Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Manufactured Housing; Extension of Compliance Date, 34411-34419 [2023-11043]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 103 (Tuesday, May 30, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34411-34419]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-11043]



========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents 
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed 
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published 
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents. 

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 30, 2023 / Rules 
and Regulations

[[Page 34411]]



DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 460

[EERE-2009-BT-BC-0021]
RIN 1904-AF53


Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for 
Manufactured Housing; Extension of Compliance Date

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of 
Energy.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is publishing a final rule 
to amend the compliance date for its manufactured housing energy 
conservation standards. Currently, manufacturers must comply with these 
standards on and after May 31, 2023. This final rule delays compliance 
until July 1, 2025, for Tier 2 homes, and until 60 days after issuance 
of enforcement procedures for Tier 1 homes. DOE is delaying the 
compliance date to allow DOE more time to establish enforcement 
procedures that provide clarity for manufacturers and other 
stakeholders regarding DOE's expectations of manufacturers and DOE's 
plans for enforcing the standards.

DATES: This final rule is effective May 30, 2023.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this rulemaking, which includes Federal 
Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, 
is available for review at www.regulations.gov. All documents in the 
docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. However, not all 
documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such as 
information that is exempt from public disclosure.
    The docket web page can be found at www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2009-BT-BC-0021. The docket web page contains 
instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, 
in the docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Matthew Ring, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Office of the General Counsel (GC-33), 1000 Independence Avenue 
SW, Washington, DC 20585; Telephone: (202) 586-2555; Email: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Discussion of Final Rule
III. Administrative Procedure Act
IV. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Background

    The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (``EISA,'' Pub. L. 
110-140) directs the U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'' or, in context, 
``the Department'') to establish energy conservation standards for 
manufactured housing (``MH'').\1\ (42 U.S.C. 17071) Manufactured homes 
are constructed according to a code administered by the U.S. Department 
of Housing and Urban Development (``HUD Code''). 24 CFR part 3280. See 
also generally 42 U.S.C. 5401-5426. Structures, such as site-built and 
modular homes, that are constructed to state, local or regional 
building codes are excluded from the coverage of the HUD Code.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety 
Standards Act of 1974, as amended, defines ``manufactured home'' as 
``a structure, transportable in one or more sections, which in the 
traveling mode is 8 body feet or more in width or 40 body feet or 
more in length or which when erected on-site is 320 or more square 
feet, and which is built on a permanent chassis and designed to be 
used as a dwelling with or without a permanent foundation when 
connected to the required utilities, and includes the plumbing, 
heating, air-conditioning, and electrical systems contained therein 
. . . .'' 42 U.S.C. 5402(6).
    \2\ See 42 U.S.C. 5403(f). See also 24 CFR 3282.12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EISA directs DOE to base its standards on the most recent version 
of the International Energy Conservation Code (``IECC'') and any 
supplements to that code, except in cases where DOE finds that the IECC 
is not cost-effective or where a more stringent standard would be more 
cost-effective, based on the impact of the IECC on the purchase price 
of manufactured housing and on total life-cycle construction and 
operating costs. (See 42 U.S.C. 17071(b)(1))
    On June 17, 2016, DOE published in the Federal Register a notice of 
proposed rulemaking (``NOPR'') to propose energy conservation standards 
for manufactured housing, including proposals recommended by the 
negotiated rulemaking working group for manufactured housing. 81 FR 
39756 (``June 2016 NOPR''). DOE received nearly 50 comments on the 
proposed rule during the comment period. In addition, DOE also received 
over 700 substantively similar form letters from individuals.
    On August 3, 2018, DOE published a Notice of Data Availability 
(``NODA''), stating it was examining possible alternatives to the 
requirements proposed in the June 2016 NOPR and seeking further input 
from the public, including on first-time costs related to the purchase 
of manufactured homes. 83 FR 38073 (``August 2018 NODA''). Prior to the 
NODA, in December of 2017, the Sierra Club filed a suit against DOE in 
the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging that DOE 
had failed to meet its statutory deadline for establishing energy 
efficiency standards for manufactured housing. Sierra Club v. Granholm, 
No. 1:17-cv-02700-EGS (D.D.C. filed Dec. 18, 2017). In November 2019, 
the court in the Sierra Club litigation entered a consent decree in 
which DOE agreed to complete the rulemaking by stipulated dates.
    After evaluating the comments received in response to the June 2016 
NOPR and the August 2018 NODA, DOE published a supplemental NOPR 
(``SNOPR'') on August 26, 2021, in which DOE proposed energy 
conservation standards for manufactured homes based on the 2021 IECC. 
86 FR 47744 (``August 2021 SNOPR''). DOE's primary proposal in the 
August 2021 SNOPR was a ``tiered'' approach based on the 2021 IECC. The 
``tiered'' approach identifies a subset of less stringent energy 
conservation standards for certain manufactured homes (based on retail 
list price) in light of the cost-effectiveness considerations required 
by EISA. DOE's alternate proposal was an ``untiered'' approach, wherein 
energy conservation standards for all manufactured homes would be based 
on certain thermal envelope components and specifications of the 2021 
IECC. Both proposals replaced the June 2016 NOPR proposal. Id. DOE 
sought comment on these proposals, as

[[Page 34412]]

