Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Manufactured Housing, 38073-38080 [2018-16650]
Download as PDF
38073
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
Vol. 83, No. 150
Friday, August 3, 2018
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains notices to the public of the proposed
issuance of rules and regulations. The
purpose of these notices is to give interested
persons an opportunity to participate in the
rule making prior to the adoption of the final
rules.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 460
[EERE–2009–BT–BC–0021]
RIN 1904–AC11
Energy Conservation Program: Energy
Conservation Standards for
Manufactured Housing
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of data availability;
request for information.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) is announcing this notice
of data availability (‘‘NODA’’) and
soliciting public input regarding data
relating to certain aspects in developing
energy conservation standards for
manufactured housing. These data are
likely to help serve as support for DOE’s
further refinement of certain aspects of
its proposed standards for these
structures. They may also serve as the
basis for DOE’s restructuring of its
approach in laying out the framework
for standards that would apply to
manufactured housing. DOE is seeking
comment on these data along with
several options that it is currently
considering that could form an
alternative basis for regulating the
energy efficiency of manufactured
housing. DOE also seeks any additional
information that might further inform
the agency’s views regarding the manner
in which to regulate these structures.
DATES: Written comments and
information are requested and will be
accepted on or before September 17,
2018.
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
SUMMARY:
Interested persons are
encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
Alternatively, interested persons may
submit comments, identified by docket
number EERE–2009–BT–BC–0021, by
any of the following methods:
ADDRESSES:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:01 Aug 02, 2018
Jkt 244001
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
2. Email: to Manufactured_Housing@
ee.doe.gov. Include EERE–2009–BT–
BC–0021 in the subject line of the
message.
3. Postal Mail: Appliance and
Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building
Technologies Office, Mailstop EE–5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20585–0121. If
possible, please submit all items on a
compact disc (CD), in which case it is
not necessary to include printed copies.
4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance
and Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building
Technologies Office, 950 L’Enfant Plaza
SW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20024.
Telephone: (202) 287–1445. If possible,
please submit all items on a CD, in
which case it is not necessary to include
printed copies.
No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be
accepted. For detailed instructions on
submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process,
see section III of this document.
Docket: The docket for this activity,
which includes Federal Register
notices, comments, and other
supporting documents/materials, is
available for review at https://
www.regulations.gov. All documents in
the docket are listed in the https://
www.regulations.gov index. However,
some documents listed in the index,
such as those containing information
that is exempt from public disclosure,
may not be publicly available.
The docket web page can be found at
https://www.regulations.gov/
docket?D=EERE-2009-BT-BC-0021. The
docket web page contains simple
instructions on how to access all
documents, including public comments,
in the docket. See section III for
information on how to submit
comments through https://
www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. Sofie Miller, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000
Independence Avenue SW, Washington,
DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 287–
1943. Email: Manufactured_Housing@
ee.doe.gov.
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of the General Counsel,
GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 586–8145. Email:
Michael.Kido@hq.doe.gov.
For further information on how to
submit a comment or review other
public comments and the docket,
contact the Appliance and Equipment
Standards Program staff at (202) 287–
1445 or by email: Manufactured_
Housing@ee.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
A. Authority and Background
B. Rulemaking History
II. Request for Information
A. June 2016 Proposal’s Analytical
Assumptions
B. Ownership-Related Costs
C. Prescriptive and Performance-Based
Standards
D. Alternative Approaches
E. Compliance Lead-Times
III. Submission of Comments
I. Introduction
Manufactured housing comprises a
housing category that consists of
structures constructed in a factory, built
on a permanent chassis, and
transportable in one or more sections
that are then erected on-site. See 24 CFR
3280.2 This type of housing has
traditionally been regulated by the
Department of Housing and Urban
Development (‘‘HUD’’), which has
regulated these structures with the
purpose of reducing personal injuries,
deaths, property damage, and insurance
costs, and to improve the quality,
durability, safety, and affordability of
these homes. See 42 U.S.C. 5401(b).
Consistent with its statutory authority,
HUD has created a comprehensive
regulatory framework to address a
variety of aspects related to these
structures, including certain elements
related to their energy efficiency. See,
e.g. 24 CFR 3280.507(a) (specifying
thermal insulation requirements) and 24
CFR 3280.508(d) (detailing requirements
related to the installation of highefficiency heating and cooling
equipment in manufactured homes).
HUD’s standards are preemptive
nationwide and differ from standards
developed under the auspices of (and
published by) the International Code
Council (‘‘ICC’’). The ICC standards,
E:\FR\FM\03AUP1.SGM
03AUP1
38074
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2018 / Proposed Rules
known as the International Energy
Conservation Code (‘‘IECC’’), have been
adopted by many state and local
governments in establishing minimum
design and construction requirements
for the energy efficiency of residential
and commercial buildings. However,
due to the preemptive nature of HUD’s
standards, the ICC standards are not
currently applied to manufactured
housing. Consistent with this approach
and Federal law, DOE is tasked with
evaluating whether the adoption of
standards based on the most recent
version of the IECC would satisfy the
applicable statutory requirements.
A. Authority and Background
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Section 413 of the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007,
Public Law 110–140 (December 19,
2007) (‘‘EISA’’) requires DOE to
establish by regulation standards for the
energy efficiency of manufactured
housing. See 42 U.S.C. 17071(a)(1). Prior
to establishing these regulations, DOE
must satisfy two conditions—(1)
provide manufacturers and other
interested parties with notice and an
opportunity for comment and (2)
consult with the Secretary of HUD, who
may then ‘‘seek further counsel from the
Manufactured Housing Consensus
Committee.’’ 1 42 U.S.C. 17071(a)(2).
These standards must generally be
based on the most recent version of the
IECC, except where DOE finds that the
IECC is not cost effective, or a more
stringent standard would be more cost
effective. A finding that standards based
on the IECC are not cost effective or that
standards more stringent than the IECC
are cost effective would be based on the
impact of the adoption of the IECC
standards on the purchase price of
manufactured housing and on total lifecycle construction and operating costs.
See 42 U.S.C. 17071(b)(1). In
establishing its standards, DOE may
consider:
• The design and factory construction
techniques of manufactured housing,
• The climate zones established in
the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development’s Manufactured
Home Construction and Safety
Standards (‘‘the HUD Code’’) rather than
1 HUD describes its Manufactured Housing
Consensus Committee as ‘‘a statutory Federal
Advisory Committee body charged with providing
recommendations to the Secretary on the revision
and interpretation of HUD’s manufactured home
construction and safety standards and related
procedural and enforcement regulations. The
[Committee] is charged with developing proposed
model installation standards for the manufactured
housing industry.’’ https://www.hud.gov/program_
offices/housing/rmra/manufacturedhousings/cc1
(last accessed on July 9, 2018).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:01 Aug 02, 2018
Jkt 244001
the climate zones included as part of the
IECC, and
• Alternative practices that result in
net estimated energy consumption equal
to or less than the specific IECC
standards. See 42 U.S.C. 17071(b)(2).
In addition, EISA provides that a
manufacturer who violates the
regulations established by DOE under
42 U.S.C. 17071(a) ‘‘is liable to the
United States for a civil penalty in an
amount not exceeding 1 percent of the
manufacturer’s retail list price of the
manufactured housing.’’ See 42 U.S.C.
17071(c).
B. Rulemaking History
In the years since EISA became law,
DOE has undertaken several steps down
the complex regulatory path of fulfilling
Section 413’s directive for promulgating
new regulations under the processes
and conditions set forth in the statute.
After studying the issue, on February
22, 2010, DOE published an advanced
notice of proposed rulemaking and
request for comment identifying 13
distinct issues concerning energy
efficiency in manufactured housing
about which it sought public input. See
Energy Standards for Manufactured
Housing, 75 FR 7556, 7557 (February
22, 2010). After receiving and
considering the submitted comments,
DOE prepared a draft notice of proposed
rulemaking (‘‘draft NOPR’’) and
submitted it to the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs (‘‘OIRA’’) in the
Office of Management and Budget for
review, pursuant to Executive Order
12866. Ultimately, the draft NOPR did
not clear the OIRA review process, and
DOE withdrew it on March 13, 2014.2
Following the withdrawal of the draft
NOPR from OIRA, DOE notified the
public of its intent to establish a
negotiated rulemaking working group
for manufactured housing. DOE
believed that this approach would be
‘‘better suited to resolving complex
technical issues’’ concerning the
standards, among other benefits. 79 FR
33874 (June 13, 2014). The working
group was convened and met for a total
of 12 days over a three-month period.
See Energy Conservation Program:
Energy Efficiency Standards for
Manufactured Housing, 80 FR 7550,
2 The withdrawn date can be found at https://
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eoAdvancedSearch and
entering ‘‘1904–AC11’’ for the RIN and checking
‘‘Concluded’’ under ‘‘Review Status’’. Additionally,
while the OIRA review was ongoing, on June 25,
2013, DOE published a request for information in
which it sought additional public input regarding
four identified issues related to its rulemaking. See
Energy Efficiency Standards for Manufactured
Housing, 78 FR 37995, 37996–37997 (June 25,
2013).
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
7551 (February 11, 2015).3 These
meetings led to the adoption of a term
sheet detailing numerous technical
recommendations for energy efficiency
standards for manufactured housing.
See Document ID EERE–2009–BT–BC–
0021–0107.4 Also, in accordance with a
recommendation from the working
group, DOE sought further public
comment regarding some technical
issues that had arisen in the rulemaking
process. See 80 FR 7551–7553. In
addition to these extensive efforts to
solicit comments from the public and
the expertise of the working group, DOE
also held meetings with HUD
throughout the regulatory process and
engaged in discussions with the
Manufactured Housing Consensus
Committee. See 81 FR 39762–39763,
39765. It has also conferred with various
other stakeholders. See id. 81 FR 39763,
39765.
On June 17, 2016, DOE published in
the Federal Register a NOPR, which, in
addition to comprehensively describing
DOE’s analysis, was accompanied by a
technical support document detailing
DOE’s analyses supporting that
proposal. See 81 FR 39756. See also
Document ID EERE–2009–BT–BC–
0021–0136.5 The agency also prepared a
draft environmental assessment
pursuant to the National Environmental
Policy Act, on which it sought public
input, particularly regarding the impacts
of the proposed standards on the indoor
air quality of manufactured homes. See
Draft Environmental Assessment for
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
‘‘Energy Conservation Standards for
Manufactured Housing’’ With Request
for Information on Impacts to Indoor Air
Quality, 81 FR 42576 (June 30, 2016).
