32728 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

1The 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; except that such term shall 

include any structure that meets all the 

requirements of this paragraph except the size 

requirements and with respect to which the 

manufacturer voluntarily files a certification 

required by the Secretary [pursuant to 24 CFR 

3282.13] and complies with the standards 

established under this title [24 CFR part 3280]; and 

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: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (‘‘DOE’’ or ‘‘the Department’’) is 

publishing a final rule to establish 

energy conservation standards for 

manufactured housing pursuant to the 

Energy Independence and Security Act 

of 2007. This document presents 

standards based on the 2021 version of 

the International Energy Conservation 

Code (‘‘IECC’’) and comments received 

during interagency consultation with 

the U.S. Department of Housing and 

Urban Development, as well as from 

stakeholders. The adopted standards 

would provide a set of ‘‘tiered’’ 

standards based on size that would 

apply the 2021 IECC-based standards to 

manufactured homes, except that singlesection manufactured homes would be 

subject to less stringent building 

thermal envelope requirements 

compared to multi-section 

manufactured homes. 

DATES: The effective date of this rule is 

August 1, 2022. Compliance with the 

adopted standards established for 

manufactured housing in this final rule 

is required on and after May 31, 2023. 

The incorporation by reference of 

certain publications listed in this rule is 

approved by the Director of the Federal 

Register on August 1, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

John Cymbalsky, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Program (EE–2J), 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC 20585; Telephone: 202–287–1692; 

Email: appliancestandardsquestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

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: matthew.ring@

hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final 

rule incorporates by reference into 10 

CFR part 460 the following industry 

standards: 

ANSI/ACCA 2 Manual J–2016 (ver 

2.50) (‘‘ACCA Manual J’’), Manual J— 

Residential Load Calculations, Eight 

Edition, Version 2.50, Copyright 2016. 

ANSI/ACCA 3 Manual S–2014 

(‘‘ACCA Manual S’’), Manual S— 

Residential Equipment Selection, 

Second Edition, Version 1.00, Copyright 

2014. 

Copies of Manual J and Manual S may 

be purchased from Air Conditioning 

Contractors of America Inc., (ACCA), 

2800 S. Shirlington Road, Suite 300, 

Arlington, VA 22206, Telephone: 703– 

575–4477. www.acca.org/. 

HUD User No. 0005945, Overall UValues and Heating/Cooling Loads– 

Manufactured Homes, February 1992. 

A copy of Overall U-Values and 

Heating/Cooling Loads–Manufactured 

Homes may be purchased from HUD 

User, 11491 Sunset Hills Road, Reston, 

VA 20190–5254 or www.huduser.org/ 

portal/publications/manufhsg/ 

uvalue.html. Telephone: 800–245–2691. 

See section V.M of this document for 

further discussion of these standards. 

Table of Contents 

I. Summary of the Final Rule 

A. Benefits and Costs to Purchasers of 

Manufactured Housing 

B. Impact on Manufacturers 

C. Nationwide Impacts 

D. Nationwide Energy Savings and 

Emissions Benefits 

E. Total Benefits and Costs 

F. Conclusion 

II. Introduction 

A. Authority 

B. Background 

1. Current Standards 

2. The International Energy Conservation 

Code (IECC) 

3. Development of the Initial Proposal and 

Responses 

C. Abbreviations 

III. Discussion of the Standards 

A. The Basis for the Standards 

1. Affordability 

2. Loan Qualification 

3. IECC 

B. Final Standards 

1. Size-Based Threshold 

2. Tiered Standard 

3. Comments on the August 2021 SNOPR 

Proposal and the October 2021 NODA 

C. Rulemaking Process 

D. Test Procedure 

E. Certification, Compliance, and 

Enforcement 

F. Energy Conservation Standards 

Requirements 

1. Subpart A: General 

2. Subpart B: Building Thermal Envelope 

3. Subpart C: HVAC, Service Water 

Heating, and Equipment Sizing 

G. Crosswalk of Standards With the HUD 

Code 

IV. Discussion and Results of the Economic 

Impact and Energy Savings 

A. Economic Impacts on Individual 

Purchasers of Manufactured Homes 

1. Discussion of Comments and Analysis 

Updates 

2. Results 

B. Manufacturer Impacts 

1. Discussion of Comments and Analysis 

Updates 

2. Results 

C. Nationwide Impacts 

1. Discussion of Comments and Analysis 

Updates 

2. Results 

D. Nationwide Energy Savings and 

Emissions Benefits 

1. Emissions Analysis 

2. Monetizing Emissions Impacts 

3. Results 

E. Total Benefits and Costs 

V. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 

and 13563 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

1. Need for, and Objectives of, the Rule 

2. Significant Issues Raised 

3. Description and Estimate of the Number 

of Small Entities Affected 

4. Description and Estimate of Compliance 

Requirements 

5. Significant Alternatives Considered and 

Steps Taken To Minimize Significant 

Economic Impacts on Small Entities 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

H. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

J. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

L. Information Quality 

M. Materials Incorporated by Reference 

N. Congressional Notification 

VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Summary of the Final Rule 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 32729 

except that such term shall not include any selfpropelled recreational vehicle.’’ 42 U.S.C. 5402(6). 

2See 42 U.S.C. 5403(f). See also 24 CFR 3282.12. 

3Available at: www.regulations.gov/ 

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

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 

the state, local or regional building 

codes are excluded from the coverage of 

the HUD Code.2

EISA directs DOE to base the 

standards on the most recent version of 

the International Energy Conservation 

Code (‘‘IECC’’) and any supplements to 

that document, except in cases where 

DOE finds that the IECC is not costeffective 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)) Standards shall be 

established after notice and an 

opportunity to comment by 

manufacturers of manufactured housing 

and other interested parties, and 

consultation with the Secretary of 

Housing and Urban Development 

(‘‘HUD’’), who may seek further counsel 

from the Manufactured Housing 

Consensus Committee. (42 U.S.C. 

