This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

38073 

Vol. 83, No. 150 

Friday, August 3, 2018 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 460 

[EERE–2009–BT–BC–0021] 

RIN 1904–AC11 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy 

Conservation Standards for 

Manufactured Housing 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of data availability; 

request for information. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) is announcing this notice 

of data availability (‘‘NODA’’) and 

soliciting public input regarding data 

relating to certain aspects in developing 

energy conservation standards for 

manufactured housing. These data are 

likely to help serve as support for DOE’s 

further refinement of certain aspects of 

its proposed standards for these 

structures. They may also serve as the 

basis for DOE’s restructuring of its 

approach in laying out the framework 

for standards that would apply to 

manufactured housing. DOE is seeking 

comment on these data along with 

several options that it is currently 

considering that could form an 

alternative basis for regulating the 

energy efficiency of manufactured 

housing. DOE also seeks any additional 

information that might further inform 

the agency’s views regarding the manner 

in which to regulate these structures. 

DATES: Written comments and 

information are requested and will be 

accepted on or before September 17, 

2018. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

encouraged to submit comments using 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Alternatively, interested persons may 

submit comments, identified by docket 

number EERE–2009–BT–BC–0021, by 

any of the following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. Email: to Manufactured_Housing@

ee.doe.gov. Include EERE–2009–BT– 

BC–0021 in the subject line of the 

message. 

3. Postal Mail: Appliance and 

Equipment Standards Program, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, Mailstop EE–5B, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW, 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. If 

possible, please submit all items on a 

compact disc (CD), in which case it is 

not necessary to include printed copies. 

4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance 

and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, 950 L’Enfant Plaza 

SW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20024. 

Telephone: (202) 287–1445. If possible, 

please submit all items on a CD, in 

which case it is not necessary to include 

printed copies. 

No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be 

accepted. For detailed instructions on 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see section III of this document. 

Docket: The docket for this activity, 

which includes Federal Register 

notices, comments, and other 

supporting documents/materials, is 

available for review at http://

www.regulations.gov. All documents in 

the docket are listed in the http://

www.regulations.gov index. However, 

some documents listed in the index, 

such as those containing information 

that is exempt from public disclosure, 

may not be publicly available. 

The docket web page can be found at 

https://www.regulations.gov/ 

docket?D=EERE-2009-BT-BC-0021. The 

docket web page contains simple 

instructions on how to access all 

documents, including public comments, 

in the docket. See section III for 

information on how to submit 

comments through http://

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ms. Sofie Miller, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 287– 

1943. Email: Manufactured_Housing@

ee.doe.gov. 

Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–8145. Email: 

Michael.Kido@hq.doe.gov. 

For further information on how to 

submit a comment or review other 

public comments and the docket, 

contact the Appliance and Equipment 

Standards Program staff at (202) 287– 

1445 or by email: Manufactured_

Housing@ee.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

A. Authority and Background 

B. Rulemaking History 

II. Request for Information 

A. June 2016 Proposal’s Analytical 

Assumptions 

B. Ownership-Related Costs 

C. Prescriptive and Performance-Based 

Standards 

D. Alternative Approaches 

E. Compliance Lead-Times 

III. Submission of Comments 

I. Introduction 

Manufactured housing comprises a 

housing category that consists of 

structures constructed in a factory, built 

on a permanent chassis, and 

transportable in one or more sections 

that are then erected on-site. See 24 CFR 

3280.2 This type of housing has 

traditionally been regulated by the 

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (‘‘HUD’’), which has 

regulated these structures with the 

purpose of reducing personal injuries, 

deaths, property damage, and insurance 

costs, and to improve the quality, 

durability, safety, and affordability of 

these homes. See 42 U.S.C. 5401(b). 

Consistent with its statutory authority, 

HUD has created a comprehensive 

regulatory framework to address a 

variety of aspects related to these 

structures, including certain elements 

related to their energy efficiency. See, 

e.g. 24 CFR 3280.507(a) (specifying 

thermal insulation requirements) and 24 

CFR 3280.508(d) (detailing requirements 

related to the installation of highefficiency heating and cooling 

equipment in manufactured homes). 

HUD’s standards are preemptive 

nationwide and differ from standards 

developed under the auspices of (and 

published by) the International Code 

Council (‘‘ICC’’). The ICC standards, 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
38074 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

1HUD describes its Manufactured Housing 

Consensus Committee as ‘‘a statutory Federal 

Advisory Committee body charged with providing 

recommendations to the Secretary on the revision 

and interpretation of HUD’s manufactured home 

construction and safety standards and related 

procedural and enforcement regulations. The 

[Committee] is charged with developing proposed 

model installation standards for the manufactured 

housing industry.’’ https://www.hud.gov/program_

offices/housing/rmra/manufacturedhousings/cc1 

(last accessed on July 9, 2018). 

2The withdrawn date can be found at https://

www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eoAdvancedSearch and 

entering ‘‘1904–AC11’’ for the RIN and checking 

‘‘Concluded’’ under ‘‘Review Status’’. Additionally, 

while the OIRA review was ongoing, on June 25, 

2013, DOE published a request for information in 

which it sought additional public input regarding 

four identified issues related to its rulemaking. See 

Energy Efficiency Standards for Manufactured 

Housing, 78 FR 37995, 37996–37997 (June 25, 

2013). 

3See also Appliance Standards and Rulemaking 

Federal Advisory Committee (ASRAC)— 

Manufactured Housing Working Group, 79 FR 

48097 (August 15, 2014); Appliance Standards and 

Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee 

(ASRAC)—Manufactured Housing Working Group, 

79 FR 59154 (October 1, 2014). 

4Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/ 

document?D=EERE-2009-BT-BC-0021-0107. 

5Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/ 

document?D=EERE-2009-BT-BC-0021-0136. 

6See supra, note 2. On November 9, 2016, DOE 

also published a notice of proposed rulemaking for 

test procedures, as a companion to the draft energy 

efficiency standards rule for manufactured housing. 

See Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures 

for Manufactured Housing, 81 FR 78733 (November 

9, 2016). Test procedures specify how those subject 

known as the International Energy 

Conservation Code (‘‘IECC’’), have been 

adopted by many state and local 

governments in establishing minimum 

design and construction requirements 

for the energy efficiency of residential 

and commercial buildings. However, 

due to the preemptive nature of HUD’s 

standards, the ICC standards are not 

currently applied to manufactured 

housing. Consistent with this approach 

and Federal law, DOE is tasked with 

evaluating whether the adoption of 

standards based on the most recent 

version of the IECC would satisfy the 

applicable statutory requirements. 

A. Authority and Background 

Section 413 of the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 2007, 

Public Law 110–140 (December 19, 

2007) (‘‘EISA’’) requires DOE to 

establish by regulation standards for the 

energy efficiency of manufactured 

housing. See 42 U.S.C. 17071(a)(1). Prior 

to establishing these regulations, DOE 

must satisfy two conditions—(1) 

provide manufacturers and other 

interested parties with notice and an 

opportunity for comment and (2) 

consult with the Secretary of HUD, who 

may then ‘‘seek further counsel from the 

Manufactured Housing Consensus 

Committee.’’ 1 42 U.S.C. 17071(a)(2). 

These standards must generally be 

based on the most recent version of the 

IECC, except where DOE finds that the 

IECC is not cost effective, or a more 

stringent standard would be more cost 

effective. A finding that standards based 

on the IECC are not cost effective or that 

standards more stringent than the IECC 

are cost effective would be based on the 

impact of the adoption of the IECC 

standards on the purchase price of 

manufactured housing and on total lifecycle construction and operating costs. 

See 42 U.S.C. 17071(b)(1). In 

establishing its standards, DOE may 

consider: 

• The design and factory construction 

techniques of manufactured housing, 

• The climate zones established in 

the U.S. Department of Housing and 

Urban Development’s Manufactured 

Home Construction and Safety 

Standards (‘‘the HUD Code’’) rather than 

the climate zones included as part of the 

IECC, and 

• Alternative practices that result in 

net estimated energy consumption equal 

to or less than the specific IECC 

standards. See 42 U.S.C. 17071(b)(2). 

In addition, EISA provides that a 

manufacturer who violates the 

regulations established by DOE under 

42 U.S.C. 17071(a) ‘‘is liable to the 

United States for a civil penalty in an 

amount not exceeding 1 percent of the 

manufacturer’s retail list price of the 

manufactured housing.’’ See 42 U.S.C. 

17071(c). 

B. Rulemaking History 

In the years since EISA became law, 

DOE has undertaken several steps down 

the complex regulatory path of fulfilling 

Section 413’s directive for promulgating 

new regulations under the processes 

and conditions set forth in the statute. 

After studying the issue, on February 

22, 2010, DOE published an advanced 

notice of proposed rulemaking and 

request for comment identifying 13 

distinct issues concerning energy 

efficiency in manufactured housing 

about which it sought public input. See 

Energy Standards for Manufactured 

Housing, 75 FR 7556, 7557 (February 

22, 2010). After receiving and 

considering the submitted comments, 

DOE prepared a draft notice of proposed 

rulemaking (‘‘draft NOPR’’) and 

submitted it to the Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs (‘‘OIRA’’) in the 

Office of Management and Budget for 

review, pursuant to Executive Order 

12866. Ultimately, the draft NOPR did 

not clear the OIRA review process, and 

DOE withdrew it on March 13, 2014.2

Following the withdrawal of the draft 

NOPR from OIRA, DOE notified the 

public of its intent to establish a 

negotiated rulemaking working group 

for manufactured housing. DOE 

believed that this approach would be 

‘‘better suited to resolving complex 

technical issues’’ concerning the 

standards, among other benefits. 79 FR 

33874 (June 13, 2014). The working 

group was convened and met for a total 

of 12 days over a three-month period. 

See Energy Conservation Program: 

Energy Efficiency Standards for 

Manufactured Housing, 80 FR 7550, 

7551 (February 11, 2015).3 These 

meetings led to the adoption of a term 

sheet detailing numerous technical 

recommendations for energy efficiency 

standards for manufactured housing. 

See Document ID EERE–2009–BT–BC– 

0021–0107.4 Also, in accordance with a 

recommendation from the working 

group, DOE sought further public 

comment regarding some technical 

issues that had arisen in the rulemaking 

process. See 80 FR 7551–7553. In 

addition to these extensive efforts to 

solicit comments from the public and 

the expertise of the working group, DOE 

also held meetings with HUD 

throughout the regulatory process and 

engaged in discussions with the 

Manufactured Housing Consensus 

Committee. See 81 FR 39762–39763, 

39765. It has also conferred with various 

other stakeholders. See id. 81 FR 39763, 

39765. 

On June 17, 2016, DOE published in 

the Federal Register a NOPR, which, in 

addition to comprehensively describing 

DOE’s analysis, was accompanied by a 

technical support document detailing 

DOE’s analyses supporting that 

proposal. See 81 FR 39756. See also 

Document ID EERE–2009–BT–BC– 

0021–0136.5 The agency also prepared a 

draft environmental assessment 

pursuant to the National Environmental 

Policy Act, on which it sought public 

input, particularly regarding the impacts 

of the proposed standards on the indoor 

air quality of manufactured homes. See 

Draft Environmental Assessment for 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

‘‘Energy Conservation Standards for 

Manufactured Housing’’ With Request 

for Information on Impacts to Indoor Air 

Quality, 81 FR 42576 (June 30, 2016). 

DOE received nearly 50 comments on 

the proposed rule during the comment 

period. After considering those 

comments, DOE prepared a draft final 

rule governing energy efficiency in 

manufactured housing and submitted it 

to OIRA for review under Executive 

Order 12866. OIRA received the draft 

final rule on November 1, 2016.6 Again, 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2018 / Proposed Rules 38075 

to energy efficiency standards are to confirm 

products are in compliance with such standards. 

7See supra, note 2. 

8See https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201409_

cfpb_report_manufactured-housing.pdf. 