DOE received nearly 50 comments on
the proposed rule during the comment
period. After considering those
comments, DOE prepared a draft final
rule governing energy efficiency in
manufactured housing and submitted it
to OIRA for review under Executive
Order 12866. OIRA received the draft
final rule on November 1, 2016.6 Again,
3 See also Appliance Standards and Rulemaking
Federal Advisory Committee (ASRAC)—
Manufactured Housing Working Group, 79 FR
48097 (August 15, 2014); Appliance Standards and
Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee
(ASRAC)—Manufactured Housing Working Group,
79 FR 59154 (October 1, 2014).
4 Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/
document?D=EERE-2009-BT-BC-0021-0107.
5 Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/
document?D=EERE-2009-BT-BC-0021-0136.
6 See supra, note 2. On November 9, 2016, DOE
also published a notice of proposed rulemaking for
test procedures, as a companion to the draft energy
efficiency standards rule for manufactured housing.
See Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures
for Manufactured Housing, 81 FR 78733 (November
9, 2016). Test procedures specify how those subject
E:\FR\FM\03AUP1.SGM
03AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2018 / Proposed Rules
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
however, DOE’s draft final rule did not
clear the OIRA review process and was
withdrawn on January 31, 2017.7
II. Request for Information
Since the publication of DOE’s
proposals, the agency has re-examined
its available data and re-evaluated its
approach in developing standards for
manufactured housing. In particular,
HUD made DOE aware of the adverse
impacts on manufactured housing
affordability that would likely follow if
DOE were to adopt the approach laid
out in its June 2016 proposal. As a
result, and in consideration of specific
suggestions offered by HUD, DOE
initiated a review of its data and
analysis and has begun reconsidering
the framework to use in regulating these
structures. In particular, DOE had
previously considered a regulatory
regime similar to the one it administers
with regard to appliance and
commercial equipment standards, i.e.,
setting a uniform, minimum mandatory
level of efficiency that must be achieved
by all subject products. However, DOE’s
authority to establish energy efficiency
standards for appliance standards is
separate from its authority to establish
energy conservation standards for
manufactured homes. Thus, DOE is
examining if it must set a single,
mandatory level of efficiency. As a
result of this re-examination, DOE
developed a number of alternatives on
which it seeks further input from the
public. These alternatives would
facilitate a variety of different levels of
efficiency. In developing these
alternatives, DOE gave careful
consideration to a variety of factors,
including the first-time costs related to
the purchase of these homes. In the
following sections, DOE presents a
series of issues on which it seeks input
to aid in the development of the
technical and economic analyses
regarding each of these potential
alternatives to the proposed regulatory
framework contained in DOE’s June
2016 standards proposal.
Additionally, DOE welcomes
comments on other issues relevant to
the conduct of this process that may not
specifically be identified in this
document. In particular, DOE notes that
under Executive Order 13771,
‘‘Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs,’’ Executive Branch
agencies such as DOE are directed to
manage the costs associated with the
imposition of expenditures required to
comply with Federal regulations. See 82
to energy efficiency standards are to confirm
products are in compliance with such standards.
7 See supra, note 2.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:01 Aug 02, 2018
Jkt 244001
FR 9339 (February 3, 2017). Consistent
with that Executive Order, DOE
encourages the public to provide input
on measures DOE could take to lower
the cost of its regulations applicable to
manufactured housing consistent with
the requirements of EISA.
A. June 2016 Proposal’s Analytical
Assumptions
As with any of its appliance and
equipment standards rulemaking
proposals, DOE made a number of
analytical assumptions to determine
what minimum level of efficiency it
should use in establishing mandatory
energy conservation standards for
manufactured housing. These
assumptions spanned a variety of
factors, including affordability, which
climate zones to use, which solar heat
gain coefficient (‘‘SHGC’’) to use in a
given climate zone, the price elasticity
value to use in DOE’s calculation of
potential impacts, whether to include
certification, compliance, and
enforcement costs as part of DOE’s
analysis, and whether the tightening of
a manufactured home’s building
envelope—which is what the proposed
standards were designed to help
accomplish—would impact indoor air
quality by increasing the likelihood of
trapping pollutants inside the building.
Issue 1: What analytical aspects
related to DOE’s June 2016 proposal—
aside from those specifically noted later
in this document—should DOE consider
re-examining as part of its ongoing
consideration of a final rule for
manufactured housing? (Within this
context, this request also encompasses
whether DOE’s analysis sufficiently
addresses the cost-effectiveness of
standards based on the current IECC
code when considering the code’s
impact on both the purchase price of
manufactured housing and on total lifecycle construction and operating costs.
See 42 U.S.C. 1771(b)(1). Why should
DOE reconsider these aspects and what
specific changes, if any, should DOE
make to them? As part of this request,
DOE is interested in any specific
supplemental supporting data regarding
any changes that commenters may
suggest.
Additionally, in further researching
the manufactured housing market, DOE
has examined additional information
from a variety of sources. Of particular
note is information from the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau (‘‘CFPB’’),
which released a report in 2014 that
focused on this particular market.8 That
report, ‘‘Manufactured-Housing
8 See https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201409_
cfpb_report_manufactured-housing.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
38075
Consumer Finance in the United
States,’’ [hereinafter, ‘‘CFPB Report’’]
detailed the characteristics of
manufactured housing consumers and
the market for manufactured home
financing. Key findings from the report
include:
• Manufactured home ownership
varies widely by region, with the
majority of manufactured homes located
outside of metropolitan areas;
• Manufactured home owners tend to
have lower incomes and less net worth
than their counterparts who own sitebuilt homes;
• There is an extremely constrained
secondary market for manufactured
homes, following the collapse of the
manufactured home market in the late
1990s through the early 2000s;
• Most manufactured-housing
purchasers who finance their homes
obtained a loan of between $10,000 and
$80,000, with a median loan value of
$55,000.
These data suggest that manufactured
housing purchasers face substantial
constraints compared to traditional
home purchasers. In turn, these
constraints may make purchasers of
manufactured homes more pricesensitive to potential changes that
would impact the costs to construct
(and purchase) a manufactured home.9
The CFPB data also point to certain
key demographic characteristics. On a
regional level, the CFPB noted that
manufactured housing is more common
in certain regions than others—with this
type of housing being more common in
the South and the West than in certain
Northeastern states. Manufactured
homes are also much more prevalent in
rural areas, with about 2⁄3 of all
occupied manufactured homes being
located outside of metropolitan
statistical areas; in these areas, 14% of
homes are manufactured homes.
Manufactured housing as a proportion
of occupied housing units is lowest in
Maryland, New Jersey, Connecticut,
Hawaii and Massachusetts (1%) and
highest in South Carolina, New Mexico,
and Mississippi (17%, 16%, and 15%,
respectively). See CFPB Report, at 10–
12.
9 The CFPB Report also suggests that
manufactured home consumers are particularly
cost-driven: ‘‘There is evidence that some
households who move into manufactured housing
are less satisfied with their homes than those who
choose to move into site-built housing. These
results suggest that for at least some households, the
choice to live in a manufactured home may be more
cost-driven than quality-driven.’’ CFPB,
Manufactured-housing consumer finance in the
United States, at 22 (September 2014) [hereinafter,
‘‘CFPB Report’’] (available at https://
files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201409_cfpb_report_
manufactured-housing.pdf).
E:\FR\FM\03AUP1.SGM
03AUP1
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
38076
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2018 / Proposed Rules
Further, manufactured home owners
are more likely to be older and likely to
have lower incomes or net worth. The
median annual income of families living
in manufactured homes is also slightly
over $26,000, and the median net worth
of these families is $26,000 (a quarter of
that of families in site-built homes). See
id. at 16–18.
The CFPB also made a number of
other observations with respect to the
available financial data it examined.
First, it indicated that the
manufactured home market collapsed in
the late 1990s through the early 2000s
as consumers experienced loan
repayment difficulties driven by lowquality manufactured home lending.
Following the collapse, at least eight
large lenders exited the manufactured
home lending market, some of which
drove losses in the secondary market.
See generally id. at 26–29. At the time
of CFPB’s report, sales and production
remained depressed with an extremely
constrained resale market for
manufactured homes. See id. at 6,
26–28, 37.
Second, most manufactured-housing
purchasers finance between $10,000 and
$80,000, with a loan median of $55,000.
See id. at 30. Owners of manufactured
homes finance different amounts
depending on whether they finance the
costs of only the manufactured home or
the costs of both the home and the land
on which it is sited. See id. at 21.
Manufactured home owners who
finance their homes tend to pay higher
interest rates than their site-built home
counterparts. A key reason for this
difference is that the vast majority of
manufactured housing stock is titled as
chattel, and as a result is eligible only
for chattel financing. Chattel financing
is typically offered to purchasers at a
significantly higher interest rate than
the rates offered to their site-built home
counterparts. While some manufactured
home owners who also own the land on
which the manufactured home is sited
may be eligible for mortgage financing,
there is a tradeoff between lower
origination costs with significantly
higher interest rates (chattel loans) and
higher origination costs with
significantly lower interest rates and
greater consumer protections
(mortgage). See id. at 23–25.
Issue 2: a. DOE seeks comment
regarding the CFPB’s findings. Are these
findings reasonably accurate or are there
other factors that DOE should consider
when determining the economic impact
of energy conservation standards on the
ability of purchasers to buy
manufactured homes? Assuming that
these findings are reasonably accurate,
what role, if any, should they play in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:01 Aug 02, 2018
Jkt 244001
shaping the standards that DOE
ultimately adopts for manufactured
housing and why? If the CFPB’s findings
are not accurate, what specific
shortcomings do they have and what
assumptions/changes should DOE apply
when determining the stringency and
types of standards the agency should
establish for manufactured housing?
b. DOE’s own data from its
Residential Energy Consumption Survey
of 2015 suggests that manufactured
housing households pay about 60%
more for their energy per square foot
than the entire housing stock. Is this
estimate accurate—and if so, why? What
specific factors contribute to this
condition? If this estimate is not
accurate, why—what specific factors are
being overlooked in the survey that
contribute to this inaccuracy?
B. Ownership-Related Costs
DOE’s analysis for its June 2016
proposal considered the economic
impacts of the proposed standards on
individual manufactured home
purchasers. Similar to its approach
toward appliance standards, these
analyses focused on the prospect of
applying a single, uniform minimum
standard that all manufactured homes of
a given size (single- or multi-section)
and in a given climate zone (i.e., region
of the country would need to meet.