17071(a)(2)) The energy conservation 

standards established by DOE may: (1) 

Take into consideration the design and 

factory construction techniques of 

manufactured homes, (2) be based on 

the climate zones established by HUD 

rather than the climate zones of the 

IECC, and (3) provide for alternative 

practices that result in net estimated 

energy consumption equal to or less 

than the specified standards. (42 U.S.C. 

17071(b)(2)). 

On June 17, 2016, DOE published in 

the Federal Register a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (‘‘NOPR’’), 

including proposals recommended by 

the negotiated rulemaking working 

group for manufactured housing. 81 FR 

39756 (‘‘June 2016 NOPR’’). DOE also 

issued a comprehensive technical 

support document. See Document ID 

EERE–2009–BT–BC–0021–0136.3 The 

agency also issued for public review and 

comment a draft Environmental 

Assessment (‘‘EA’’) pursuant to the 

National Environmental Policy Act. In 

conjunction with the draft EA, DOE 

issued a request for information that 

would help it analyze potential 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) 

(‘‘2016 EA–RFI’’). 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. DOE also received 7 

comments to the 2016 EA–RFI during its 

comment period. 

During DOE’s interagency 

consultation with HUD, HUD expressed 

concerns about the adverse impacts on 

manufactured housing affordability that 

would likely follow if DOE were to 

adopt the approach laid out in its June 

2016 NOPR. A variety of commenters 

also expressed concerns over the 

potentially negative impacts on the 

affordability of manufactured housing 

flowing from increased consumer costs 

resulting from DOE’s approach in the 

June 2016 NOPR. In December 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 deadlines for 

establishing energy efficiency standards 

for manufactured housing. On August 3, 

2018, DOE published a Notice of Data 

Availability (‘‘NODA’’). 83 FR 38073 

(‘‘August 2018 NODA’’). In the August 

2018 NODA, DOE stated it was 

examining a number of possible 

alternatives to those proposed in the 

June 2016 NOPR on which it sought 

further input from the public, including 

the first-time costs related to the 

purchase of these homes. In November 

2019, the court in the above-referenced 

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’’). In the August 2021 SNOPR, 

DOE also proposed that the standards 

would be based on the current HUD 

zones. DOE’s primary proposal in the 

August 2021 SNOPR was a ‘‘tiered’’ 

approach, based on the 2021 IECC, 

wherein a subset of the energy 

conservation standards (based on retail 

list price) would be less stringent for 

certain manufactured homes in light of 

the cost-effectiveness considerations 

required by statute. 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 

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 corresponding analyses 

presented in the August 2021 SNOPR 

(both tiered and untiered approaches), 

including a sensitivity analysis 

regarding an alternate 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 

explained that it would consider the 

updated inputs and corresponding 

analyses, as well as comments on the 

inputs and analyses, as part of the 

rulemaking. In addition, DOE stated it 

may further revise the analysis 

presented in this rulemaking based on 

any new or updated information or data 

it obtains and encouraged stakeholders 

to provide any additional data or 

information that may inform the 

analysis. Id 

On January 14, 2022, DOE published 

a draft environmental impact statement 

(‘‘DEIS’’) for proposed energy 

conservation standards for 

manufactured housing (DOE/EIS– 

0550D). (87 FR 2359) (‘‘January 2022 

DEIS’’) DOE prepared the January 2022 

DEIS in support of the August 2021 

SNOPR and October 2021 NODA. 

DOE invited input on the January 

2022 DEIS for 45 days (through 

February 28, 2022). In January 2022, 

DOE held two public meetings for the 

DEIS and invited oral comments. Upon 

issuance of the January 2022 DEIS, DOE 

reopened the public comment period on 

the SNOPR through February 28, 2022, 

to invite public comments under the 

rulemaking process on how the January 

2022 DEIS should inform the final 

energy conservation standards. January 

14, 2022 (87 FR 2359) Relevant 

comments on the January 2022 DEIS 

and those submitted in the concurrent 

comment period for the SNOPR were 

considered by DOE in preparing the 

final Environmental Impact Statement 

(‘‘FEIS’’), to help inform DOE’s 

decision-making process for establishing 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
32730 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

4The draft and final EIS documents are available 

at www.ecs-mh.evs.anl.gov/. 

energy conservation standards for 

manufactured housing. The Notice of 

Availability for the FEIS (DOE/EIS– 

0550) was published on April 8, 2022.4

(87 FR 20852). 

In this final rule, DOE codifies the 

energy conservation standards in a new 

part of the Code of Federal Regulations 

(‘‘CFR’’) under 10 CFR part 460, 

subparts A, B, and C. Subpart A 

presents generally the scope of the rule 

and provides definitions of key terms. 

Subpart B would establish 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 would establish 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 would 

depend on the size of the manufactured 

home for the tiered approach. 

Accordingly, two sets of standards 

would be 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, over the course of 

this rulemaking, determined applicable 

and appropriate for manufactured 

homes. Tier 1 applies these building 

thermal envelope provisions to singlesection manufactured homes, but, for 

the reasons discussed in section III of 

this document, only includes 

components at stringencies that would 

increase the incremental purchase price 

by less than $750. 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 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. 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 is adopting a compliance date 

such that the standards would apply to 

manufactured homes starting one year 

after the publication date of the final 

rule in the Federal Register. As 

discussed in sections I.F and III.A of 

this document, DOE has 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. 

A. Benefits and Costs to Purchasers of 

Manufactured Housing 

As explained in greater detail in 

section IV.A of this document and in 

chapter 9 of the final rule technical 

support document (‘‘TSD’’), DOE 

estimates that benefits to manufactured 

home homeowners—in terms of LCC 

savings—of the requirements outweighs 

the potential increase in purchase price 

for manufactured homes. 

