Washington, D.C., June 3, 2013 – The Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR) reports that according to official statistics compiled on behalf of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), manufactured housing production increased significantly during April 2013.  Just-released statistics for April 2013 indicate that HUD Code manufacturers produced 5,313 homes, an increase of 14.7% from the 4,630 HUD Code homes produced during April 2012.  Cumulative 2013 industry production now totals 18,173 homes, a 4.2% increase over the 17,429 homes produced over the same period in 2012.  This monthly increase is noteworthy because it reverses the trend toward slightly weaker production observed during February (+.1%) and March 2013 (-4.3%), and also restores cumulative production growth for 2013 – which had fallen to below 1% in March – to a healthier level that is more consistent with the increases noted during 2012.   

A further analysis of the official industry statistics shows that the top ten shipment states for the period of August 2011 through April 2013 -- with cumulative shipment totals as indicated -- are:

1. Texas -------------------------------- 18,068 homes

2. Louisiana -----------------------------  7,319 homes

3. Florida -------------------------------  4,600 homes

 4. Alabama -----------------------------  4,188 homes

5. North Carolina -----------------------  4,131 homes

7. Mississippi ---------------------------- 3,594 homes

8. North Dakota ------------------------- 3,111 homes

9. Oklahoma ----------------------------- 3,009 homes

10. Tennessee ----------------------------- 2,947 homes

The latest information for April 2013 results in no changes to the top ten list.   

The Structure and Design Subcommittee of the Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee (MHCC) met by telephone conference call on April 23, 2013.  As was previously reported, notice of the subcommittee meeting was published by HUD in the Federal Register, complying with a long-standing request by MHARR for public notice of such subcommittee meetings.

 Although scheduled for three hours, the meeting addressed a relatively limited agenda, including: (1) a long-pending alternative foundation system testing proposal; (2) a proposed alternative formaldehyde product testing method; and (3) three related proposals to update the existing HUD reference standards for windows and sliding glass doors (24 C.F.R. 3280.403), egress window systems (24 C.F.R. 3280.404) and swinging exterior passage doors (24 C.F.R. 3280.405).

 The alternative foundation system testing proposal, which is not currently framed as regulatory language and may well be unnecessary in light of existing HUD regulations which allow PIAs to accept foundation system designs approved by a Registered Professional Engineer or Registered Architect, was quickly tabled pending further investigation.

Similarly, no action was taken on the alternative formaldehyde testing protocol.  That proposal, submitted by a third-party PIA -- which did not produce a representative at the meeting to respond to questions -- would allow the use of a smaller product testing chamber as an alternative to the current methodology. Formaldehyde testing, however, could be impacted by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) action on a congressionally-mandated rule that would impose nationwide formaldehyde emissions criteria for certain composite wood products already adopted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).  With no proposed EPA rule yet on the radar screen, though, this matter will remain on the subcommittee docket for possible future consideration.  For now, MHARR is highly skeptical of and inclined to oppose – as it  advised the subcommittee -- any changes to the HUD formaldehyde testing standard, given its long-term success in virtually eliminating formaldehyde issues in a cost-effective manner and the absence of more specific cost information.

The final three proposals to update the HUD reference standard for certain windows and doors from the 1995 (or 1985) version to the 2012 version maintained by the American Architectural Manufacturers Association (AAMA) – involving either non-substantive editorial changes or manufacturing changes that have already been implemented by product suppliers – were approved by the subcommittee and will be submitted for consideration by the full MHCC at its next meeting.  In response to questions by MHARR and subcommittee members regarding potential cost implications, an AAMA representative indicated that any cost impact should be minimal, given that remaining windows or doors certified to the 1995 standard would continue to be eligible for use and that the relevant component manufacturers are already complying with the newer 2012 reference standard.

 Beyond these substantive actions, the meeting was significant for several procedural and policy developments – all of which have been sought be MHARR.  First, as noted above, the meeting was conducted pursuant to proper, time-adequate public notice for the first time in recent MHCC history.  Second, HUD did not attempt to limit “public” comments by non-MHCC members to a specific time block in advance of the debate and instead allowed participation by MHARR and other non-MHCC members in the debate as it proceeded; and third, HUD insisted on compliance with Roberts Rules of Order – even when those rules conflicted with the Administering Organization’s procedures -- something that it had not done previously.  In addition, HUD also indicated that it was attempting to schedule an in-person MHCC meeting, the lack of which has been cited by MHARR in its recent public communications with industry members, Congress and directly with HUD.