Necessarily, this approach examined the
overall economic impacts in a broad
fashion by applying a uniform standard
to all manufactured housing units
within a given climate zone and home
size category. However, the approaches
that the Department has taken with
respect to appliance standards may not
be suitable in the case of manufactured
housing, which fills a distinct need for
housing for a particular subset of
consumers. In particular, under the
statutory provision requiring the
Department to develop standards for
manufactured housing, the standards
must generally be based on the most
recent version of the IECC, except where
DOE finds that the IECC is not cost
effective, or a more stringent standard
would be more cost effective. A finding
that standards based on the IECC are not
cost effective or that standards more
stringent than the IECC are cost effective
would be based on the impact of the
adoption of the IECC standards on the
purchase price of manufactured housing
and on total life-cycle construction and
operating costs. As a result, the
approach presented by the working
group (and adopted by DOE in its
proposal) may have inadvertently
overlooked certain factors and yielded
an incomplete picture regarding the
potential impacts flowing from its
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
proposal and whether the standards
must be based on the most recent
version of the IECC. Consequently, DOE
is seeking comment on a variety of
issues related to these factors to help
further inform its views regarding the
economic impacts related to the
establishment of energy efficiency
standards for manufactured housing,
and how those impacts effect use of the
most recent version of the IECC.
Issue 3: Manufactured housing
owners tend to be lower-income than
other homeowners,10 and are also likely
to finance their manufactured housing
purchase using high-rate chattel loans.
As a result, the Department is
particularly interested in comments and
data regarding the affordability of
manufactured housing and how the
options outlined in this NODA would
affect upfront manufactured housing
affordability. DOE also seeks comment
on whether and how the different
approaches outlined in this NODA
would differently affect the affordability
of manufactured homes.
Additionally, as part of this inquiry,
DOE seeks public input on each of the
following items:
a. Affordability is a combination of
upfront cost, which may price out some
consumers at time of purchase, and
operating costs, which will affect all
manufactured housing owners over a
longer time horizon. The Department
seeks comments that provide
information on how to weigh these
components in defining ‘‘affordability,’’
with particular focus on affordability for
low-income consumers.
b. The Department also seeks
comment on what a reasonable payback
period might be for efficiency in
manufactured homes, and any relevant
tradeoffs between upfront cost and
payback period that the Department
should consider to avoid creating a
situation where the upfront cost
increases may price consumers out of
the market for new homes, even if those
costs might be recouped over time.
While the cost of site-built home
efficiency upgrades may be recouped
when an owner sells the home, the same
may not be true of manufactured homes
because (1) manufactured housing
owners have relatively short tenancies 11
10 ‘‘Certain consumer segments are
disproportionately represented among owners and
renters of manufactured homes, in particular older
consumers, consumers that have completed only
high school, households with relatively low
income, and households with relatively low net
worth.’’ CFPB Report, at 13.
11 See Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,
Manufactured-housing consumer finance in the
United States, September 2014 at 42–43: https://
files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201409_cfpb_report_
manufactured-housing.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\03AUP1.SGM
03AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2018 / Proposed Rules
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
and (2) the resale market for
manufactured housing is highly
constrained,12 such that the original
owner will likely not recoup upfront
efficiency investments if the payback
period exceeds tenancy. DOE seeks
additional information from
commenters on the manufactured
housing resale market that would
inform the Department’s consideration
of what a reasonable payback period
would be. If available, the Department
also seeks information on the
distribution of manufactured housing
tenancy rates.
c. The Department is also interested
in comments that inform whether
special consideration should be given to
affordability, particularly given that
low-income and older consumers are
disproportionately represented among
manufactured housing owners.13
Executive Order 13563, which
reinforces the principles of Executive
Order 12866, indicates that agencies
‘‘may consider (and discuss
qualitatively) values that are difficult or
impossible to quantify, including
equity, human dignity, fairness, and
distributive impacts’’ 14 where
appropriate and permitted by law.
d. The Department seeks data and
information regarding basing standards
on the most recent version of the IECC,
in particular, whether standards based
on the most recent version of the IECC
would not be cost effective or that
standards more stringent than the most
recent version of the IECC would be cost
effective, in either case based on the
impact of the adoption of the IECC
standards on the purchase price of
manufactured housing and on total lifecycle construction and operating costs.
Issue 4: DOE is aware that efficiency
standards for manufactured housing
may affect consumers in different
regions differently, and seeks
information on (1) the disparate regional
effects of a standard, and (2) whether
these effects are mitigated by use of
tiered standards or a tiered labeling
program.
Issue 5: DOE seeks to better
understand the market for manufactured
homes. Available sources provide
information regarding the average or
median manufactured housing purchase
price 15 or the proportion of
12 Kevin Jewell. ‘‘Manufactured Housing
Appreciation: Stereotypes and Data.’’ Consumers
Union, Southwest Regional Office. May 2003. Page
6. https://consumersunion.org/pdf/
manufacturedhousing/Appreciation.pdf.
13 See footnote 10, supra.
14 Executive Order 13563, Section 1(c), 76 FR
3821 (January 21, 2011).
15 See U.S. Census Bureau, Cost and Size
Comparison: New Manufactured Homes and SingleFamily Site Built Homes (2007–2014), for example.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:01 Aug 02, 2018
Jkt 244001
38077
In DOE’s June 2016 standards
proposal, the agency laid out two
possible approaches it was considering
at the time. The first option involved
potential prescriptive requirements that
would apply to a variety of components
used in constructing the thermal
envelope of a given manufactured home.
These requirements laid out prescribed
specifications related to thermal
resistance (R-value) for wall, ceiling,
and floor insulation, thermal
transmittance specifications (U-factor)
for windows, skylights, and doors, and
glass glazing (SHGC) requirements. See
81 FR 39757. These prescriptive levels
would vary based on the climate zone
in which the home is located. 81 FR
39766. The second option presented a
potential performance-based approach
that would establish a maximum overall
thermal transmittance for requirement
for the building structure’s thermal
envelope (Uo) and set additional
U-factor and SHGC requirements. See
id. Like with the prescriptive approach,
these requirements would also vary by
climate zone.
In addition to these approaches, DOE
also considered including provisions for
determining U-factor, R-value, SHGC,
and Uo. It also considered establishing
prescriptive requirements for
installation of insulation and sealing the
building’s thermal envelope and duct
system to limit air leakage, which would
in turn reduce potential thermal losses.
See id.
Issue 6: DOE is interested in feedback
regarding whether any aspects of its
2016 proposal need further
consideration and if so, why. For
comments pointing to weaknesses or
strengths with respect to DOE’s
proposal, the agency seeks any
supporting data in addition to that
which DOE has already made public as
part of the manufactured housing
standards rulemaking docket.
D. Alternative Approaches
DOE is also considering an altogether
different approach consisting of
incremental packages that maximize
energy savings of a manufactured home
within certain incremental cost
parameters. These options respond to
concerns from stakeholders, including
HUD, regarding the potentially
prohibitive upfront costs of its 2016
proposed standards. As a result, this
analysis illustrates packages that
maximize energy savings within
incremental cost thresholds of $500,
$1,000, or $1,500. DOE is seeking
comment on whether any of the cost
threshold packages presented here (i.e.
either $500, $1,000, or $1,500), when
applied as a national standard, would
address the concerns of stakeholders
regarding the high upfront cost of its
2016 proposed standards. Further, DOE
developed two sets of cost threshold
packages: One set includes envelope
and duct sealing as options to include
in the cost threshold packages, and one
set does not include envelope and duct
sealing regardless of cost effectiveness.
Unlike the tiered standards discussed
in this NODA, these cost threshold
packages illustrate the costs and benefits
of a potential national standard that
would apply across the fleet of
manufactured homes. However, given
the Department’s interest in tailoring its
standards to consumers with differing
preferences and needs, DOE is also
soliciting comments on whether it can
employ a tiered approach to these
standards, wherein the $500, $1,000,
and $1,500 cost packages could be
applied to, or offered as an option for,
various segments of the market for
manufactured homes.
The Department also recognizes the
value of providing accurate information
on potential energy savings. In addition
to being low incremental or additional
cost to manufacturers, better informed
consumers are empowered to make
choices that meet their individual needs
for energy savings within their own
personal economic circumstances. This
approach builds on the guidance in
Executive Order 12866, which instructs
each agency to identify opportunities to
provide information the public can use
to make informed choices.17 To this
end, the Department is considering a
tiered labeling approach that would
classify various levels of energy savings
based on stringency and categorize these
options within certain tiers, such as a
Brass, Bronze, Silver, Gold, and
Platinum tier, wherein the Platinum tier
16 See Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,
Manufactured-housing consumer finance in the
United States, September 2014, for example.
17 Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning
and Review,’’ 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)
(Section 1(b)(3)).
manufactured housing owners who
borrowed different amounts to finance
their manufactured housing purchase,16
but do not directly show the
distribution of manufactured housing
prices across the market and the
percentage of consumers who purchase
at each price category. DOE is interested
in such information, particularly to the
extent that such information could
inform the consideration of threshold
standards.
C. Prescriptive and Performance-Based
Standards
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03AUP1.SGM
03AUP1
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
38078
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2018 / Proposed Rules
would represent the most efficient
products on the market and Brass would
represent the least efficient.
Consequently, DOE is evaluating the
following options:
Package 1—This package would
maximize the energy savings of a
manufactured home at an upfront cost
of either $500, $1,000, or $1,500. The
accompanying analysis illustrates the
associated lifecycle costs and payback
period for each potential standard level
across climate zones.18 This package
would exclude envelope and duct
sealing to maximize energy savings
under any of the cost threshold options
examined.
Package 2—Like Package 1, this
package would maximize the energy
savings of a manufactured home at an
upfront cost of either $500, $1,000, or
$1,500. The accompanying analysis
illustrates the associated lifecycle costs
and payback period for each potential
standard level across climate zones.19
Unlike Package 1, this package would
allow envelope and duct sealing to
maximize energy savings under all of
the cost threshold options examined.
Package 3—Rather than setting a
national standard within a specified
cost threshold, this option would create
a framework where several different
tiers of energy efficiency would be
offered to consumers based on their
particular needs and pricing
sensitivities. These tiers would be based
on cost increments, which, for purposes
of DOE’s current analysis, would be
based on $500 increments with a cap at
$1,500.
Package 4—This package would
require each manufactured home to
include a label prior to sale indicating
expected energy use and savings. The
labeling system would be tiered in the
sense that different levels of energy
savings would be labeled differently,
such as by being categorized with a
Brass, Bronze, Silver, Gold, or Platinum
rating. These tiers would be based on
potential energy savings. The
Department is considering this package
in conjunction with any of the other
alternatives discussed above or with
potential alternatives that may be
suggested in response to this request for
comment.
Package 5—Finally, to ensure that
manufactured housing continues to be a
viable source for affordable housing,
this package would exclude all
manufactured homes with a cost level
and retail purchase price (not including
land costs) equal to or less than the loan
18 See https://www.regulations.gov/
document?D=EERE-2009-BT-BC-0021-0200.