Table I.1 and Table I.2 present the 

average purchase price increase of a 

manufactured home as a result of the 

energy conservation standards. This 

does not include any potential testing or 

compliance costs. 

TABLE I.1—NATIONAL AVERAGE MANUFACTURED HOUSING PURCHASE

PRICE (AND PERCENTAGE) INCREASES UNDER TIER 1 STANDARD

[2020$] 

Single-section 

$ % 

Climate 

Zone 1 ... 627 1.1 

TABLE I.1—NATIONAL AVERAGE MANUFACTURED HOUSING PURCHASE

PRICE (AND PERCENTAGE) INCREASES UNDER TIER 1 STANDARD—Continued 

[2020$] 

Single-section 

$ % 

Climate 

Zone 2 ... 627 1.1 

Climate 

Zone 3 ... 719 1.3 

National 

Average 660 1.2 

TABLE I.2—NATIONAL AVERAGE MANUFACTURED HOUSING PURCHASE

PRICE (AND PERCENTAGE) INCREASES UNDER TIER 2 STANDARD

[2020$] 

Multi-section 

$ % 

Climate 

Zone 1 ... 4,131 3.8 

Climate 

Zone 2 ... 4,438 4.1 

Climate 

Zone 3 ... 4,111 3.8 

National 

Average 4,222 3.9 

Table I.3 presents the estimated 

national average LCC savings and 

energy savings for the compliance year 

that a manufactured homeowner would 

experience under the standards 

compared to a manufactured home 

constructed in accordance with the 

minimum requirements of existing HUD 

Manufactured Home Construction and 

Safety Standards (‘‘HUD Code’’) at 24 

CFR part 3280 et. seq. Table I.3 and 

Figure I.1 present the nationwide 

average simple payback periods 

(purchase price increase divided by first 

year energy cost savings). The methods 

and information used for these analyses 

are discussed more in section IV.A. of 

this document. 

TABLE I.3—NATIONAL AVERAGE PER-HOME COST SAVINGS * 

Tier 1 standard Tier 2 standard 

Lifecycle Cost Savings (30-Year Lifetime) .................................................................................................. $1,594 $3,573 

Lifecycle Cost Savings (10-Year Lifetime) .................................................................................................. $720 $743 

Annual Energy Cost Savings in 2020$ ....................................................................................................... $177 $475 

Simple Payback Period (Years) .................................................................................................................. 3.7 8.9 

* negative values in parenthesis. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2

I 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 32731 

B. Impact on Manufacturers 

As discussed in more detail in section 

IV.B of this document and chapter 12 of 

the final rule TSD, the industry net 

present value (‘‘INPV’’) is the sum of the 

discounted cash flows to the industry 

from the reference year (2022) through 

the end of the analysis period (2052). 

Using a real discount rate of 9.2 percent, 

as discussed in section IV.B.2 of this 

document, DOE estimates the INPV 

under a no-regulatory-action alternative, 

which would maintain energy 

conservation requirements at the levels 

established in the existing HUD Code, to 

be $15.0 billion. Under the updated 

standard, the change in INPV would 

range from ¥1.4 percent to 1.3 percent. 

Industry would incur total conversion 

costs of $29.5 million. Conversion costs 

are one-time investments, as described 

in section IV.B.1 of this section. 

C. Nationwide Impacts 

As described in more detail in section 

IV.C of this document and chapter 11 of 

the final rule TSD, DOE’s national 

impact analysis (‘‘NIA’’) projects a net 

benefit to the nation as a whole under 

the standard, in terms of national energy 

savings (‘‘NES’’) and the net present 

value (‘‘NPV’’) of expected total 

manufactured homeowner costs and 

savings compared with the baseline. In 

this case, the baseline is manufactured 

homes built to the minimum standards 

established in the HUD Code. As part of 

its NIA, DOE has projected the energy 

savings, operating cost savings, 

incremental costs, and NPV of 

manufactured homeowner benefits for 

manufactured homes sold in a 30-year 

period from the compliance year of 2023 

through 2052. The NIA builds off the 

LCC analysis by aggregating results for 

all affected shipments over a 30-year 

period. All NES and percentage energy 

savings calculations are relative to a noregulatory-action alternative, which 

would maintain energy conservation 

requirements at the levels established in 

the existing HUD Code. 

Table I.4 illustrates the cumulative 

NES over the 30-year analysis period 

under the standards on a full-fuel-cycle 

(‘‘FFC’’) energy savings basis. FFC 

energy savings apply a factor to account 

for losses associated with generation, 

transmission, and distribution of 

electricity, and the energy consumed in 

extracting, processing, and transporting 

or distributing primary fuels. NES differ 

among the different climate zones 

because of varying energy conservation 

requirements and varying shipment 

projections in each climate zone. All 

NES and percentage energy savings 

calculations are relative to a noregulatory-action alternative, which as 

discussed would maintain energy 

conservation requirements at the levels 

established in the existing HUD Code. 

DOE estimates that under the updated 

standards, 1.88 quads of FFC energy 

would be saved relative to the baseline 

over the 30-year analysis period. 

TABLE I.4—CUMULATIVE FULL-FUEL-CYCLE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS OF MANUFACTURED HOMES PURCHASED 2023– 

2052 WITH A 30-YEAR LIFETIME

Single-section 

quadrillion Btu 

(quads) 

Multi-section 

(quads) 

Total 

(quads) 

Climate Zone 1 ................................................................................................................ 0.123 0.542 0.665 

Climate Zone 2 ................................................................................................................ 0.100 0.463 0.563 

Climate Zone 3 ................................................................................................................ 0.239 0.408 0.648 

Total .......................................................................................................................... 0.462 1.414 1.876 

Table I.5 and Table I.6 illustrate the 

NPV of consumer benefits over the 30- 

year analysis period for a discount rate 

of 7 percent and 3 percent, respectively, 

the percentages are used in accordance 

with Office of Management and Budget 

guidance, as discussed in section 

IV.A.1.d of this document. The NPV of 

consumer benefits differ among the 

three climate zones because of differing 

initial costs and corresponding 

operating cost savings, as well as 

differing shipment projections in each 

climate zone. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER31MY22.209</GPH>

