Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards, Test Procedures for Roof Trusses, 34064-34074 [2010-14277]
Download as PDF
34064
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 16, 2010 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
24 CFR Part 3280
[Docket No. FR–5222–P–01]
RIN 2502–A172
Manufactured Home Construction and
Safety Standards, Test Procedures for
Roof Trusses
AGENCY: Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing
Commissioner, HUD.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: This proposed rule would
amend the Federal Manufactured Home
Construction and Safety Standards by
adopting proposals made by the
Manufactured Home Consensus
Committee (MHCC), as modified by
HUD. The National Manufactured
Housing Construction and Safety
Standards Act of 1974 requires HUD to
publish in the Federal Register any
proposed revised Manufactured Home
Construction and Safety Standard
submitted by MHCC. Changes to the
existing roof truss testing procedures
were part of the first group of MHCC
proposals submitted to HUD in 2003 to
revise various aspects of the standards.
However, in response to public
comments on the proposed rule,
including those submitted by MHCC,
HUD returned the proposal on roof truss
testing to MHCC for further
consideration.
After further consideration, MHCC
has submitted an amended version of its
2003 proposal on roof truss testing to
HUD. HUD is in agreement with the
majority of MHCC’s current
recommendations on roof truss testing.
This proposed rule contains the
recommendations on which HUD and
MHCC agree. This proposed rule also
includes HUD’s modifications to the
MHCC proposal, together with HUD’s
reasons for not accepting those
particular revisions proposed by the
MHCC.
DATES:
Comment Due Date: August 16,
2010.
Interested persons are
invited to submit comments regarding
this rule to the Regulations Division,
Office of General Counsel, 451 7th
Street, SW., Room 10276, Department of
Housing and Urban Development,
Washington, DC 20410–0500.
Communications must refer to the above
docket number and title. There are two
methods for submitting public
comments. All submissions must refer
to the above docket number and title.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
ADDRESSES:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:22 Jun 15, 2010
Jkt 220001
1. Submission of Comments by Mail.
Comments may be submitted by mail to
the Regulations Division, Office of
General Counsel, Department of
Housing and Urban Development, 451
7th Street, SW., Room 10276,
Washington, DC 20410–0500.
2. Electronic Submission of
Comments. Interested persons may
submit comments electronically through
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
https://www.regulations.gov. HUD
strongly encourages commenters to
submit comments electronically.
Electronic submission of comments
allows the commenter maximum time to
prepare and submit a comment, ensures
timely receipt by HUD, and enables
HUD to make them immediately
available to the public. Comments
submitted electronically through the
https://www.regulations.gov Web site can
be viewed by other commenters and
interested members of the public.
Commenters should follow the
instructions provided on that site to
submit comments electronically.
Note: To receive consideration as public
comments, comments must be submitted
through one of the two methods specified
above. Again, all submissions must refer to
the docket number and title of the rule.
No Facsimile Comments. Facsimile
(FAX) comments are not acceptable.
Public Inspection of Public
Comments. All properly submitted
comments and communications
submitted to HUD will be available for
public inspection and copying between
8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays at the above
address. Due to security measures at the
HUD Headquarters building, an advance
appointment to review the public
comments must be scheduled by calling
the Regulations Division at 202–708–
3055 (this is not a toll-free number).
Individuals with speech or hearing
impairments may access this number
through TTY by calling the Federal
Information Relay Service at 800–877–
8339. Copies of all comments submitted
are available for inspection and
downloading at https://
www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The
Office of Regulatory Affairs and
Manufactured Housing, Office of
Housing, Department of Housing and
Urban Development, 451 7th Street,
SW., Room 9162, Washington, DC
20410–8000; telephone number 202–
708–2121 (this is not a toll-free
telephone number). Persons with
hearing or speech impairments may
access this number through TTY by
calling the toll-free Federal Information
Relay Service at 1–800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
I. Background
The National Manufactured Housing
Construction and Safety Standards Act
of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5401–5426) (the Act)
authorizes HUD to establish and amend
the Federal Manufactured Home
Construction and Safety Standards
(Construction and Safety Standards)
codified in 24 CFR part 3280. The Act
was amended in 2000 by the
Manufactured Housing Improvement
Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106–569), which
expanded the original Act’s purposes
and created the MHCC.
The amended Act generally requires
that HUD establish Construction and
Safety Standards that are reasonable and
practical, meet high standards of
protection, are performance-based, and
are objectively stated. Congress
specifically established the MHCC to
develop proposed revisions to the
construction and safety standards and
included specific procedures in the Act
(42 U.S.C. 5403) for the MHCC process.
MHCC began considering possible
revisions to the construction and safety
standards in 2002 and established its
own priorities for selecting revisions for
HUD to consider. Included among the
first set of proposals recommended to
HUD by MHCC in 2003 were revisions
to the current requirements for roof
truss testing.1 Those recommendations
were included in HUD’s proposed rule
to amend the Construction and Safety
Standards, which was published in the
Federal Register on December 1, 2004
(69 FR 70016). After considering
comments received on the proposed
rule from both the public and MHCC,
HUD agreed with commenters who
wanted HUD to return the proposal on
truss testing procedures to MHCC for
further consideration. However, as
indicated in the preamble of HUD’s final
rule published in the Federal Register
on November 30, 2005 (70 FR 72024),
which followed the December 1, 2004,
proposed rule, HUD views truss testing
procedures as too important a safety
consideration to leave unresolved.
HUD requested the MHCC to work
expeditiously to reevaluate and
resubmit new proposals for truss testing
procedures. As a result, the Truss Test
Task Force of MHCC’s Standards
Subcommittee was established. Five
teleconferences of this task force were
held, and the full MHCC held two
teleconferences to review and vote on
new truss testing procedures. HUD
worked closely with MHCC throughout
the review and reevaluation process,
and HUD agrees with the majority of the
1 A truss is a triangular structure used to support
a roof. Multiple trusses are used to assemble the
framework for a roof.
E:\FR\FM\16JNP1.SGM
16JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 16, 2010 / Proposed Rules
new proposals made by MHCC.
However, after careful review, HUD has
made editorial revisions to the MHCC
proposals and modified the MHCC’s
proposal regarding uplift testing. The
following is a discussion of the specific
revisions to the current roof truss testing
requirements in § 3280.402 of the
Construction and Safety Standards that
are included in this proposed rule.
II. Proposed Changes
The proposed rule would amend
various paragraphs of § 3280.402, Test
Procedures for Roof Trusses, of the
Construction and Safety Standards.
A. HUD Questions on Roof Trussing
Presented in the November 30, 2005,
Final Rule
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
In returning the proposal on truss
testing procedures to MHCC for further
consideration, HUD asked MHCC, in the
preamble to the November 30, 2005,
final rule, to consider the following
questions during its deliberations in
formulating any revised proposals. The
questions asked and MHCC actions
taken are as follows:
(1) Whether the nondestructive testing
procedure for roof trusses that permits
a lower overall factor of safety to be
used in conducting the tests based on a
presumed low failure rate for roof
trusses should be eliminated.
MHCC Recommendation: In its
previous proposal, MHCC
recommended that this procedure be
eliminated as a method for initially
qualifying roof trusses. Further, MHCC
had determined that the current
requirements for providing minimum
quality of materials and workmanship
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:22 Jun 15, 2010
Jkt 220001
associated with conducting the
nondestructive qualification tests was
impractical and probably not being
adhered to in current testing of roof
trusses. However, based on further
review of economic factors and other
considerations, MHCC decided to retain
the nondestructive test procedure in its
new proposal. MHCC also decided to
change the name of the procedure to the
‘‘proof load truss test procedure’’ and
added the requirement that trusses for
the initial qualification and testing be of
average quality of materials and
workmanship. MHCC also provided for
an increased factor of safety from 1.75
to 2.0 to be used to evaluate the trusses.
MHCC also recommended a reduced
load duration period for the overload
test period of 6 hours, rather than the
12-hour period in the current
requirements. This recommendation is
based on the experience of truss
fabricators who, in the task force
proceedings, said that failures rarely
occur after 6 hours of loading. Under
MHCC’s proposal, at least three
consecutively tested trusses must pass
all requirements of the test in order to
qualify the truss design. More frequent
follow-up testing was also
recommended by MHCC due to the
lower factor of safety permitted under
this revised proof load truss testing
approach.
(2) Whether upright tensions tests are
needed to evaluate the uplift resistance
of the trusses.
MHCC Recommendation: Because of
the variation in test results between
trusses tested in the inverted and
upright positions for uplift wind loads
identified in earlier tests conducted by
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
34065
the National Association of Home
Builders Research Center (NAHB–RC),
MHCC recommended a factor of safety
of 2.5 be used for trusses tested in the
inverted position, but also
recommended that the current factor of
safety of 1.75 be retained for trusses
tested in the upright position. Trusses
tested in the inverted position
consistently failed at higher average
loads (30 to 40 percent), had lower midspan deflections than trusses tested in
the upright position, and in some truss
designs experienced different failure
modes than trusses tested in the upright
position. MHCC also recommended that
at least one uplift test be conducted for
certain trusses designed to be used in
Wind Zone I and that three consecutive
uplift tests be performed for initial
qualification of all trusses designed to
be located in Wind Zones II or III.
Note that to ensure that manufactured
homes survive the threats of hurricanes
and other storms, HUD developed Wind
Zone construction standards.
Manufactured homes may be installed
only in counties where they meet the
Wind Zone construction standards that
apply to that county. Wind Zone I
homes have the least stringent
construction standards and Wind Zone
III homes have the most stringent
construction standards. Homes designed
and constructed to a higher Wind Zone
can be installed in a lower Wind Zone
(a Wind Zone III home can be installed
in a Wind Zone I or II location).
However, a Wind Zone I home cannot
be installed in either a Wind Zone II or
III area. As Figure 1 below displays, the
overwhelming majority of the United
States is designated as Wind Zone I.
E:\FR\FM\16JNP1.SGM
16JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 16, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(3) Should the factor of safety for
uplift testing be reduced from 2.5 to the
current requirement of 1.75, times the
design wind pressures, in consideration
of comments received regarding safety
during testing?
MHCC Recommendation: MHCC
recommended the use of the higher
factor of safety of 2.5 for only those
trusses tested in the inverted position.
The safety concerns expressed in the
comments on the December 1, 2004,
proposed rule were for the higher
loading that would be required for
trusses tested in the upright position
and not for trusses tested in the inverted
position and for certain methods of
applying the loads.
(4) What are the costs associated with
recommended revisions to the truss
testing requirements?
MHCC Recommendation: The costs
associated with its revised proposal
were discussed with representatives of
three truss fabricators during the
discussions and deliberations of MHCC
in developing its new recommendations
for truss testing procedures. Two factors
that would significantly reduce the cost
impacts of the new MHCC proposal,
from the original 2003 one, are
recommendations to reinstate the
nondestructive truss test procedure as
the proof load truss test procedure and
to generally limit the requirements for
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:22 Jun 15, 2010
Jkt 220001
uplift tests to trusses designed for use in
Wind Zones II and III (approximately 80
percent of all homes produced are
designed for use in Wind Zone I).
B. Comparison Between the Two MHCC
Proposals for Truss Testing
The following is a summary of the
major differences between the
recommendations in the original MHCC
proposal, as published in the December
1, 2004, proposed rule, and their current
recommendations as incorporated in
this proposed rule. (Note: HUD did not
modify the MHCC proposal for truss
testing in the December 1, 2004,
proposed rule.)