MHARR will continue to closely monitor all MHCC and MHCC-related activity and will vigorously advance the views and interests of HUD Code manufacturers on all such matters.

2013 – The Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR) reports that according to official statistics compiled on behalf of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), manufactured housing production declined slightly during March 2013. Just-released statistics for March 2013 indicate that HUD Code manufacturers produced 4,467 homes, a decrease of 4.3% from the 4,671 HUD Code homes produced during March 2012. Cumulative 2013 industry production now totals 12,860 homes, a .4% increase over the 12,799 homes produced over the same period in 2012.

A further analysis of the official industry statistics shows that the top ten shipment states for the period of August 2011 through March 2013 -- with cumulative shipment totals as indicated -- are:

1. Texas -------------------------------- 17,065 homes

2. Louisiana ---------------------------- 6,896 homes

3. Florida ------------------------------- 4,376 homes

4. Alabama ----------------------------- 3,974 homes

5. North Carolina ----------------------- 3,905 homes

6. Kentucky ----------------------------- 3,480 homes

7. Mississippi ---------------------------- 3,339 homes

8. North Dakota ------------------------- 3,075 homes

9. Oklahoma ---------------------------- 2,864 homes

10. Tennessee --------------------------- 2,802 homes

The latest information for March 2013 results in no changes to the top ten list.    

WASHINGTON – The House Financial Services Committee cannot legally accept testimony from Richard Cordray on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) semi-annual report until he is validly appointed as the bureau’s director, said Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), the committee’s chairman.  However, the committee will continue to conduct rigorous oversight of the CFPB.

To date, the Senate has not confirmed any nominee to be the CFPB director.  While President Obama purported to appoint Richard Cordray to the position on January 4, 2012, a unanimous federal appeals court ruling on January 25, 2013 found that the process by which Cordray was appointed was constitutionally invalid.

“The court’s unanimous ruling makes it clear that there is no legally-appointed director of the CFPB at this time,” said Chairman Hensarling.  “By law, the committee can receive this testimony only from a director who is appointed in accordance with the Constitution and the Dodd-Frank Act, which created the bureau.”

In a letter to Meredith Fuchs, the CFPB’s associate director and general counsel, on Monday, Chairman Hensarling said the Financial Services Committee “stands ready to accept the testimony of the director of the CFPB on the semi-annual report as soon as an individual validly holds this position.  Until then, the committee intends to continue to conduct rigorous oversight of the CFPB’s activities, and will expect the CFPB’s cooperation in those efforts, including making other employees available to testify at committee hearings and responding fully to committee requests for documents and information.”

In fact, on Monday the committee called two CFPB officials to testify at a hearing in May on the agency’s new Qualified Mortgage rule.

Chairman Hensarling also sent a letter on Monday to Cordray, noting the federal appeals court ruling and requirements under Dodd-Frank that specify the CFPB director must be appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate.  “Absent contrary guidance from the United States Supreme Court, you do not meet the statutory requirements of a validly-serving director of the CFPB, and cannot be recognized as such,” Hensarling wrote.  

Chairman Hensarling and many others in Congress have sought to make changes to the CFPB’s structure that would make the bureau accountable.

“Hardworking taxpayers expect and deserve accountability and oversight of all government agencies, especially one like the CFPB which directly affects every American household.  The American people have the right to know how this government agency operates and what it plans to do with its half-billion dollar budget every year,” said Chairman Hensarling. 

“No other regulator has more influence over the daily financial lives of Americans,” he continued.  “Dodd-Frank gives the CFPB director the power to decide what financial products and services will – and will not – be available to American consumers and how much they will have to pay for them.  How is it fair to American consumers that one unelected, unaccountable bureaucrat in Washington has the power to decide what kind of mortgage, car loan or credit card they can or cannot have? No bureaucrat should have so much control over the financial destiny of Americans, particularly one who is completely insulated from the types of checks and balances that apply to other government agencies.”