well as alternate thresholds, including a size-based threshold (e.g., 
square footage, number of sections) and a region-based threshold, and 
alternative exterior wall insulation requirements (R-21) for certain 
HUD zones. Id.
    On October 26, 2021, DOE published a NODA regarding updated inputs 
and results of the analyses presented in the August 2021 SNOPR (both 
``tiered'' and ``untiered'' approaches), including a sensitivity 
analysis regarding an alternative sized-based tier threshold and an 
alternate exterior wall insulation requirement (R-21) for certain HUD 
zones. 86 FR 59042 (``October 2021 NODA''). In addition, DOE reopened 
the public comment period on the August 2021 SNOPR through November 26, 
2021. DOE sought comments on the updated inputs and corresponding 
analyses, encouraged stakeholders to provide additional data to inform 
the analyses, and stated it might further revise the rulemaking 
analysis based on new or updated information. Id.
    On May 31, 2022, DOE published a final rule codifying the current 
energy conservation standards for manufactured housing in a new part of 
the Code of Federal Regulations (``CFR'') under 10 CFR part 460, 
subparts A, B, and C (``May 2022 Final Rule''). 87 FR 32728. Subpart A 
of 10 CFR part 460 presents generally the scope of the rule and 
provides definitions of key terms. Subpart B establishes new 
requirements for manufactured homes that relate to climate zones, the 
building thermal envelope, air sealing, and installation of insulation, 
based on certain provisions of the 2021 IECC. Subpart C establishes new 
requirements based on the 2021 IECC related to duct sealing; heating, 
ventilation, and air conditioning (``HVAC''); service hot water 
systems; mechanical ventilation fan efficacy; and heating and cooling 
equipment sizing.
    Under the energy conservation standards, the stringency of the 
requirements under subpart B are based on a tiered approach depending 
on the number of sections of the manufactured home. Accordingly, two 
sets of standards are established in subpart B (i.e., Tier 1 and Tier 
2). Both Tier 1 and Tier 2 incorporate building thermal envelope 
measures based on certain thermal envelope components subject to the 
2021 IECC that DOE determined applicable and appropriate for 
manufactured homes. Tier 1 applies these building thermal envelope 
provisions to single-section manufactured homes, but only includes 
components at stringencies that would increase the incremental purchase 
price by less than $750 in order to address affordability concerns that 
were raised by HUD and other stakeholders during the consultation and 
rulemaking process. Tier 2 applies these same building thermal envelope 
provisions to multi-section manufactured homes but at higher 
stringencies specified for site-built homes in the 2021 IECC, with an 
alternate exterior wall insulation requirement (R-21) for climate zones 
2 and 3 based on consideration of the design and factory construction 
techniques of manufactured homes, as presented in the August 2021 SNOPR 
and October 2021 NODA. Manufacturers can comply with the building 
thermal envelope requirements through a prescriptive pathway (e.g., 
using materials with specified ratings) or a performance pathway based 
on overall thermal transmittance (Uo) performance. See 10 CFR 
460.102(c). Further, the energy conservation standards for both tiers 
also include duct and air sealing, insulation installation, HVAC and 
service hot water system specifications, mechanical ventilation fan 
efficacy, and heating and cooling equipment sizing provisions, based on 
the 2021 IECC. DOE concluded that this approach is cost-effective based 
on the expected total life-cycle cost (``LCC'') savings for the 
lifetime of the home associated with implementation of the energy 
conservation standards. See e.g., 87 FR 32742.
    In the May 2022 Final Rule, DOE adopted a compliance date such that 
the standards would apply to manufactured homes that are manufactured 
on or after one year following the publication date of the final rule 
in the Federal Register, which is May 31, 2023. In doing so, DOE noted 
its belief that many manufacturers already have experience complying 
with efficiency requirements similar to what DOE required in the May 
2022 Final Rule based on manufacturers' previous experience with HUD Uo 
requirements and ENERGY STAR Version 2 efficiency requirements for 
homes produced on or after June 1, 2020. 87 FR 32759. DOE did not 
specify its approach for enforcement of the standards in the May 2022 
Final Rule, and noted that manufacturers would be able to comply with 
the standards as they were issued. In fact, DOE noted that many of the 
requirements in the standards would require minimal compliance efforts 
(e.g., documenting the use of materials subject to separate Federal or 
industry standards, such as the R-value of insulation or U-factor 
values for fenestration). 87 FR 32758, 32790. Nevertheless, DOE noted 
in the May 2022 Final Rule that it may address compliance and 
enforcement issues and procedures in a future agency action (see 87 FR 
32757-32758), which is discussed further in section II of this 
document.
    On March 24, 2023, DOE published in the Federal Register a NOPR 
proposing to amend the compliance date for the manufactured housing 
energy conservation standards (88 FR 17745, ``March 2023 NOPR''). In 
that NOPR, DOE described the need to amend the compliance date for the 
manufactured housing standards, noting that it has not yet issued 
procedures for investigating and enforcing against noncompliance with 
the standards, and that a delay is necessary to ensure that DOE can 
receive and incorporate meaningful stakeholder feedback into its 
enforcement procedures prior to part 460's compliance date. 
Accordingly, DOE proposed to require compliance with the Tier 1 
standards beginning 60 days after publication of its final enforcement 
procedures, and compliance with the Tier 2 standards beginning 180 days 
after publication of its final enforcement procedures. With respect to 
the requirements of subpart C of part 460, DOE would similarly expect 
compliance with those provisions beginning 60 days after publication of 
its final enforcement procedures for Tier 1 homes, and beginning 180 
days after publication of its final enforcement procedures for Tier 2 
homes. 88 FR 17746.

II. Discussion of Final Rule

    In this final rule, DOE is amending the compliance date for part 
460 consistent with its proposed compliance date in the NOPR for Tier 1 
(i.e., 60 days after issuance of DOE's enforcement procedures for part 
460). However, for Tier 2, DOE is amending the compliance date to July 
1, 2025. After consideration of comments, DOE has determined that 
amending the compliance date to July 1, 2025, for Tier 2 homes will 
provide greater certainty for manufacturers versus an indeterminate 
date. Moreover, the July 1, 2025, compliance date will ensure DOE will 
have enough time to develop enforcement procedures and engage in the 
rulemaking process, including providing adequate time for stakeholders 
to submit robust feedback on DOE's proposed enforcement procedures, and 
DOE's consideration of that feedback. DOE believes extending the 
compliance date for Tier 2 homes to July 1, 2025, will also provide 
manufacturers with sufficient time to adjust their operations and 
practices consistent with DOE's enforcement procedures.

[[Page 34413]]

