(a) No State manufactured home standard regarding manufactured home construction and safety which covers aspects of the manufactured home governed by the Federal standards shall be established or continue in effect with respect to manufactured homes subject to the Federal standards and these regulations unless it is identical to the Federal standards.
(b) No State may require, as a condition of entry into or sale in the State, a manufactured home certified (by the application of the label required by § 3282.362(c)(2)(i)) as in conformance with the Federal standards to be subject to State inspection to determine compliance with any standard covering any aspect of the manufactured home covered by the Federal standards. Nor may any State require that a State label be placed on the manufactured home certifying conformance to the Federal standard or an identical standard. Certain actions that States are permitted to take are set out in § 3282.303.
(c) States may participate in the enforcement of the Federal standards enforcement program under these regulations either as SAAs or PIAs or both. These regulations establish the exclusive system for enforcement of the Federal standards. No State may establish or keep in effect through a building code enforcement system or otherwise, procedures or requirements which constitute systems for enforcement of the Federal standards or of identical State standards which are outside the system established in these regulations or which go beyond this system to require remedial actions which are not required by the Act and these regulations. A State may establish or continue in force consumer protections, such as warranty or warranty performance requirements, which respond to individual consumer complaints and so do not constitute systems of enforcement of the Federal standards, regardless of whether the State qualifies as an SAA or PIA.
(d) No State or locality may establish or enforce any rule or regulation or take any action that stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. The test of whether a State rule or action is valid or must give way is whether the State rule can be enforced or the action taken without impairing the Federal superintendence of the manufactured home industry as established by the Act.
[42 FR 2580, Jan. 12, 1977, as amended at 56 FR 65186, Dec. 16, 1991; 61 FR 10859, Mar. 15, 1996]
Notes of Decisions
Schanzenbach v. Town of Opal, Wyoming, 706 F.3d 1269 (10th Cir. 2013).
· cites it 2× “24 C.F.R. § 3282.11 (emphases added). That the preemptive effect of the Manufactured Housing Act is limited to local laws governing the construction and safety of manufactured homes is sufficiently clear that Schanzenbach does not argue otherwise.”
Redman Homes, Inc. v. Ivy, 920 S.W.2d 664 (Tex. 1996).
“See 24 C.F.R. § 3282.11 (c) (providing that states “may establish or continue in force consumer protections, such as warranty or warranty performance requirements, which respond to individual consumer complaints and so do not constitute systems of enforcement of the Federal…”
Georgia Manufactured Hous. Ass'n v. Spalding Cnty., 148 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 1998).
· cites it 2× “The test of whether a State rule or action is valid or must give way is whether the State rale can be enforced or the action taken without impairing the Federal superintendence of the manufactured home industry as established by the Act.”
Redman Homes, Inc. v. Ivy, 901 S.W.2d 676 (Tex. App. 1995).
· cites it 3× “24 C.F.R. § 3282.11 (c) (1994). Appellant asserts that the foregoing provisions preempt Appellees’ claims in their entirety.”
In Re Fema Trailer Formaldehyde Prods. Liab. Litig., 620 F. Supp. 2d 755 (E.D. La. 2009).
· cites it 3× “24 C.F.R. § 3282.11 . Further, when HUD announced the formaldehyde regulations, it explained, “[i]t is HUD’s intention that these standards preempt State and local formaldehyde standards in accordance with the Act (42 U.”
Gonzalez v. Drew Indus. Inc., 750 F. Supp. 2d 1061 (C.D. Cal. 2007).
“24 C.F.R. 3282.11(c) (1977). However, as stated previously, plaintiff does not seek enforcement of the federal standards.”
Reynolds v. Vill. of Creve Coeur, 2022 IL App (3d) 210260 (Ill. App. Ct. 2022).
“” 24 C.F.R. § 3282.11 (a), (d) (2018). The plain language of the statute precludes states and municipalities from imposing construction and safety standards upon mobile homes that differ in any respect from those developed by HUD.”
Harrison v. Skyline Corp., 686 S.E.2d 735 (W. Va. 2009).
“” Skyline also notes that 24 C.F.R. § 3282.11 (d) promulgated pursuant to the MHA by HUD explicitly reflects the congressional desire for preemption of any state action which conflicts with federal oversight of the provisions of the MHA: No State or locality may establish or…”
Choate v. Champion Home Builders Co., 222 F.3d 788 (10th Cir. 2000).
“” 24 C.F.R. § 3282.11 (d). What Choate and Madewell seek in their claim would not compromise the federal superintendence of the manufactured home industry as established by the Act.”
CMH Mfg., Inc. v. Catawba Cnty., 994 F. Supp. 697 (W.D.N.C. 1998).
· cites it 2× “See also 24 C.F.R. § 3282.11 (a). Similarly, the construction and safety standards established by HUD pursuant to the Act contain the following provisions: (a) No State manufactured home standard regarding manufactured home construction and safety which covers aspects of the…”
Scurlock v. City of Lynn Haven, 858 F.2d 1521 (11th Cir. 1988).
“24 C.F.R. § 3282.11 (b) (states may not condition mobile home entry or sale on state inspection if home bears label certifying compliance with HUD regulations).”
— 24 C.F.R. § 3282.11(c) — 1 case
Gonzalez v. Drew Indus. Inc., 750 F. Supp. 2d 1061 (C.D. Cal. 2007).
“24 C.F.R. 3282.11(c) (1977). However, as stated previously, plaintiff does not seek enforcement of the federal standards.”
— 24 C.F.R. § 3282.11(d) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.