14 

12 

Figure 1.1: Simple Payback Period of the Standard 

Tier I -Single 

Section 

11 Tier 2 - Multi 

Section 
32732 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE I.5—NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR MANUFACTURED HOMES PURCHASED 2023–2052 WITH A

30-YEAR LIFETIME AT A 7% DISCOUNT RATE

Single-section 

(billion 2020$) 

Multi-section 

(billion 2020$) 

Total 

(billion 2020$) 

Climate Zone 1 ................................................................................................................ $0.15 $0.31 $0.46 

Climate Zone 2 ................................................................................................................ $0.13 $0.20 $0.33 

Climate Zone 3 ................................................................................................................ $0.40 $0.32 $0.73 

Total .......................................................................................................................... $0.68 $0.84 $1.52 

TABLE I.6—NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR MANUFACTURED HOMES PURCHASED 2023–2052 WITH A

30-YEAR LIFETIME AT A 3% DISCOUNT RATE

Single-section 

(billion 2020$) 

Multi-section 

(billion 2020$) 

Total 

(billion 2020$) 

Climate Zone 1 ................................................................................................................ $0.40 $1.17 $1.58 

Climate Zone 2 ................................................................................................................ $0.35 $0.89 $1.24 

Climate Zone 3 ................................................................................................................ $1.10 $1.15 $2.25 

Total .......................................................................................................................... $1.85 $3.21 $5.06 

D. Nationwide Energy Savings and 

Emissions Benefits 

As discussed in section IV.C of this 

document and in the NIA included in 

chapter 11 of the final rule TSD, DOE’s 

analyses indicate that the standards 

would reduce overall demand for energy 

in manufactured homes and other 

unquantified energy security benefits. 

Further, the standards would produce 

environmental benefits in the form of 

reduced emissions of air pollutants and 

greenhouse gases associated with 

electricity production. 

DOE estimates reductions in 

emissions of six pollutants associated 

with energy savings: Carbon dioxide 

(CO2), mercury (Hg), nitric oxide and 

nitrogen dioxide (NOX), sulfur dioxide 

(SO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide 

(N2O). These emissions reductions are 

referred to as ‘‘site’’ emissions 

reductions. Furthermore, DOE estimates 

reductions in emissions associated with 

the production of these fuels (including 

extracting, processing, and transporting 

these fuels to power plants or 

manufactured homes). These emissions 

reductions are referred to as ‘‘upstream’’ 

emissions reductions. Together, site 

emissions reductions and upstream 

emissions reductions account for the 

FFC. 

Table I.7 lists the emissions 

reductions under the rule for both 

single-section and multi-section 

manufactured homes. (In this table and 

elsewhere in this document, the ‘‘E’’ 

format notes a multiplier of a power of 

ten, e.g., ‘‘2.92E–02’’ means 2.9 × 10¥02, 

which is 0.029.) 

TABLE I.7—EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION FOR MANUFACTURED HOMES

PURCHASED 2023–2052 WITH A 30-YEAR LIFETIME

Pollutant Single-section Multi-section Total 

Site Emissions Reductions 

CO2 (million metric tons) ............................................................................................................. 19.5 53.8 73.3 

Hg (metric tons) ........................................................................................................................... 2.92E–02 9.60E–02 1.25E–01 

NOX (thousand metric tons) ........................................................................................................ 10.9 26.6 37.5 

SO2 (thousand metric tons) ......................................................................................................... 7.2 20.4 27.6 

CH4 (thousand metric tons) ......................................................................................................... 1.03 3.11 4.14 

N2O (thousand metric tons) ......................................................................................................... 0.21 0.57 0.78 

Upstream Emissions Reductions 

CO2 (million metric tons) ............................................................................................................. 2.01 5.05 7.06 

Hg (metric tons) ........................................................................................................................... 1.48E–04 4.45E–04 5.93E–04 

NOX (thousand metric tons) ........................................................................................................ 25.4 64.8 90.2 

SO2 (thousand metric tons) ......................................................................................................... 0.21 0.47 0.67 

CH4 (thousand metric tons) ......................................................................................................... 127 354 481 

N2O (thousand metric tons) ......................................................................................................... 0.011 0.026 0.037 

Total Emissions Reductions 

CO2 (million metric tons) ............................................................................................................. 21.5 58.9 80.4 

Hg (metric tons) ........................................................................................................................... 2.93E–02 9.64E–02 0.13 

NOX (thousand metric tons) ........................................................................................................ 36.3 91.4 127.7 

SO2 (thousand metric tons) ......................................................................................................... 7.44 20.9 28.3 

CH4 (thousand metric tons) ......................................................................................................... 128 357 485 

N2O (thousand metric tons) ......................................................................................................... 0.23 0.59 0.82 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 32733 

5See Interagency Working Group on Social Cost 

of Greenhouse Gases, Technical Support Document: 

Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide. 

Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990, 

Washington, DC, February 2021. Available at: 

www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/ 

TechnicalSupportDocument_

SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf (last 

accessed March 17, 2022). 

6On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of 

Appeals (No. 22–30087) granted the federal 

government’s emergency motion for stay pending 

appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary 

injunction issued in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21–cv– 

1074–JDC–KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth 

Circuit’s order, the preliminary injunction is no 

longer in effect, pending resolution of the federal 

government’s appeal of that injunction or a further 

court order. Among other things, the preliminary 

injunction enjoined the defendants in that case 

from ‘‘adopting, employing, treating as binding, or 

relying upon’’ the interim estimates of the social 

cost of greenhouse gases—which were issued by the 

Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of 

Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021—to 

monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas 

emissions. In the absence of further intervening 

court orders, DOE will revert to its approach prior 

to the injunction and presents monetized benefits 

where appropriate and permissible under law. 