A. Comments on the March 2023 NOPR

    Commenters were generally supportive of DOE's proposal to amend the 
compliance date for part 460. DOE received over 500 comments on the 
March 2023 NOPR. The vast majority of these comments were campaign form 
letters (Campaign Form Commenters) containing nearly identical 
commentary on the NOPR.\3\ DOE also received several other comments 
from stakeholders. Comments and DOE responses are discussed in the 
following sections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ DOE notes that it received letters from several state 
manufactured housing trade groups that contained similar substantive 
comments as the campaign form letters. DOE, therefore, addresses 
these state trade group letters in its responses to the Campaign 
Form Commenters. DOE received such letters from manufactured housing 
trade groups in the following states: Arizona, Alabama, Florida, 
Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New 
York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, 
Virginia, Washington (Northwest Housing Alliance), and Wisconsin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Need To Amend Compliance Date and Alternative Compliance Dates
    The Campaign Form Commenters strongly urged DOE to amend the 
compliance date for part 460 until DOE's future enforcement procedures 
take effect. Campaign Form Commenters stated that it is virtually 
impossible for the industry to know whether its compliance efforts will 
be found satisfactory without a clear understanding of how DOE will 
enforce the standards or how they will be evaluated for compliance. 
Campaign Form Commenters stated that industry members need time to 
understand DOE's enforcement procedures and prepare their operations to 
ensure compliance with the energy standards. Campaign Form Commenters 
stated it is therefore imperative that DOE delay the compliance date 
and engage in rulemaking for test procedures, compliance, and 
enforcement before the DOE energy standards are implemented. The 
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance \4\ (NEEA) stated that a short 
delay is reasonable for DOE to establish enforcement procedure clarity. 
The American Public Gas Association (APGA),\5\ Kit HomeBuilders West 
(Kit HomeBuilders),\6\ Skyline Champion Corporation (Skyline),\7\ Cavco 
Industries, Inc. (Cavco),\8\ and the Manufactured Housing Institute 
(MHI) \9\ support amending the compliance date so that DOE may 
establish enforcement provisions for the standards to be fully realized 
and workable. (APGA at p. 1, Skyline at p. 1; Cavco at p. 1, MHI at p. 
1) MHI further stated that the current compliance date could not come 
at a worse time for the only industry focused on providing attainable 
homeownership to the most vulnerable Americans, and that delaying the 
compliance date would alleviate some of these pressures, while 
affording DOE the opportunity to develop enforcement procedures missing 
from part 460 and resolve other issues. (MHI at p. 8) Hemminger Homes 
(Hemminger) stated that it would be hard to comply with the current DOE 
standards in part 460 since the details are not laid out as to what 
needs to be done, by whom, or the penalties that may be applied for not 
complying.\10\ (Hemminger at p. 1) Hemminger stated that the 
postponement of the DOE implementation date is very important to all 
parties that will be affected by it. (Hemminger at p. 2) The 
Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR) supports 
an indefinite extension of both the compliance and effective dates for 
part 460 pending development of new standards under part 460 and 
pending development of cost-effective testing, enforcement, and 
compliance criteria.\11\ (MHARR at p. 4) MHARR stated that delay of the 
effective and compliance dates is essential because the standards 
cannot be complied with in their current form and enforcing the current 
part 460 without a set of adopted testing, enforcement, and compliance 
procedures would deprive manufacturers of due process rights. (MHARR at 
p. 5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ EERE-2009-BT-BC-0021-2562.
    \5\ EERE-2009-BT-BC-0021-2566.
    \6\ EERE-2009-BT-BC-0021-2181.
    \7\ EERE-2009-BT-BC-0021-2555.
    \8\ EERE-2009-BT-BC-0021-2568.
    \9\ EERE-2009-BT-BC-0021-2559.
    \10\ EERE-2009-BT-BC-0021-2570.
    \11\ EERE-2009-BT-BC-0021-2541.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE agrees with the commenters that it is necessary to amend the 
compliance date for part 460. As noted in the March 2023 NOPR, DOE 
believes enforcement procedures will provide additional clarity to 
manufacturers and consumers regarding DOE's expectations of 
manufacturers and DOE's plans for enforcing the standards. Delaying the 
compliance date until after the enforcement procedures are issued 
provides manufacturers time to understand DOE's enforcement procedures 
and prepare their operations to ensure compliance with DOE's standards. 
Additionally, DOE will provide notice and opportunity for stakeholders 
to comment on its enforcement procedures in the rulemaking process to 
establish those procedures. As noted previously, DOE believes the 
compliance dates adopted in this final rule provide (1) time for DOE to 
develop enforcement procedures and engage in the rulemaking process 
necessary to codify those procedures, (2) clarity to manufacturers on 
when and how to comply, and (3) time for manufacturers to adjust their 
practices consistent with DOE's enforcement procedures. More 
specifically, DOE believes providing a set date for Tier 2 homes 
provides manufacturers with additional clarity on when compliance will 
be required so that manufacturers can build in the time necessary to 
make the adaptations to manufacturer processes required to implement 
the more stringent Tier 2 standards. Accordingly, DOE has finalized 
those compliance dates in part 460.
    Skyline, Cavco, and MHI stated that DOE should allow for a longer 
compliance lead time after issuance of enforcement procedures given the 
vast design and process changes required by DOE's standards and the 
uncertainty regarding testing, compliance, and enforcement. (Skyline at 
p. 1, Cavco at p. 1, MHI at p. 2) MHI stated that, at present, 
manufacturers do not know what enforcement procedures will require, so 
they do not know whether the designs and processes created after May 
2022 to attempt to comply with DOE's standards will comport with DOE's 
enforcement procedures, and that to date, DOE has provided no guidance 
on what enforcement procedures may require, so no work can be done to 
understand or apply them until they are made final. MHI further stated 
that, due to supply chain constraints, manufacturers may need to change 
designs or processes to comply with DOE's standards based on material 
availability and cost. (MHI at p. 10) Accordingly, Skyline, Cavco, and 
MHI stated that DOE should use a compliance lead time of 3 to 5 years 
after issuance of final enforcement procedures, like that typically 
seen in DOE's appliance energy efficiency standards, to permit the 
industry sufficient time to redesign floor plans, obtain approval from 
HUD for those designs, make capital improvements to manufacturing 
facilities, create new and different manufacturing processes, implement 
quality control procedures, and begin producing compliant homes. 
Skyline, Cavco, and MHI stated that, at minimum, DOE should provide a 
1-year compliance lead time after issuance of enforcement procedures 
given that such procedures are likely to require manufacturers to start 
over with their efforts to comply with DOE's standards. (Skyline at p. 
2, Cavco at p. 2, MHI at p. 9)

[[Page 34414]]