(1) The new proposal would maintain
the nondestructive testing procedure
permitted by the current rule, but would
rename it as the ‘‘proof load truss test
procedure’’ and also require three
consecutive passing tests, a safety factor
of 2.0 rather than the current 1.75 to be
used in conducting the tests, and more
frequent follow-up testing to be
performed. However, the new proposal
would reduce the overload test period
from 12 hours to 6 hours, and allow the
test specimens to be of average rather
than minimum quality as required by
the current rule. The December 1, 2004,
proposed rule would have deleted the
current provision for nondestructive
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
tests in the Construction and Safety
Standards.
(2) In general, the number of required
deflection measurements in this
proposed rule would be fewer than
originally recommended by MHCC,
which HUD incorporated in the
December 1, 2004, proposed rule. Under
the original MHCC recommendation,
deflection measurements would have
been required at each truss panel point
location and at the mid-span location
between each panel point. This
proposed rule incorporates MHCC’s
current recommendation that
measurements be made at least at the
mid-span and quarter points of the
truss. However, scissors or other unique
truss configurations would require
measurement at as many additional
bottom truss chord panel points as
necessary to obtain an accurate
representation of the deflected shape of
the truss, in order to locate the point(s)
of maximum deflection.
(3) The recovery deflections limits
after live loads are removed would be
reduced, to L/360, for both the
nondestructive and ultimate test
procedures to be consistent with other
test standards for truss testing. The
December 1, 2004, proposed rule would
have established recovery limits at a
more restrictive level of L/480.
E:\FR\FM\16JNP1.SGM
16JNP1
EP16JN10.006
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
34066
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 16, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(4) The new proposed rule would
permit trusses to be tested for uplift
loads in either the upright or inverted
position. However, the factor of safety
would be reduced to 1.75 for upright
tests, while maintaining the current 2.5
factor of safety for inverted tests. The
new proposal would generally require
only three consecutive successful uplift
tests for trusses designed to be used in
Wind Zones II and III. Only one test
would be required for trusses designed
for use in Wind Zone I, or, the design
may be certified by a Registered
Engineer or Registered Architect or
independent third-party agency. The
December 1, 2004, proposed rule would
have required three uplift tests to be
conducted in all Wind Zones in the
upright position using a factor of safety
of 2.5.
(5) The new proposed rule would
require at least one follow-up test to be
conducted for each truss design for
every 2,500 trusses produced that are
qualified using the revised proof load
test procedure. One follow-up test
would be required for every 4,000
trusses produced that are qualified
under the ultimate load test procedure,
and the same frequency of follow-up
testing would be required for uplift load
tests (1/2,500 for the proof load test and
1/4,000 for the ultimate load test) for
trusses designed to be used in Wind
Zones II and III. The December 1, 2004,
proposal included provisions only for
the ultimate load test procedure; in
addition it would have required one test
for every 4,000 trusses produced, and
did not include specific requirements
for follow-up testing for uplift load.
As a result of the above differences,
the new MHCC recommendations in
this proposed rule would have less of a
cost impact than the recommendations
that were included in the December 1,
2004, proposed rule. Cost analysis
prepared by HUD suggests that the
change in cost would primarily be due
to a reduction in the estimated number
of homes produced annually, from
170,000 homes to 145,000 homes, and
by limiting the new truss testing
provisions for uplift wind forces to
Wind Zones II and III, which affects
only about 20 percent of overall truss
production. HUD estimates that this
proposed rule would result in an overall
reduction in the estimated cost impact
from $13 million annually, as stated in
the December 1, 2004, proposed rule, to
about $6 million annually, and would
reduce the average cost impact per
home from $77 to $41.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:22 Jun 15, 2010
Jkt 220001
III. Modifications to MHCC
Recommendations
After reviewing the proposed
recommendations for the revised truss
testing procedures recommended by
MHCC, HUD had concerns regarding
one of MHCC’s recommendations for
uplift load testing. MHCC and HUD had
the opportunity to discuss HUD’s
concerns during several teleconference
meetings of MHCC, its Standards
Subcommittee, and the Truss Test Task
Force. The regulatory text of the MHCC
recommendation, as submitted to HUD,
and HUD’s changes to that
recommendation are published in full in
this proposed rule. HUD is specifically
soliciting comments from the public on
both MHCC’s recommendation as
submitted to HUD, and HUD’s
modification of its recommendation.
Other editorial modifications to the
document HUD received from MHCC
have been made throughout this
proposed rule to be consistent with the
formatting of Federal Register
documents or for consistency with other
requirements of the Home Construction
and Safety Standards. For the
convenience of the public, rather than
publishing both the entire MHCC
document and HUD’s edited version of
the document, HUD is publishing a
single proposed rule with the original
text of the MHCC document following
HUD’s discussion.
HUD’s Modifications to MHCC’s
Proposed Revision to § 3280.402(d)(3)
HUD is modifying the proposed
recommendation from MHCC on uplift
testing, because the MHCC’s provisions
for uplift load tests would have
permitted testing in either the inverted
or upright position in Wind Zones II
and III. HUD’s modification is based in
part on the findings of a study
conducted by NAHB–RC, ‘‘Comparison
of Methods for Wind Uplift Load
Testing of Roof Trusses for
Manufactured Housing,’’ and the
requirements of the National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA)
consensus process related to uplift
testing. In particular, the NAHB–RC
study found that trusses tested in the
inverted position failed at higher loads,
had smaller mid-span deflections, and
experienced different fail modes than
trusses tested in the upright position.
This is because the difference in truss
orientation results in the uplift load
being applied by pulling up on the top
chord of the truss in the upright
position (in the manner in which the
wind would apply load to the trusses),
while, in the inverted position, the
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
34067
uplift load is applied by pushing down
on the bottom chord of the truss.
HUD modified the MHCC proposal by
permitting use of the upright uplift load
test only to evaluate trusses for use in
Wind Zones II and III. HUD made this
modification because resistance to high
uplift wind forces is often critical in
preventing major damage to the roof or
structure in high-wind areas, and the
inverted test may not provide
appropriate assessment of the ability of
certain truss designs to resist those wind
loads. However, HUD did accept that
part of the MHCC proposal that allowed
either the upright or inverted test
method to be used in Wind Zone I,
using the same overload factors
recommended by MHCC. This is
because the wind uplift load is
relatively small in Wind Zone I and
rarely affects the overall design
requirements for the truss.
The regulatory language submitted by
MHCC on this section, including
introductory language that has not been
modified but which provides context for
MHCC’s language, is as follows:
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(3) Uplift Load Tests. Each truss design
must also pass all requirements of the uplift
load test, as applicable, in paragraph (i) or (ii)
and paragraphs (iii) and (iv) of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
(iii) Trusses designed for use in Wind Zone
I, when tested [see (i) above], must be tested
in either the inverted position to 2.5 times
the net wind uplift load or in the upright
position to 1.75 times the net wind uplift
load. Trusses designed for use in Wind Zones
II and III must be tested in the inverted
position to 2.5 times the uplift load, minus
the dead load, or to 1.75 times the uplift load,
minus the dead load in the upright position.
[See Figure 3280.402(b)(3)].
(iv) The following describes how to
conduct the uplift test with the truss in the
upright position. Similar procedures must be
used if conducting the test in the inverted
position.
*
*
*
*
*
(D) Continue to load the truss to 1.75 times
the net uplift load and maintain the full load
for one minute. (When tested in the inverted
position, continue to load the truss to 2.5
times the net uplift load and maintain the
load for 3 hours.) See paragraph (i) for the net
uplift load in Wind Zone I and paragraph (ii)
for the uplift load for Wind Zones II and III.
Regardless of the test position of the truss,
upright or inverted, trusses maintain the
overload for the specified time period
without rupture, fracture, or excessive
yielding.
*
*
*
*
*
IV. Specific Issues for Comment
The public is invited to comment on
any of the specific provisions included
in this proposed rule and is also invited
E:\FR\FM\16JNP1.SGM
16JNP1
34068
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 16, 2010 / Proposed Rules
to comment on the following questions
and on any other related matters or
suggestions regarding this proposed
rule:
(1) Under the proposed rule, the proof
load test or the ultimate load test can be
used to qualify trusses in high snow
load areas. Should the more stringent
and reliable ultimate load test procedure
be required only to qualify roof trusses
designed for use in high snow load areas
such as the North and Middle Roof Load
Zones, where the risk of roof and truss
failure is greater?
(2) Should the spacing between
hydraulic or pneumatic cylinders for the
test fixture be increased from 12 inches
to 24 inches in Figures 3280.402(b)(1)
and 3280.402(e)(1)? Should the distance
between friction pads along the top
chord of the truss of the test fixture be
increased from 6 inches to 12 inches in
Figure 3280.402(b)(1)? Should the
distance between one-inch straps
attached around the cylinder shoe and
the top chord of the truss of the test
fixture be increased from 6 inches to 12
inches in Figure 3280.402(e)(1)?
(3) Should the overload period for all
wind uplift tests be increased from one
minute to 3 hours, as is currently
required for uplift tests in the standards
for the inverted test procedure?
(4) Should a wind uplift test always
be required for trusses qualified for use
in Wind Zone I instead of allowing the
determination to be made by a
Registered Engineer or Registered
Architect or independent third-party
agency that is certifying the design?
V. Findings and Certifications
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory
Planning and Review
The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) reviewed this rule under
Executive Order 12866 Regulatory
Planning and Review. This rule was
determined to be a ‘‘significant
regulatory action,’’ as defined in section
3(f) of the Order (although not an
economically significant regulatory
action under the Order). If adopted in
final, this rule would affect costs for
manufactured home manufacturers in
two ways. First, the cost of roof trusses
would increase in order to meet the new
testing standards. Second, manufactured
home manufacturers would be required
to assure that their truss designs have
been retested and recertified by truss
fabricators to comply with the revised
testing requirements. Although this rule
would require at least two follow-up
tests per year for each truss design, at
the current low production rates, no
additional testing would be needed
beyond current practice. Thus, the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:22 Jun 15, 2010
Jkt 220001
retesting provision would not add to the
compliance cost of the rule. The
evaluation of costs also depends on the
final location placement of the
manufactured homes; that is, in which
Wind Zone a manufactured home is
located. HUD has assessed the total
costs and benefits of this rule to be
between $7.476 million and $36.447
million annually.
As noted in the preamble, Wind Zone
I homes have the least stringent
construction standards and Wind Zone
III homes have the most stringent
construction standards. In addition,
Figure 1 in the preamble evidences, the
overwhelming majority of the United
States is designated as Wind Zone I. The
estimated cost impact for the proposed
rule takes into consideration the impact
on truss construction of the retesting
requirements (which are a one-time cost
and not a continuing cost), and costs for
follow-up testing of roof trusses. Each of
these is evaluated with respect to wind
zone classifications. Eighty percent of
the 55,000 units produced annually are
produced to Wind Zone I standards.
The average cost to meet the new
standards is $0.50 per truss in Wind
Zone I and $1.00 per truss in Wind
Zones II and III. Further, approximately
30 percent of trusses will require redesign in Wind Zone I, while all trusses
(100 percent) will require redesign for
placement in Wind Zones II and III.
Based on an average of 34 trusses per
transportable section in Wind Zone I
and 51 in Wind Zone II and III, and 1.64
transportable sections per home, the
total cost of this requirement is $1.285
million (72,000 transportable sections *
34 trusses per section * $0.50 increase
in production cost * 30% of homes in
Wind Zone I; plus 18,000 transportable
sections * 51 trusses per section * $1.00
increase in production cost * 100% of
homes in Wind Zones II & III) annually.