19 See footnote 18, supra.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:01 Aug 02, 2018
Jkt 244001
limit established in accordance with
Section 2(b)(1)(C) of the National
Housing Act, 12 U.S.C. 1703(b)(1)(C),
plus 5% (Title I Loan Limits). (Currently
= $73,162 or 1.05 × $69,678.) Similarly,
under this package, DOE would apply a
higher price threshold ($294,515) under
the same conditions—i.e. cost level and
purchase price (not including land
costs)—that would encourage (but not
require) manufactured housing at a
certain price to meet DOE’s standards.
For all other manufactured housing that
exceeds this level, DOE could apply one
of the package approaches described
under Packages 1 through 4.
In evaluating these various options,
DOE is considering a scenario where
manufacturers continue to offer more
economical versions of manufactured
homes for certain segments of the
market that are currently available but
that may not necessarily fall into one of
the cost incremental categories
described above. A regime in which
manufacturers continue to offer those
manufactured homes that are currently
available on the market as well as
variants at greater levels of efficiency
would allow particularly price sensitive
individuals who may not have the
financial means to pursue other housing
options to maintain their ability to
purchase a manufactured home of their
choice while also allowing those with
greater means who desire increased
energy efficiency to purchase a
manufactured home that suits their
desires. Under any of these scenarios,
DOE would consider developing a
labeling framework to inform consumers
regarding these options. DOE also seeks
comment on implementing a tiered
labeling system in conjunction with the
other options discussed in this
document to address any potential
information asymmetry and preserve
consumer choice.
Issue 7: DOE seeks comment on
whether it should consider and
implement a cost-based tier structure
with respect to regulating the energy
efficiency of manufactured housing.
DOE notes that a tiered approach could
better address some of the concerns that
may exist with respect to the first-time
costs that purchasers may encounter
with more efficient—but more
expensive—manufactured homes. If so,
why—and if not, why not?
Issue 8: Consumers may fail to
optimize the efficiency of their homes
due to a lack of available information on
the benefits of energy savings.
Recognizing this, the NODA presents an
option that would provide tiered
labeling for consumers to compare and
contrast information on upfront costs
and long-term energy savings across
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
manufactured housing structures. The
Department is seeking comments on the
benefit of providing consumers with
such information, which preserves
consumer choice, and the best way to
provide consumers with information
that they can easily understand and put
to use.
a. What information is available to
consumers when they make
manufactured housing purchasing
decisions, and what additional
information would be useful? Further,
how can the Department add value in
the provision and display of
information?
b. DOE seeks comments regarding
whether access to information is a
barrier to manufactured housing
consumers, and if so, what is the
magnitude of this barrier (i.e. to what
extent does the lack of information
prevent consumers from purchasing
efficient homes)?
Issue 9: DOE is also considering a
number of approaches that would
increase consumer access to information
and increase the efficiency of
manufactured homes.
a. In weighing these approaches, the
Department seeks comment on the
advantages and disadvantages of using a
tiered approach for efficiency standards
versus using a single national standard
that would apply to all manufactured
homes within a single climate zone.
DOE also seeks information regarding
what a labeling framework would need
to consider if a tiered approach were
used and what the costs of such an
approach would likely be. The
Department further seeks comment on
the advantages and disadvantages of
using a tiered approach to labeling
requirements versus a single national
labeling standard for manufactured
homes.
b. Within the tiered options discussed
above, the Department seeks public
input on what the appropriate criteria
are to use for establishing thresholds
(e.g., price, cost, region, etc.) and how
best to define these criteria (e.g.,
manufacturer added cost, retail price,
etc.). DOE also seeks public input on
other factors that it should consider
when establishing tiered standards.
With respect to tightening a
manufactured home’s building
envelope, the agency notes that this
technique appears to be a cost-effective
way to increase energy efficiency.
However, many previous commenters,
including HUD’s Manufactured Housing
Consensus Committee, raised the
possibility that sealing requirements
may pose challenges for indoor air
E:\FR\FM\03AUP1.SGM
03AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2018 / Proposed Rules
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
quality.20 Degraded indoor air quality
could introduce additional costs in
terms of health and safety or operation
and maintenance that may impede the
cost efficacy of these approaches.
Previous commenters have submitted
existing literature on manufactured
housing indoor air quality, including a
report from the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (‘‘CDC’’), an
agency within the Department of Health
and Human Services (‘‘HHS’’). The CDC
report, which was prepared in
conjunction with HUD, found generally
that indoor air can contain a number of
contaminants that contribute to health
complaints, and that indoor air quality
is of particular concern in manufactured
housing due to its confined spaces and,
in some cases, lower ventilation and air
exchange rates.21 In addition, the CDC
report found that ‘‘manufactured
structures with relatively less air
circulation may develop higher levels of
indoor contaminants.’’ However,
comprehensive data on air quality in
manufactured homes was unavailable at
the time of CDC’s report.22
Issue 10: Is new information available
on the relationship between tightening
the home envelope and indoor air
quality? If so, what is the nature of that
information, why should DOE consider
it, and how should the agency integrate
it into its analyses?
Issue 11: DOE is particularly
interested in baseline measures of air
flow in recently-built manufactured
housing against which to measure any
potential reductions in air changes per
hour (‘‘ACH’’). DOE also seeks
information related to what the
appropriate ACH threshold is for
maintaining adequate indoor air
quality.23
Issue 12: What potential health and
safety costs of incremental reductions in
ACH and/or indoor air quality should
the Department consider when
evaluating this approach and why?
What steps should DOE consider taking
to reduce these costs while preserving
indoor air quality for manufactured
home residents and what disadvantages,
if any, are there to each of these specific
steps?
Issue 13: Regarding the overall
structure of DOE’s approach to its
20 https://www.regulations.gov/
document?D=EERE-2009-BT-BC-0021-0162.
21 CDC and HHS. Safety and Health in
Manufactured Structures (2011) [hereinafter,
‘‘Safety and Health’’].
22 Safety and Health, at p. 25.
23 As of 2003, ASHRAE and HUD had established
a minimum whole-house ventilation requirement of
0.35 ACH for achieving appropriate indoor air
quality. See https://www.huduser.gov/publications/
pdf/moisturereport.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:01 Aug 02, 2018
Jkt 244001
proposed climate zones, should these
zones be reconsidered—and if so, why?
Should DOE use HUD’s existing climate
zones? If DOE were to develop its own
climate zones, what factors should it
consider in doing so? What factors
would support the continued use of the
proposed climate zones and how do
those factors weigh against using HUD’s
existing climate zones or in favor of
adjusting them further?
E. Compliance Lead-Times
The June 2016 proposal used a
compliance date lead-time of one year
from the publication of a final rule. DOE
proposed a lead-time of one year under
the belief that this amount of time
would be sufficient to allow
manufacturers to transition their
designs, materials, and factory
operations and processes to comply
with the finalized version of the energy
conservation standards that DOE
considered adopting. In light of the
amount of time that has elapsed since
the date of DOE’s June 2016 proposal,
and the possibility that the agency may
explore an alternative approach for
regulating the energy efficiency of
manufactured homes through the use of
a tiered system along with variants of
DOE’s earlier proposal that would rely
on HUD’s three climate zones, DOE is
interested in soliciting public comment
on whether its proposed lead-time
remains appropriate.
Issue 14: Should DOE continue to
apply a one year lead-time to the energy
conservation standards for
manufactured housing? Does the
approach—i.e. single uniform national
standard versus a multi-tiered national
standard—impact the amount of leadtime manufacturers would require to
meet the applicable standards? If so,
why—and if not, why not? If DOE were
to adopt an approach that presented
different compliance options in the form
of cost-based tiers, would manufacturers
require more, less, or the same amount
of lead-time as the agency’s proposal
(i.e. one year)? Why or why not?
Issue 15: With respect to the
manufactured housing standards that
DOE promulgates, DOE seeks comment
on what enforcement mechanism would
be the most appropriate to apply and
why. In considering enforcement
mechanisms, DOE is interested in
information concerning the burden and
cost impacts for suggested approach(es),
as well as the compliance lead-time
needed by the industry. Further, DOE
seeks information as to whether
enforcement cost of any suggested
approach may extend beyond the
manufacturing industry to the sales and
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
38079
distribution channels that interface with
prospective purchasers.
III. Submission of Comments
DOE invites all interested parties to
submit in writing by the date listed in
DATES, comments and information on
matters addressed in this notice and on
other matters relevant to DOE’s
consideration of energy conservation
standards for manufactured housing.
These comments and information will
aid in the development of energy
conservation standards for these
structures.
Submitting comments via https://
www.regulations.gov. The https://
www.regulations.gov web page will
require you to provide your name and
contact information. Your contact
information will be viewable to DOE
Building Technologies staff only. Your
contact information will not be publicly
viewable except for your first and last
names, organization name (if any), and
submitter representative name (if any).
If your comment is not processed
properly because of technical
difficulties, DOE will use this
information to contact you. If DOE
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, DOE may not be
able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information
will be publicly viewable if you include
it in the comment or in any documents
attached to your comment. Any
information that you do not want to be
publicly viewable should not be
included in your comment, nor in any
document attached to your comment.
Persons viewing comments will see only
first and last names, organization
names, correspondence containing
comments, and any documents
submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to https://
www.regulations.gov information for
which disclosure is restricted by statute,
such as trade secrets and commercial or
financial information (hereinafter
referred to as Confidential Business
Information (‘‘CBI’’)). Comments
submitted through https://
www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed
as CBI. Comments received through the
website will waive any CBI claims for
the information submitted. For
information on submitting CBI, see the
Confidential Business Information
section.
DOE processes submissions made
through https://www.regulations.gov
before posting. Normally, comments
will be posted within a few days of
being submitted. However, if large
volumes of comments are being
processed simultaneously, your
E:\FR\FM\03AUP1.SGM
03AUP1
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
38080
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2018 / Proposed Rules
comment may not be viewable for up to
several weeks. Please keep the comment
tracking number that https://
www.regulations.gov provides after you
have successfully uploaded your
comment.
Submitting comments via email, hand
delivery, or mail. Comments and
documents submitted via email, hand
delivery, or mail also will be posted to
https://www.regulations.gov. If you do
not want your personal contact
information to be publicly viewable, do
not include it in your comment or any
accompanying documents. Instead,
provide your contact information on a
cover letter. Include your first and last
names, email address, telephone
number, and optional mailing address.
The cover letter will not be publicly
viewable as long as it does not include
any comments.
Include contact information each time
you submit comments, data, documents,
and other information to DOE. If you
submit via mail or hand delivery, please
provide all items on a CD, if feasible. It
is not necessary to submit printed
copies. No facsimiles (faxes) will be
accepted.
Comments, data, and other
information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in
PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file
format. Provide documents that are not
secured, written in English and free of
any defects or viruses. Documents
should not contain special characters or
any form of encryption and, if possible,
they should carry the electronic
signature of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit
campaign form letters by the originating
organization in batches of between 50 to
500 form letters per PDF or as one form
letter with a list of supporters’ names
compiled into one or more PDFs. This
reduces comment processing and
posting time.