    DOE agrees that additional time after DOE issues enforcement 
procedures is appropriate for manufacturers, particularly for Tier 2 
homes, and is therefore finalizing a compliance date of July 1, 2025, 
for Tier 2 homes. DOE notes that this date corresponds roughly to 3 
years after the issuance of part 460.\12\ DOE acknowledges that many 
manufacturers may need some time to adjust their practices to ensure 
homes are compliant with DOE's standards in a manner consistent with 
the forthcoming enforcement procedures. DOE disagrees that an extended 
period of 3 to 5 years after issuance of final enforcement procedures 
is necessary, as suggested by some commenters.\13\ DOE believes that 
the compliance lead times in this final rule provide enough time for 
DOE to issue its enforcement procedures, while manufacturers begin 
modifying their practices to comply with DOE's standard. The compliance 
lead times also afford manufacturers time to gain a better 
understanding of DOE's enforcement process.\14\ In addition, by setting 
a fixed date for compliance with Tier 2 standards, DOE is providing 
manufacturers with additional clarity, facilitating the ability of 
manufacturers to plan for the actions necessary to come into compliance 
with DOE's standards. Accordingly, DOE is finalizing a compliance date 
of July 1, 2025, for Tier 2 homes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Part 460 was issued on May 31, 2022, with an effective date 
of August 1, 2022.
    \13\ DOE notes that the statutory authority that applies to this 
rule (i.e., EISA 2007) is not the same authority that applies to 
DOE's Appliance Standards Program (i.e., the Energy Policy and 
Conservation Act), where DOE has established robust certification, 
compliance, and enforcement provisions. Therefore, any compliance 
and enforcement procedures pertaining to manufactured housing that 
are referenced in this rule or developed as part of the manufactured 
housing enforcement rulemaking have no relation DOE's Appliance 
Standards Program.
    \14\ For example, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (Pub. L. 
117-58) and the Inflation Reduction Act (Pub. L. 117-369) provided 
incentives for various energy reduction measures in homes, including 
manufactured homes. See e.g., sec. 40502 of Public Law 117-58 and 
sec. 13304 of Public Law 117-369. Over time, these incentives will 
help manufacturers transition to the Tier 2 standards as more homes 
are designed around the requirements of Tier 2 standards and other 
incentive programs that are similar to the Tier 2 standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Twenty-one energy efficiency, environmental, and/or consumer 
advocate organizations filed joint comments (Joint Commenters) \15\ in 
opposition to DOE's proposed amended compliance date, noting that the 
DOE standards are long overdue and the current energy efficiency 
standards for manufactured homes in the HUD Code are almost three 
decades old. (Joint Commenters at p. 1) Joint Commenters stated that 
DOE has the authority to enforce the standards now and that DOE gave no 
explanation in the March 2023 NOPR as to why a delay is necessary. 
(Joint Commenters at p. 1) Joint Commenters stated that, while the NOPR 
suggests the lack of a compliance program may reduce the consumer 
benefits, the NOPR also acknowledges that lack of a standard will 
remove the consumer benefits during the delay. Joint Commenters stated 
a possible, greater gain in energy savings with enforcement procedures 
does not excuse depriving many thousands of residents of needed energy 
savings. Joint Commenters further stated that manufacturers can meet 
the standard by May 31, 2023, especially since manufacturers have 
options for meeting the core envelope requirements. Joint Commenters 
noted that manufacturers have been preparing to meet the standard for 
almost a year, and have had many years of advance notice that a similar 
standard was coming. NEEA, separately, stated that the industry has 
been aware of the new efficiency target since August 26, 2021, and 
details since May 31, 2022, and conversations with NEEA partners 
indicate the industry can meet the requirements by May 31, 2023. (NEEA 
at p.1) Joint Commenters further noted that manufacturers are familiar 
with meeting the substantive requirements of the standards, and the 
many ENERGY STAR partners and participants in the NEEM+ program have 
experience building to efficiency levels similar to the DOE standards. 
Joint Commenters noted that DOE can address any immediate ambiguities 
or confusion with guidance and with appropriate flexibility until an 
enforcement procedures rule is complete, rather than delaying the 
compliance date. (Joint Commenters at p. 1-2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ EERE-2009-BT-BC-0021-2567. The joint commenters include: 
American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, California 
Efficiency + Demand Management Council, Earthjustice, Elevate 
Innovations in Manufactured Homes (I'm HOME) Network, Institute for 
Energy and the Environment, Vermont Law and Graduate School, 
Institute for Market Transformation, National Association for State 
Community Services Programs, National Association of Energy Service 
Companies, National Association of State Energy Officials, National 
Housing Trust, Next Step Network, Northeast Energy Efficiency and 
Electrification Council, Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships, 
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, Neighborhood Partnership 
Housing Services (NPHS), Natural Resources Defense Council, 
Responsible Energy Codes Alliance, Rewiring America, Sierra Club, 
and the Vermont Energy Investment Corporation (VEIC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although DOE agrees with Joint Commenters that manufacturers have 
experience implementing efficiency measures similar to DOE's standards 
(e.g., NEEM+, ENERGYSTAR, etc.) and some are capable of complying with 
the standards by May 31, 2023, DOE disagrees that additional time is 
unnecessary. While manufacturers may be able to comply with the 
standards now, manufacturers do not have a clear picture as to how DOE 
will evaluate compliance or address enforcement of noncompliance. As 
noted in the March 2023 NOPR, manufacturers need this clarity in order 
to ensure homes are compliant with DOE's standards in a manner 
consistent with DOE's expectations for compliance and enforcement. 
Manufacturers will need time to adjust their practices in accordance 
with DOE's forthcoming enforcement procedures to demonstrate compliance 
with the standards to minimize the potential for civil penalties due to 
noncompliance. Accordingly, DOE has determined that a delay of the 
compliance date until after promulgation of enforcement procedures is 
warranted. DOE did note in the March 2023 NOPR that some consumer 
benefits may be lost in delaying implementation of the standards. 
However, these benefits may not be fully realized if manufacturers do 
not fully comply with the amended standards and DOE lacks clarity on 
its enforcement processes. DOE believes that the absence of a clear, 
workable enforcement framework for manufacturers may jeopardize the 
full realization of the consumer benefits that will result from full 
implementation of the standards. Enforcement procedures provide the 
necessary backbone to help ensure the savings from the standard are 
fully realized.
    Joint Commenters stated that if DOE decides it must delay the 
compliance date, it should set a new fixed date instead of an open-
ended delay. Joint commenters stated that the open-ended delay DOE has 
proposed nullifies the Department's statutory duty to issue standards 
and that DOE has not offered any justification for proposing an open-
ended delay as opposed to a delay of limited duration. Joint Commenters 
stated that a more limited delay would enable DOE to address the 
compliance issues that the Department claims warrant attention, while 
providing clearer guidance to all stakeholders regarding the path 
forward. (Joint Commenters at p. 2) Joint Commenters further stated 
that if DOE nonetheless delays the compliance date as proposed, 
compliance should be required shortly after the enforcement procedures 
are finalized. Joint Commenters stated that the compliance date delay 
following issuance of enforcement procedures