After truss fabricators make any
needed changes to truss designs,
manufactured home manufacturers must
ensure that all truss designs being used
have been retested and re-certified. The
average cost to re-test and re-certify each
truss design is $500. HUD estimates that
1,200 truss designs for Wind Zone I and
300 for Wind Zones II and III will
require re-certification. Thus, the total
cost for this requirement equals
$750,000 ($500 cost of re-certification *
1,200 truss designs in Wind Zone I; plus
$500 cost of re-certification * 300 truss
designs in Wind Zones II and III).
Totaling the increased construction cost
and the cost of re-certification, this
proposed rule, if adopted in final,
would impose a total one-time cost of
$2,035,200 on manufacturers of
manufactured housing. Both the re-
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
design and re-certification costs are onetime costs borne at the time of
production. This rule would not impose
any recurring costs.
With respect to benefits, the proposed
standards will make manufactured
housing less susceptible to wind
damage and downward pressure by
enhancing roof construction. In
addition, there will be less collateral
damage to housing and other structures
adjacent to manufactured housing. HUD
estimates that the median annual
property damage from hurricanes and
tropical storms is $1,879.5 million.
Based on 2008 housing data from the
U.S. Postal Service and the Census
Bureau’s Survey of Manufactured
Housing, newly shipped manufactured
housing accounts for 0.076 percent of
the total housing stock in States prone
to hurricane strikes. An approximation
of the damage occurring to
manufactured housing totals $1.42
million ($1,879.5 million * 0.076
percent). If this proposed rule were
adopted in final, a portion of this $1.42
million would be avoided annually.
Assuming an annual reduction of the
expected property damage by one-fourth
($355,922) to one-half ($711,904)
because of the stronger trusses, the
discounted present value of the annual
benefits of the rule would range from
$12.221 to $34.442 million, assuming a
3 percent discount rate, and from $5.441
to $20.882 million, assuming a 7 percent
discount rate. In addition to avoiding
property damage, this rule would also
prevent injuries and deaths that occur
during hurricanes, tropical storms, and
other high wind events; although it is
difficult to estimate the number of
injuries and deaths that would be
prevented. However, it is reasonable to
expect that deaths and injuries would
decrease in response to these proposed
standards.
In summary, this proposed rule, if
implemented in final, would impose
one-time costs totaling $2.035 million,
and create discounted benefits of $5.441
million to $34.442 million, depending
on the discount rate. Thus, the total
impact of this rule—the sum of the total
costs and benefits—would be between
$7.476 million and $36.447 million
annually.
The docket file is available for public
inspection in the Regulations Division,
Office of General Counsel, Department
of Housing and Urban Development,
451 7th Street, SW., Room 10276,
Washington, DC 20410–0500. Due to
security measures at the HUD
Headquarters building, please schedule
an advance appointment to review the
public comments by calling the
Regulations Division at 202–402–3055
E:\FR\FM\16JNP1.SGM
16JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 16, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(this is not a toll-free number).
Individuals with speech or hearing
impairments may access this number
through TTY by calling the Federal
Information Relay Service at 800–877–
8339.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Environmental Impact
A Finding of No Significant Impact
with respect to the environment has
been made in accordance with HUD
regulations at 24 CFR part 50, which
implement section 102(2)(C) of the
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). That
finding is available for public inspection
between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m.
weekdays in the Regulations Division,
Office of General Counsel, Department
of Housing and Urban Development,
451 7th Street, SW., Room 10276,
Washington, DC 20410–0500. Due to
security measures at the HUD
Headquarters building, please schedule
an appointment to review the finding by
calling the Regulations Division at 202–
708–3055 (this is not a toll-free
number).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) generally requires
an agency to conduct a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking
requirements, unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. This rule
would regulate establishments primarily
engaged in making manufactured homes
under North American Industry
Classification Standard (NAICS) 32991.
The Small Business Administration’s
size standards define as small an
establishment primarily engaged in
making manufactured homes if it does
not exceed 500 employees. Of the 137
manufactured home operations
included under this NAICS definition,
60 are small manufacturers that fall
below the small business threshold of
500 employees. The rule would apply to
all of the manufacturers and would,
therefore, affect a substantial number of
small entities. For the reasons stated
below, HUD knows of no instance in
which a manufactured home
manufacturer with fewer than 500
employees would be significantly
affected by this rule.
HUD, with the concurrence of the
MHCC, conducted an economic cost
impact analysis for this rule. A copy of
the analysis is available for public
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:22 Jun 15, 2010
Jkt 220001
inspection and copying between 8 a.m.
and 5 p.m. weekdays at the Regulations
Division, Office of General Counsel,
Department of Housing and Urban
Development, 451 7th Street, SW.,
Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410–
0500. The analysis determined the
average potential cost impact, based on
a per-home cost, to be approximately
$37, multiplied by an estimated number
of 55,000 homes produced in a year,
which equals about $2.035 million
annually. The per-home cost impact
would range from approximately $22 in
Wind Zone I, based on an annual
production estimate of 44,000
manufactured homes, to $97 in Wind
Zone II and Wind Zone III, based on a
production estimate of 11,000
manufactured homes. This does not
represent a significant economic effect
on either an industry-wide or per-unit
basis.
These two relatively small increases
in cost would not impose a significant
burden for a small business for homes
that typically cost the purchaser
between $40,000 and $100,000.
Therefore, although this rule would
affect a substantial number of small
entities, it would not have a significant
economic impact on them. Accordingly,
the undersigned certifies that this rule
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
Notwithstanding HUD’s view that this
rule will not have a significant effect on
a substantial number of small entities,
HUD specifically invites comments
regarding any less burdensome
alternatives to this rule that will meet
HUD’s objectives as described in this
preamble.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Executive Order 13132 (entitled
‘‘Federalism’’) prohibits an agency from
promulgating a regulation that has
federalism implications and either
imposes substantial direct compliance
costs on State and local governments
and is not required by statute, or the
rule preempts State law, unless the
agency meets the consultation and
funding requirements of section 6 of the
Executive Order. This rule does not
have federalism implications and does
not impose substantial direct
compliance costs on State and local
governments or preempt State law
within the meaning of the Executive
Order.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
34069
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–
1538) (UMRA) establishes requirements
for Federal agencies to assess the effects
of their regulatory actions on State,
local, and Tribal governments and on
the private sector. This rule does not
impose any Federal mandates on any
State, local, or Tribal governments or
the private sector within the meaning of
UMRA.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
The Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance number for Manufactured
Home Construction and Safety
Standards is 14.171.
List of Subjects in 24 CFR Part 3280
Housing standards, Incorporation by
reference, Manufactured homes.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in
the preamble, HUD proposes to amend
24 CFR part 3280 to read as follows:
PART 3280—MANUFACTURED HOME
CONSTRUCTION AND SAFETY
STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for part 3280
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 3535(d), 5403, and
5424.
2. Revise § 3280.402 to read as
follows:
§ 3280.402
trusses
Test procedures for roof
(a) Roof load tests. This section
provides the roof truss test procedure
for vertical loading conditions. Where
roof trusses act as support for other
members, have eave or cornice
projections, or support concentrated
loads, roof trusses must also be tested
for those conditions.
(b) General. Trusses must be tested in
a truss test fixture that replicates the
design loads, and actual support points,
and does not restrain horizontal
movement. When tested singly or in
groups of two or more trusses, trusses
shall be mounted on supports and
positioned as intended to be installed in
the manufactured home in order to give
the required clear span distance (L) and
eave or cornice distance (Lo), if
applicable, as specified in the design.
(l) When trusses are tested singly,
trusses shall be positioned in a test
fixture, with supports properly located
and the roof loads evenly applied. See
Figure 3280.402(b)(1).
E:\FR\FM\16JNP1.SGM
16JNP1
34070
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 16, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(ii) Laterally braced together (not
cross-braced) with 1-inch x 2-inch
stripping no closer than 24 inches on
center, nailed with only one 8d nail at
each truss. See Figure 3280.402(b)(2).
EP16JN10.008
separated by at least 1/8-inch. The
plywood strips shall be nailed with 4d
nails or equivalent staples no closer
than 8 inches on center along the top
chord. The bottom chords of the
adjacent trusses shall be permitted to be
one of the following:
(i) Unbraced; or
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:22 Jun 15, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\16JNP1.SGM
16JNP1
EP16JN10.007
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
(2) When tested in groups of two or
more, the top chords are permitted to be
sheathed with nominal 1/4-inch x 12inch plywood strips. The plywood
strips shall be at least long enough to
cover the top chords of the trusses at the
designated design truss spacing.
Adjacent plywood strips shall be
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 16, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(c) Measuring and loading methods.
Deflections must be measured at the free
end of an eave or cornice projection and
at least at the truss mid-span and
quarter points. Scissors or other unique
truss configurations are to be measured
at as many additional bottom chord
panel points as necessary to obtain an
accurate representation of the deflected
shape of the truss so as to be able to
locate and record the point(s) of
maximum deflection. Deflections must
be read and recorded relative to a fixed
reference datum. Deflections must be
read and recorded to the nearest 1/32inch. Dead load must be applied to the
top and bottom chord, and live load
must be applied to the top chord
through a suitable hydraulic,
pneumatic, or mechanical system or
weights to simulate design loads. Load
unit weights for uniformly distributed
top chord loads must be separated so
that arch action does not occur and
spaced not more than 12 inches on
center so as to simulate uniform
loading. Bottom chord loading must be
spaced as uniformly as practical. Truss
gravity loads must be calculated based
on the overall truss length (horizontal
projection), including eave or cornice
projections.
(d) Testing procedures. Either the
testing method in paragraph (d)(1) or
(d)(2) of this section may be used, and
the testing method in paragraph (d)(3) of
this section must be used, to test trusses
to establish compliance with the
provisions of these standards.
(1) Proof load truss test procedure. At
least three average quality/consecutively
tested trusses must pass all
requirements of the test, for initial
qualification of the truss design. All
tests for initial qualification of the truss
designs evaluated by this procedure
must be certified by a Registered
Engineer or Registered Architect, or by
an independent third-party agency. An
in-house quality control and follow-up
testing program (see paragraphs (e) and
(f) of this section) must be approved
prior to entering production of any truss
design evaluated by this procedure.
(i) Dead load. Measure and record
initial elevation of the truss or trusses in
the test position at no load. Apply dead
loads to the top and bottom chords of
the truss that are representative of the
actual weights of materials to be
supported by the truss. However, the
dead load may be applied as indicated
in paragraph (e)(4) of this section for
ongoing follow-up testing only. Dead
loads to be applied to the truss test
assembly are permitted to include only
the weights of materials supported by
the truss and not the weight of the truss
itself. However, readings from load cells
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:22 Jun 15, 2010
Jkt 220001
(when used) on which the test truss
rests must reflect the sum of the applied
load plus the weight of the truss. Apply
dead loads and hold for 5 minutes.
Measure and record the deflections.
(ii) Live load. Maintaining the dead
loads, apply live load to the top chord
in approximate 1⁄4 live load increments
until dead load plus the live load is
reached. Measure and record the
deflections no sooner than one minute
after each 1⁄4 live load increment has
been applied and 5 minutes after the
full live load has been reached.
(iii) Initial recovery phase. Remove
the design live load but not the dead
load. Measure and record the
deflections 5 minutes after the total live
load has been removed.
(iv) Continue to load the truss to dead
load plus 2.0 times the design live load.
Maintain this loading for 6 hours and
inspect the truss for failure. Failure is
rupture, fracture, or excessive yielding.