DOE estimates the value of climate 

benefits from a reduction in greenhouse 

gases using four different estimates of 

the social cost of CO2 (SC-CO2), the 

social cost of methane (SC-CH4), and the 

social cost of nitrous oxide (SC-N2O). 

Together these represent the social cost 

of greenhouse gases (SC-GHG). DOE 

used interim SC-GHG values developed 

by an Interagency Working Group on the 

Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (IWG).5

The derivation of these values is 

discussed in section IV.D of this 

document. For presentational purposes, 

the climate benefits associated with the 

average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount 

rate are estimated to be $3.3 billion. 

DOE does not have a single central SCGHG point estimate and it emphasizes 

the importance and value of considering 

the benefits calculated using all four SCGHG estimates.6 DOE estimated the 

monetary health benefits of NOX and 

SO2 emission reduction, also discussed 

in section IV.D of this document. Table 

I.8 provides the NPV of monetized 

climate and health benefits from 

reduction in emissions. 

TABLE I.8—NET PRESENT VALUE OF MONETIZED CLIMATE AND HEALTH BENEFITS FROM EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS

Monetary benefits * Discount rate 

(%) 

Net present value 

(million 2020$) 

Single-section Multi-section 

Climate Benefits ** ........................................................................................................... 3 881.3 2,425.9 

Health Benefits † .............................................................................................................. 3 1,503.5 4,088.2 

7 508.1 1,386.3 

* Monetized values do not include other important unquantified effects, including certain climate benefits and certain air quality benefits from 

the reduction of toxic air pollutants and other emissions 

** Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the social cost of carbon (SC-CO2), methane (SC-CH4), and nitrous oxide 

(SC-N2O) (model average at 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rates; 95th percentile at 3 percent discount rate), as in Table IV.22 

through Table IV.24. Together these represent the global SC-GHG. For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with 

the average SC-GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate. See 

section IV.D of this document for more details. On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22–30087) granted the federal government’s emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21–cv– 

1074–JDC–KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit’s order, the preliminary injunction is no longer in effect, pending resolution of the federal 

government’s appeal of that injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that 

case from ‘‘adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon’’ the interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases—which were 

issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021—to monetize the benefits of reducing 

greenhouse gas emissions. In the absence of further intervening court orders, DOE will revert to its approach prior to the injunction and presents 

monetized benefits where appropriate and permissible under law. 

† Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing (for NOX and SO2) PM2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as 

health benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5 emissions. See section IV.D.2 of this document for more details. 

E. Total Benefits and Costs 

Table I.9 summarizes the monetized 

benefits and costs expected to result 

from the amended standards for 

manufactured homes. There are other 

important unquantified effects, 

including certain unquantified climate 

benefits, unquantified public health 

benefits from the reduction of toxic air 

pollutants and other emissions, 

unquantified energy security benefits, 

and distributional effects, among others. 

TABLE I.9—SUMMARY OF MONETIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS TO THE NATION UNDER THE ADOPTED STANDARDS

Net present value 

(billion $2020) 

3% discount rate 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings ............................................................................................................................................... 10.2 

Climate Benefits * ........................................................................................................................................................................... 3.3 

Health Benefits ** ........................................................................................................................................................................... 5.6 

Total Benefits ................................................................................................................................................................................. 19.1 

Consumer Incremental Product Costs † ........................................................................................................................................ 5.1 

Net Benefits ............................................................................................................................................................................ 14.0 

7% discount rate 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings ............................................................................................................................................... 3.9 

Climate Benefits * ........................................................................................................................................................................... 3.3 

Health Benefits ** ........................................................................................................................................................................... 1.9 

Total Benefits † .............................................................................................................................................................................. 9.1 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
32734 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

7To convert the time-series of costs and benefits 

into annualized values, DOE calculated a present 

value in 2020, the year used for discounting the 

NPV of total consumer costs and savings. For the 

benefits, DOE calculated a present value associated 

with each year’s shipments in the year in which the 

shipments occur (e.g., 2020 or 2030), and then 

discounted the present value from each year to 

2020. The calculation uses discount rates of 3 and 

7 percent for all costs and benefits. Using the 

present value, DOE then calculated the fixed annual 

payment over a 30-year period, starting in the 

compliance year, which yields the same present 

value. 

TABLE I.9—SUMMARY OF MONETIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS TO THE NATION UNDER THE ADOPTED STANDARDS— 

Continued 

Net present value 

(billion $2020) 

Consumer Incremental Product Costs †† ...................................................................................................................................... 2.4 

Net Benefits ............................................................................................................................................................................ 6.7 

Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with manufactured housing shipped in 2023–2052. These results include benefits 

to consumers which accrue after 2052 from the products shipped in 2023–2052. 

* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the social cost of carbon (SC-CO2), methane (SC-CH4), and nitrous oxide 

(SC-N2O) (model average at 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rates; 95th percentile at 3 percent discount rate), as shown in Table 

IV.22 through Table IV.24. Together these represent the global SC-GHG. For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate. See section. IV.D of this document for more details. On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22–30087) granted the 

federal government’s emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued in Louisiana v. Biden, 

No. 21–cv–1074–JDC–KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit’s order, the preliminary injunction is no longer in effect, pending resolution of 

the federal government’s appeal of that injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants 

in that case from ‘‘adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon’’ the interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases—which 

were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021—to monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In the absence of further intervening court orders, DOE will revert to its approach prior to the injunction and 

presents monetized benefits where appropriate and permissible under law. 

** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing (for NOX and SO2) PM2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as 

health benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5 emissions. See section IV.D.2 of this document for more details. 

† Total and net benefits include those consumer, climate, and health benefits that can be quantified and monetized. For presentation purposes, 

total and net benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-percent discount rate, but the 

Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate. DOE emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four SC-GHG estimates. 