[[Page 34415]]

should be the same for Tier 2 homes as for Tier 1 homes (60 days). 
Joint Commenters state that DOE is not proposing to strengthen the 
standard or any changes to Tier 2, and DOE provides no explanation for 
the additional 120 days given for the compliance date for Tier 2 homes. 
(Joint Commenters at 2)
    DOE disagrees with Joint Commenters that its proposed amended 
compliance date ``nullifies'' DOE's obligation to issue standards under 
EISA. The standards have been in effect since August 1, 2022. As noted 
in the March 2023 NOPR, manufacturers need clarity from DOE's 
forthcoming enforcement procedures in order to ensure homes comply with 
DOE's standards. Nevertheless, upon consideration of Joint Commenters' 
suggestion of a fixed date, DOE concludes that setting a fixed date for 
compliance with the Tier 2 home standards will provide added certainty 
to manufacturers, consumers, and other interested parties. It is 
imperative that DOE amend the compliance date to allow sufficient time 
for DOE to develop procedures, engage in the rulemaking process, and 
consider all necessary information and feedback obtained during the 
rulemaking to establish enforcement procedures. Additionally, as noted 
previously, manufacturers will need time to adjust their practices in 
accordance with DOE's forthcoming enforcement procedures to best ensure 
demonstrable compliance with the standards while minimizing the 
potential for civil penalties due to noncompliance. Accordingly, DOE 
has determined that the delay of the compliance dates adopted in this 
final rule is warranted. With respect to the difference between the 
compliance dates for Tier 1 and Tier 2 homes, DOE recognizes that it 
did not fully explain this distinction in the NOPR, but does so now. 
DOE has determined that additional time is necessary for manufacturers 
to make adjustments to their operations and practices to ensure 
compliance with the Tier 2 standards because the Tier 2 standards are 
inherently more energy efficient than the Tier 1 standards. In 
addition, by establishing a fixed date for Tier 2, manufacturers will 
have a greater ability to plan for the adjustments needed to achieve 
compliance as compared to an indeterminate future date, thus maximizing 
the probability of full compliance with the more stringent Tier 2 
standards. Accordingly, DOE is implementing the July 1, 2025, 
compliance date for Tier 2 homes in this final rule.
Need for Enforcement Procedures
    Campaign Form Commenters stated that the industry must be given a 
sufficient time to respond to DOE's proposed enforcement procedures 
with their feedback and concerns, and that DOE must seriously consider 
the recommendations provided by the industry and address these concerns 
in its final rule to ensure that DOE's enforcement procedures are 
feasible and support the continued production of affordable 
manufactured homes. Hemminger stated that it would be hard to comply 
with the current DOE standards in part 460 since the details are not 
laid out as to what needs done, by whom, or penalties that may be 
applied for not complying. (Hemminger at p. 1) Hemminger stated that if 
the DOE standards are reviewed and clarified, then manufacturers, their 
vendors, and inspection agencies would clearly know what is expected. 
(Hemminger at p. 2) Hemminger also stated that the entire network of 
people who produce, sell, deliver, install, inspect, and finance these 
homes need to know what is expected of them, and that in return 
potential homeowners will be able to decide whether or not they will be 
able to afford a home. Hemminger concluded by stating that everyone 
needs to be confident that homes being sold are fully compliant and 
customers need to be sure that they will not receive a notice of 
violation as well. (Hemminger at p. 2)
    Skyline, Cavco, and MHI supported DOE's proposal to amend the 
compliance date to afford DOE additional time to establish enforcement 
procedures so that the benefits of DOE's standards can be fully 
realized. (Skyline at p. 1, Cavco at p. 1, MHI at 1) Skyline, Cavco, 
and MHI stated that DOE should create testing, compliance, and 
enforcement procedures that protect manufacturers from a vague and 
incalculable civil penalty, as well as potential civil liability. These 
commenters stated that EISA allows for a civil penalty of ``1 percent 
of the manufacturer's retail list price of the manufactured housing'' 
for violations of DOE's standards but that manufacturers generally do 
not create a ``retail list price,'' and that term is not recognized in 
the manufactured housing industry. (Skyline at p. 1-2, Cavco at p. 1-2, 
MHI at 3-4) MHI stated that enforcement procedures could help clarify 
what it stated are issues with DOE's current standards, such as 
manufacturers being unable to use certain components (e.g., windows) in 
certain climate zones necessary to meet part 460, or potential 
conflicts with implementing the DOE standard and the HUD Code, 
particularly regarding furnace sizing requirements. (MHI at p. 4-5)
    Joint Commenters stated that DOE should develop enforcement 
procedures as soon as possible. Joint Commenters stated that since HUD 
has not been able to incorporate the DOE standard in a timely way, and 
since its advisory committee (the Manufactured Housing Consensus 
Committee or ``MHCC'') has recommended that HUD not adopt the DOE 
standard but instead develop a weaker standard, DOE cannot at this 
point simply rely on HUD to ensure compliance. Instead, Joint 
Commenters stated that DOE should develop procedures to improve 
compliance in case HUD fails to incorporate the DOE standard, as a 
backup enforcement mechanism, and to provide compliance tools and 
facilitate measurement of compliance. DOE also should consider whether 
finalizing the test procedures that were issued as a draft in 2016 
would add further clarity and improve compliance. (Joint Commenters at 
p. 2)
    DOE agrees with commenters that enforcement procedures are 
necessary to provide clarity to manufacturers to ensure compliance with 
DOE's standards and the full realization of benefits of DOE's 
standards. Regarding specific issues raised by commenters for DOE to 
address in its enforcement procedures, DOE will consider these comments 
in its rulemaking to establish those procedures. DOE intends to engage 
in the rulemaking process in the coming months to establish enforcement 
procedures for part 460. As noted previously, DOE is adopting the 
compliance dates in this final rule to ensure that DOE has sufficient 
time to develop enforcement procedures, engage in the rulemaking 
process, and fully consider stakeholder feedback on the enforcement 
procedures. DOE encourages commenters to participate in that rulemaking 
and provide feedback to the Department.
DOE's 2021-2022 Rulemaking for Part 460
    In addition to comments on DOE's proposal to amend the compliance 
date of part 460, commenters also commented on the standards of part 
460, generally, and DOE's rulemaking to establish those standards 
(summarized in section I). Campaign Form Commenters stated that, while 
they support and commend DOE's decision to amend the compliance date to 
allow more time to establish enforcement procedures, DOE's proposal to 
amend the compliance date does not address the underlying concerns of 
the industry regarding DOE's standards. Campaign

[[Page 34416]]

