Lintel
Entry L-017 Logged 2026-08-17 Status opened All findings In the full log

Finding · L-017

The chassis repeal has a companion provision with a date on it, and the date is eleven months away

Section 301 did not stop at the definition. Section 301(c) added subsection (i): every state must certify by 11 July 2027 — two years where a legislature meets biennially — that its own laws subject a chassis-free home to the same treatment as a chassis one, "including with respect to financing, tit

What was held
That the July 2026 chassis repeal was a completed regulatory event whose consequences were open-ended — that whether it produced anything "depends on fifty state legislatures and a lending market, and none of that is scheduled". E-090 recorded the definition change and expressly declined to claim the rest of the Act, listing "state certification deadlines" among the provisions it had not verified.
What was done
Read 42 U.S.C. 5403 in the codified text, subsection by subsection, rather than reading about the Act.
What came back
Section 301 did not stop at the definition. Section 301(c) added subsection (i): every state must certify by 11 July 2027 — two years where a legislature meets biennially — that its own laws subject a chassis-free home to the same treatment as a chassis one, "including with respect to financing, title, insurance, manufacture, sale, taxes, transportation, installation". A state that misses its deadline must prohibit the manufacture, installation or sale of the home. Recertification is annual, and the Secretary must publish a list of which states are current. Two things follow that this project had wrong. The dependency is scheduled, and it is aimed at exactly the layer Act III argues the 1974 Act left alone. And section 301(b) — the paragraph directing HUD to write the standard a chassis-free home would be built to — carries no deadline whatsoever, so the states are on a twelve-month clock and the agency defining the product is on none.
What it cost
A sentence, and the assumption under it. The claim that nothing was scheduled is withdrawn as an error rather than softened (C-046). The more expensive admission is the reasoning: E-090's note said the certification provisions were unverified, and a beat then wrote a sentence that was only true if they were absent. An unopened source was treated as an empty one. Four rows now carry the opened text, and the rule is filed rather than the repair.

RegisterE-197 E-198 E-200 E-201 check these rows →

← All findings This entry in the log Next finding: The certification the Act demands is parity, and par… →