9The CFPB Report also suggests that 

manufactured home consumers are particularly 

cost-driven: ‘‘There is evidence that some 

households who move into manufactured housing 

are less satisfied with their homes than those who 

choose to move into site-built housing. These 

results suggest that for at least some households, the 

choice to live in a manufactured home may be more 

cost-driven than quality-driven.’’ CFPB, 

Manufactured-housing consumer finance in the 

United States, at 22 (September 2014) [hereinafter, 

‘‘CFPB Report’’] (available at http://

files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201409_cfpb_report_

manufactured-housing.pdf). 

however, DOE’s draft final rule did not 

clear the OIRA review process and was 

withdrawn on January 31, 2017.7

II. Request for Information 

Since the publication of DOE’s 

proposals, the agency has re-examined 

its available data and re-evaluated its 

approach in developing standards for 

manufactured housing. In particular, 

HUD made DOE aware of the adverse 

impacts on manufactured housing 

affordability that would likely follow if 

DOE were to adopt the approach laid 

out in its June 2016 proposal. As a 

result, and in consideration of specific 

suggestions offered by HUD, DOE 

initiated a review of its data and 

analysis and has begun reconsidering 

the framework to use in regulating these 

structures. In particular, DOE had 

previously considered a regulatory 

regime similar to the one it administers 

with regard to appliance and 

commercial equipment standards, i.e., 

setting a uniform, minimum mandatory 

level of efficiency that must be achieved 

by all subject products. However, DOE’s 

authority to establish energy efficiency 

standards for appliance standards is 

separate from its authority to establish 

energy conservation standards for 

manufactured homes. Thus, DOE is 

examining if it must set a single, 

mandatory level of efficiency. As a 

result of this re-examination, DOE 

developed a number of alternatives on 

which it seeks further input from the 

public. These alternatives would 

facilitate a variety of different levels of 

efficiency. In developing these 

alternatives, DOE gave careful 

consideration to a variety of factors, 

including the first-time costs related to 

the purchase of these homes. In the 

following sections, DOE presents a 

series of issues on which it seeks input 

to aid in the development of the 

technical and economic analyses 

regarding each of these potential 

alternatives to the proposed regulatory 

framework contained in DOE’s June 

2016 standards proposal. 

Additionally, DOE welcomes 

comments on other issues relevant to 

the conduct of this process that may not 

specifically be identified in this 

document. In particular, DOE notes that 

under Executive Order 13771, 

‘‘Reducing Regulation and Controlling 

Regulatory Costs,’’ Executive Branch 

agencies such as DOE are directed to 

manage the costs associated with the 

imposition of expenditures required to 

comply with Federal regulations. See 82 

FR 9339 (February 3, 2017). Consistent 

with that Executive Order, DOE 

encourages the public to provide input 

on measures DOE could take to lower 

the cost of its regulations applicable to 

manufactured housing consistent with 

the requirements of EISA. 

A. June 2016 Proposal’s Analytical 

Assumptions 

As with any of its appliance and 

equipment standards rulemaking 

proposals, DOE made a number of 

analytical assumptions to determine 

what minimum level of efficiency it 

should use in establishing mandatory 

energy conservation standards for 

manufactured housing. These 

assumptions spanned a variety of 

factors, including affordability, which 

climate zones to use, which solar heat 

gain coefficient (‘‘SHGC’’) to use in a 

given climate zone, the price elasticity 

value to use in DOE’s calculation of 

potential impacts, whether to include 

certification, compliance, and 

enforcement costs as part of DOE’s 

analysis, and whether the tightening of 

a manufactured home’s building 

envelope—which is what the proposed 

standards were designed to help 

accomplish—would impact indoor air 

quality by increasing the likelihood of 

trapping pollutants inside the building. 

Issue 1: What analytical aspects 

related to DOE’s June 2016 proposal— 

aside from those specifically noted later 

in this document—should DOE consider 

re-examining as part of its ongoing 

consideration of a final rule for 

manufactured housing? (Within this 

context, this request also encompasses 

whether DOE’s analysis sufficiently 

addresses the cost-effectiveness of 

standards based on the current IECC 

code when considering the code’s 

impact on both the purchase price of 

manufactured housing and on total lifecycle construction and operating costs. 

See 42 U.S.C. 1771(b)(1). Why should 

DOE reconsider these aspects and what 

specific changes, if any, should DOE 

make to them? As part of this request, 

DOE is interested in any specific 

supplemental supporting data regarding 

any changes that commenters may 

suggest. 

Additionally, in further researching 

the manufactured housing market, DOE 

has examined additional information 

from a variety of sources. Of particular 

note is information from the Consumer 

Financial Protection Bureau (‘‘CFPB’’), 

which released a report in 2014 that 

focused on this particular market.8 That 

report, ‘‘Manufactured-Housing 

Consumer Finance in the United 

States,’’ [hereinafter, ‘‘CFPB Report’’] 

detailed the characteristics of 

manufactured housing consumers and 

the market for manufactured home 

financing. Key findings from the report 

include: 

• Manufactured home ownership 

varies widely by region, with the 

majority of manufactured homes located 

outside of metropolitan areas; 

• Manufactured home owners tend to 

have lower incomes and less net worth 

than their counterparts who own sitebuilt homes; 

• There is an extremely constrained 

secondary market for manufactured 

homes, following the collapse of the 

manufactured home market in the late 

1990s through the early 2000s; 

• Most manufactured-housing 

purchasers who finance their homes 

obtained a loan of between $10,000 and 

$80,000, with a median loan value of 

$55,000. 

These data suggest that manufactured 

housing purchasers face substantial 

constraints compared to traditional 

home purchasers. In turn, these 

constraints may make purchasers of 

manufactured homes more pricesensitive to potential changes that 

would impact the costs to construct 

(and purchase) a manufactured home.9

The CFPB data also point to certain 

key demographic characteristics. On a 

regional level, the CFPB noted that 

manufactured housing is more common 

in certain regions than others—with this 

type of housing being more common in 

the South and the West than in certain 

Northeastern states. Manufactured 

homes are also much more prevalent in 

rural areas, with about 2⁄3 of all 

occupied manufactured homes being 

located outside of metropolitan 

statistical areas; in these areas, 14% of 

homes are manufactured homes. 

Manufactured housing as a proportion 

of occupied housing units is lowest in 

Maryland, New Jersey, Connecticut, 

Hawaii and Massachusetts (1%) and 

highest in South Carolina, New Mexico, 

and Mississippi (17%, 16%, and 15%, 

respectively). See CFPB Report, at 10– 

12. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
38076 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

10 ‘‘Certain consumer segments are 

disproportionately represented among owners and 

renters of manufactured homes, in particular older 

consumers, consumers that have completed only 

high school, households with relatively low 

income, and households with relatively low net 

worth.’’ CFPB Report, at 13. 

