is a Washington, DC-based national trade association representing the views and interests of producers of federally-regulated manufactured hous- ing. Danny can be reached at 202-783-4087. No. 8 on Get It Quick Page JULY 2012 11 THE JOURNAL