[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