11See Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 

Manufactured-housing consumer finance in the 

United States, September 2014 at 42–43: http://

files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201409_cfpb_report_

manufactured-housing.pdf. 

Further, manufactured home owners 

are more likely to be older and likely to 

have lower incomes or net worth. The 

median annual income of families living 

in manufactured homes is also slightly 

over $26,000, and the median net worth 

of these families is $26,000 (a quarter of 

that of families in site-built homes). See 

id. at 16–18. 

The CFPB also made a number of 

other observations with respect to the 

available financial data it examined. 

First, it indicated that the 

manufactured home market collapsed in 

the late 1990s through the early 2000s 

as consumers experienced loan 

repayment difficulties driven by lowquality manufactured home lending. 

Following the collapse, at least eight 

large lenders exited the manufactured 

home lending market, some of which 

drove losses in the secondary market. 

See generally id. at 26–29. At the time 

of CFPB’s report, sales and production 

remained depressed with an extremely 

constrained resale market for 

manufactured homes. See id. at 6, 

26–28, 37. 

Second, most manufactured-housing 

purchasers finance between $10,000 and 

$80,000, with a loan median of $55,000. 

See id. at 30. Owners of manufactured 

homes finance different amounts 

depending on whether they finance the 

costs of only the manufactured home or 

the costs of both the home and the land 

on which it is sited. See id. at 21. 

Manufactured home owners who 

finance their homes tend to pay higher 

interest rates than their site-built home 

counterparts. A key reason for this 

difference is that the vast majority of 

manufactured housing stock is titled as 

chattel, and as a result is eligible only 

for chattel financing. Chattel financing 

is typically offered to purchasers at a 

significantly higher interest rate than 

the rates offered to their site-built home 

counterparts. While some manufactured 

home owners who also own the land on 

which the manufactured home is sited 

may be eligible for mortgage financing, 

there is a tradeoff between lower 

origination costs with significantly 

higher interest rates (chattel loans) and 

higher origination costs with 

significantly lower interest rates and 

greater consumer protections 

(mortgage). See id. at 23–25. 

Issue 2: a. DOE seeks comment 

regarding the CFPB’s findings. Are these 

findings reasonably accurate or are there 

other factors that DOE should consider 

when determining the economic impact 

of energy conservation standards on the 

ability of purchasers to buy 

manufactured homes? Assuming that 

these findings are reasonably accurate, 

what role, if any, should they play in 

shaping the standards that DOE 

ultimately adopts for manufactured 

housing and why? If the CFPB’s findings 

are not accurate, what specific 

shortcomings do they have and what 

assumptions/changes should DOE apply 

when determining the stringency and 

types of standards the agency should 

establish for manufactured housing? 

b. DOE’s own data from its 

Residential Energy Consumption Survey 

of 2015 suggests that manufactured 

housing households pay about 60% 

more for their energy per square foot 

than the entire housing stock. Is this 

estimate accurate—and if so, why? What 

specific factors contribute to this 

condition? If this estimate is not 

accurate, why—what specific factors are 

being overlooked in the survey that 

contribute to this inaccuracy? 

B. Ownership-Related Costs 

DOE’s analysis for its June 2016 

proposal considered the economic 

impacts of the proposed standards on 

individual manufactured home 

purchasers. Similar to its approach 

toward appliance standards, these 

analyses focused on the prospect of 

applying a single, uniform minimum 

standard that all manufactured homes of 

a given size (single- or multi-section) 

and in a given climate zone (i.e., region 

of the country would need to meet. 

Necessarily, this approach examined the 

overall economic impacts in a broad 

fashion by applying a uniform standard 

to all manufactured housing units 

within a given climate zone and home 

size category. However, the approaches 

that the Department has taken with 

respect to appliance standards may not 

be suitable in the case of manufactured 

housing, which fills a distinct need for 

housing for a particular subset of 

consumers. In particular, under the 

statutory provision requiring the 

Department to develop standards for 

manufactured housing, the standards 

must generally be based on the most 

recent version of the IECC, except where 

DOE finds that the IECC is not cost 

effective, or a more stringent standard 

would be more cost effective. A finding 

that standards based on the IECC are not 

cost effective or that standards more 

stringent than the IECC are cost effective 

would be based on the impact of the 

adoption of the IECC standards on the 

purchase price of manufactured housing 

and on total life-cycle construction and 

operating costs. As a result, the 

approach presented by the working 

group (and adopted by DOE in its 

proposal) may have inadvertently 

overlooked certain factors and yielded 

an incomplete picture regarding the 

potential impacts flowing from its 

proposal and whether the standards 

must be based on the most recent 

version of the IECC. Consequently, DOE 

is seeking comment on a variety of 

issues related to these factors to help 

further inform its views regarding the 

economic impacts related to the 

establishment of energy efficiency 

standards for manufactured housing, 

and how those impacts effect use of the 

most recent version of the IECC. 

Issue 3: Manufactured housing 

owners tend to be lower-income than 

other homeowners,10 and are also likely 

to finance their manufactured housing 

purchase using high-rate chattel loans. 

As a result, the Department is 

particularly interested in comments and 

data regarding the affordability of 

manufactured housing and how the 

options outlined in this NODA would 

affect upfront manufactured housing 

affordability. DOE also seeks comment 

on whether and how the different 

approaches outlined in this NODA 

would differently affect the affordability 

of manufactured homes. 

Additionally, as part of this inquiry, 

DOE seeks public input on each of the 

following items: 

a. Affordability is a combination of 

upfront cost, which may price out some 

consumers at time of purchase, and 

operating costs, which will affect all 

manufactured housing owners over a 

longer time horizon. The Department 

seeks comments that provide 

information on how to weigh these 

components in defining ‘‘affordability,’’ 

with particular focus on affordability for 

low-income consumers. 

b. The Department also seeks 

comment on what a reasonable payback 

period might be for efficiency in 

manufactured homes, and any relevant 

tradeoffs between upfront cost and 

payback period that the Department 

should consider to avoid creating a 

situation where the upfront cost 

increases may price consumers out of 

the market for new homes, even if those 

costs might be recouped over time. 