(v) Final recovery phase. Remove 2.0
times the design live load, but not the
dead load. Measure and record
deflections within 4 hours after
removing 2.0 times the design live load.
(vi) Acceptance criteria. The truss
design shall be considered to have
passed if all of the following conditions
are met:
(A) The maximum deflection between
no load and dead load must be L/480 or
less for simply supported clear spans
and Lo/180 or less for eave and cornice
projections; and
(B) The maximum deflection between
dead load and design live load must be
L/180 or less for simply supported clear
spans and Lo/90 or less for eave and
cornice projections; and
(C) After the design live load is
removed and with the dead load still
applied, the maximum recovery
deflection must be L/360 or less for
simply supported spans and Lo/180 or
less for eave and cornice projections;
and
(D) The truss must maintain the
overload condition for 6 hours without
rupture or fracture, or excessive
yielding; and
(E) After 2.0 times the design live load
has been removed, and with the dead
load still applied, the maximum
recovery deflection must be L/180 or
less for simply supported clear spans
and Lo/90 or less for eave and cornice
projections; and
(F) As applicable, each truss design
must also meet all requirements for
uplift loads required by paragraph (d)(3)
of this section. For Wind Zone I uplift
load requirements, see paragraph
(d)(3)(i) of this section. For Wind Zones
II and III uplift load requirements, see
paragraph (d)(3)(ii) of this section.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
34071
(2) Ultimate load truss test procedure.
(i) At least three average quality/
consecutively tested trusses must pass
all requirements of the test, for initial
qualification of the truss design. All
tests for initial qualification of the truss
designs evaluated by this procedure
must be certified by a Registered
Engineer or Registered Architect, or by
an independent third-party agency. An
in-house quality control and follow-up
testing program (see paragraphs (e) and
(f) of this section) must be approved
prior to entering production of any truss
design evaluated by this procedure.
(ii) Dead load. Measure and record
initial elevation of the truss or trusses in
the test position at no load. Apply dead
loads to the top and bottom chords of
the truss that are representative of the
actual weights of materials to be
supported by the truss. However, the
dead load may be applied as indicated
in paragraph (e)(4) of this section for
ongoing follow-up testing only. Dead
loads to be applied to the truss test
assembly shall be permitted to include
only the weights of materials supported
by the truss, and not the weight of the
truss itself. However, readings from load
cells (when used) on which the test
truss rests must reflect the sum of the
applied load plus the weight of the
truss. Apply dead loads and hold for 5
minutes. Measure and record the
deflections.
(iii) Live load. Maintaining the dead
loads, apply live load at a uniform rate
to the top chord in approximate 1⁄4 live
load increments until the dead load plus
the live load is reached. Measure and
record the deflections no sooner than
one minute after each 1⁄4 live load
increment has been applied and 5
minutes after the full live load has been
reached.
(iv) Initial recovery phase. Remove
the design live load but not the dead
load. Measure and record the
deflections 5 minutes after the design
live load has been removed.
(v) Overload phase. After the recovery
phase is completed, reapply the full live
load to the truss assembly. Additional
loading shall then be applied
continuously until the dead load plus
2.5 times the design live load is reached.
This overload condition must be
maintained for at least 5 minutes.
(vi) Final recovery phase. Remove 2.5
times the design live load but not the
dead load. Measure and record
deflections within 4 hours after 2.5
times the design live load has been
removed.
(vii) Acceptance criteria. The truss
design is considered to be acceptable if
all of the following conditions are met:
E:\FR\FM\16JNP1.SGM
16JNP1
34072
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 16, 2010 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
(A) The maximum deflection between
no load and dead load must be L/480 or
less for simply supported clear spans
and Lo/180 or less for eave and cornice
projections; and
(B) Dead load-to-design live load
deflections shall be L/180 or less for
simply supported clear spans and Lo/90
or less for eave and cornice projections;
and
(C) After the design live load is
removed and with the dead load still
applied, the maximum recovery
deflection must be L/360 or less for
simply supported spans and Lo/180 or
less for eave and cornice projections;
and
(D) The truss shall maintain the
overload condition for 5 minutes
without rupture, fracture, or excessive
yielding; and
(E) After 2.5 times the design live load
is removed and with the dead load still
applied, the truss must recover to at
least L/180 for simply supported clear
spans, and Lo/90 for eave and cornice
within 4 hours after the total live load
has been removed; and
(F) As applicable, each truss design
must also meet all requirements for
uplift loads in Wind Zone I or Wind
Zone II and III, as required by paragraph
(d)(3) of this section. For Wind Zone I
uplift load requirements, see paragraph
(d)(3)(i) of this section. For Wind Zones
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:22 Jun 15, 2010
Jkt 220001
II and III uplift load requirements, see
paragraph (d)(3)(ii) of this section.
(3) Uplift load tests. Each truss design
must also pass all requirements of the
uplift load test, as applicable, in
paragraph (d)(3)(i) or (d)(3)(ii) and
paragraphs (d)(3)(iii) and (d)(3)(iv) of
this section.
(i) Wind Zone I uplift load test. Where
there are engineered connectors
between the top chord and web
members of the truss, such as metal
connector plates or wood gussets or
their equivalents, uplift testing in Wind
Zone I is at the discretion of the
Registered Engineer or Registered
Architect or independent third-party
agency certifying the truss design. When
testing is deemed necessary by the
Registered Engineer or Registered
Architect or independent third-party
agency certifying the truss design, a
minimum of one average quality uplift
load test is to be conducted for each
such truss design and must pass all
requirements of the test for initial
qualification of the truss design. The net
uplift load for trusses designed for use
in Wind Zone I is 9 psf for the clear
span of the truss and 22.5 psf for eave
or cornice projections.
(ii) Wind Zones II and III uplift loads
test. This test is required for all trusses
designed for use in Wind Zones II and
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
III. A minimum of three average quality/
consecutive uplift load tests are to be
conducted for each truss design, and the
trusses must pass all requirements of the
test for initial qualification of the truss
design. The uplift load for trusses
designed to be used in Wind Zones II
and III for the clear span or eave cornice
projections is to be determined by
subtracting the dead load applied to the
truss from the uplift load provided in
the Table of Design Wind Pressures in
§ 3280.305(c)(1)(ii)(B).
(iii) Trusses designed for use in Wind
Zone I, when tested (see paragraph
(d)(3)(i) of this section), must be tested
in either the inverted position to 2.5
times the net wind uplift load or in the
upright position to 1.75 times the net
wind uplift load. Trusses designed for
use in Wind Zones II and III (see
paragraph (d)(3)(ii) of this section) must
be tested to 1.75 times the uplift load
minus the dead load in the upright
position. (See Figure 3280.402(b)(3).)
(iv) The following describes how to
conduct the uplift test with the truss in
the upright position. Similar procedures
must be used if conducting the test in
the inverted position.
(A) Place the truss in the test fixture
and position as it is intended to be
installed in the manufactured home. See
Figure 3280.402(b)(3).
E:\FR\FM\16JNP1.SGM
16JNP1
(B) Position the load measurement
devices to register the wind uplift loads
that will be applied to the top chord of
the truss. The uplift loads shall be
applied through tension devices not
wider than one inch and spaced not
greater than approximately 12 inches on
center and shall be applied as uniform
as possible, so as to simulate uniform
loading. Gravity and wind uplift load
tests may be performed on the same
truss in this single set-up mode. For the
wind uplift test, it is permissible to
stabilize the bottom chord of the truss
in the test fixture to simulate ceiling
materials or purlin supports. Measure
and record the initial elevation of the
bottom chord of the truss in the test
position at the mid-span and quarter
points of the truss, and at the free end
of an eave or cornice projection greater
than 12 inches. Scissors or other unique
truss configurations are to be measured
at as many additional bottom chord
panel points as necessary to obtain an
accurate representation of the deflected
shape of the truss, so as to be able to
locate and record the point(s) of
maximum deflection. Eave or cornice
projection loads are applied separately
for eaves or cornice projections greater
than 12 inches. For eave or cornice
projections greater than 12 inches, the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:22 Jun 15, 2010
Jkt 220001
additional required load must be
applied to the eave simultaneously with
the main body load. For eave or cornice
projection 12 inches or less, add the
additional required load to the main
body load and apply it to the entire top
chord.
(C) Measure and record the deflection
5 minutes after the net uplift load has
been applied. Design load deflection
shall be L/180 or less for a simply
supported clear span and Lo/90 or less
for eave or cornice projections.
(D) For trusses tested in the upright
position, continue to load the truss to
1.75 times the net uplift load in
paragraph (d)(3)(i) of this section for
Wind Zone I and 1.75 times the uplift
load in paragraph (d)(3)(ii) for Wind
Zones II and III, and maintain the load
for one minute. For trusses tested in the
inverted position (Wind Zone I only),
continue to load the truss to 2.50 times
the net uplift load in paragraph (i) for
Wind Zone I, and maintain the full load
for 3 hours. Regardless of the test
position of the truss, upright or
inverted, trusses must maintain the
overload for the specified time period
without rupture, fracture, or excessive
yielding.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
34073
(E) Follow-up Testing. Follow-up
testing procedures must include the
following:
(1) All trusses qualifying under these
test procedures must be subject to a
quality control and follow-up testing
program. Manufacturers of listed or
labeled trusses must follow an in-house
quality control program, with follow-up
testing approved by an independent
third party as specified in § 3280.402(f).
Those home manufacturers producing
trusses for their own use, and which are
not listed or labeled, must have an inhouse quality control program that
includes follow-up testing, as specified
in this section, and approved by their
Design Approval Primary Inspection
Agency (DAPIA).
(2) Truss designs that are qualified but
not in production are not subject to
follow-up testing until produced. When
the truss design is brought into
production, a follow-up test is to be
performed if the truss design has been
out of production for more than 6
months.
(3) The frequency of truss
manufacturer’s quality control followup testing for trusses must be at least:
(i) One test for every 2,500 trusses for
trusses qualified under the proof load
truss test procedure or once every 6
E:\FR\FM\16JNP1.SGM
16JNP1
EP16JN10.009
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 16, 2010 / Proposed Rules
34074
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 16, 2010 / Proposed Rules
months, whichever is more frequent, for
every truss design produced; or
(ii) One test for every 4,000 trusses
produced for trusses qualified under the
ultimate load truss test procedure or
once every 6 months, whichever is more
frequent, for every truss design
produced.
(iii) Uplift load tests are also to be
conducted at the same follow-up testing
frequency in paragraph (e)(3)(i) or
paragraph (e)(3)(ii) of this section for
trusses designed for use in Wind Zones
II and III.
(4) For follow-up testing only, the full
dead load may be applied to the top
chord of the truss, when the bottom
chord dead load is 5 psf or less.
(F) In-house quality control program.
The in-house quality control program
must include, at a minimum,
procedures for quality of materials
including, but not limited to, grade(s) of
materials, allowable splits, knots, and
other applicable lumber qualities;
workmanship including, but not limited
to, plate placement and embedment
tolerances; other manufacturing
tolerances; description and calibration
of test equipment; truss re-testing
criteria; and procedures in the event of
noncomplying results.
submit their views electronically should
contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section
by telephone for advice on alternatives
to electronic filing.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel,
at stephen.sharfman@prc.gov or 202–
789–6824.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Dated: May 4, 2010.
David H. Stevens,
Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal
Housing Commissioner.