†† The incremental costs include incremental costs associated with principal and interest, mortgage and property tax for the analyzed loan 

types. Further discussion can be found in chapter 8 of the TSD. 

The benefits and costs of the 

standards for manufactured housing 

sold in 2023–2052 can also be expressed 

in terms of annualized values. The 

monetary values for the total annualized 

net benefits are (1) the savings in 

consumer operating costs, minus (2) the 

increases in product installed costs, 

plus (3) the value of the climate and 

health benefits of emission reductions, 

all annualized.7 The national operating 

cost savings are domestic private U.S. 

consumer monetary savings that occur 

as a result of purchasing the covered 

housing and are measured for the 

lifetime of manufactured housing 

shipped in 2023–2052. Total Benefits 

for both the 3-percent and 7-percent 

cases are presented using the average 

social costs with 3-percent discount 

rate. Estimates of SC-GHG values are 

presented for all four discount rates in 

section IV.D of this document. Table 

I.10 presents the total estimated 

monetized benefits and costs to 

manufactured housing homeowners 

associated with the standard, expressed 

in terms of annualized values. 

TABLE I.10—ANNUALIZED MONETIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS TO THE NATION UNDER THE ADOPTED STANDARD

Primary estimate Low-net-benefits 

estimate 

High-net-benefits 

estimate 

(Million $2020) 

3% discount rate 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings ................................................................................. 551 478 627 

Climate Benefits * ............................................................................................................. 169 155 180 

Health Benefits ** ............................................................................................................. 285 263 303 

Total Benefits † ................................................................................................................ 1,005 896 1110 

Consumer Incremental Product Costs †† ........................................................................ 277 255 294 

Net Benefits .............................................................................................................. 728 641 816 

7% discount rate 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings ................................................................................. 361 322 402 

Climate Benefits * ............................................................................................................. 169 155 180 

Health Benefits ** ............................................................................................................. 153 143 161 

Total Benefits † ................................................................................................................ 682 620 742 

Consumer Incremental Product Costs †† ........................................................................ 221 213 231 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 32735 

8The statute uses the term ‘‘climate zones’’ in 

reference to the HUD requirements (42 U.S.C. 

17071(b)(2)(B). HUD has not established ‘‘climate 

zones’’ but has established ‘‘insulation zones.’’ See, 

U/O Value Zone Map for Manufactured Housing at 

24 CFR 3280.506. DOE understands the statutory 

reference to ‘‘climate zones’’ in this context to mean 

the established insulation zones at 24 CFR 

3280.506. 

TABLE I.10—ANNUALIZED MONETIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS TO THE NATION UNDER THE ADOPTED STANDARD— 

Continued 

Primary estimate Low-net-benefits 

estimate 

High-net-benefits 

estimate 

(Million $2020) 

Net Benefits .............................................................................................................. 461 407 511 

Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with manufactured housing shipped in 2023–2052. These results include benefits 

to consumers which accrue after 2052 from the products shipped in 2023–2052. The Primary, Low Net Benefits, and High Net Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the AEO2020 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, respectively. In addition, incremental product costs reflect a medium decline rate in the Primary Estimate, a low decline rate in the Low Net Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate in the High Net Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive projected price trends are explained in sections IV.A and IV.C of this document. Note that the Benefits and Costs may not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding. 

* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the SC-GHG (see section IV.D of this document). For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but the Department does 

not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate, and it emphasizes the importance of considering the benefits calculated using all four SC-GHG 

estimates. On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22–30087) granted the federal government’s emergency motion for stay 

pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21–cv–1074–JDC–KK (W.D. La.). As a result 

of the Fifth Circuit’s order, the preliminary injunction is no longer in effect, pending resolution of the federal government’s appeal of that injunction 

or a further court order. Among other things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that case from ‘‘adopting, employing, treating 

as binding, or relying upon’’ the interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases—which were issued by the Interagency Working Group 

on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021—to monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In the absence of further intervening court orders, DOE will revert to its approach prior to the injunction and presents monetized benefits where appropriate and permissible under law. 

** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing (for NOX and SO2) PM2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as 

health benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5 emissions. See section IV.D.2 of this document for more details. 

† Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-percent discount rate, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate. 

†† The incremental costs include incremental costs associated with principal and interest, mortgage and property tax for the analyzed loan 

types. Further discussion can be found in chapter 8 of the TSD. 

DOE’s analysis of the national impacts 

of the standards is described in sections 

IV.C, IV.D, and IV.E of this document. 

F. Conclusion 

DOE has determined that the 

conservation standards in this final rule 

are cost-effective when evaluating the 

impact of the standards on the purchase 

price of a manufactured home and on 

the total life-cycle construction and 

operating costs. As discussed in section 

III.A of this document, the tiered 

standards adopted in this final rule 

provide positive average LCC savings 

over the life of the manufactured home 

(i.e., 30-years) in every city for which 

the standards are analyzed, as well as 

nationally. Additionally, DOE has also 

determined that the benefits to the 

Nation of the standards (energy savings, 

consumer LCC savings, positive NPV of 

consumer benefit, energy security, and 

emission reductions) outweigh the 

burdens (loss of INPV, LCC increases for 

some homeowners of manufactured 

housing. and price-sensitive consumers 

who do not purchase manufactured 

homes). 

II. Introduction 

This section addresses the legal and 

factual background to date regarding 

DOE’s efforts to establish energy 

conservation standards for 

manufactured housing. By statute, DOE 

is obligated to set standards for 

manufactured housing in consultation 

with HUD and to consider certain 

specific factors when establishing these 

standards. DOE is also obligated to 

update these standards within a 

prescribed period of time. 