The CFPB is controlled by a single individual who cannot be fired for poor performance and who exercises sole control over the agency, its hiring and its budget. The CFPB is within the Federal Reserve System making it beyond presidential supervision, yet the Federal Reserve is barred from involvement in its activities. The CFPB director can spend hundreds of millions of dollars each year, but with no oversight from Congress.

“The director has more power over the CFPB than the President of the United States has over the White House,” said Chairman Hensarling.

In order to make the CFPB accountable, Chairman Hensarling and others have called for the bureau to be placed under a bipartisan commission and to make it subject to the appropriations process, which are typical checks and balances for federal agencies.  The Chairman noted that a bipartisan commission to run the CFPB is exactly what President Obama and Dodd-Frank authors former Rep. Barney Frank and former Sen. Chris Dodd originally proposed.  Elizabeth Warren, now a senator from Massachusetts and the person credited with the idea of the CFPB, originally called for the consumer protection agency to be governed by a bipartisan board.

###

• Latest Assault on HUD Program

• Expansion Chattel Financing a Key Goal

• HUD Releases 2014 Program Budget

• HUD Continues to Undermine MHCC

• MHCC Subcommittee to Meet – Full Committee in Limbo

• RV Industry Pushes HUD Code Exemption – Again Congress Fault FHA

 Please Click Here to find your copy of the MHARR April 19, 2013 Washington Update ---
An Exclusive Report & Analysis -Pdf

Washington, D.C., April 4, 2013 – The Board of Directors of the Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR), at its March 28, 2013 meeting in Tunica, Mississippi, voted unanimously to retain the Association’s current officers to serve another term in their respective positions.  Consequently, MHARR’s national officers – who also comprise the core of the Association’s pivotal Executive Committee – will continue to be:

· John Bostick (President, Sunshine Homes, Inc., Red Bay, Alabama),  Chairman

· Mike Cappaert (President, Cappaert Homes, Inc., Vicksburg, Mississippi), Vice Chairman

· James Newman, Sr. (President, MHE, Inc., Bryan, Ohio),  Treasurer

· Peter James (President, Franklin Homes, Inc., Russellville, Alabama), Secretary

Each of these re-elected officers will serve a term that will extend until March 2015.

In addition to ensuring the continuity of the Association’s leadership, the Board also tackled major issues in the nation’s capital that continue to impact both manufactured housing -- as a comprehensively federally-regulated industry -- and millions of American families in need of affordable housing.  Key issues considered and addressed by the Board include:

-  Sanctioning the cooperative effort between MHARR and MHI on three critical agreed-upon objectives concerning the federal program and consumer financing.  Chief among these objectives is expanding the availability of personal property (chattel) consumer financing via private sector sources (in conjunction with the Government Sponsored Enterprises) and public sources through the Federal Housing Administration’s Title I program. The two associations have concluded that the failure of the Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) and federal government agencies to provide significant securitization support for manufactured home chattel loans, which has excluded millions of potential homebuyers from the manufactured housing market, can best be resolved through a correction of existing laws to substantially increase the availability of this type of financing used in conjunction with the industry’s most affordable homes.  In addition to an expansion of chattel-based consumer financing, the other agreed MHARR-MHI objectives concern the resolution of two key reform aspects of the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 that program officials have refused to properly implement, i.e., the appointment of a non-career manufactured housing program administrator and the appointment of collective industry representatives as voting members of the congressionally-mandated Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee (MHCC).

In addition to its cooperative joint effort with MHI, the Board also considered and approved various actions by the Association, such as:

- Closely monitoring the Government Accountability Office investigation of the federal manufactured housing program and its implementation of the 2000 law to ensure that it remains sharply focused on the specific issues identified by Congress in its November 29, 2011 referral and is not diverted or transformed into a vehicle for the long-standing wish-list of industry competitors in Washington, D.C.

- Review the maintenance, advancement and possible expansion of the Association’s legal initiative focused on program regulators’ full and proper compliance with the 2000 law.

- Continuing study of a consumer-determined optional class of removable chassis manufactured homes.

- Continuing the Association’s participation in – and monitoring of -- activities by the Federal Emergency Management Agency concerning the use of HUD Code manufactured homes for use as temporary emergency housing units (THUs), as well as resisting any effort to convert particular FEMA requirements or specifications into HUD Code standards for the private sector manufactured housing market.