Confidential Business Information.
According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any
person submitting information that he
or she believes to be confidential and
exempt by law from public disclosure
should submit via email, postal mail, or
hand delivery two well-marked copies:
One copy of the document marked
confidential including all the
information believed to be confidential,
and one copy of the document marked
‘‘non-confidential’’ with the information
believed to be confidential deleted.
Submit these documents via email or on
a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its own
determination about the confidential
status of the information and treat it
according to its determination.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:01 Aug 02, 2018
Jkt 244001
Factors of interest to DOE when
evaluating requests to treat submitted
information as confidential include (1) a
description of the items, (2) whether
and why such items are customarily
treated as confidential within the
industry, (3) whether the information is
generally known by or available from
other sources, (4) whether the
information has previously been made
available to others without obligation
concerning its confidentiality, (5) an
explanation of the competitive injury to
the submitting person which would
result from public disclosure, (6) when
such information might lose its
confidential character due to the
passage of time, and (7) why disclosure
of the information would be contrary to
the public interest.
It is DOE’s policy that all comments
may be included in the public docket,
without change and as received,
including any personal information
provided in the comments (except
information deemed to be exempt from
public disclosure).
DOE considers public participation to
be a very important part of the process
for developing test procedures and
energy conservation standards. DOE
actively encourages the participation
and interaction of the public during the
comment period in each stage of the
rulemaking process. Interactions with
and between members of the public
provide a balanced discussion of the
issues and assist DOE in the rulemaking
process. Anyone who wishes to be
added to the DOE mailing list to receive
future notices and information about
this process should contact Appliance
and Equipment Standards Program staff
at (202) 287–1445 or via email at
Manufactured_Housing@ee.doe.gov.
Signed in Washington, DC, on July 31,
2018.
Cathy Tripodi,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 2018–16650 Filed 8–2–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE
CORPORATION
12 CFR Parts 308 and 327
RIN 3064–AE75
Rules of Practice and Procedure
Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
and request for comments.
AGENCY:
The Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation (FDIC) proposes
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
to amend its rules of practice and
procedure to remove duplicative,
descriptive regulatory language related
to civil money penalty (CMP) amounts
that restates existing statutory language
regarding such CMPs, codify Congress’s
recent change to CMP inflationadjustments in the FDIC’s regulations,
and direct readers to an annually
published notice in the Federal
Register—rather than the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR)—for
information regarding the maximum
CMP amounts that can be assessed after
inflation adjustments. These revisions
are intended to simplify the CFR by
removing unnecessary and redundant
text and to make it easier for readers to
locate the current, inflation-adjusted
maximum CMP amounts by presenting
these amounts in an annually published
chart. Additionally, the FDIC proposes
to correct four errors and revise crossreferences currently found in its rules of
practice and procedure.
DATES: Comments must be received by
October 2, 2018.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by RIN 3064–AE75, by any of
the following methods:
• Agency website: https://
www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/Federal/.
Follow the instructions for submitting
comments on the Agency website.
• Email: Comments@fdic.gov. Include
the RIN 3064–AE75 in the subject line
of the message.
• Mail: Robert E. Feldman, Executive
Secretary, Attention: Comments, Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th
Street NW, Washington, DC 20429.
• Hand Delivery: Comments may be
hand-delivered to the guard station at
the rear of the 550 17th Street Building
(located on F Street) on business days
between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m.
Public Inspection: All comments
received must include the agency name
and RIN for this rulemaking. All
comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.fdic.gov/
regulations/laws/Federal/—including
any personal information provided—for
public inspection. Paper copies of
public comments may be ordered from
the FDIC Public Information Center,
3501 North Fairfax Drive, Room E–1002,
Arlington, VA 22226 by telephone at
(877) 275–3342 or (703) 562–2200.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Graham N. Rehrig, Senior Attorney,
Legal Division, (202) 898–3829,
grehrig@fdic.gov, or Sydney Mayer,
Attorney, Legal Division, (202) 898–
3669.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\03AUP1.SGM
03AUP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 150 (Friday, August 3, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38073-38080]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-16650]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2018 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 38073]]
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 460
[EERE-2009-BT-BC-0021]
RIN 1904-AC11
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Manufactured Housing
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of data availability; request for information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is announcing this notice
of data availability (``NODA'') and soliciting public input regarding
data relating to certain aspects in developing energy conservation
standards for manufactured housing. These data are likely to help serve
as support for DOE's further refinement of certain aspects of its
proposed standards for these structures. They may also serve as the
basis for DOE's restructuring of its approach in laying out the
framework for standards that would apply to manufactured housing. DOE
is seeking comment on these data along with several options that it is
currently considering that could form an alternative basis for
regulating the energy efficiency of manufactured housing. DOE also
seeks any additional information that might further inform the agency's
views regarding the manner in which to regulate these structures.
DATES: Written comments and information are requested and will be
accepted on or before September 17, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested
persons may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-2009-BT-
BC-0021, by any of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
2. Email: to [email protected]. Include EERE-2009-BT-
BC-0021 in the subject line of the message.
3. Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. If possible,
please submit all items on a compact disc (CD), in which case it is not
necessary to include printed copies.
4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards
Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950
L'Enfant Plaza SW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202)
287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case
it is not necessary to include printed copies.
No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be accepted. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the
rulemaking process, see section III of this document.
Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal
Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials,
is available for review at https://www.regulations.gov. All documents in
the docket are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index. However,
some documents listed in the index, such as those containing
information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly
available.
The docket web page can be found at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2009-BT-BC-0021. The docket web page contains simple
instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments,
in the docket. See section III for information on how to submit
comments through https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. Sofie Miller, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 287-1943. Email: [email protected].
Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121.
Telephone: (202) 586-8145. Email: [email protected].
For further information on how to submit a comment or review other
public comments and the docket, contact the Appliance and Equipment
Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
A. Authority and Background
B. Rulemaking History
II. Request for Information
A. June 2016 Proposal's Analytical Assumptions
B. Ownership-Related Costs
C. Prescriptive and Performance-Based Standards
D. Alternative Approaches
E. Compliance Lead-Times
III. Submission of Comments
I. Introduction
Manufactured housing comprises a housing category that consists of
structures constructed in a factory, built on a permanent chassis, and
transportable in one or more sections that are then erected on-site.
See 24 CFR 3280.2 This type of housing has traditionally been regulated
by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (``HUD''), which has
regulated these structures with the purpose of reducing personal
injuries, deaths, property damage, and insurance costs, and to improve
the quality, durability, safety, and affordability of these homes. See
42 U.S.C. 5401(b). Consistent with its statutory authority, HUD has
created a comprehensive regulatory framework to address a variety of
aspects related to these structures, including certain elements related
to their energy efficiency. See, e.g. 24 CFR 3280.507(a) (specifying
thermal insulation requirements) and 24 CFR 3280.508(d) (detailing
requirements related to the installation of high-efficiency heating and
cooling equipment in manufactured homes). HUD's standards are
preemptive nationwide and differ from standards developed under the
auspices of (and published by) the International Code Council
(``ICC''). The ICC standards,
[[Page 38074]]
known as the International Energy Conservation Code (``IECC''), have
been adopted by many state and local governments in establishing
minimum design and construction requirements for the energy efficiency
of residential and commercial buildings. However, due to the preemptive
nature of HUD's standards, the ICC standards are not currently applied
to manufactured housing. Consistent with this approach and Federal law,
DOE is tasked with evaluating whether the adoption of standards based
on the most recent version of the IECC would satisfy the applicable
statutory requirements.
A. Authority and Background
Section 413 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007,
Public Law 110-140 (December 19, 2007) (``EISA'') requires DOE to
establish by regulation standards for the energy efficiency of
manufactured housing. See 42 U.S.C. 17071(a)(1). Prior to establishing
these regulations, DOE must satisfy two conditions--(1) provide
manufacturers and other interested parties with notice and an
opportunity for comment and (2) consult with the Secretary of HUD, who
may then ``seek further counsel from the Manufactured Housing Consensus
Committee.'' \1\ 42 U.S.C. 17071(a)(2). These standards must generally
be based on the most recent version of the IECC, except where DOE finds
that the IECC is not cost effective, or a more stringent standard would
be more cost effective. A finding that standards based on the IECC are
not cost effective or that standards more stringent than the IECC are
cost effective would be based on the impact of the adoption of the IECC
standards on the purchase price of manufactured housing and on total
life-cycle construction and operating costs. See 42 U.S.C. 17071(b)(1).
In establishing its standards, DOE may consider:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ HUD describes its Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee
as ``a statutory Federal Advisory Committee body charged with
providing recommendations to the Secretary on the revision and
interpretation of HUD's manufactured home construction and safety
standards and related procedural and enforcement regulations. The
[Committee] is charged with developing proposed model installation
standards for the manufactured housing industry.'' https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/housing/rmra/manufacturedhousings/cc1
(last accessed on July 9, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The design and factory construction techniques of
manufactured housing,
The climate zones established in the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development's Manufactured Home Construction and
Safety Standards (``the HUD Code'') rather than the climate zones
included as part of the IECC, and
Alternative practices that result in net estimated energy
consumption equal to or less than the specific IECC standards. See 42
U.S.C. 17071(b)(2).
In addition, EISA provides that a manufacturer who violates the
regulations established by DOE under 42 U.S.C. 17071(a) ``is liable to
the United States for a civil penalty in an amount not exceeding 1
percent of the manufacturer's retail list price of the manufactured
housing.'' See 42 U.S.C. 17071(c).
B. Rulemaking History
In the years since EISA became law, DOE has undertaken several
steps down the complex regulatory path of fulfilling Section 413's
directive for promulgating new regulations under the processes and
conditions set forth in the statute. After studying the issue, on
February 22, 2010, DOE published an advanced notice of proposed
rulemaking and request for comment identifying 13 distinct issues
concerning energy efficiency in manufactured housing about which it
sought public input. See Energy Standards for Manufactured Housing, 75
FR 7556, 7557 (February 22, 2010). After receiving and considering the
submitted comments, DOE prepared a draft notice of proposed rulemaking
(``draft NOPR'') and submitted it to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (``OIRA'') in the Office of Management and Budget
for review, pursuant to Executive Order 12866. Ultimately, the draft
NOPR did not clear the OIRA review process, and DOE withdrew it on
March 13, 2014.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The withdrawn date can be found at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eoAdvancedSearch and entering ``1904-AC11'' for the RIN
and checking ``Concluded'' under ``Review Status''. Additionally,
while the OIRA review was ongoing, on June 25, 2013, DOE published a
request for information in which it sought additional public input
regarding four identified issues related to its rulemaking. See
Energy Efficiency Standards for Manufactured Housing, 78 FR 37995,
37996-37997 (June 25, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following the withdrawal of the draft NOPR from OIRA, DOE notified
the public of its intent to establish a negotiated rulemaking working
group for manufactured housing. DOE believed that this approach would
be ``better suited to resolving complex technical issues'' concerning
the standards, among other benefits. 79 FR 33874 (June 13, 2014). The
working group was convened and met for a total of 12 days over a three-
month period. See Energy Conservation Program: Energy Efficiency
Standards for Manufactured Housing, 80 FR 7550, 7551 (February 11,
2015).\3\ These meetings led to the adoption of a term sheet detailing
numerous technical recommendations for energy efficiency standards for
manufactured housing. See Document ID EERE-2009-BT-BC-0021-0107.\4\
Also, in accordance with a recommendation from the working group, DOE
sought further public comment regarding some technical issues that had
arisen in the rulemaking process. See 80 FR 7551-7553. In addition to
these extensive efforts to solicit comments from the public and the
expertise of the working group, DOE also held meetings with HUD
throughout the regulatory process and engaged in discussions with the
Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee. See 81 FR 39762-39763, 39765.