II. Background
[FR Doc. 2010–14277 Filed 6–15–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210–67–P
POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION
39 CFR Part 3010
[Docket No. RM2010–9; Order No. 469]
Postal Pricing Methods
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Commission is initiating
an investigation into the methodologies
for estimating volume changes due to
pricing incentive programs. If a change
in analytical principles is warranted, the
Commission may propose a specific
methodology for adoption. This
document announces establishment of a
docket to consider this investigation and
provides an opportunity for public
comment.
DATES: Initial comments are due July 16,
2010. Reply comments are due August
16, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments
electronically via the Commission’s
Filing Online system at https://
www.prc.gov. Commenters who cannot
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:22 Jun 15, 2010
Jkt 220001
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. Background
III. Established Methodology
IV. Methodologies for Estimating Short–Term
Volume Changes
V. Comments
VI. Ordering Paragraphs
I. Introduction
The Commission is initiating this
proceeding to investigate methodologies
for estimating volume changes due to
pricing incentive programs. Upon
consideration of various methodologies,
the Commission may, if a change in
analytical principles is warranted,
propose a specific methodology for
adoption. Initial comments are due 30
days from publication of this notice in
the Federal Register.
In the past year, the Postal Service has
conducted two pricing incentive
programs, and a third program is
scheduled to begin in July. The purpose
of the incentive programs is to generate
new volume and additional revenue.
Rebates are offered to mailers who mail
more pieces than they would mail
without rebates. The first of these
programs occurred in the summer of
2009.1 This program offered rebates of
30 percent to Standard mailers who
increased their volume above the same
period in 2008 (SPLY) adjusted for each
mailer’s volume trend. The Commission
evaluated this program in the recently
issued 2009 Annual Compliance
Determination (2009 ACD). In the 2009
ACD, the Commission noted that the
Postal Service had developed a new
methodology for estimating the
profitability of the program. That
methodology produced an estimated
$24.1 million contribution to
institutional costs, while the
Commission’s traditional estimating
methodology produced a negative
contribution of $36.9 million. The
Commission announced that it would
conduct a rulemaking to ‘‘explore the
1 The second incentive program occurred in the
fall of 2010, and offered rebates of 20 percent to
bulk First–Class mailers. Docket No. R2009–5,
Order Approving First–Class Mail Incentive Pricing
Program, September 16, 2009.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
merits of these alternate
methodologies * * * .’’ 2009 ACD at
88.
On February 26, 2010, the Postal
Service filed notice of another Standard
Mail pricing incentive program. The
Commission established a docket to
consider the incentive program and
appointed a Public Representative.2 The
Public Representative proposed a third
methodology for estimating the
profitability of pricing incentive
programs.3 Another commenter, Robert
W. Mitchell, described several
qualitative adjustments to the
Commission’s established
methodology.4
Estimating the profitability of a
pricing incentive program depends on
accurately estimating what volume of
mail mailers would mail in the absence
of a rebate. Rebates for mail volume that
would have been sent without a rebate
result in a loss of contribution.
However, it is not possible to know
ahead of time what volume a mailer
would have sent without a rebate. The
Commission evaluates the profitability
of rebate programs after the fact by
applying a measure of price sensitivity
(elasticity) to volumes actually mailed
during the rebate program. This method
is described in the next section.
III. Established Methodology
The Commission’s experience with
pricing incentive programs began in
Docket No. MC2002–2.5 The Postal
Service had negotiated declining block
rates with Capital One Services, Inc.
(Capital One). The essential feature of a
declining block rate is that a customer
must purchase a minimum quantity to
be eligible for a reduced rate. The
reduced rate then applies only to
quantity in excess of the minimum. So
long as the reduced rate covers cost, the
additional volume is profitable. This
assumes that the minimum quantity (or
threshold) is set at the quantity the
customer would have purchased at
regular rates.
In fact, the Postal Service cannot
know what a mailer would have mailed
at regular rates. There is always a
possibility that the threshold is set
below the volume the mailer would
have mailed. In this situation, the Postal
Service loses revenue on pieces that
2 Docket No. R2010–3, Notice and Order
Concerning Standard Mail Volume Incentive
Pricing Program, March 2, 2010.
3 Docket No. R2010–3, Comments of the Public
Representatives, March 22, 2010, at 9–10, 15–16.
4 Docket No. R2010–3, Comments of Robert W.
Mitchell on Proposed Summer Sale 2010, March 22,
2010 (Mitchell Comments).
5 Docket No. MC2002–2, Opinion and
Recommended Decision, May 15, 2003; see also
Errata Notice, May 21, 2003.
E:\FR\FM\16JNP1.SGM
16JNP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 115 (Wednesday, June 16, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34064-34074]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-14277]
[[Page 34064]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
24 CFR Part 3280
[Docket No. FR-5222-P-01]
RIN 2502-A172
Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards, Test
Procedures for Roof Trusses
AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing--Federal Housing
Commissioner, HUD.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposed rule would amend the Federal Manufactured Home
Construction and Safety Standards by adopting proposals made by the
Manufactured Home Consensus Committee (MHCC), as modified by HUD. The
National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of
1974 requires HUD to publish in the Federal Register any proposed
revised Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standard submitted by
MHCC. Changes to the existing roof truss testing procedures were part
of the first group of MHCC proposals submitted to HUD in 2003 to revise
various aspects of the standards. However, in response to public
comments on the proposed rule, including those submitted by MHCC, HUD
returned the proposal on roof truss testing to MHCC for further
consideration.
After further consideration, MHCC has submitted an amended version
of its 2003 proposal on roof truss testing to HUD. HUD is in agreement
with the majority of MHCC's current recommendations on roof truss
testing. This proposed rule contains the recommendations on which HUD
and MHCC agree. This proposed rule also includes HUD's modifications to
the MHCC proposal, together with HUD's reasons for not accepting those
particular revisions proposed by the MHCC.
DATES: Comment Due Date: August 16, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding
this rule to the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, 451
7th Street, SW., Room 10276, Department of Housing and Urban
Development, Washington, DC 20410-0500. Communications must refer to
the above docket number and title. There are two methods for submitting
public comments. All submissions must refer to the above docket number
and title.
1. Submission of Comments by Mail. Comments may be submitted by
mail to the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department
of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Room 10276,
Washington, DC 20410-0500.
2. Electronic Submission of Comments. Interested persons may submit
comments electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
https://www.regulations.gov. HUD strongly encourages commenters to
submit comments electronically. Electronic submission of comments
allows the commenter maximum time to prepare and submit a comment,
ensures timely receipt by HUD, and enables HUD to make them immediately
available to the public. Comments submitted electronically through the
https://www.regulations.gov Web site can be viewed by other commenters
and interested members of the public. Commenters should follow the
instructions provided on that site to submit comments electronically.
Note: To receive consideration as public comments, comments must
be submitted through one of the two methods specified above. Again,
all submissions must refer to the docket number and title of the
rule.
No Facsimile Comments. Facsimile (FAX) comments are not acceptable.
Public Inspection of Public Comments. All properly submitted
comments and communications submitted to HUD will be available for
public inspection and copying between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays at the
above address. Due to security measures at the HUD Headquarters
building, an advance appointment to review the public comments must be
scheduled by calling the Regulations Division at 202-708-3055 (this is
not a toll-free number). Individuals with speech or hearing impairments
may access this number through TTY by calling the Federal Information
Relay Service at 800-877-8339. Copies of all comments submitted are
available for inspection and downloading at https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Office of Regulatory Affairs and
Manufactured Housing, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and
Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Room 9162, Washington, DC
20410-8000; telephone number 202-708-2121 (this is not a toll-free
telephone number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may
access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal
Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards
Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5401-5426) (the Act) authorizes HUD to establish
and amend the Federal Manufactured Home Construction and Safety
Standards (Construction and Safety Standards) codified in 24 CFR part
3280. The Act was amended in 2000 by the Manufactured Housing
Improvement Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-569), which expanded the original
Act's purposes and created the MHCC.
The amended Act generally requires that HUD establish Construction
and Safety Standards that are reasonable and practical, meet high
standards of protection, are performance-based, and are objectively
stated. Congress specifically established the MHCC to develop proposed
revisions to the construction and safety standards and included
specific procedures in the Act (42 U.S.C. 5403) for the MHCC process.
MHCC began considering possible revisions to the construction and
safety standards in 2002 and established its own priorities for
selecting revisions for HUD to consider. Included among the first set
of proposals recommended to HUD by MHCC in 2003 were revisions to the
current requirements for roof truss testing.\1\ Those recommendations
were included in HUD's proposed rule to amend the Construction and
Safety Standards, which was published in the Federal Register on
December 1, 2004 (69 FR 70016). After considering comments received on
the proposed rule from both the public and MHCC, HUD agreed with
commenters who wanted HUD to return the proposal on truss testing
procedures to MHCC for further consideration. However, as indicated in
the preamble of HUD's final rule published in the Federal Register on
November 30, 2005 (70 FR 72024), which followed the December 1, 2004,
proposed rule, HUD views truss testing procedures as too important a
safety consideration to leave unresolved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A truss is a triangular structure used to support a roof.
Multiple trusses are used to assemble the framework for a roof.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD requested the MHCC to work expeditiously to reevaluate and
resubmit new proposals for truss testing procedures. As a result, the
Truss Test Task Force of MHCC's Standards Subcommittee was established.
Five teleconferences of this task force were held, and the full MHCC
held two teleconferences to review and vote on new truss testing
procedures. HUD worked closely with MHCC throughout the review and
reevaluation process, and HUD agrees with the majority of the
[[Page 34065]]
new proposals made by MHCC. However, after careful review, HUD has made
editorial revisions to the MHCC proposals and modified the MHCC's
proposal regarding uplift testing. The following is a discussion of the
specific revisions to the current roof truss testing requirements in
Sec. 3280.402 of the Construction and Safety Standards that are
included in this proposed rule.
II. Proposed Changes
The proposed rule would amend various paragraphs of Sec. 3280.402,
Test Procedures for Roof Trusses, of the Construction and Safety
Standards.
A. HUD Questions on Roof Trussing Presented in the November 30, 2005,
Final Rule
In returning the proposal on truss testing procedures to MHCC for
further consideration, HUD asked MHCC, in the preamble to the November
30, 2005, final rule, to consider the following questions during its
deliberations in formulating any revised proposals. The questions asked
and MHCC actions taken are as follows:
(1) Whether the nondestructive testing procedure for roof trusses
that permits a lower overall factor of safety to be used in conducting
the tests based on a presumed low failure rate for roof trusses should
be eliminated.
MHCC Recommendation: In its previous proposal, MHCC recommended
that this procedure be eliminated as a method for initially qualifying
roof trusses. Further, MHCC had determined that the current
requirements for providing minimum quality of materials and workmanship
associated with conducting the nondestructive qualification tests was
impractical and probably not being adhered to in current testing of
roof trusses. However, based on further review of economic factors and
other considerations, MHCC decided to retain the nondestructive test
procedure in its new proposal. MHCC also decided to change the name of
the procedure to the ``proof load truss test procedure'' and added the
requirement that trusses for the initial qualification and testing be
of average quality of materials and workmanship. MHCC also provided for
an increased factor of safety from 1.75 to 2.0 to be used to evaluate
the trusses. MHCC also recommended a reduced load duration period for
the overload test period of 6 hours, rather than the 12-hour period in
the current requirements. This recommendation is based on the
experience of truss fabricators who, in the task force proceedings,
said that failures rarely occur after 6 hours of loading. Under MHCC's
proposal, at least three consecutively tested trusses must pass all
requirements of the test in order to qualify the truss design. More
frequent follow-up testing was also recommended by MHCC due to the
lower factor of safety permitted under this revised proof load truss
testing approach.
