A second letter, to manufactured housing stakeholders, from Pamela Beck Danner, Administrator of the Manufactured Housing Programs at HUD, addresses complying with Installation Standards when installing foundation systems in freezing climates. She writes there have been issues with current instructions, and until HUD can complete an assessment of the manuals, and issue definite guidelines, she offers three different options as “interim guidance” to maintain long-lasting stability: conventional footings below the frost line depth; Frost Free Foundations; and Frost Protected Shallow Foundations.
MHARR responded with a letter to Ms. Danner accusing her of needlessly increasing regulatory compliance costs for MH businesses and consumers while lining the pockets of program contractors. MHARR says her actions also violate the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 which requires review by the Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee (MHCC).
MHARR states for Frost Free Foundations Ms. Danner says to hire a soils engineer or geotechnical engineer to determine if the soil can be made non-frost susceptible, which would add to the expense of the home, about which HUD has said nothing.
Noting that “guidance” directives from HUD often evolve into mandates, circumventing procedural protections, again without the required input of the MHCC, MHARR says the memorandum also violates the primacy of state authority in the interpretation and construction of installation standards adopted pursuant to state law. Increasing the cost of MH makes it less competitive with other types of housing.
In regard to HUD’s unilateral hiring of SEBA to conduct reviews of installation manuals, MHARR asks what are the manuals being reviewed for, what are the qualifications of SEBA to conduct such a review, under what authority is that review being conducted, and what are the justifications for the review?.
MHARR’s insists that these actions run contrary to the 2000 Act and need to be considered by the MHCC as required by law. ##