It has also conferred with various other stakeholders. See id. 81 FR
39763, 39765.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See also Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory
Committee (ASRAC)--Manufactured Housing Working Group, 79 FR 48097
(August 15, 2014); Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal
Advisory Committee (ASRAC)--Manufactured Housing Working Group, 79
FR 59154 (October 1, 2014).
\4\ Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2009-BT-BC-0021-0107.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 17, 2016, DOE published in the Federal Register a NOPR,
which, in addition to comprehensively describing DOE's analysis, was
accompanied by a technical support document detailing DOE's analyses
supporting that proposal. See 81 FR 39756. See also Document ID EERE-
2009-BT-BC-0021-0136.\5\ The agency also prepared a draft environmental
assessment pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, on which
it sought public input, particularly regarding the impacts of the
proposed standards on the indoor air quality of manufactured homes. See
Draft Environmental Assessment for Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
``Energy Conservation Standards for Manufactured Housing'' With Request
for Information on Impacts to Indoor Air Quality, 81 FR 42576 (June 30,
2016). DOE received nearly 50 comments on the proposed rule during the
comment period. After considering those comments, DOE prepared a draft
final rule governing energy efficiency in manufactured housing and
submitted it to OIRA for review under Executive Order 12866. OIRA
received the draft final rule on November 1, 2016.\6\ Again,
[[Page 38075]]
however, DOE's draft final rule did not clear the OIRA review process
and was withdrawn on January 31, 2017.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2009-BT-BC-0021-0136.
\6\ See supra, note 2. On November 9, 2016, DOE also published a
notice of proposed rulemaking for test procedures, as a companion to
the draft energy efficiency standards rule for manufactured housing.
See Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Manufactured
Housing, 81 FR 78733 (November 9, 2016). Test procedures specify how
those subject to energy efficiency standards are to confirm products
are in compliance with such standards.
\7\ See supra, note 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Request for Information
Since the publication of DOE's proposals, the agency has re-
examined its available data and re-evaluated its approach in developing
standards for manufactured housing. In particular, HUD made DOE aware
of the adverse impacts on manufactured housing affordability that would
likely follow if DOE were to adopt the approach laid out in its June
2016 proposal. As a result, and in consideration of specific
suggestions offered by HUD, DOE initiated a review of its data and
analysis and has begun reconsidering the framework to use in regulating
these structures. In particular, DOE had previously considered a
regulatory regime similar to the one it administers with regard to
appliance and commercial equipment standards, i.e., setting a uniform,
minimum mandatory level of efficiency that must be achieved by all
subject products. However, DOE's authority to establish energy
efficiency standards for appliance standards is separate from its
authority to establish energy conservation standards for manufactured
homes. Thus, DOE is examining if it must set a single, mandatory level
of efficiency. As a result of this re-examination, DOE developed a
number of alternatives on which it seeks further input from the public.
These alternatives would facilitate a variety of different levels of
efficiency. In developing these alternatives, DOE gave careful
consideration to a variety of factors, including the first-time costs
related to the purchase of these homes. In the following sections, DOE
presents a series of issues on which it seeks input to aid in the
development of the technical and economic analyses regarding each of
these potential alternatives to the proposed regulatory framework
contained in DOE's June 2016 standards proposal.
Additionally, DOE welcomes comments on other issues relevant to the
conduct of this process that may not specifically be identified in this
document. In particular, DOE notes that under Executive Order 13771,
``Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,'' Executive
Branch agencies such as DOE are directed to manage the costs associated
with the imposition of expenditures required to comply with Federal
regulations. See 82 FR 9339 (February 3, 2017). Consistent with that
Executive Order, DOE encourages the public to provide input on measures
DOE could take to lower the cost of its regulations applicable to
manufactured housing consistent with the requirements of EISA.
A. June 2016 Proposal's Analytical Assumptions
As with any of its appliance and equipment standards rulemaking
proposals, DOE made a number of analytical assumptions to determine
what minimum level of efficiency it should use in establishing
mandatory energy conservation standards for manufactured housing. These
assumptions spanned a variety of factors, including affordability,
which climate zones to use, which solar heat gain coefficient
(``SHGC'') to use in a given climate zone, the price elasticity value
to use in DOE's calculation of potential impacts, whether to include
certification, compliance, and enforcement costs as part of DOE's
analysis, and whether the tightening of a manufactured home's building
envelope--which is what the proposed standards were designed to help
accomplish--would impact indoor air quality by increasing the
likelihood of trapping pollutants inside the building.
Issue 1: What analytical aspects related to DOE's June 2016
proposal--aside from those specifically noted later in this document--
should DOE consider re-examining as part of its ongoing consideration
of a final rule for manufactured housing? (Within this context, this
request also encompasses whether DOE's analysis sufficiently addresses
the cost-effectiveness of standards based on the current IECC code when
considering the code's impact on both the purchase price of
manufactured housing and on total life-cycle construction and operating
costs. See 42 U.S.C. 1771(b)(1). Why should DOE reconsider these
aspects and what specific changes, if any, should DOE make to them? As
part of this request, DOE is interested in any specific supplemental
supporting data regarding any changes that commenters may suggest.
Additionally, in further researching the manufactured housing
market, DOE has examined additional information from a variety of
sources. Of particular note is information from the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau (``CFPB''), which released a report in 2014 that
focused on this particular market.\8\ That report, ``Manufactured-
Housing Consumer Finance in the United States,'' [hereinafter, ``CFPB
Report''] detailed the characteristics of manufactured housing
consumers and the market for manufactured home financing. Key findings
from the report include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201409_cfpb_report_manufactured-housing.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufactured home ownership varies widely by region, with
the majority of manufactured homes located outside of metropolitan
areas;
Manufactured home owners tend to have lower incomes and
less net worth than their counterparts who own site-built homes;
There is an extremely constrained secondary market for
manufactured homes, following the collapse of the manufactured home
market in the late 1990s through the early 2000s;
Most manufactured-housing purchasers who finance their
homes obtained a loan of between $10,000 and $80,000, with a median
loan value of $55,000.
These data suggest that manufactured housing purchasers face
substantial constraints compared to traditional home purchasers. In
turn, these constraints may make purchasers of manufactured homes more
price-sensitive to potential changes that would impact the costs to
construct (and purchase) a manufactured home.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The CFPB Report also suggests that manufactured home
consumers are particularly cost-driven: ``There is evidence that
some households who move into manufactured housing are less
satisfied with their homes than those who choose to move into site-
built housing. These results suggest that for at least some
households, the choice to live in a manufactured home may be more
cost-driven than quality-driven.'' CFPB, Manufactured-housing
consumer finance in the United States, at 22 (September 2014)
[hereinafter, ``CFPB Report''] (available at https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201409_cfpb_report_manufactured-housing.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CFPB data also point to certain key demographic
characteristics. On a regional level, the CFPB noted that manufactured
housing is more common in certain regions than others--with this type
of housing being more common in the South and the West than in certain
Northeastern states. Manufactured homes are also much more prevalent in
rural areas, with about \2/3\ of all occupied manufactured homes being
located outside of metropolitan statistical areas; in these areas, 14%
of homes are manufactured homes. Manufactured housing as a proportion
of occupied housing units is lowest in Maryland, New Jersey,
Connecticut, Hawaii and Massachusetts (1%) and highest in South
Carolina, New Mexico, and Mississippi (17%, 16%, and 15%,
respectively). See CFPB Report, at 10-12.
[[Page 38076]]
Further, manufactured home owners are more likely to be older and
likely to have lower incomes or net worth. The median annual income of
families living in manufactured homes is also slightly over $26,000,
and the median net worth of these families is $26,000 (a quarter of
that of families in site-built homes). See id. at 16-18.
The CFPB also made a number of other observations with respect to
the available financial data it examined.
First, it indicated that the manufactured home market collapsed in
the late 1990s through the early 2000s as consumers experienced loan
repayment difficulties driven by low-quality manufactured home lending.
Following the collapse, at least eight large lenders exited the
manufactured home lending market, some of which drove losses in the
secondary market. See generally id. at 26-29. At the time of CFPB's
report, sales and production remained depressed with an extremely
constrained resale market for manufactured homes. See id. at 6, 26-28,
37.
Second, most manufactured-housing purchasers finance between
$10,000 and $80,000, with a loan median of $55,000. See id. at 30.
Owners of manufactured homes finance different amounts depending on
whether they finance the costs of only the manufactured home or the
costs of both the home and the land on which it is sited. See id. at
21.
Manufactured home owners who finance their homes tend to pay higher
interest rates than their site-built home counterparts. A key reason
for this difference is that the vast majority of manufactured housing
stock is titled as chattel, and as a result is eligible only for
chattel financing. Chattel financing is typically offered to purchasers
at a significantly higher interest rate than the rates offered to their
site-built home counterparts. While some manufactured home owners who
also own the land on which the manufactured home is sited may be
eligible for mortgage financing, there is a tradeoff between lower
origination costs with significantly higher interest rates (chattel
loans) and higher origination costs with significantly lower interest
rates and greater consumer protections (mortgage). See id. at 23-25.
Issue 2: a. DOE seeks comment regarding the CFPB's findings. Are
these findings reasonably accurate or are there other factors that DOE
should consider when determining the economic impact of energy
conservation standards on the ability of purchasers to buy manufactured
homes? Assuming that these findings are reasonably accurate, what role,
if any, should they play in shaping the standards that DOE ultimately
adopts for manufactured housing and why? If the CFPB's findings are not
accurate, what specific shortcomings do they have and what assumptions/
changes should DOE apply when determining the stringency and types of
standards the agency should establish for manufactured housing?
b. DOE's own data from its Residential Energy Consumption Survey of
2015 suggests that manufactured housing households pay about 60% more
for their energy per square foot than the entire housing stock. Is this
estimate accurate--and if so, why? What specific factors contribute to
this condition? If this estimate is not accurate, why--what specific
factors are being overlooked in the survey that contribute to this
inaccuracy?