Form Commenters stated that the standards did not take into 
consideration current construction methods and transportation 
requirements for manufactured homes, and that the standards were 
developed based on site-based construction standards and applied to a 
performance-based national code. Campaign Form Commenters further 
stated that, as the Nation's only form of unsubsidized affordable 
housing, the costs associated with the DOE's energy standards will 
increase the costs of manufactured homes, at a time when affordable 
housing is in high demand, and deprive many low-income and minority 
homebuyers the dream of homeownership. Hemminger stated that engineers 
may be required to redesign homes by changing roof systems, wall 
systems, floor systems, heat systems, carriers, and installer 
requirements to comply with the regulation, and that all of these will 
affect the prices that consumers will have to pay. Hemminger further 
stated that when comparing the cost versus value, the customer will not 
be able to save enough money over the time that they own their home to 
cover the additional purchase cost and financing needed, and if that is 
the situation, there will be fewer people that will be able to purchase 
a compliant home. (Hemminger at p. 2)
    MHARR stated that, regardless of any delay of the compliance date, 
DOE's manufactured housing energy conservation standards should be 
withdrawn and redone because they would be destructive of the 
manufactured housing industry and the availability of affordable 
homeownership for lower and moderate-income Americans. (MHARR at p. 8) 
MHARR stated that the lack of enforcement and compliance procedures in 
current part 460 is proof of the inadequacy of DOE's rulemaking. (MHARR 
at p. 7) MHARR stated that no amount of delay or modification can 
remedy DOE's failure to abide by EISA's cost-effectiveness and HUD-
coordination requirements in the rulemaking process, and that the 
failure to abide by EISA's requirements makes the standards of part 460 
and any action to modify such standards invalid, arbitrary, and not in 
accordance with applicable law. (MHARR at p. 8) L.A. ``Tony'' Kovach 
\16\ similarly stated that part 460 should be scrapped and redone, and 
that the standards are not cost-effective due to their effects on 
affordability. L.A. ``Tony'' Kovach also noted concerns of small 
manufacturers' ability to comply with DOE's standards and the role of 
such manufacturers, and larger manufacturers, in the rulemaking 
process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ EERE-2009-BT-BC-0021-2517.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Senator Tim Scott, Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on 
Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs (Senator Scott),\17\ expressed 
concern that DOE's standards unnecessarily limit consumer choices and 
raise costs for families seeking affordable homeownership 
opportunities, stating that DOE expressly ignored the cost of testing, 
compliance, and enforcement in its part 460 rulemaking, which conflicts 
with EISA's requirement for DOE to consider cost-effective standards 
for manufactured homes. (Senator Scott at p. 1-2) Senator Scott stated 
that DOE's standards are overly broad, unduly burdensome, and undermine 
commonsense efforts to increase supply and assist families looking for 
affordable housing opportunities, and that DOE should delay the 
compliance date and consider withdrawing part 460 to incorporate 
appropriate modifications in consultation with HUD and the MHCC. 
(Senator Scott at p. 2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ EERE-2009-BT-BC-0021-2564.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Skyline, Cavco, and MHI stated that the failure of DOE to consider 
the cost of testing, compliance, and enforcement renders DOE's cost-
effectiveness analysis for part 460 incomplete and inaccurate, and that 
DOE used flawed assumptions regarding increases in component part 
prices and interest rates in its analysis. Skyline, Cavco, and MHI 
stated that DOE should implement the delay rule not only to create 
testing, compliance, and enforcement provisions, but also to reconsider 
its cost analysis. Skyline, Cavco, and MHI further stated that DOE's 
current standards will price tens of thousands of homebuyers out of 
homeownership and cause them to remain in housing that is less energy 
efficient than today's manufactured homes, and that even modest 
purchase price increases disproportionately impact manufactured home 
purchasers who typically have incomes far below the national average. 
(Skyline at p. 2, Cavco at p. 2, MHI at p. 1-3) Skyline, Cavco, and MHI 
also stated that DOE should use the delayed compliance date to resolve 
its failure to adequately consult with HUD during the rulemaking for 
part 460, and that DOE should consult with HUD and the MHCC now to make 
modifications or additions to the standards. (Skyline at p. 2, Cavco at 
p. 2, MHI at p. 5)
    MHI stated that requirements of DOE's standards are unworkable. 
More specifically, MHI stated that Sec.  460.205's requirement to use 
Air Conditioning Contractors of America (ACCA) Manuals J and S creates 
an unworkable conflict with the HUD code and that there are currently 
no furnaces available that are both rated for use under the HUD Code 
and that comply with part 460. (MHI at p. 4) MHI further stated that 
windows with solar heat gain coefficient (SHGC) values required by part 
460 cannot be used in homes above certain elevation, that the Uo 
performance requirements of Tier 2 would require removal of all windows 
in climate zone 3 homes (in violation of the HUD Code), and that the R-
21 insulation necessary to comply with DOE's standards has never been 
implemented in manufactured homes. (MHI at p. 4-5) MHI stated that DOE 
should amend the compliance date of part 460 to also reconsider its 
cost-effectiveness analysis in the May 2022 Final Rule, particularly in 
light of recent market downturns. (MHI at p. 8) Kit HomeBuilders raised 
several questions regarding implementation of the standards with regard 
to sizing requirements under ACCA Manuals J and S, and insulation 
requirements. More specifically, Kit HomeBuilders stated that 
requirements of part 460 could force homebuyers to a more expensive 
foundation design that goes below frost depth which consists of more 
site preparation, form work, and concrete and material, and that the 
ACCA Manuals J and S requirements of part 460 would require additional 
software and cost and could be problematic for homes sold as lot 
models, dealer stock, and/or ``spec homes.'' Kit HomeBuilders stated 
that the current HUD heat-loss calculation method along with the new 
code updates would achieve the same, if not a better, scenario for HUD 
homes since the calculation would not be held up by site criteria while 
also providing furnace certification and economy temperatures as 
currently required.
    DOE's only proposal in this rulemaking is whether to amend the 
compliance date of part 460. Therefore, comments regarding the 
substance of the May 2022 Final Rule, including the standards adopted 
by DOE and the rationale DOE offered in support of its decision, are 
out of the scope of the current rulemaking action. Nevertheless, DOE 
notes that it addressed many of the concerns raised by these commenters 
in the May 2022 Final Rule. Pursuant to EISA, DOE based its standards 
on the latest version of the IECC and performed a life-cycle cost-
effectiveness analysis of its standards, which DOE determined to be 
cost-effective. See e.g., 87 FR 32735, 32742. As part of its analysis, 
DOE considered the design and factory construction techniques of