A. Authority 

Section 413 of EISA directs DOE to: 

• Establish standards for energy 

conservation in manufactured housing; 

• Provide notice of, and an 

opportunity for comment on, the 

proposed standards by manufacturers of 

manufactured housing and other 

interested parties; 

• Consult with the Secretary of HUD, 

who may seek further counsel from the 

Manufactured Housing Consensus 

Committee (‘‘MHCC’’); and 

• Base the energy conservation 

standards on the most recent version of 

the IECC and any supplements to that 

document, 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. 

(42 U.S.C. 17071(a) and (b)(1)) 

Section 413 of EISA also provides that 

DOE may: 

• Consider the design and factory 

construction techniques of 

manufactured housing; 

• Base the climate zones on the 

climate zones established by HUD 8

rather than the climate zones under the 

IECC; and 

• Provide for alternative practices 

that, while not meeting the specific 

standards established by DOE, result in 

net estimated energy consumption equal 

to or less than the specific energy 

conservation standards. 

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

DOE is directed to update its 

standards not later than one year after 

any revision to the IECC. (42 U.S.C. 

17071(b)(3)) Finally, under EISA, a 

manufacturer of manufactured housing 

that violates a provision of Part 460 ‘‘is 

liable to the United States for a civil 

penalty not exceeding 1 percent of the 

manufacturer’s retail list price of the 

manufactured housing.’’ (42 U.S.C. 

17071(c)) 

B. Background 

1. Current Standards 

Section 413 of EISA requires DOE to 

regulate energy conservation in 

manufactured housing, an area of the 

building construction industry 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
32736 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

9The website of the IECC is https://

shop.iccsafe.org/international-codes/ieccreferences.html. 

10The current status of the adoption of the IECC 

is provided at www.energycodes.gov/status-stateenergy-code-adoption. 

11Modular homes are generally excluded from 

the coverage of the National Manufactured Housing 

Construction and Safety Standards Act and 

constructed to the same state, local or regional 

building codes as site-built homes. See 42 U.S.C. 

5403(f); 24 CFR 3282.12. 

12U.S. Census Bureau, American Housing Survey 

2019—National Summary Tables. Available at 

www.census.gov/programs-surveys/ahs/data.html. 

traditionally regulated by HUD. HUD 

has regulated the manufactured housing 

industry since 1976, when it first 

promulgated the HUD Code. (42 U.S.C. 

5401 et seq.; 24 CFR part 3280 et seq.) 

The purpose of the HUD Code includes 

protecting the quality, durability, safety, 

and affordability of manufactured 

homes; facilitating the availability of 

affordable manufactured homes and 

increasing homeownership for all 

Americans; protecting residents of 

manufactured homes with respect to 

personal injuries and the amount of 

insurance costs and property damages 

in manufactured housing; and ensuring 

that the public interest in, and need for, 

affordable manufactured housing is duly 

considered in all determinations 

relating to the Federal standards and 

their enforcement. (42 U.S.C. 5401(b)) 

The HUD Code includes requirements 

related to the energy conservation of 

manufactured homes. Specifically, 

Subpart F of the HUD Code, entitled 

‘‘Thermal Protection,’’ establishes 

requirements for Uo of the building 

thermal envelope. Uo is a measurement 

of the heat loss or gain rate through the 

building thermal envelope of a 

manufactured home; therefore, a lower 

Uo corresponds with a more insulated 

building thermal envelope. The HUD 

Code contains maximum requirements 

for the combined Uo value of walls, 

ceilings, floors, fenestration, and 

external ducts within the building 

thermal envelope for manufactured 

homes installed in different zones. 24 

CFR 3280.506(a). 

The HUD Code also provides an 

alternate pathway to compliance that 

allows manufacturers to construct 

manufactured homes that meet adjusted 

Uo requirements based on the 

installation of high-efficiency heating 

and cooling equipment in the 

manufactured home. 24 CFR 

3280.508(d). Moreover, Subpart F of the 

HUD Code establishes requirements to 

reduce air leakage through the building 

thermal envelope. 24 CFR 3280.505. 

Subpart H of the HUD Code, entitled 

‘‘Heating, Cooling, and Fuel Burning 

Systems,’’ establishes requirements for 

sealing air supply ducts and for 

insulating both air supply and return 

ducts. 24 CFR 3280.715(a). R-value is 

the measure of a building component’s 

ability to resist heat flow (thermal 

resistance). A higher R-value represents 

a greater ability to resist heat flow and 

generally corresponds with a thicker 

level of insulation. The HUD Code 

contains no requirements for 

fenestration solar heat gain coefficient 

(‘‘SHGC’’), mechanical system piping 

insulation, or installation of insulation. 

The statutory authority for DOE’s 

rulemaking effort is different from the 

statutory authority underlying the HUD 

Code. EISA directs DOE to establish 

energy conservation standards for 

manufactured housing without 

reference to existing HUD Code 

requirements that also address energy 

conservation. However, EISA also 

requires DOE to consult with HUD. (42 

U.S.C. 17071(a)(2)(B)) Such 

consultations have informed DOE in 

development of the regulations finalized 

in this document, and DOE remains 

cognizant of the HUD Code, as well as 

HUD’s Congressional charge to protect 

the quality, durability, safety, 

affordability, and availability of 

manufactured homes. Compliance with 

the DOE requirements adopted in this 

final rule would not prevent a 

manufacturer from complying with the 

requirements, including energy 

conservation requirements, set forth in 

the HUD Code. Section III.G of this 

document provides a crosswalk of the 

energy conservation standards in this 

rule with the standards in the HUD 

Code. Moreover, as discussed further in 

section III, DOE considered the potential 

impact on manufactured home 

purchasers resulting from costs 

associated with additional energy 

efficiency measures. 

2. The International Energy 

Conservation Code (IECC) 

The statutory authority for this 

rulemaking requires DOE to base its 

standards on the most recent version of 

the IECC9 and any supplements to that 

document, subject to certain exceptions 

and considerations. (42 U.S.C. 

17071(b)(1)) The IECC is a nationallyrecognized model code, developed 

under the auspices of and published by 

the International Code Council (‘‘ICC’’). 