B. Ownership-Related Costs
DOE's analysis for its June 2016 proposal considered the economic
impacts of the proposed standards on individual manufactured home
purchasers. Similar to its approach toward appliance standards, these
analyses focused on the prospect of applying a single, uniform minimum
standard that all manufactured homes of a given size (single- or multi-
section) and in a given climate zone (i.e., region of the country would
need to meet. Necessarily, this approach examined the overall economic
impacts in a broad fashion by applying a uniform standard to all
manufactured housing units within a given climate zone and home size
category. However, the approaches that the Department has taken with
respect to appliance standards may not be suitable in the case of
manufactured housing, which fills a distinct need for housing for a
particular subset of consumers. In particular, under the statutory
provision requiring the Department to develop standards for
manufactured housing, the standards must generally be based on the most
recent version of the IECC, except where DOE finds that the IECC is not
cost effective, or a more stringent standard would be more cost
effective. A finding that standards based on the IECC are not cost
effective or that standards more stringent than the IECC are cost
effective would be based on the impact of the adoption of the IECC
standards on the purchase price of manufactured housing and on total
life-cycle construction and operating costs. As a result, the approach
presented by the working group (and adopted by DOE in its proposal) may
have inadvertently overlooked certain factors and yielded an incomplete
picture regarding the potential impacts flowing from its proposal and
whether the standards must be based on the most recent version of the
IECC. Consequently, DOE is seeking comment on a variety of issues
related to these factors to help further inform its views regarding the
economic impacts related to the establishment of energy efficiency
standards for manufactured housing, and how those impacts effect use of
the most recent version of the IECC.
Issue 3: Manufactured housing owners tend to be lower-income than
other homeowners,\10\ and are also likely to finance their manufactured
housing purchase using high-rate chattel loans. As a result, the
Department is particularly interested in comments and data regarding
the affordability of manufactured housing and how the options outlined
in this NODA would affect upfront manufactured housing affordability.
DOE also seeks comment on whether and how the different approaches
outlined in this NODA would differently affect the affordability of
manufactured homes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ ``Certain consumer segments are disproportionately
represented among owners and renters of manufactured homes, in
particular older consumers, consumers that have completed only high
school, households with relatively low income, and households with
relatively low net worth.'' CFPB Report, at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, as part of this inquiry, DOE seeks public input on
each of the following items:
a. Affordability is a combination of upfront cost, which may price
out some consumers at time of purchase, and operating costs, which will
affect all manufactured housing owners over a longer time horizon. The
Department seeks comments that provide information on how to weigh
these components in defining ``affordability,'' with particular focus
on affordability for low-income consumers.
b. The Department also seeks comment on what a reasonable payback
period might be for efficiency in manufactured homes, and any relevant
tradeoffs between upfront cost and payback period that the Department
should consider to avoid creating a situation where the upfront cost
increases may price consumers out of the market for new homes, even if
those costs might be recouped over time. While the cost of site-built
home efficiency upgrades may be recouped when an owner sells the home,
the same may not be true of manufactured homes because (1) manufactured
housing owners have relatively short tenancies \11\
[[Page 38077]]
and (2) the resale market for manufactured housing is highly
constrained,\12\ such that the original owner will likely not recoup
upfront efficiency investments if the payback period exceeds tenancy.
DOE seeks additional information from commenters on the manufactured
housing resale market that would inform the Department's consideration
of what a reasonable payback period would be. If available, the
Department also seeks information on the distribution of manufactured
housing tenancy rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Manufactured-
housing consumer finance in the United States, September 2014 at 42-
43: https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201409_cfpb_report_manufactured-housing.pdf.
\12\ Kevin Jewell. ``Manufactured Housing Appreciation:
Stereotypes and Data.'' Consumers Union, Southwest Regional Office.
May 2003. Page 6. https://consumersunion.org/pdf/manufacturedhousing/Appreciation.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. The Department is also interested in comments that inform
whether special consideration should be given to affordability,
particularly given that low-income and older consumers are
disproportionately represented among manufactured housing owners.\13\
Executive Order 13563, which reinforces the principles of Executive
Order 12866, indicates that agencies ``may consider (and discuss
qualitatively) values that are difficult or impossible to quantify,
including equity, human dignity, fairness, and distributive impacts''
\14\ where appropriate and permitted by law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See footnote 10, supra.
\14\ Executive Order 13563, Section 1(c), 76 FR 3821 (January
21, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. The Department seeks data and information regarding basing
standards on the most recent version of the IECC, in particular,
whether standards based on the most recent version of the IECC would
not be cost effective or that standards more stringent than the most
recent version of the IECC would be cost effective, in either case
based on the impact of the adoption of the IECC standards on the
purchase price of manufactured housing and on total life-cycle
construction and operating costs.
Issue 4: DOE is aware that efficiency standards for manufactured
housing may affect consumers in different regions differently, and
seeks information on (1) the disparate regional effects of a standard,
and (2) whether these effects are mitigated by use of tiered standards
or a tiered labeling program.
Issue 5: DOE seeks to better understand the market for manufactured
homes. Available sources provide information regarding the average or
median manufactured housing purchase price \15\ or the proportion of
manufactured housing owners who borrowed different amounts to finance
their manufactured housing purchase,\16\ but do not directly show the
distribution of manufactured housing prices across the market and the
percentage of consumers who purchase at each price category. DOE is
interested in such information, particularly to the extent that such
information could inform the consideration of threshold standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See U.S. Census Bureau, Cost and Size Comparison: New
Manufactured Homes and Single-Family Site Built Homes (2007-2014),
for example.
\16\ See Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Manufactured-
housing consumer finance in the United States, September 2014, for
example.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Prescriptive and Performance-Based Standards
In DOE's June 2016 standards proposal, the agency laid out two
possible approaches it was considering at the time. The first option
involved potential prescriptive requirements that would apply to a
variety of components used in constructing the thermal envelope of a
given manufactured home. These requirements laid out prescribed
specifications related to thermal resistance (R-value) for wall,
ceiling, and floor insulation, thermal transmittance specifications (U-
factor) for windows, skylights, and doors, and glass glazing (SHGC)
requirements. See 81 FR 39757. These prescriptive levels would vary
based on the climate zone in which the home is located. 81 FR 39766.
The second option presented a potential performance-based approach that
would establish a maximum overall thermal transmittance for requirement
for the building structure's thermal envelope (Uo) and set additional
U-factor and SHGC requirements. See id. Like with the prescriptive
approach, these requirements would also vary by climate zone.
In addition to these approaches, DOE also considered including
provisions for determining U-factor, R-value, SHGC, and Uo. It also
considered establishing prescriptive requirements for installation of
insulation and sealing the building's thermal envelope and duct system
to limit air leakage, which would in turn reduce potential thermal
losses. See id.
Issue 6: DOE is interested in feedback regarding whether any
aspects of its 2016 proposal need further consideration and if so, why.
For comments pointing to weaknesses or strengths with respect to DOE's
proposal, the agency seeks any supporting data in addition to that
which DOE has already made public as part of the manufactured housing
standards rulemaking docket.
D. Alternative Approaches
DOE is also considering an altogether different approach consisting
of incremental packages that maximize energy savings of a manufactured
home within certain incremental cost parameters. These options respond
to concerns from stakeholders, including HUD, regarding the potentially
prohibitive upfront costs of its 2016 proposed standards. As a result,
this analysis illustrates packages that maximize energy savings within
incremental cost thresholds of $500, $1,000, or $1,500. DOE is seeking
comment on whether any of the cost threshold packages presented here
(i.e. either $500, $1,000, or $1,500), when applied as a national
standard, would address the concerns of stakeholders regarding the high
upfront cost of its 2016 proposed standards. Further, DOE developed two
sets of cost threshold packages: One set includes envelope and duct
sealing as options to include in the cost threshold packages, and one
set does not include envelope and duct sealing regardless of cost
effectiveness.
Unlike the tiered standards discussed in this NODA, these cost
threshold packages illustrate the costs and benefits of a potential
national standard that would apply across the fleet of manufactured
homes. However, given the Department's interest in tailoring its
standards to consumers with differing preferences and needs, DOE is
also soliciting comments on whether it can employ a tiered approach to
these standards, wherein the $500, $1,000, and $1,500 cost packages
could be applied to, or offered as an option for, various segments of
the market for manufactured homes.
The Department also recognizes the value of providing accurate
information on potential energy savings. In addition to being low
incremental or additional cost to manufacturers, better informed
consumers are empowered to make choices that meet their individual
needs for energy savings within their own personal economic
circumstances. This approach builds on the guidance in Executive Order
12866, which instructs each agency to identify opportunities to provide
information the public can use to make informed choices.\17\ To this
end, the Department is considering a tiered labeling approach that
would classify various levels of energy savings based on stringency and
categorize these options within certain tiers, such as a Brass, Bronze,
Silver, Gold, and Platinum tier, wherein the Platinum tier
[[Page 38078]]
would represent the most efficient products on the market and Brass
would represent the least efficient.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review,''
58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993) (Section 1(b)(3)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consequently, DOE is evaluating the following options:
Package 1--This package would maximize the energy savings of a
manufactured home at an upfront cost of either $500, $1,000, or $1,500.
The accompanying analysis illustrates the associated lifecycle costs
and payback period for each potential standard level across climate
zones.\18\ This package would exclude envelope and duct sealing to
maximize energy savings under any of the cost threshold options
examined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2009-BT-BC-0021-0200.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Package 2--Like Package 1, this package would maximize the energy
savings of a manufactured home at an upfront cost of either $500,
$1,000, or $1,500. The accompanying analysis illustrates the associated
lifecycle costs and payback period for each potential standard level
across climate zones.\19\ Unlike Package 1, this package would allow
envelope and duct sealing to maximize energy savings under all of the
cost threshold options examined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See footnote 18, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Package 3--Rather than setting a national standard within a
specified cost threshold, this option would create a framework where
several different tiers of energy efficiency would be offered to
consumers based on their particular needs and pricing sensitivities.
These tiers would be based on cost increments, which, for purposes of
DOE's current analysis, would be based on $500 increments with a cap at
$1,500.
Package 4--This package would require each manufactured home to
include a label prior to sale indicating expected energy use and
savings. The labeling system would be tiered in the sense that
different levels of energy savings would be labeled differently, such
as by being categorized with a Brass, Bronze, Silver, Gold, or Platinum
rating. These tiers would be based on potential energy savings. The
Department is considering this package in conjunction with any of the
other alternatives discussed above or with potential alternatives that
may be suggested in response to this request for comment.