(2) Whether upright tensions tests are needed to evaluate the
uplift resistance of the trusses.
MHCC Recommendation: Because of the variation in test results
between trusses tested in the inverted and upright positions for uplift
wind loads identified in earlier tests conducted by the National
Association of Home Builders Research Center (NAHB-RC), MHCC
recommended a factor of safety of 2.5 be used for trusses tested in the
inverted position, but also recommended that the current factor of
safety of 1.75 be retained for trusses tested in the upright position.
Trusses tested in the inverted position consistently failed at higher
average loads (30 to 40 percent), had lower mid-span deflections than
trusses tested in the upright position, and in some truss designs
experienced different failure modes than trusses tested in the upright
position. MHCC also recommended that at least one uplift test be
conducted for certain trusses designed to be used in Wind Zone I and
that three consecutive uplift tests be performed for initial
qualification of all trusses designed to be located in Wind Zones II or
III.
Note that to ensure that manufactured homes survive the threats of
hurricanes and other storms, HUD developed Wind Zone construction
standards. Manufactured homes may be installed only in counties where
they meet the Wind Zone construction standards that apply to that
county. Wind Zone I homes have the least stringent construction
standards and Wind Zone III homes have the most stringent construction
standards. Homes designed and constructed to a higher Wind Zone can be
installed in a lower Wind Zone (a Wind Zone III home can be installed
in a Wind Zone I or II location). However, a Wind Zone I home cannot be
installed in either a Wind Zone II or III area. As Figure 1 below
displays, the overwhelming majority of the United States is designated
as Wind Zone I.
[[Page 34066]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16JN10.006
(3) Should the factor of safety for uplift testing be reduced from
2.5 to the current requirement of 1.75, times the design wind
pressures, in consideration of comments received regarding safety
during testing?
MHCC Recommendation: MHCC recommended the use of the higher factor
of safety of 2.5 for only those trusses tested in the inverted
position. The safety concerns expressed in the comments on the December
1, 2004, proposed rule were for the higher loading that would be
required for trusses tested in the upright position and not for trusses
tested in the inverted position and for certain methods of applying the
loads.
(4) What are the costs associated with recommended revisions to the
truss testing requirements?
MHCC Recommendation: The costs associated with its revised proposal
were discussed with representatives of three truss fabricators during
the discussions and deliberations of MHCC in developing its new
recommendations for truss testing procedures. Two factors that would
significantly reduce the cost impacts of the new MHCC proposal, from
the original 2003 one, are recommendations to reinstate the
nondestructive truss test procedure as the proof load truss test
procedure and to generally limit the requirements for uplift tests to
trusses designed for use in Wind Zones II and III (approximately 80
percent of all homes produced are designed for use in Wind Zone I).
B. Comparison Between the Two MHCC Proposals for Truss Testing
The following is a summary of the major differences between the
recommendations in the original MHCC proposal, as published in the
December 1, 2004, proposed rule, and their current recommendations as
incorporated in this proposed rule. (Note: HUD did not modify the MHCC
proposal for truss testing in the December 1, 2004, proposed rule.)
(1) The new proposal would maintain the nondestructive testing
procedure permitted by the current rule, but would rename it as the
``proof load truss test procedure'' and also require three consecutive
passing tests, a safety factor of 2.0 rather than the current 1.75 to
be used in conducting the tests, and more frequent follow-up testing to
be performed. However, the new proposal would reduce the overload test
period from 12 hours to 6 hours, and allow the test specimens to be of
average rather than minimum quality as required by the current rule.
The December 1, 2004, proposed rule would have deleted the current
provision for nondestructive tests in the Construction and Safety
Standards.
(2) In general, the number of required deflection measurements in
this proposed rule would be fewer than originally recommended by MHCC,
which HUD incorporated in the December 1, 2004, proposed rule. Under
the original MHCC recommendation, deflection measurements would have
been required at each truss panel point location and at the mid-span
location between each panel point. This proposed rule incorporates
MHCC's current recommendation that measurements be made at least at the
mid-span and quarter points of the truss. However, scissors or other
unique truss configurations would require measurement at as many
additional bottom truss chord panel points as necessary to obtain an
accurate representation of the deflected shape of the truss, in order
to locate the point(s) of maximum deflection.
(3) The recovery deflections limits after live loads are removed
would be reduced, to L/360, for both the nondestructive and ultimate
test procedures to be consistent with other test standards for truss
testing. The December 1, 2004, proposed rule would have established
recovery limits at a more restrictive level of L/480.
[[Page 34067]]
(4) The new proposed rule would permit trusses to be tested for
uplift loads in either the upright or inverted position. However, the
factor of safety would be reduced to 1.75 for upright tests, while
maintaining the current 2.5 factor of safety for inverted tests. The
new proposal would generally require only three consecutive successful
uplift tests for trusses designed to be used in Wind Zones II and III.
Only one test would be required for trusses designed for use in Wind
Zone I, or, the design may be certified by a Registered Engineer or
Registered Architect or independent third-party agency. The December 1,
2004, proposed rule would have required three uplift tests to be
conducted in all Wind Zones in the upright position using a factor of
safety of 2.5.
(5) The new proposed rule would require at least one follow-up test
to be conducted for each truss design for every 2,500 trusses produced
that are qualified using the revised proof load test procedure. One
follow-up test would be required for every 4,000 trusses produced that
are qualified under the ultimate load test procedure, and the same
frequency of follow-up testing would be required for uplift load tests
(1/2,500 for the proof load test and 1/4,000 for the ultimate load
test) for trusses designed to be used in Wind Zones II and III. The
December 1, 2004, proposal included provisions only for the ultimate
load test procedure; in addition it would have required one test for
every 4,000 trusses produced, and did not include specific requirements
for follow-up testing for uplift load.
As a result of the above differences, the new MHCC recommendations
in this proposed rule would have less of a cost impact than the
recommendations that were included in the December 1, 2004, proposed
rule. Cost analysis prepared by HUD suggests that the change in cost
would primarily be due to a reduction in the estimated number of homes
produced annually, from 170,000 homes to 145,000 homes, and by limiting
the new truss testing provisions for uplift wind forces to Wind Zones
II and III, which affects only about 20 percent of overall truss
production. HUD estimates that this proposed rule would result in an
overall reduction in the estimated cost impact from $13 million
annually, as stated in the December 1, 2004, proposed rule, to about $6
million annually, and would reduce the average cost impact per home
from $77 to $41.
III. Modifications to MHCC Recommendations
After reviewing the proposed recommendations for the revised truss
testing procedures recommended by MHCC, HUD had concerns regarding one
of MHCC's recommendations for uplift load testing. MHCC and HUD had the
opportunity to discuss HUD's concerns during several teleconference
meetings of MHCC, its Standards Subcommittee, and the Truss Test Task
Force. The regulatory text of the MHCC recommendation, as submitted to
HUD, and HUD's changes to that recommendation are published in full in
this proposed rule. HUD is specifically soliciting comments from the
public on both MHCC's recommendation as submitted to HUD, and HUD's
modification of its recommendation.
Other editorial modifications to the document HUD received from
MHCC have been made throughout this proposed rule to be consistent with
the formatting of Federal Register documents or for consistency with
other requirements of the Home Construction and Safety Standards. For
the convenience of the public, rather than publishing both the entire
MHCC document and HUD's edited version of the document, HUD is
publishing a single proposed rule with the original text of the MHCC
document following HUD's discussion.
HUD's Modifications to MHCC's Proposed Revision to Sec. 3280.402(d)(3)
HUD is modifying the proposed recommendation from MHCC on uplift
testing, because the MHCC's provisions for uplift load tests would have
permitted testing in either the inverted or upright position in Wind
Zones II and III. HUD's modification is based in part on the findings
of a study conducted by NAHB-RC, ``Comparison of Methods for Wind
Uplift Load Testing of Roof Trusses for Manufactured Housing,'' and the
requirements of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
consensus process related to uplift testing. In particular, the NAHB-RC
study found that trusses tested in the inverted position failed at
higher loads, had smaller mid-span deflections, and experienced
different fail modes than trusses tested in the upright position. This
is because the difference in truss orientation results in the uplift
load being applied by pulling up on the top chord of the truss in the
upright position (in the manner in which the wind would apply load to
the trusses), while, in the inverted position, the uplift load is
applied by pushing down on the bottom chord of the truss.
HUD modified the MHCC proposal by permitting use of the upright
uplift load test only to evaluate trusses for use in Wind Zones II and
III. HUD made this modification because resistance to high uplift wind
forces is often critical in preventing major damage to the roof or
structure in high-wind areas, and the inverted test may not provide
appropriate assessment of the ability of certain truss designs to
resist those wind loads. However, HUD did accept that part of the MHCC
proposal that allowed either the upright or inverted test method to be
used in Wind Zone I, using the same overload factors recommended by
MHCC. This is because the wind uplift load is relatively small in Wind
Zone I and rarely affects the overall design requirements for the
truss.
The regulatory language submitted by MHCC on this section,
including introductory language that has not been modified but which
provides context for MHCC's language, is as follows:
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(3) Uplift Load Tests. Each truss design must also pass all
requirements of the uplift load test, as applicable, in paragraph
(i) or (ii) and paragraphs (iii) and (iv) of this section.
* * * * *
(iii) Trusses designed for use in Wind Zone I, when tested [see
(i) above], must be tested in either the inverted position to 2.5
times the net wind uplift load or in the upright position to 1.75
times the net wind uplift load. Trusses designed for use in Wind
Zones II and III must be tested in the inverted position to 2.5
times the uplift load, minus the dead load, or to 1.75 times the
uplift load, minus the dead load in the upright position. [See
Figure 3280.402(b)(3)].
(iv) The following describes how to conduct the uplift test with
the truss in the upright position. Similar procedures must be used
if conducting the test in the inverted position.
* * * * *
(D) Continue to load the truss to 1.75 times the net uplift load
and maintain the full load for one minute. (When tested in the
inverted position, continue to load the truss to 2.5 times the net
uplift load and maintain the load for 3 hours.) See paragraph (i)
for the net uplift load in Wind Zone I and paragraph (ii) for the
uplift load for Wind Zones II and III. Regardless of the test
position of the truss, upright or inverted, trusses maintain the
overload for the specified time period without rupture, fracture, or
excessive yielding.
* * * * *
IV. Specific Issues for Comment
The public is invited to comment on any of the specific provisions
included in this proposed rule and is also invited
[[Page 34068]]
to comment on the following questions and on any other related matters
or suggestions regarding this proposed rule:
(1) Under the proposed rule, the proof load test or the ultimate
load test can be used to qualify trusses in high snow load areas.
Should the more stringent and reliable ultimate load test procedure be
required only to qualify roof trusses designed for use in high snow
load areas such as the North and Middle Roof Load Zones, where the risk
of roof and truss failure is greater?
(2) Should the spacing between hydraulic or pneumatic cylinders for
the test fixture be increased from 12 inches to 24 inches in Figures
3280.402(b)(1) and 3280.402(e)(1)? Should the distance between friction
pads along the top chord of the truss of the test fixture be increased
from 6 inches to 12 inches in Figure 3280.402(b)(1)? Should the
distance between one-inch straps attached around the cylinder shoe and
the top chord of the truss of the test fixture be increased from 6
inches to 12 inches in Figure 3280.402(e)(1)?
(3) Should the overload period for all wind uplift tests be
increased from one minute to 3 hours, as is currently required for
uplift tests in the standards for the inverted test procedure?
(4) Should a wind uplift test always be required for trusses
qualified for use in Wind Zone I instead of allowing the determination
to be made by a Registered Engineer or Registered Architect or
independent third-party agency that is certifying the design?