While the cost of site-built home 

efficiency upgrades may be recouped 

when an owner sells the home, the same 

may not be true of manufactured homes 

because (1) manufactured housing 

owners have relatively short tenancies 11


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2018 / Proposed Rules 38077 

12 Kevin Jewell. ‘‘Manufactured Housing 

Appreciation: Stereotypes and Data.’’ Consumers 

Union, Southwest Regional Office. May 2003. Page 

6. http://consumersunion.org/pdf/ 

manufacturedhousing/Appreciation.pdf. 13See footnote 10, supra. 14Executive Order 13563, Section 1(c), 76 FR 

3821 (January 21, 2011). 15See U.S. Census Bureau, Cost and Size 

Comparison: New Manufactured Homes and SingleFamily Site Built Homes (2007–2014), for example. 

16See Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 

Manufactured-housing consumer finance in the 

United States, September 2014, for example. 

17Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning 

and Review,’’ 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993) 

(Section 1(b)(3)). 

and (2) the resale market for 

manufactured housing is highly 

constrained,12 such that the original 

owner will likely not recoup upfront 

efficiency investments if the payback 

period exceeds tenancy. DOE seeks 

additional information from 

commenters on the manufactured 

housing resale market that would 

inform the Department’s consideration 

of what a reasonable payback period 

would be. If available, the Department 

also seeks information on the 

distribution of manufactured housing 

tenancy rates. 

c. The Department is also interested 

in comments that inform whether 

special consideration should be given to 

affordability, particularly given that 

low-income and older consumers are 

disproportionately represented among 

manufactured housing owners.13

Executive Order 13563, which 

reinforces the principles of Executive 

Order 12866, indicates that agencies 

‘‘may consider (and discuss 

qualitatively) values that are difficult or 

impossible to quantify, including 

equity, human dignity, fairness, and 

distributive impacts’’ 14 where 

appropriate and permitted by law. 

d. The Department seeks data and 

information regarding basing standards 

on the most recent version of the IECC, 

in particular, whether standards based 

on the most recent version of the IECC 

would not be cost effective or that 

standards more stringent than the most 

recent version of the IECC would be cost 

effective, in either case based on the 

impact of the adoption of the IECC 

standards on the purchase price of 

manufactured housing and on total lifecycle construction and operating costs. 

Issue 4: DOE is aware that efficiency 

standards for manufactured housing 

may affect consumers in different 

regions differently, and seeks 

information on (1) the disparate regional 

effects of a standard, and (2) whether 

these effects are mitigated by use of 

tiered standards or a tiered labeling 

program. 

Issue 5: DOE seeks to better 

understand the market for manufactured 

homes. Available sources provide 

information regarding the average or 

median manufactured housing purchase 

price 15 or the proportion of 

manufactured housing owners who 

borrowed different amounts to finance 

their manufactured housing purchase,16

but do not directly show the 

distribution of manufactured housing 

prices across the market and the 

percentage of consumers who purchase 

at each price category. DOE is interested 

in such information, particularly to the 

extent that such information could 

inform the consideration of threshold 

standards. 

C. Prescriptive and Performance-Based 

Standards 

In DOE’s June 2016 standards 

proposal, the agency laid out two 

possible approaches it was considering 

at the time. The first option involved 

potential prescriptive requirements that 

would apply to a variety of components 

used in constructing the thermal 

envelope of a given manufactured home. 

These requirements laid out prescribed 

specifications related to thermal 

resistance (R-value) for wall, ceiling, 

and floor insulation, thermal 

transmittance specifications (U-factor) 

for windows, skylights, and doors, and 

glass glazing (SHGC) requirements. See 

81 FR 39757. These prescriptive levels 

would vary based on the climate zone 

in which the home is located. 81 FR 

39766. The second option presented a 

potential performance-based approach 

that would establish a maximum overall 

thermal transmittance for requirement 

for the building structure’s thermal 

envelope (Uo) and set additional 

U-factor and SHGC requirements. See 

id. Like with the prescriptive approach, 

these requirements would also vary by 

climate zone. 

In addition to these approaches, DOE 

also considered including provisions for 

determining U-factor, R-value, SHGC, 

and Uo. It also considered establishing 

prescriptive requirements for 

installation of insulation and sealing the 

building’s thermal envelope and duct 

system to limit air leakage, which would 

in turn reduce potential thermal losses. 

See id. 

Issue 6: DOE is interested in feedback 

regarding whether any aspects of its 

2016 proposal need further 

consideration and if so, why. For 

comments pointing to weaknesses or 

strengths with respect to DOE’s 

proposal, the agency seeks any 

supporting data in addition to that 

which DOE has already made public as 

part of the manufactured housing 

standards rulemaking docket. 

D. Alternative Approaches 

DOE is also considering an altogether 

different approach consisting of 

incremental packages that maximize 

energy savings of a manufactured home 

within certain incremental cost 

parameters. These options respond to 

concerns from stakeholders, including 

HUD, regarding the potentially 

prohibitive upfront costs of its 2016 

proposed standards. As a result, this 

analysis illustrates packages that 

maximize energy savings within 

incremental cost thresholds of $500, 

$1,000, or $1,500. DOE is seeking 

comment on whether any of the cost 

threshold packages presented here (i.e. 

either $500, $1,000, or $1,500), when 

applied as a national standard, would 

address the concerns of stakeholders 

regarding the high upfront cost of its 

2016 proposed standards. Further, DOE 

developed two sets of cost threshold 

packages: One set includes envelope 

and duct sealing as options to include 

in the cost threshold packages, and one 

set does not include envelope and duct 

sealing regardless of cost effectiveness. 

Unlike the tiered standards discussed 

in this NODA, these cost threshold 

packages illustrate the costs and benefits 

of a potential national standard that 

would apply across the fleet of 

manufactured homes. However, given 

the Department’s interest in tailoring its 

standards to consumers with differing 

preferences and needs, DOE is also 

soliciting comments on whether it can 

employ a tiered approach to these 

standards, wherein the $500, $1,000, 

and $1,500 cost packages could be 

applied to, or offered as an option for, 

various segments of the market for 

manufactured homes. 