Package 5--Finally, to ensure that manufactured housing continues
to be a viable source for affordable housing, this package would
exclude all manufactured homes with a cost level and retail purchase
price (not including land costs) equal to or less than the loan limit
established in accordance with Section 2(b)(1)(C) of the National
Housing Act, 12 U.S.C. 1703(b)(1)(C), plus 5% (Title I Loan Limits).
(Currently = $73,162 or 1.05 x $69,678.) Similarly, under this package,
DOE would apply a higher price threshold ($294,515) under the same
conditions--i.e. cost level and purchase price (not including land
costs)--that would encourage (but not require) manufactured housing at
a certain price to meet DOE's standards. For all other manufactured
housing that exceeds this level, DOE could apply one of the package
approaches described under Packages 1 through 4.
In evaluating these various options, DOE is considering a scenario
where manufacturers continue to offer more economical versions of
manufactured homes for certain segments of the market that are
currently available but that may not necessarily fall into one of the
cost incremental categories described above. A regime in which
manufacturers continue to offer those manufactured homes that are
currently available on the market as well as variants at greater levels
of efficiency would allow particularly price sensitive individuals who
may not have the financial means to pursue other housing options to
maintain their ability to purchase a manufactured home of their choice
while also allowing those with greater means who desire increased
energy efficiency to purchase a manufactured home that suits their
desires. Under any of these scenarios, DOE would consider developing a
labeling framework to inform consumers regarding these options. DOE
also seeks comment on implementing a tiered labeling system in
conjunction with the other options discussed in this document to
address any potential information asymmetry and preserve consumer
choice.
Issue 7: DOE seeks comment on whether it should consider and
implement a cost-based tier structure with respect to regulating the
energy efficiency of manufactured housing. DOE notes that a tiered
approach could better address some of the concerns that may exist with
respect to the first-time costs that purchasers may encounter with more
efficient--but more expensive--manufactured homes. If so, why--and if
not, why not?
Issue 8: Consumers may fail to optimize the efficiency of their
homes due to a lack of available information on the benefits of energy
savings. Recognizing this, the NODA presents an option that would
provide tiered labeling for consumers to compare and contrast
information on upfront costs and long-term energy savings across
manufactured housing structures. The Department is seeking comments on
the benefit of providing consumers with such information, which
preserves consumer choice, and the best way to provide consumers with
information that they can easily understand and put to use.
a. What information is available to consumers when they make
manufactured housing purchasing decisions, and what additional
information would be useful? Further, how can the Department add value
in the provision and display of information?
b. DOE seeks comments regarding whether access to information is a
barrier to manufactured housing consumers, and if so, what is the
magnitude of this barrier (i.e. to what extent does the lack of
information prevent consumers from purchasing efficient homes)?
Issue 9: DOE is also considering a number of approaches that would
increase consumer access to information and increase the efficiency of
manufactured homes.
a. In weighing these approaches, the Department seeks comment on
the advantages and disadvantages of using a tiered approach for
efficiency standards versus using a single national standard that would
apply to all manufactured homes within a single climate zone. DOE also
seeks information regarding what a labeling framework would need to
consider if a tiered approach were used and what the costs of such an
approach would likely be. The Department further seeks comment on the
advantages and disadvantages of using a tiered approach to labeling
requirements versus a single national labeling standard for
manufactured homes.
b. Within the tiered options discussed above, the Department seeks
public input on what the appropriate criteria are to use for
establishing thresholds (e.g., price, cost, region, etc.) and how best
to define these criteria (e.g., manufacturer added cost, retail price,
etc.). DOE also seeks public input on other factors that it should
consider when establishing tiered standards.
With respect to tightening a manufactured home's building envelope,
the agency notes that this technique appears to be a cost-effective way
to increase energy efficiency. However, many previous commenters,
including HUD's Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee, raised the
possibility that sealing requirements may pose challenges for indoor
air
[[Page 38079]]
quality.\20\ Degraded indoor air quality could introduce additional
costs in terms of health and safety or operation and maintenance that
may impede the cost efficacy of these approaches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2009-BT-BC-0021-0162.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous commenters have submitted existing literature on
manufactured housing indoor air quality, including a report from the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (``CDC''), an agency within
the Department of Health and Human Services (``HHS''). The CDC report,
which was prepared in conjunction with HUD, found generally that indoor
air can contain a number of contaminants that contribute to health
complaints, and that indoor air quality is of particular concern in
manufactured housing due to its confined spaces and, in some cases,
lower ventilation and air exchange rates.\21\ In addition, the CDC
report found that ``manufactured structures with relatively less air
circulation may develop higher levels of indoor contaminants.''
However, comprehensive data on air quality in manufactured homes was
unavailable at the time of CDC's report.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ CDC and HHS. Safety and Health in Manufactured Structures
(2011) [hereinafter, ``Safety and Health''].
\22\ Safety and Health, at p. 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 10: Is new information available on the relationship between
tightening the home envelope and indoor air quality? If so, what is the
nature of that information, why should DOE consider it, and how should
the agency integrate it into its analyses?
Issue 11: DOE is particularly interested in baseline measures of
air flow in recently-built manufactured housing against which to
measure any potential reductions in air changes per hour (``ACH''). DOE
also seeks information related to what the appropriate ACH threshold is
for maintaining adequate indoor air quality.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ As of 2003, ASHRAE and HUD had established a minimum whole-
house ventilation requirement of 0.35 ACH for achieving appropriate
indoor air quality. See https://www.huduser.gov/publications/pdf/moisturereport.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 12: What potential health and safety costs of incremental
reductions in ACH and/or indoor air quality should the Department
consider when evaluating this approach and why? What steps should DOE
consider taking to reduce these costs while preserving indoor air
quality for manufactured home residents and what disadvantages, if any,
are there to each of these specific steps?
Issue 13: Regarding the overall structure of DOE's approach to its
proposed climate zones, should these zones be reconsidered--and if so,
why? Should DOE use HUD's existing climate zones? If DOE were to
develop its own climate zones, what factors should it consider in doing
so? What factors would support the continued use of the proposed
climate zones and how do those factors weigh against using HUD's
existing climate zones or in favor of adjusting them further?
E. Compliance Lead-Times
The June 2016 proposal used a compliance date lead-time of one year
from the publication of a final rule. DOE proposed a lead-time of one
year under the belief that this amount of time would be sufficient to
allow manufacturers to transition their designs, materials, and factory
operations and processes to comply with the finalized version of the
energy conservation standards that DOE considered adopting. In light of
the amount of time that has elapsed since the date of DOE's June 2016
proposal, and the possibility that the agency may explore an
alternative approach for regulating the energy efficiency of
manufactured homes through the use of a tiered system along with
variants of DOE's earlier proposal that would rely on HUD's three
climate zones, DOE is interested in soliciting public comment on
whether its proposed lead-time remains appropriate.
Issue 14: Should DOE continue to apply a one year lead-time to the
energy conservation standards for manufactured housing? Does the
approach--i.e. single uniform national standard versus a multi-tiered
national standard--impact the amount of lead-time manufacturers would
require to meet the applicable standards? If so, why--and if not, why
not? If DOE were to adopt an approach that presented different
compliance options in the form of cost-based tiers, would manufacturers
require more, less, or the same amount of lead-time as the agency's
proposal (i.e. one year)? Why or why not?
Issue 15: With respect to the manufactured housing standards that
DOE promulgates, DOE seeks comment on what enforcement mechanism would
be the most appropriate to apply and why. In considering enforcement
mechanisms, DOE is interested in information concerning the burden and
cost impacts for suggested approach(es), as well as the compliance
lead-time needed by the industry. Further, DOE seeks information as to
whether enforcement cost of any suggested approach may extend beyond
the manufacturing industry to the sales and distribution channels that
interface with prospective purchasers.
III. Submission of Comments
DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by the date
listed in DATES, comments and information on matters addressed in this
notice and on other matters relevant to DOE's consideration of energy
conservation standards for manufactured housing. These comments and
information will aid in the development of energy conservation
standards for these structures.
Submitting comments via https://www.regulations.gov. The https://www.regulations.gov web page will require you to provide your name and
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE
Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be
publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization
name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your
comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties,
DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you
include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment.
Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not
be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your
comment. Persons viewing comments will see only first and last names,
organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any
documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to https://www.regulations.gov information for which
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and
commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as
Confidential Business Information (``CBI'')). Comments submitted
through https://www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments
received through the website will waive any CBI claims for the
information submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the
Confidential Business Information section.
DOE processes submissions made through https://www.regulations.gov
before posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of
being submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being
processed simultaneously, your
[[Page 38080]]
comment may not be viewable for up to several weeks. Please keep the
comment tracking number that https://www.regulations.gov provides after
you have successfully uploaded your comment.
Submitting comments via email, hand delivery, or mail. Comments and
documents submitted via email, hand delivery, or mail also will be
posted to https://www.regulations.gov. If you do not want your personal
contact information to be publicly viewable, do not include it in your
comment or any accompanying documents. Instead, provide your contact
information on a cover letter. Include your first and last names, email
address, telephone number, and optional mailing address. The cover
letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it does not include any
comments.
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data,
documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via mail or hand
delivery, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible. It is not
necessary to submit printed copies. No facsimiles (faxes) will be
accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that
are not secured, written in English and free of any defects or viruses.
Documents should not contain special characters or any form of
encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature
of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting
time.
Confidential Business Information. According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any
person submitting information that he or she believes to be
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via
email, postal mail, or hand delivery two well-marked copies: One copy
of the document marked confidential including all the information
believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked ``non-
confidential'' with the information believed to be confidential
deleted. Submit these documents via email or on a CD, if feasible. DOE
will make its own determination about the confidential status of the
information and treat it according to its determination.
Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat
submitted information as confidential include (1) a description of the
items, (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as
confidential within the industry, (3) whether the information is
generally known by or available from other sources, (4) whether the
information has previously been made available to others without
obligation concerning its confidentiality, (5) an explanation of the
competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from
public disclosure, (6) when such information might lose its
confidential character due to the passage of time, and (7) why
disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public
docket, without change and as received, including any personal
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be
exempt from public disclosure).
DOE considers public participation to be a very important part of
the process for developing test procedures and energy conservation
standards. DOE actively encourages the participation and interaction of
the public during the comment period in each stage of the rulemaking
process. Interactions with and between members of the public provide a
balanced discussion of the issues and assist DOE in the rulemaking
process. Anyone who wishes to be added to the DOE mailing list to
receive future notices and information about this process should
contact Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-
1445 or via email at [email protected].
Signed in Washington, DC, on July 31, 2018.
Cathy Tripodi,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 2018-16650 Filed 8-2-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P