V. Findings and Certifications
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reviewed this rule under
Executive Order 12866 Regulatory Planning and Review. This rule was
determined to be a ``significant regulatory action,'' as defined in
section 3(f) of the Order (although not an economically significant
regulatory action under the Order). If adopted in final, this rule
would affect costs for manufactured home manufacturers in two ways.
First, the cost of roof trusses would increase in order to meet the new
testing standards. Second, manufactured home manufacturers would be
required to assure that their truss designs have been retested and
recertified by truss fabricators to comply with the revised testing
requirements. Although this rule would require at least two follow-up
tests per year for each truss design, at the current low production
rates, no additional testing would be needed beyond current practice.
Thus, the retesting provision would not add to the compliance cost of
the rule. The evaluation of costs also depends on the final location
placement of the manufactured homes; that is, in which Wind Zone a
manufactured home is located. HUD has assessed the total costs and
benefits of this rule to be between $7.476 million and $36.447 million
annually.
As noted in the preamble, Wind Zone I homes have the least
stringent construction standards and Wind Zone III homes have the most
stringent construction standards. In addition, Figure 1 in the preamble
evidences, the overwhelming majority of the United States is designated
as Wind Zone I. The estimated cost impact for the proposed rule takes
into consideration the impact on truss construction of the retesting
requirements (which are a one-time cost and not a continuing cost), and
costs for follow-up testing of roof trusses. Each of these is evaluated
with respect to wind zone classifications. Eighty percent of the 55,000
units produced annually are produced to Wind Zone I standards.
The average cost to meet the new standards is $0.50 per truss in
Wind Zone I and $1.00 per truss in Wind Zones II and III. Further,
approximately 30 percent of trusses will require re-design in Wind Zone
I, while all trusses (100 percent) will require redesign for placement
in Wind Zones II and III. Based on an average of 34 trusses per
transportable section in Wind Zone I and 51 in Wind Zone II and III,
and 1.64 transportable sections per home, the total cost of this
requirement is $1.285 million (72,000 transportable sections * 34
trusses per section * $0.50 increase in production cost * 30% of homes
in Wind Zone I; plus 18,000 transportable sections * 51 trusses per
section * $1.00 increase in production cost * 100% of homes in Wind
Zones II & III) annually.
After truss fabricators make any needed changes to truss designs,
manufactured home manufacturers must ensure that all truss designs
being used have been retested and re-certified. The average cost to re-
test and re-certify each truss design is $500. HUD estimates that 1,200
truss designs for Wind Zone I and 300 for Wind Zones II and III will
require re-certification. Thus, the total cost for this requirement
equals $750,000 ($500 cost of re-certification * 1,200 truss designs in
Wind Zone I; plus $500 cost of re-certification * 300 truss designs in
Wind Zones II and III). Totaling the increased construction cost and
the cost of re-certification, this proposed rule, if adopted in final,
would impose a total one-time cost of $2,035,200 on manufacturers of
manufactured housing. Both the re-design and re-certification costs are
one-time costs borne at the time of production. This rule would not
impose any recurring costs.
With respect to benefits, the proposed standards will make
manufactured housing less susceptible to wind damage and downward
pressure by enhancing roof construction. In addition, there will be
less collateral damage to housing and other structures adjacent to
manufactured housing. HUD estimates that the median annual property
damage from hurricanes and tropical storms is $1,879.5 million. Based
on 2008 housing data from the U.S. Postal Service and the Census
Bureau's Survey of Manufactured Housing, newly shipped manufactured
housing accounts for 0.076 percent of the total housing stock in States
prone to hurricane strikes. An approximation of the damage occurring to
manufactured housing totals $1.42 million ($1,879.5 million * 0.076
percent). If this proposed rule were adopted in final, a portion of
this $1.42 million would be avoided annually. Assuming an annual
reduction of the expected property damage by one-fourth ($355,922) to
one-half ($711,904) because of the stronger trusses, the discounted
present value of the annual benefits of the rule would range from
$12.221 to $34.442 million, assuming a 3 percent discount rate, and
from $5.441 to $20.882 million, assuming a 7 percent discount rate. In
addition to avoiding property damage, this rule would also prevent
injuries and deaths that occur during hurricanes, tropical storms, and
other high wind events; although it is difficult to estimate the number
of injuries and deaths that would be prevented. However, it is
reasonable to expect that deaths and injuries would decrease in
response to these proposed standards.
In summary, this proposed rule, if implemented in final, would
impose one-time costs totaling $2.035 million, and create discounted
benefits of $5.441 million to $34.442 million, depending on the
discount rate. Thus, the total impact of this rule--the sum of the
total costs and benefits--would be between $7.476 million and $36.447
million annually.
The docket file is available for public inspection in the
Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing
and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC
20410-0500. Due to security measures at the HUD Headquarters building,
please schedule an advance appointment to review the public comments by
calling the Regulations Division at 202-402-3055
[[Page 34069]]
(this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with speech or hearing
impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the Federal
Information Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
Environmental Impact
A Finding of No Significant Impact with respect to the environment
has been made in accordance with HUD regulations at 24 CFR part 50,
which implement section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). That finding is available for
public inspection between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays in
the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of
Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Room 10276,
Washington, DC 20410-0500. Due to security measures at the HUD
Headquarters building, please schedule an appointment to review the
finding by calling the Regulations Division at 202-708-3055 (this is
not a toll-free number).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility
analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking
requirements, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule would regulate establishments primarily engaged in making
manufactured homes under North American Industry Classification
Standard (NAICS) 32991. The Small Business Administration's size
standards define as small an establishment primarily engaged in making
manufactured homes if it does not exceed 500 employees. Of the 137
manufactured home operations included under this NAICS definition, 60
are small manufacturers that fall below the small business threshold of
500 employees. The rule would apply to all of the manufacturers and
would, therefore, affect a substantial number of small entities. For
the reasons stated below, HUD knows of no instance in which a
manufactured home manufacturer with fewer than 500 employees would be
significantly affected by this rule.
HUD, with the concurrence of the MHCC, conducted an economic cost
impact analysis for this rule. A copy of the analysis is available for
public inspection and copying between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays at the
Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing
and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC
20410-0500. The analysis determined the average potential cost impact,
based on a per-home cost, to be approximately $37, multiplied by an
estimated number of 55,000 homes produced in a year, which equals about
$2.035 million annually. The per-home cost impact would range from
approximately $22 in Wind Zone I, based on an annual production
estimate of 44,000 manufactured homes, to $97 in Wind Zone II and Wind
Zone III, based on a production estimate of 11,000 manufactured homes.
This does not represent a significant economic effect on either an
industry-wide or per-unit basis.
These two relatively small increases in cost would not impose a
significant burden for a small business for homes that typically cost
the purchaser between $40,000 and $100,000. Therefore, although this
rule would affect a substantial number of small entities, it would not
have a significant economic impact on them. Accordingly, the
undersigned certifies that this rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Notwithstanding HUD's view that this rule will not have a
significant effect on a substantial number of small entities, HUD
specifically invites comments regarding any less burdensome
alternatives to this rule that will meet HUD's objectives as described
in this preamble.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Executive Order 13132 (entitled ``Federalism'') prohibits an agency
from promulgating a regulation that has federalism implications and
either imposes substantial direct compliance costs on State and local
governments and is not required by statute, or the rule preempts State
law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements
of section 6 of the Executive Order. This rule does not have federalism
implications and does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on
State and local governments or preempt State law within the meaning of
the Executive Order.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C.
1531-1538) (UMRA) establishes requirements for Federal agencies to
assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and
Tribal governments and on the private sector. This rule does not impose
any Federal mandates on any State, local, or Tribal governments or the
private sector within the meaning of UMRA.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number for Manufactured
Home Construction and Safety Standards is 14.171.
List of Subjects in 24 CFR Part 3280
Housing standards, Incorporation by reference, Manufactured homes.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the preamble, HUD proposes
to amend 24 CFR part 3280 to read as follows:
PART 3280--MANUFACTURED HOME CONSTRUCTION AND SAFETY STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for part 3280 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 3535(d), 5403, and 5424.
2. Revise Sec. 3280.402 to read as follows:
Sec. 3280.402 Test procedures for roof trusses
(a) Roof load tests. This section provides the roof truss test
procedure for vertical loading conditions. Where roof trusses act as
support for other members, have eave or cornice projections, or support
concentrated loads, roof trusses must also be tested for those
conditions.
(b) General. Trusses must be tested in a truss test fixture that
replicates the design loads, and actual support points, and does not
restrain horizontal movement. When tested singly or in groups of two or
more trusses, trusses shall be mounted on supports and positioned as
intended to be installed in the manufactured home in order to give the
required clear span distance (L) and eave or cornice distance (Lo), if
applicable, as specified in the design.
(l) When trusses are tested singly, trusses shall be positioned in
a test fixture, with supports properly located and the roof loads
evenly applied. See Figure 3280.402(b)(1).
[[Page 34070]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16JN10.007
(2) When tested in groups of two or more, the top chords are
permitted to be sheathed with nominal 1/4-inch x 12-inch plywood
strips. The plywood strips shall be at least long enough to cover the
top chords of the trusses at the designated design truss spacing.
Adjacent plywood strips shall be separated by at least 1/8-inch. The
plywood strips shall be nailed with 4d nails or equivalent staples no
closer than 8 inches on center along the top chord. The bottom chords
of the adjacent trusses shall be permitted to be one of the following:
(i) Unbraced; or
(ii) Laterally braced together (not cross-braced) with 1-inch x 2-
inch stripping no closer than 24 inches on center, nailed with only one
8d nail at each truss. See Figure 3280.402(b)(2).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16JN10.008
[[Page 34071]]
(c) Measuring and loading methods. Deflections must be measured at
the free end of an eave or cornice projection and at least at the truss
mid-span and quarter points. Scissors or other unique truss
configurations are to be measured at as many additional bottom chord
panel points as necessary to obtain an accurate representation of the
deflected shape of the truss so as to be able to locate and record the
point(s) of maximum deflection. Deflections must be read and recorded
relative to a fixed reference datum. Deflections must be read and
recorded to the nearest 1/32-inch. Dead load must be applied to the top
and bottom chord, and live load must be applied to the top chord
through a suitable hydraulic, pneumatic, or mechanical system or
weights to simulate design loads. Load unit weights for uniformly
distributed top chord loads must be separated so that arch action does
not occur and spaced not more than 12 inches on center so as to
simulate uniform loading. Bottom chord loading must be spaced as
uniformly as practical. Truss gravity loads must be calculated based on
the overall truss length (horizontal projection), including eave or
cornice projections.
(d) Testing procedures. Either the testing method in paragraph
(d)(1) or (d)(2) of this section may be used, and the testing method in
paragraph (d)(3) of this section must be used, to test trusses to
establish compliance with the provisions of these standards.
(1) Proof load truss test procedure. At least three average
quality/consecutively tested trusses must pass all requirements of the
test, for initial qualification of the truss design. All tests for
initial qualification of the truss designs evaluated by this procedure
must be certified by a Registered Engineer or Registered Architect, or
by an independent third-party agency. An in-house quality control and
follow-up testing program (see paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section)
must be approved prior to entering production of any truss design
evaluated by this procedure.