[[Page 34417]]

manufactured homes, transportation issues, and potential need for 
redesign of manufactured homes. See e.g., 87 FR 32764, 32767, 32772-73, 
32790. These considerations were informed by the rulemaking working 
group negotiations and term sheet, as well as comments on the 2021 
SNOPR and NODA. 87 FR 32742, 32749. DOE notes that it utilized feedback 
from consultations with HUD, as well as stakeholder comments, to 
address affordability concerns, which led to the tiered approach in 
part 460. See e.g., 87 FR 32743-32745, 32756. Although DOE does not 
agree with the commenters' assertions regarding the substance of the 
May 2022 Final Rule, this disagreement does not affect DOE's 
determination with respect to the limited proposal at issue in this 
rulemaking. DOE concludes, after reviewing all submitted comments, that 
manufacturers and purchasers would benefit from additional clarity on 
DOE's procedures for ensuring compliance with its standards in the May 
2022 Final Rule, which DOE will develop in a forthcoming enforcement 
procedures action.
Alignment With the HUD Code
    The Arkansas Department of Labor and Licensing (ADLL) stated that 
it is responsible for enforcing the HUD Code in Arkansas, the authority 
for which is derived from the HUD process set for at 24 CFR 3282.301 
through 3282.309. ADLL stated that it has received numerous inquiries 
from the industry, regulators, and lawmakers as to the impact of DOE's 
manufactured housing standards, stating that DOE's standards have 
caused substantial confusion in Arkansas given the conflicts between 
DOE's standards and the HUD Code.\18\ (ADLL at p. 1) ADLL stated that 
this confusion is likely to continue until DOE's standards are aligned 
with the HUD Code. ADLL stated its understanding that any increase in 
energy efficiency requirement for manufactured homes would have to be 
set forth in the HUD Code to be enforced through ADLL, and that DOE 
should delay the compliance date of part 460 until such time as DOE can 
work with HUD to adopt any increased energy efficiency requirements 
into the HUD Code. (ADLL at p. 1-2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ EERE-2009-BT-BC-0021-2520.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Kit HomeBuilders stated its belief that HUD should be an integral 
part of incorporating DOE's standards into the HUD Code, while working 
with the industry on how this can be accomplished, which would benefit 
the industry by allowing HUD and its stakeholders the opportunity to 
work together on how requirements can be met and enforced. Senator 
Scott stated that any effort by DOE to develop standards should not 
undermine HUD's long-established requirements but must complement 
existing requirements to ensure appropriate consideration of the 
affordability and availability of such housing choices for consumers. 
(Senator Scott at p. 2) Skyline and Cavco commented that DOE's 
standards set forth several requirements that conflict with the HUD 
Code and ignore current component supply challenges and realities of 
manufactured home construction. Skyline and Cavco stated that, while 
these conflicts and challenges should be resolved through substantive 
rulemaking, some of them could potentially be resolved through testing, 
compliance, and enforcement, and that DOE should delay the compliance 
date for part 460 to attempt to resolve these conflicts and challenges 
through testing, compliance, and enforcement. (Skyline at p. 2, Cavco 
at p. 2)
    MHI commented that DOE should consult with HUD and the MHCC for 
additions or modifications to DOE's standards. MHI stated that the MHCC 
refused to recommend wholesale adoption of DOE's standards into the HUD 
Code, preferring a more incremental approach, to preserve home 
affordability, and particularly noted that the MHCC determined that DOE 
circumvented the standards development process prescribed in EISA which 
requires cost justification and consultation with HUD. (MHI at p. 5-6) 
MHI stated that the MHCC's recommended changes to the HUD Code allow 
for testing, enforcement, and regulatory compliance within HUD's 
existing framework, which helps minimize costs to manufacturers and 
ultimately consumers, but that there still may be a gap in enforcement 
between HUD's final standards and DOE's final standards, which may need 
to be resolved. MHI commented that should HUD adopt the MHCC 
recommendations into the HUD code, manufacturers will be subject to two 
sets of conflicting regulations. MHI stated that HUD and DOE should 
consider engaging in joint rulemaking to ensure that the HUD Code and 
Energy rule are fully aligned, and that there is precedent for such 
joint rulemaking as HUD and the Department of Transportation engaged in 
similar joint rulemaking for manufactured home transportation 
standards. (MHI at p. 7-8)
    Joint Commenters stated that DOE should assist HUD to incorporate 
the DOE standard into the HUD Code as soon as possible. Joint 
Commenters stated that having two different energy standards for 
manufactured homes does not benefit anyone, and applying HUD's 
compliance procedures would improve compliance and achieve greater 
energy savings. Joint Commenters stated that, to the extent possible, 
the DOE standard should be incorporated by reference into the HUD Code 
so that future updates of the DOE standard do not again lead to 
different standards and long delays. (Joint Commenters at p. 2) NEEA 
commented that the HUD design and inspection process for manufactured 
homes could be easily modified to achieve equivalent energy efficiency 
performance, and that DOE could provide validation of equivalence where 
DOE's language or approach differs and is more in line with HUD 
enforcement standard practice. NEEA also stated that the most 
significant challenges manufacturers face can be addressed if DOE would 
provide HUD with a crosswalk of equivalent energy efficiency. NEEA 
provided specific recommendations for four sections of the HUD Code 
that if used should be equivalent to the DOE standard: 24 CFR 3280.103 
(light and ventilation), 3280.505 (air infiltration), 3280.506 (heat 
loss/heat gain), and 3280.715 (circulating air systems). (NEEA at p. 2-
3)
    As stated previously, DOE's only proposed action in this rulemaking 
is whether to amend the compliance date of part 460. Therefore, 
comments regarding potential future collaboration or rulemaking with 
HUD regarding DOE's standards and/or the HUD Code are outside the scope 
of the current rulemaking action. However, DOE notes that it addressed 
a number of the concerns raised by these commenters in the May 2022 
Final Rule. As noted in that rule, DOE consulted with HUD in 
establishing its efficiency standards for manufactured homes. See e.g., 
87 FR 32736, 32742. Moreover, DOE made efforts to ensure that its 
standards would not prevent a manufacturer from complying with the 
requirements, including energy conservation requirements, set forth in 
the HUD Code at the time of that rulemaking. See e.g., 87 FR 32736. 
Additionally, DOE provided a crosswalk of its standards and the 
relevant standards in the HUD Code to demonstrate how DOE's standards 
interact with the HUD Code. See e.g., 87 FR 32782. Nevertheless, DOE 
agrees with commenters that enforcement procedures are necessary and 
will help provide clarity to manufacturers to ensure compliance with 
DOE's standards and provide

[[Page 34418]]

expectations for DOE enforcement. Regarding specific issues raised by 
commenters for DOE to address in its enforcement procedures or with 
HUD, DOE will consider these comments while establishing those 
procedures. DOE intends to engage in the rulemaking process in the 
coming months to establish enforcement procedures for part 460. DOE 
encourages commenters to participate in that rulemaking and provide 
feedback to the Department to establish enforcement procedures that 
address the concerns of all stakeholders.