The Department also recognizes the 

value of providing accurate information 

on potential energy savings. In addition 

to being low incremental or additional 

cost to manufacturers, better informed 

consumers are empowered to make 

choices that meet their individual needs 

for energy savings within their own 

personal economic circumstances. This 

approach builds on the guidance in 

Executive Order 12866, which instructs 

each agency to identify opportunities to 

provide information the public can use 

to make informed choices.17 To this 

end, the Department is considering a 

tiered labeling approach that would 

classify various levels of energy savings 

based on stringency and categorize these 

options within certain tiers, such as a 

Brass, Bronze, Silver, Gold, and 

Platinum tier, wherein the Platinum tier 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
38078 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

18See https://www.regulations.gov/ 

document?D=EERE-2009-BT-BC-0021-0200. 

19See footnote 18, supra. 

would represent the most efficient 

products on the market and Brass would 

represent the least efficient. 

Consequently, DOE is evaluating the 

following options: 

Package 1—This package would 

maximize the energy savings of a 

manufactured home at an upfront cost 

of either $500, $1,000, or $1,500. The 

accompanying analysis illustrates the 

associated lifecycle costs and payback 

period for each potential standard level 

across climate zones.18 This package 

would exclude envelope and duct 

sealing to maximize energy savings 

under any of the cost threshold options 

examined. 

Package 2—Like Package 1, this 

package would maximize the energy 

savings of a manufactured home at an 

upfront cost of either $500, $1,000, or 

$1,500. The accompanying analysis 

illustrates the associated lifecycle costs 

and payback period for each potential 

standard level across climate zones.19

Unlike Package 1, this package would 

allow envelope and duct sealing to 

maximize energy savings under all of 

the cost threshold options examined. 

Package 3—Rather than setting a 

national standard within a specified 

cost threshold, this option would create 

a framework where several different 

tiers of energy efficiency would be 

offered to consumers based on their 

particular needs and pricing 

sensitivities. These tiers would be based 

on cost increments, which, for purposes 

of DOE’s current analysis, would be 

based on $500 increments with a cap at 

$1,500. 

Package 4—This package would 

require each manufactured home to 

include a label prior to sale indicating 

expected energy use and savings. The 

labeling system would be tiered in the 

sense that different levels of energy 

savings would be labeled differently, 

such as by being categorized with a 

Brass, Bronze, Silver, Gold, or Platinum 

rating. These tiers would be based on 

potential energy savings. The 

Department is considering this package 

in conjunction with any of the other 

alternatives discussed above or with 

potential alternatives that may be 

suggested in response to this request for 

comment. 

Package 5—Finally, to ensure that 

manufactured housing continues to be a 

viable source for affordable housing, 

this package would exclude all 

manufactured homes with a cost level 

and retail purchase price (not including 

land costs) equal to or less than the loan 

limit established in accordance with 

Section 2(b)(1)(C) of the National 

Housing Act, 12 U.S.C. 1703(b)(1)(C), 

plus 5% (Title I Loan Limits). (Currently 

= $73,162 or 1.05 × $69,678.) Similarly, 

under this package, DOE would apply a 

higher price threshold ($294,515) under 

the same conditions—i.e. cost level and 

purchase price (not including land 

costs)—that would encourage (but not 

require) manufactured housing at a 

certain price to meet DOE’s standards. 

For all other manufactured housing that 

exceeds this level, DOE could apply one 

of the package approaches described 

under Packages 1 through 4. 

In evaluating these various options, 

DOE is considering a scenario where 

manufacturers continue to offer more 

economical versions of manufactured 

homes for certain segments of the 

market that are currently available but 

that may not necessarily fall into one of 

the cost incremental categories 

described above. A regime in which 

manufacturers continue to offer those 

manufactured homes that are currently 

available on the market as well as 

variants at greater levels of efficiency 

would allow particularly price sensitive 

individuals who may not have the 

financial means to pursue other housing 

options to maintain their ability to 

purchase a manufactured home of their 

choice while also allowing those with 

greater means who desire increased 

energy efficiency to purchase a 

manufactured home that suits their 

desires. Under any of these scenarios, 

DOE would consider developing a 

labeling framework to inform consumers 

regarding these options. DOE also seeks 

comment on implementing a tiered 

labeling system in conjunction with the 

other options discussed in this 

document to address any potential 

information asymmetry and preserve 

consumer choice. 

Issue 7: DOE seeks comment on 

whether it should consider and 

implement a cost-based tier structure 

with respect to regulating the energy 

efficiency of manufactured housing. 

DOE notes that a tiered approach could 

better address some of the concerns that 

may exist with respect to the first-time 

costs that purchasers may encounter 

with more efficient—but more 

expensive—manufactured homes. If so, 

why—and if not, why not? 

Issue 8: Consumers may fail to 

optimize the efficiency of their homes 

due to a lack of available information on 

the benefits of energy savings. 

Recognizing this, the NODA presents an 

option that would provide tiered 

labeling for consumers to compare and 

contrast information on upfront costs 

and long-term energy savings across 

manufactured housing structures. The 

Department is seeking comments on the 

benefit of providing consumers with 

such information, which preserves 

consumer choice, and the best way to 

provide consumers with information 

that they can easily understand and put 

to use. 

a. What information is available to 

consumers when they make 

manufactured housing purchasing 

decisions, and what additional 

information would be useful? Further, 

how can the Department add value in 

the provision and display of 

information? 

b. DOE seeks comments regarding 

whether access to information is a 

barrier to manufactured housing 

consumers, and if so, what is the 

magnitude of this barrier (i.e. to what 

extent does the lack of information 

prevent consumers from purchasing 

efficient homes)? 

Issue 9: DOE is also considering a 

number of approaches that would 

increase consumer access to information 

and increase the efficiency of 

manufactured homes. 

a. In weighing these approaches, the 

Department seeks comment on the 

advantages and disadvantages of using a 

tiered approach for efficiency standards 

versus using a single national standard 

that would apply to all manufactured 

homes within a single climate zone. 

DOE also seeks information regarding 

what a labeling framework would need 

to consider if a tiered approach were 

used and what the costs of such an 

approach would likely be. The 

Department further seeks comment on 

the advantages and disadvantages of 

using a tiered approach to labeling 

requirements versus a single national 

labeling standard for manufactured 

homes. 

b. Within the tiered options discussed 

above, the Department seeks public 

input on what the appropriate criteria 

are to use for establishing thresholds 

(e.g., price, cost, region, etc.) and how 

best to define these criteria (e.g., 

manufacturer added cost, retail price, 

etc.). DOE also seeks public input on 

other factors that it should consider 

when establishing tiered standards. 

