FR-6616-N-01 Request for Information Regarding Products and Categories of Products Used in Housing Programs Pursuant to the Build America, Buy America Act

Enterprise Community Partners, a national nonprofit housing developer, opposes the current application of the Build America, Buy America Act (BABA) to affordable housing programs. They argue that BABA requirements cause significant cost increases, project delays, and administrative burdens, and they recommend exempting housing from BABA or, alternatively, implementing a streamlined waiver process and a public database of compliant materials.

The Alliance for American Manufacturing (AAM) supports HUD's Request for Information (RFI) as a necessary step toward improving the implementation of the Build America, Buy America Act (BABA). They argue that HUD should use the RFI to strengthen the law rather than weaken it, advocating for transparent, targeted, and time-limited waivers for specific manufactured products while ensuring that readily available materials like iron, steel, and lumber remain subject to domestic content requirements.

The National Community Development Association (NCDA), representing over 500 local government members, supports the RFI's goal of gathering information on domestic product availability but argues that current BABA requirements create significant administrative and cost burdens. They urge HUD to issue broad product waivers, implement a temporary stay on BABA requirements during the RFI review, and ultimately exempt affordable housing programs from these requirements.

The National Association of Counties (NACo) and its affiliate, NACCED, support the goal of strengthening domestic manufacturing but argue that current Build America, Buy America (BABA) requirements create significant costs and delays for affordable housing projects. They recommend a categorical exemption or permanent public interest waiver for affordable housing, streamlined waiver processes, and regional considerations for product availability.

The Security Industry Association (SIA) supports the goal of maximizing U.S.-made products but argues that certain categories—specifically door hardware, fire alarm systems, and security cameras—lack BABA-compliant options due to global electronics supply chain constraints. They urge HUD to issue a short-term, multi-year general applicability waiver for these products to avoid project delays and increased costs.

LeadingAge, an advocacy organization representing nonprofit aging services providers, opposes the application of Build America, Buy America (BABA) requirements to affordable housing programs. They argue that these requirements create infeasible costs and supply chain disruptions that stall housing development and request an exemption or a reformed waiver process.

The San Francisco Mayor's Office of Housing and Community Development (MOHCD) supports the implementation of the Build America, Buy America Act but urges HUD to streamline the waiver process. They request specific deadlines for approvals, the publication of a compliant supplier catalog, and the establishment of categorical waivers for affordable housing projects to reduce costs and delays.

Woda Cooper Companies, Inc., an affordable housing developer and construction company, opposes the current implementation of the Build America, Buy America (BABA) Act. They argue that BABA requirements create significant administrative burdens, increase costs due to reduced competition, and create supply chain difficulties for specific construction materials.

The American Institute of Architects, Colorado Chapter, argues that current Build America, Buy America Act (BABA) requirements create significant cost and administrative burdens for affordable housing projects. They propose several remedies, including increasing the de minimis waiver, creating pre-qualified waiver lists for non-domestic products, and clarifying exemptions for replaceable components.

Next Step Network, a nonprofit housing intermediary, opposes applying the Build America, Buy America Act (BABA) to HUD housing programs. They argue that the act creates an insurmountable documentation burden, lacks consistent enforcement, and provides negligible benefits to domestic manufacturing while significantly increasing costs and delays for affordable housing projects.