B. Final Rule

    Based on the foregoing, under its authority to establish energy 
conservation standards for manufactured housing (42 U.S.C. 17071), DOE 
amends the compliance date for the manufactured housing energy 
conservation standards in 10 CFR part 460 until 60-days after 
promulgation of DOE's forthcoming enforcement procedures for Tier 1 
homes, and until July 1, 2025, for Tier 2 homes. With respect to the 
requirements of subpart C of part 460, DOE requires compliance with 
those provisions beginning 60 days after publication of its final 
enforcement procedures for Tier 1 homes, and beginning July 1, 2025, 
for Tier 2 homes. Importantly, DOE has made minor changes to the 
regulatory text of Sec.  460.1 from that which was proposed in the 
March 2023 NOPR, including the reservation of a new subpart D of part 
460, which will contain DOE's forthcoming enforcement procedures. Upon 
issuance of DOE's enforcement procedures in subpart D, DOE will update 
the compliance date for Tier 1 homes in Sec.  460.1 to state the 
specific calendar date by which manufacturers must comply once that 
date is known.
    As noted in the March 2023 NOPR, DOE believes enforcement 
procedures will provide additional clarity to manufacturers and 
consumers regarding DOE's expectations of manufacturers and DOE's plans 
for enforcing the standards. Delaying the compliance date until after 
the enforcement procedures are issued provides manufacturers time to 
understand DOE's enforcement procedures and adjust their operations to 
ensure compliance with DOE's standards. DOE acknowledges that some of 
the consumer benefits (e.g., cost savings) provided by DOE's standards 
will not be realized during the delay period. However, these benefits 
may not be fully realized in the absence of a delay if manufacturers 
lack clarity on what to expect from DOE's enforcement of such 
standards. DOE believes that the absence of a clear, workable 
enforcement framework for manufacturers jeopardizes the full 
realization of the consumer benefits that will result from full 
implementation of the standards. Amending the compliance date is 
therefore necessary to ensure the realization of the consumer benefits 
of DOE's standards. DOE believes the July 1, 2025, compliance date for 
Tier 2 provides manufacturers with additional clarity to plan for and 
make adjustments to their operations, consistent with DOE's enforcement 
procedures.
    Accordingly, DOE delays the May 31, 2023, compliance date for the 
standards of 10 CFR part 460 until 60 days after DOE's publication of 
its final enforcement procedures for the Tier 1 standards, and until 
July 1, 2025, for the Tier 2 standards.

IV. Administrative Procedure Act

    The Administrative Procedure Act requires that publication of a 
rule be made not less than 30 days before its effective date, except as 
otherwise provided by the agency for good cause. 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). An 
explanation of this good cause must be included with the rule. Id. DOE 
has found good cause to dispense with this 30-day period required by 
the Administrative Procedure Act to make this final rule effective upon 
publication in the Federal Register. As discussed previously, amending 
the compliance date is necessary because DOE has yet to publish 
enforcement procedures for part 460. Enforcement procedures will 
provide additional clarity to manufacturers and consumers regarding 
DOE's expectations of manufacturers and DOE's plans for enforcing the 
standards. Delaying the compliance date until after the enforcement 
procedures are effective provides manufacturers time to understand 
DOE's enforcement procedures and prepare their operations to ensure 
compliance with DOE's standards.
    Given the immediacy of the May 31, 2023, compliance date currently 
prescribed, DOE finds good cause to make this rule delaying that date 
effective on publication. 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This will prevent a 
problematic scenario in which, after May 31, 2023, manufacturers would 
need to comply with the standards--without the benefit of relevant 
enforcement procedures--only to have the compliance date delayed weeks 
later. Moreover, this prevents manufacturers from being subject to 
legal actions (from DOE or otherwise) for potential noncompliance with 
DOE's standards in this period. DOE believes the need for immediate 
effect of this final rule to avoid these scenarios exceeds the need for 
persons affected by DOE's standards to have 30 days to prepare for 
amendment of the compliance date given that there is little (if any) 
burden to prepare for the amended compliance date of this rule. Rather, 
manufacturers will be able to continue working towards compliance with 
the standards (with the benefit of eventual DOE enforcement procedures) 
without facing a need to comply with DOE's standards for a matter of 
weeks before the amended compliance date takes effect. Accordingly, by 
making this final rule effective immediately, DOE is providing 
manufacturers with certainty that they need not comply with part 460 
until after DOE issues enforcement procedures that will provide clarity 
for manufacturers' compliance with the standards.
Congressional Notification
    As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the 
promulgation of this final rule before its effective date. The report 
will state that it has been determined that this final rule is not a 
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final 
rule.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 460

    Administrative practice and procedure, Buildings and facilities, 
Energy conservation, Housing standards, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

Signing Authority

    This document of the Department of Energy was signed on May 19, 
2023, by Francisco Alejandro Moreno, Acting Assistant Secretary for 
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority 
from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature 
and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in 
compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the 
undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to 
sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as 
an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative 
process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon 
publication in the Federal Register.


[[Page 34419]]


    Signed in Washington, DC, on May 19, 2023.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE amends part 460 of 
chapter II of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:

PART 460--ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR MANUFACTURED HOMES

0
1. The authority citation for part 460 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 17071; 42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.


0
2. Revise Sec.  460.1 to read as follows:


Sec.  460.1  Scope.

    This subpart establishes energy conservation standards for 
manufactured homes as manufactured at the factory, prior to 
distribution in commerce for sale or installation in the field. 
Manufacturers must apply the requirements of this part to a 
manufactured home subject to Sec.  460.4(b) that is manufactured on or 
after 60 days after publication of final enforcement procedures for 
this part. DOE will amend this section to include the specific 
compliance date, once known. Manufacturers must apply the requirements 
of this part to a manufactured home subject to Sec.  460.4(c) that is 
manufactured on or after July 1, 2025.

Subpart D--[Added and Reserved]

0
3. Add reserved subpart D.

[FR Doc. 2023-11043 Filed 5-26-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P