Commenting on a meeting at DOE’s headquarters July 13, 2016, MHARR accuses the DOE of collaborating with non-MH special interest groups and the industry’s largest manufacturers in promulgating this rule to make it more expensive for smaller producers and operators to run their businesses. Ultimately. the consumer suffers. The selective “leak” of the proposed rule to the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) and others is further evidence of “sham ‘negotiated rulemaking.’”
Attending the meeting at DOE’s headquarters were representatives from MHARR, MHI, the Community Owners Business Alliance (COBA7), HUD’s MH administrator Pamela Danner, the DOE Manufactured Housing Working Group (MHWG), special interest groups and others.
In its remarks at the meeting, MHARR, called the proposed rule “the product of an unacceptable, scandalous standard-development process,” as well as in and of itself flawed, and that it would take every opportunity to oppose it. COBA7’s representatives also criticized the rule for its impact on smaller operators, especially MHC owners who purchase MH for their communities.
Meanwhile, MHARR says the MHI and its affiliate, Systems Building Research Alliance (SBRA), assisted in concocting the “sham ‘negotiated rulemaking’ process;” provided technical input to the MHWG; and after see-sawing, MHI said it could live with the new rule that would add thousands of dollars to the cost of a manufactured home.
In addition, MHARR says the meeting was noteworthy because there were four representatives from the U. S. Justice Dept. present, the agency that would defend the rule in court should there be a challenge (which MHARR suggests might happen).
Also, the rule’s calculation of life cycle costs, the cost benefit analysis, (the added cost of MH weighed against the long term benefit) does not account for the millions of people who will be excluded from home ownership altogether because of the rule, which DOE’s consultants admitted. The costs of this loss of business to the industry is not measured by DOE either.
Additionally, the DOE’s cost-benefit analysis does not include costs related to testing, enforcement and regulatory compliance, which means their numbers are flawed and statistically invalid. MHARR says the rule also does not satisfy legal requirements that deal with federal rulemaking activity.
MHARR tells MHProNews even its supporters are “unable to defend this proposed rule on any kind of credible basis.” Noting the overwhelming impact this rule will have on the availability of affordable manufactured housing, MHARR has resolved to fight its implementation, and will be writing extensive, detailed comments opposing the proposed rule, and invites others to strongly oppose the proposal as well..
The public comment deadline is Aug. 16, 2016. ##
(Photo credit: MHProNews-Mark Weiss, president and CEO Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform)