-Expanding a review of -- and closely monitoring -- existing monopolization and related anti-trust laws regarding proper levels of competition within American industries.

The Board also reviewed and addressed currently-pending regulatory issues within the domain of the MHCC, which have languished or have otherwise been negatively impacted by the ongoing efforts of program regulators to diminish the role, authority, independence functionality and balance of the congressionally-mandated Consensus Committee.

The Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform is a Washington, D.C.-based national trade association representing the views and interests of independent producers of federally-regulated manufactured housing.

MHAAR 3-28-2013 Board Meeting News Release.PDF

The Federal Emergency Management Agenacy (FEMA), following several delays, conducted two “Industry Day” meetings on March 15, 2013 to obtain industry input -- and provide relevant information to interested parties -- regarding expected future solicitations for emergency Temporary Housing Units (THUs).  The meetings were divided into a morning session primarily focused on design, supply and contract issues relating to the THUs themselves, and an afternoon session devoted to logistical matters including transportation, storage and other similar concerns.

The meetings, which were fundamentally question and answer sessions, were conducted by the FEMA Deputy Branch Chief for the THU program and were attended by the FEMA contracting officer who has been responsible for past procurements of HUD Code THUs. 

During the course of the FEMA-industry dialogue -- and based, in part, on inquiries posed by MHARR -- certain new information was made available or confirmed by FEMA.  In addition, the agency invited further comment from interested parties on a number of contract-related issues, as follows:

· It was made clear that future FEMA procurements of THUs will be for HUD Code units only, instead of recreational vehicles, “park models” or other structures that do not meet a preemptive federal code allowing placement anywhere in the country. 

· FEMA representatives stated that there would be no separate FEMA testing or requirements regarding indoor air quality and that compliance with the HUD Code standards regarding formaldehyde would satisfy expected contract terms.

· FEMA indicated that it is currently planning to require 100% PIA inspections during production of THU units.

· FEMA invited comment from producers regarding minimum weekly production levels and “ramp-up” times that would facilitate bidding and participation by smaller producers. 

· FEMA indicated that future procurements will not specify one particular HVAC type or supplier, but will allow manufacturers to satisfy performance-oriented requirements in order to address problems raised by more restrictive requirements contained in previous solicitations.   

· FEMA indicated that it would also be willing to consider alternatives to drywall construction with taped joints that is more costly and subject to transportation damage.

· FEMA addressed the possible elimination of the previous distinction between homes for “North” and “South” zones – for design, procurement and deployment simplification --and instead requiring that units be constructed for use anywhere in the country.

· FEMA highlighted its interest in the development of designs for smaller HUD-compliant manufactured homes in the 8-foot width range that could be situated, among other places, on existing driveways and small lots in disaster areas.

· FEMA addressed cleaning, storage and re-use of deployed units, specifically focusing on issues raised by long periods of storage. 

Although, FEMA, as is typical, would make no verbal commitments at the meeting, it’s most recent “Request for Information” concerning THU units stated that FEMA does anticipate “issuing a solicitation for manufactured homes in the near future.”  FEMA representatives stressed, moreover, that the solicitation will first be published as a “draft solicitation,” which will provide a further opportunity for comments and additional input from interested parties.

Manufacturers with an interest in future THU solicitations can contact FEMA directly to ensure that they receive relevant information.  In the interim, MHARR will continue to carefully monitor developments concerning FEMA’s use of HUD Code manufactured homes, focusing particularly on two issues: (1) advancing solicitation terms and parameters that will allow – to the maximum degree possible – full and fair competition, including participation by smaller manufacturers that wish to do so; and (2) ensuring that FEMA contract requirements, even though fully financed by the federal government, do not become a “laboratory” for the future development of new federal standards, regulations and requirements that would undermine the private market affordability of manufactured housing.  This is a concern that requires constant vigilance because, as a comprehensively regulated industry, manufactured housing is a tempting target for special interests which seek to impose new mandates on an entire segment of the housing industry in one fell swoop.  

The subject of FEMA THUs will be discussed in greater detail at the upcoming MHARR Board of Directors meeting in Tunica, Mississippi.