With respect to tightening a 

manufactured home’s building 

envelope, the agency notes that this 

technique appears to be a cost-effective 

way to increase energy efficiency. 

However, many previous commenters, 

including HUD’s Manufactured Housing 

Consensus Committee, raised the 

possibility that sealing requirements 

may pose challenges for indoor air 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2018 / Proposed Rules 38079 

20https://www.regulations.gov/ 

document?D=EERE-2009-BT-BC-0021-0162. 

21CDC and HHS. Safety and Health in 

Manufactured Structures (2011) [hereinafter, 

‘‘Safety and Health’’]. 

22Safety and Health, at p. 25. 

23As of 2003, ASHRAE and HUD had established 

a minimum whole-house ventilation requirement of 

0.35 ACH for achieving appropriate indoor air 

quality. See https://www.huduser.gov/publications/ 

pdf/moisturereport.pdf. 

quality.20 Degraded indoor air quality 

could introduce additional costs in 

terms of health and safety or operation 

and maintenance that may impede the 

cost efficacy of these approaches. 

Previous commenters have submitted 

existing literature on manufactured 

housing indoor air quality, including a 

report from the Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention (‘‘CDC’’), an 

agency within the Department of Health 

and Human Services (‘‘HHS’’). The CDC 

report, which was prepared in 

conjunction with HUD, found generally 

that indoor air can contain a number of 

contaminants that contribute to health 

complaints, and that indoor air quality 

is of particular concern in manufactured 

housing due to its confined spaces and, 

in some cases, lower ventilation and air 

exchange rates.21 In addition, the CDC 

report found that ‘‘manufactured 

structures with relatively less air 

circulation may develop higher levels of 

indoor contaminants.’’ However, 

comprehensive data on air quality in 

manufactured homes was unavailable at 

the time of CDC’s report.22

Issue 10: Is new information available 

on the relationship between tightening 

the home envelope and indoor air 

quality? If so, what is the nature of that 

information, why should DOE consider 

it, and how should the agency integrate 

it into its analyses? 

Issue 11: DOE is particularly 

interested in baseline measures of air 

flow in recently-built manufactured 

housing against which to measure any 

potential reductions in air changes per 

hour (‘‘ACH’’). DOE also seeks 

information related to what the 

appropriate ACH threshold is for 

maintaining adequate indoor air 

quality.23

Issue 12: What potential health and 

safety costs of incremental reductions in 

ACH and/or indoor air quality should 

the Department consider when 

evaluating this approach and why? 

What steps should DOE consider taking 

to reduce these costs while preserving 

indoor air quality for manufactured 

home residents and what disadvantages, 

if any, are there to each of these specific 

steps? 

Issue 13: Regarding the overall 

structure of DOE’s approach to its 

proposed climate zones, should these 

zones be reconsidered—and if so, why? 

Should DOE use HUD’s existing climate 

zones? If DOE were to develop its own 

climate zones, what factors should it 

consider in doing so? What factors 

would support the continued use of the 

proposed climate zones and how do 

those factors weigh against using HUD’s 

existing climate zones or in favor of 

adjusting them further? 

E. Compliance Lead-Times 

The June 2016 proposal used a 

compliance date lead-time of one year 

from the publication of a final rule. DOE 

proposed a lead-time of one year under 

the belief that this amount of time 

would be sufficient to allow 

manufacturers to transition their 

designs, materials, and factory 

operations and processes to comply 

with the finalized version of the energy 

conservation standards that DOE 

considered adopting. In light of the 

amount of time that has elapsed since 

the date of DOE’s June 2016 proposal, 

and the possibility that the agency may 

explore an alternative approach for 

regulating the energy efficiency of 

manufactured homes through the use of 

a tiered system along with variants of 

DOE’s earlier proposal that would rely 

on HUD’s three climate zones, DOE is 

interested in soliciting public comment 

on whether its proposed lead-time 

remains appropriate. 

Issue 14: Should DOE continue to 

apply a one year lead-time to the energy 

conservation standards for 

manufactured housing? Does the 

approach—i.e. single uniform national 

standard versus a multi-tiered national 

standard—impact the amount of leadtime manufacturers would require to 

meet the applicable standards? If so, 

why—and if not, why not? If DOE were 

to adopt an approach that presented 

different compliance options in the form 

of cost-based tiers, would manufacturers 

require more, less, or the same amount 

of lead-time as the agency’s proposal 

(i.e. one year)? Why or why not? 

Issue 15: With respect to the 

manufactured housing standards that 

DOE promulgates, DOE seeks comment 

on what enforcement mechanism would 

be the most appropriate to apply and 

why. In considering enforcement 

mechanisms, DOE is interested in 

information concerning the burden and 

cost impacts for suggested approach(es), 

as well as the compliance lead-time 

needed by the industry. Further, DOE 

seeks information as to whether 

enforcement cost of any suggested 

approach may extend beyond the 

manufacturing industry to the sales and 

distribution channels that interface with 

prospective purchasers. 

III. Submission of Comments 

DOE invites all interested parties to 

submit in writing by the date listed in 

DATES, comments and information on 

matters addressed in this notice and on 

other matters relevant to DOE’s 

consideration of energy conservation 

standards for manufactured housing. 

These comments and information will 

aid in the development of energy 

conservation standards for these 

structures. 

Submitting comments via http://

www.regulations.gov. The http://

www.regulations.gov web page will 

require you to provide your name and 

contact information. Your contact 

information will be viewable to DOE 

Building Technologies staff only. Your 

contact information will not be publicly 

viewable except for your first and last 

names, organization name (if any), and 

submitter representative name (if any). 

If your comment is not processed 

properly because of technical 

difficulties, DOE will use this 

information to contact you. If DOE 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, DOE may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

However, your contact information 

will be publicly viewable if you include 

it in the comment or in any documents 

attached to your comment. Any 

information that you do not want to be 

publicly viewable should not be 

included in your comment, nor in any 

document attached to your comment. 

Persons viewing comments will see only 

first and last names, organization 

names, correspondence containing 

comments, and any documents 

submitted with the comments. 