(i) Dead load. Measure and record initial elevation of the truss or
trusses in the test position at no load. Apply dead loads to the top
and bottom chords of the truss that are representative of the actual
weights of materials to be supported by the truss. However, the dead
load may be applied as indicated in paragraph (e)(4) of this section
for ongoing follow-up testing only. Dead loads to be applied to the
truss test assembly are permitted to include only the weights of
materials supported by the truss and not the weight of the truss
itself. However, readings from load cells (when used) on which the test
truss rests must reflect the sum of the applied load plus the weight of
the truss. Apply dead loads and hold for 5 minutes. Measure and record
the deflections.
(ii) Live load. Maintaining the dead loads, apply live load to the
top chord in approximate \1/4\ live load increments until dead load
plus the live load is reached. Measure and record the deflections no
sooner than one minute after each \1/4\ live load increment has been
applied and 5 minutes after the full live load has been reached.
(iii) Initial recovery phase. Remove the design live load but not
the dead load. Measure and record the deflections 5 minutes after the
total live load has been removed.
(iv) Continue to load the truss to dead load plus 2.0 times the
design live load. Maintain this loading for 6 hours and inspect the
truss for failure. Failure is rupture, fracture, or excessive yielding.
(v) Final recovery phase. Remove 2.0 times the design live load,
but not the dead load. Measure and record deflections within 4 hours
after removing 2.0 times the design live load.
(vi) Acceptance criteria. The truss design shall be considered to
have passed if all of the following conditions are met:
(A) The maximum deflection between no load and dead load must be L/
480 or less for simply supported clear spans and Lo/180 or less for
eave and cornice projections; and
(B) The maximum deflection between dead load and design live load
must be L/180 or less for simply supported clear spans and Lo/90 or
less for eave and cornice projections; and
(C) After the design live load is removed and with the dead load
still applied, the maximum recovery deflection must be L/360 or less
for simply supported spans and Lo/180 or less for eave and cornice
projections; and
(D) The truss must maintain the overload condition for 6 hours
without rupture or fracture, or excessive yielding; and
(E) After 2.0 times the design live load has been removed, and with
the dead load still applied, the maximum recovery deflection must be L/
180 or less for simply supported clear spans and Lo/90 or less for eave
and cornice projections; and
(F) As applicable, each truss design must also meet all
requirements for uplift loads required by paragraph (d)(3) of this
section. For Wind Zone I uplift load requirements, see paragraph
(d)(3)(i) of this section. For Wind Zones II and III uplift load
requirements, see paragraph (d)(3)(ii) of this section.
(2) Ultimate load truss test procedure. (i) At least three average
quality/consecutively tested trusses must pass all requirements of the
test, for initial qualification of the truss design. All tests for
initial qualification of the truss designs evaluated by this procedure
must be certified by a Registered Engineer or Registered Architect, or
by an independent third-party agency. An in-house quality control and
follow-up testing program (see paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section)
must be approved prior to entering production of any truss design
evaluated by this procedure.
(ii) Dead load. Measure and record initial elevation of the truss
or trusses in the test position at no load. Apply dead loads to the top
and bottom chords of the truss that are representative of the actual
weights of materials to be supported by the truss. However, the dead
load may be applied as indicated in paragraph (e)(4) of this section
for ongoing follow-up testing only. Dead loads to be applied to the
truss test assembly shall be permitted to include only the weights of
materials supported by the truss, and not the weight of the truss
itself. However, readings from load cells (when used) on which the test
truss rests must reflect the sum of the applied load plus the weight of
the truss. Apply dead loads and hold for 5 minutes. Measure and record
the deflections.
(iii) Live load. Maintaining the dead loads, apply live load at a
uniform rate to the top chord in approximate \1/4\ live load increments
until the dead load plus the live load is reached. Measure and record
the deflections no sooner than one minute after each \1/4\ live load
increment has been applied and 5 minutes after the full live load has
been reached.
(iv) Initial recovery phase. Remove the design live load but not
the dead load. Measure and record the deflections 5 minutes after the
design live load has been removed.
(v) Overload phase. After the recovery phase is completed, reapply
the full live load to the truss assembly. Additional loading shall then
be applied continuously until the dead load plus 2.5 times the design
live load is reached. This overload condition must be maintained for at
least 5 minutes.
(vi) Final recovery phase. Remove 2.5 times the design live load
but not the dead load. Measure and record deflections within 4 hours
after 2.5 times the design live load has been removed.
(vii) Acceptance criteria. The truss design is considered to be
acceptable if all of the following conditions are met:
[[Page 34072]]
(A) The maximum deflection between no load and dead load must be L/
480 or less for simply supported clear spans and Lo/180 or less for
eave and cornice projections; and
(B) Dead load-to-design live load deflections shall be L/180 or
less for simply supported clear spans and Lo/90 or less for eave and
cornice projections; and
(C) After the design live load is removed and with the dead load
still applied, the maximum recovery deflection must be L/360 or less
for simply supported spans and Lo/180 or less for eave and cornice
projections; and
(D) The truss shall maintain the overload condition for 5 minutes
without rupture, fracture, or excessive yielding; and
(E) After 2.5 times the design live load is removed and with the
dead load still applied, the truss must recover to at least L/180 for
simply supported clear spans, and Lo/90 for eave and cornice within 4
hours after the total live load has been removed; and
(F) As applicable, each truss design must also meet all
requirements for uplift loads in Wind Zone I or Wind Zone II and III,
as required by paragraph (d)(3) of this section. For Wind Zone I uplift
load requirements, see paragraph (d)(3)(i) of this section. For Wind
Zones II and III uplift load requirements, see paragraph (d)(3)(ii) of
this section.
(3) Uplift load tests. Each truss design must also pass all
requirements of the uplift load test, as applicable, in paragraph
(d)(3)(i) or (d)(3)(ii) and paragraphs (d)(3)(iii) and (d)(3)(iv) of
this section.
(i) Wind Zone I uplift load test. Where there are engineered
connectors between the top chord and web members of the truss, such as
metal connector plates or wood gussets or their equivalents, uplift
testing in Wind Zone I is at the discretion of the Registered Engineer
or Registered Architect or independent third-party agency certifying
the truss design. When testing is deemed necessary by the Registered
Engineer or Registered Architect or independent third-party agency
certifying the truss design, a minimum of one average quality uplift
load test is to be conducted for each such truss design and must pass
all requirements of the test for initial qualification of the truss
design. The net uplift load for trusses designed for use in Wind Zone I
is 9 psf for the clear span of the truss and 22.5 psf for eave or
cornice projections.
(ii) Wind Zones II and III uplift loads test. This test is required
for all trusses designed for use in Wind Zones II and III. A minimum of
three average quality/consecutive uplift load tests are to be conducted
for each truss design, and the trusses must pass all requirements of
the test for initial qualification of the truss design. The uplift load
for trusses designed to be used in Wind Zones II and III for the clear
span or eave cornice projections is to be determined by subtracting the
dead load applied to the truss from the uplift load provided in the
Table of Design Wind Pressures in Sec. 3280.305(c)(1)(ii)(B).
(iii) Trusses designed for use in Wind Zone I, when tested (see
paragraph (d)(3)(i) of this section), must be tested in either the
inverted position to 2.5 times the net wind uplift load or in the
upright position to 1.75 times the net wind uplift load. Trusses
designed for use in Wind Zones II and III (see paragraph (d)(3)(ii) of
this section) must be tested to 1.75 times the uplift load minus the
dead load in the upright position. (See Figure 3280.402(b)(3).)
(iv) The following describes how to conduct the uplift test with
the truss in the upright position. Similar procedures must be used if
conducting the test in the inverted position.
(A) Place the truss in the test fixture and position as it is
intended to be installed in the manufactured home. See Figure
3280.402(b)(3).
[[Page 34073]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16JN10.009
(B) Position the load measurement devices to register the wind
uplift loads that will be applied to the top chord of the truss. The
uplift loads shall be applied through tension devices not wider than
one inch and spaced not greater than approximately 12 inches on center
and shall be applied as uniform as possible, so as to simulate uniform
loading. Gravity and wind uplift load tests may be performed on the
same truss in this single set-up mode. For the wind uplift test, it is
permissible to stabilize the bottom chord of the truss in the test
fixture to simulate ceiling materials or purlin supports. Measure and
record the initial elevation of the bottom chord of the truss in the
test position at the mid-span and quarter points of the truss, and at
the free end of an eave or cornice projection greater than 12 inches.
Scissors or other unique truss configurations are to be measured at as
many additional bottom chord panel points as necessary to obtain an
accurate representation of the deflected shape of the truss, so as to
be able to locate and record the point(s) of maximum deflection. Eave
or cornice projection loads are applied separately for eaves or cornice
projections greater than 12 inches. For eave or cornice projections
greater than 12 inches, the additional required load must be applied to
the eave simultaneously with the main body load. For eave or cornice
projection 12 inches or less, add the additional required load to the
main body load and apply it to the entire top chord.
(C) Measure and record the deflection 5 minutes after the net
uplift load has been applied. Design load deflection shall be L/180 or
less for a simply supported clear span and Lo/90 or less for eave or
cornice projections.
(D) For trusses tested in the upright position, continue to load
the truss to 1.75 times the net uplift load in paragraph (d)(3)(i) of
this section for Wind Zone I and 1.75 times the uplift load in
paragraph (d)(3)(ii) for Wind Zones II and III, and maintain the load
for one minute. For trusses tested in the inverted position (Wind Zone
I only), continue to load the truss to 2.50 times the net uplift load
in paragraph (i) for Wind Zone I, and maintain the full load for 3
hours. Regardless of the test position of the truss, upright or
inverted, trusses must maintain the overload for the specified time
period without rupture, fracture, or excessive yielding.
(E) Follow-up Testing. Follow-up testing procedures must include
the following:
(1) All trusses qualifying under these test procedures must be
subject to a quality control and follow-up testing program.
Manufacturers of listed or labeled trusses must follow an in-house
quality control program, with follow-up testing approved by an
independent third party as specified in Sec. 3280.402(f). Those home
manufacturers producing trusses for their own use, and which are not
listed or labeled, must have an in-house quality control program that
includes follow-up testing, as specified in this section, and approved
by their Design Approval Primary Inspection Agency (DAPIA).
(2) Truss designs that are qualified but not in production are not
subject to follow-up testing until produced. When the truss design is
brought into production, a follow-up test is to be performed if the
truss design has been out of production for more than 6 months.
(3) The frequency of truss manufacturer's quality control follow-up
testing for trusses must be at least:
(i) One test for every 2,500 trusses for trusses qualified under
the proof load truss test procedure or once every 6
[[Page 34074]]
months, whichever is more frequent, for every truss design produced; or
(ii) One test for every 4,000 trusses produced for trusses
qualified under the ultimate load truss test procedure or once every 6
months, whichever is more frequent, for every truss design produced.
(iii) Uplift load tests are also to be conducted at the same
follow-up testing frequency in paragraph (e)(3)(i) or paragraph
(e)(3)(ii) of this section for trusses designed for use in Wind Zones
II and III.
(4) For follow-up testing only, the full dead load may be applied
to the top chord of the truss, when the bottom chord dead load is 5 psf
or less.
(F) In-house quality control program. The in-house quality control
program must include, at a minimum, procedures for quality of materials
including, but not limited to, grade(s) of materials, allowable splits,
knots, and other applicable lumber qualities; workmanship including,
but not limited to, plate placement and embedment tolerances; other
manufacturing tolerances; description and calibration of test
equipment; truss re-testing criteria; and procedures in the event of
noncomplying results.
Dated: May 4, 2010.
David H. Stevens,
Assistant Secretary for Housing--Federal Housing Commissioner.
[FR Doc. 2010-14277 Filed 6-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-67-P