Do not submit to http://

www.regulations.gov information for 

which disclosure is restricted by statute, 

such as trade secrets and commercial or 

financial information (hereinafter 

referred to as Confidential Business 

Information (‘‘CBI’’)). Comments 

submitted through http://

www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed 

as CBI. Comments received through the 

website will waive any CBI claims for 

the information submitted. For 

information on submitting CBI, see the 

Confidential Business Information 

section. 

DOE processes submissions made 

through http://www.regulations.gov 

before posting. Normally, comments 

will be posted within a few days of 

being submitted. However, if large 

volumes of comments are being 

processed simultaneously, your 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
38080 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

comment may not be viewable for up to 

several weeks. Please keep the comment 

tracking number that http://

www.regulations.gov provides after you 

have successfully uploaded your 

comment. 

Submitting comments via email, hand 

delivery, or mail. Comments and 

documents submitted via email, hand 

delivery, or mail also will be posted to 

http://www.regulations.gov. If you do 

not want your personal contact 

information to be publicly viewable, do 

not include it in your comment or any 

accompanying documents. Instead, 

provide your contact information on a 

cover letter. Include your first and last 

names, email address, telephone 

number, and optional mailing address. 

The cover letter will not be publicly 

viewable as long as it does not include 

any comments. 

Include contact information each time 

you submit comments, data, documents, 

and other information to DOE. If you 

submit via mail or hand delivery, please 

provide all items on a CD, if feasible. It 

is not necessary to submit printed 

copies. No facsimiles (faxes) will be 

accepted. 

Comments, data, and other 

information submitted to DOE 

electronically should be provided in 

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 

Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file 

format. Provide documents that are not 

secured, written in English and free of 

any defects or viruses. Documents 

should not contain special characters or 

any form of encryption and, if possible, 

they should carry the electronic 

signature of the author. 

Campaign form letters. Please submit 

campaign form letters by the originating 

organization in batches of between 50 to 

500 form letters per PDF or as one form 

letter with a list of supporters’ names 

compiled into one or more PDFs. This 

reduces comment processing and 

posting time. 

Confidential Business Information. 

According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any 

person submitting information that he 

or she believes to be confidential and 

exempt by law from public disclosure 

should submit via email, postal mail, or 

hand delivery two well-marked copies: 

One copy of the document marked 

confidential including all the 

information believed to be confidential, 

and one copy of the document marked 

‘‘non-confidential’’ with the information 

believed to be confidential deleted. 

Submit these documents via email or on 

a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its own 

determination about the confidential 

status of the information and treat it 

according to its determination. 

Factors of interest to DOE when 

evaluating requests to treat submitted 

information as confidential include (1) a 

description of the items, (2) whether 

and why such items are customarily 

treated as confidential within the 

industry, (3) whether the information is 

generally known by or available from 

other sources, (4) whether the 

information has previously been made 

available to others without obligation 

concerning its confidentiality, (5) an 

explanation of the competitive injury to 

the submitting person which would 

result from public disclosure, (6) when 

such information might lose its 

confidential character due to the 

passage of time, and (7) why disclosure 

of the information would be contrary to 

the public interest. 

It is DOE’s policy that all comments 

may be included in the public docket, 

without change and as received, 

including any personal information 

provided in the comments (except 

information deemed to be exempt from 

public disclosure). 

DOE considers public participation to 

be a very important part of the process 

for developing test procedures and 

energy conservation standards. DOE 

actively encourages the participation 

and interaction of the public during the 

comment period in each stage of the 

rulemaking process. Interactions with 

and between members of the public 

provide a balanced discussion of the 

issues and assist DOE in the rulemaking 

process. Anyone who wishes to be 

added to the DOE mailing list to receive 

future notices and information about 

this process should contact Appliance 

and Equipment Standards Program staff 

at (202) 287–1445 or via email at 

Manufactured_Housing@ee.doe.gov. 

Signed in Washington, DC, on July 31, 

2018. 

Cathy Tripodi, 

Acting Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2018–16650 Filed 8–2–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE 

CORPORATION 

12 CFR Parts 308 and 327 

RIN 3064–AE75 

Rules of Practice and Procedure 

AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance 

Corporation. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

and request for comments. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Deposit 

Insurance Corporation (FDIC) proposes 

to amend its rules of practice and 

procedure to remove duplicative, 

descriptive regulatory language related 

to civil money penalty (CMP) amounts 

that restates existing statutory language 

regarding such CMPs, codify Congress’s 

recent change to CMP inflationadjustments in the FDIC’s regulations, 

and direct readers to an annually 

published notice in the Federal 

Register—rather than the Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR)—for 

information regarding the maximum 

CMP amounts that can be assessed after 

inflation adjustments. These revisions 

are intended to simplify the CFR by 

removing unnecessary and redundant 

text and to make it easier for readers to 

locate the current, inflation-adjusted 

maximum CMP amounts by presenting 

these amounts in an annually published 

chart. Additionally, the FDIC proposes 

to correct four errors and revise crossreferences currently found in its rules of 

practice and procedure. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

October 2, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by RIN 3064–AE75, by any of 

the following methods: 

• Agency website: http://

www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/Federal/. 

Follow the instructions for submitting 

comments on the Agency website. 

• Email: Comments@fdic.gov. Include 

the RIN 3064–AE75 in the subject line 

of the message. 

• Mail: Robert E. Feldman, Executive 

Secretary, Attention: Comments, Federal 

Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th 

Street NW, Washington, DC 20429. 

• Hand Delivery: Comments may be 

hand-delivered to the guard station at 

the rear of the 550 17th Street Building 

(located on F Street) on business days 

between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. 

Public Inspection: All comments 

received must include the agency name 

and RIN for this rulemaking. All 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http://www.fdic.gov/ 

regulations/laws/Federal/—including 

any personal information provided—for 

public inspection. Paper copies of 

public comments may be ordered from 

the FDIC Public Information Center, 

3501 North Fairfax Drive, Room E–1002, 

Arlington, VA 22226 by telephone at 

(877) 275–3342 or (703) 562–2200. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Graham N. Rehrig, Senior Attorney, 

Legal Division, (202) 898–3829, 

grehrig@fdic.gov, or Sydney Mayer, 

Attorney, Legal Division, (202) 898– 

3669. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1