Many state and local governments have 

adopted the IECC10 in establishing 

minimum design and construction 

requirements for the energy efficiency of 

residential and commercial buildings, 

including site-built residential and 

modular homes.11 The IECC is 

developed through a consensus process 

that seeks input from a number of 

relevant stakeholders and is updated on 

a rolling basis, with new editions of the 

IECC published approximately every 

three years. The IECC was first 

published in 1998, with the most recent 

version, the 2021 IECC, being published 

in January 2021. 

The 2021 IECC is divided into two 

major sections, with provisions for both 

residential and commercial buildings. 

The manufactured housing energy 

conservation standards and test 

procedure are based on the 

requirements for residential buildings. 

The residential building requirements of 

the 2021 IECC, however, are not specific 

to manufactured housing. 

Chapter 4 of the residential section of 

the 2021 IECC sets forth specifications 

for residential energy efficiency, 

including specifications for building 

thermal envelope energy conservation, 

thermostats, duct insulation and sealing, 

mechanical system piping insulation, 

heated water circulation system, and 

mechanical ventilation. To the extent 

that the HUD Code regulates similar 

aspects of energy conservation as the 

2021 IECC, the 2021 IECC is generally 

considered more stringent than the 

corresponding requirements in the HUD 

Code, given that many areas of the HUD 

Code have not been updated as 

frequently as the IECC. 

DOE notes that the IECC is designed 

for building structures that have a 

permanent foundation. Manufactured 

housing structures, however, are not 

built on permanent foundations but are 

built on a steel chassis to enable them 

to be moved or towed when needed. As 

a result, because they present their own 

set of unique considerations that the 

IECC was not intended to address, some 

aspects of the IECC are unable, or highly 

impractical, to be applied to 

manufactured housing. Instead, 

consistent with the considerations 

required by EISA (e.g., 42 U.S.C. 

17071(b)(2)(A)), these adopted standards 

utilize aspects of the IECC that are 

appropriate for manufactured housing 

as the basis for the standards, thereby 

accounting for the unique physical 

characteristics of manufactured housing. 

3. Development of the Initial Proposal 

and Responses 

Based on the 2019 American Housing 

Survey (‘‘2019 AHS’’), manufactured 

housing accounts for approximately six 

percent of all homes in the United 

States.12 Because the purchase price of 

manufactured homes often is lower than 

similarly-sized site-built homes, 

manufactured homes serve as affordable 

housing options, particularly for lower 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 32737 

13The ANOPR comments can be accessed at: 

www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2009- 

BT-BC-0021. 

14These included discussions with the 

Manufactured Housing Institute (‘‘MHI’’) and 

several of its member manufacturers, the California 

Department of Housing and Community 

Development, the Georgia Manufactured Housing 

Division, three private-sector third-party primary 

inspection agencies under the HUD manufactured 

housing program, and one private-sector 

stakeholder familiar with manufactured housing. 

15Available at www.regulations.gov/ 

document?D=EERE-2009-BT-BC-0021-0069 and 

www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2009-BTBC-0021-0058. 

16The NOPR analysis, NOPR TSD, and NOPR 

public meeting information are available at 

www.regulations.gov under docket number EERE– 

2009–BT–BC–0021. 

to median income families. However, 

using the data from the 2019 AHS, the 

median energy burden (median cost of 

electricity, gas, fuel oil and other fuel as 

a percentage of median household 

income) is approximately 5 percent for 

manufactured home residents compared 

to 3 percent for all homes. Further, the 

same data suggests the per square foot 

utility cost for manufactured homes 

($0.15 per square foot; median $178 for 

1140 square feet) is higher than singlefamily homes ($0.14 per square foot; 

median $249 for 1800 square feet). As 

such, the energy burden as measured on 

a square foot basis, is significantly 

higher for residents of manufactured 

homes. 

Establishing improved energy 

conservation requirements for 

manufactured homes results in the dual 

benefit of reducing manufactured home 

energy use and enabling owners of 

manufactured homes to experience 

lower utility expenses over the longterm. Improved energy conservation 

standards are also expected to provide 

nationwide benefits of reducing utility 

energy production levels that would in 

turn reduce greenhouse gas emissions 

and other air pollutants. 

DOE published an advance notice of 

proposed rulemaking (‘‘ANOPR’’) to 

initiate the process of developing energy 

conservation standards for 

manufactured housing and to solicit 

information and data from industry and 

stakeholders.13 See 75 FR 7556 

(February 22, 2010). DOE also consulted 

with HUD in developing the 

requirements and in obtaining input and 

suggestions that would increase energy 

conservation in manufactured housing, 

while maintaining affordability. In 

addition to meeting with HUD on 

multiple occasions, DOE attended three 

MHCC meetings, where DOE gathered 

information from MHCC members. DOE 

also initiated discussions with members 

of the manufactured housing industry 

following the issuance of the ANOPR.14

A summary of each meeting is available 

at www.regulations.gov/ 

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

June 2016 NOPR provides more details 

on the comments received in response 

to the ANOPR. 81 FR 39755 (June 17, 

2016) 

On June 25, 2013, DOE published a 

request for information (‘‘RFI’’) seeking 

information on indoor air quality, 

financing and related incentives, model 

systems of enforcement, and other 

studies and research relevant to DOE’s 

effort to establish energy conservation 

standards for manufactured housing. 78 

FR 37995 (‘‘June 2013 RFI’’). The June 

2016 NOPR provides more details on 

the comments received on the RFI. 81 

FR 39765 (June 17, 2016). 

After reviewing the comments 

received in response to the ANOPR, the 

June 2013 RFI, and other stakeholder 

input, DOE ultimately determined that 

development of proposed manufactured 

housing energy conservation standards 

would benefit from a negotiated 

rulemaking process. On June 13, 2014, 

DOE published a notice of intent to 

establish a negotiated rulemaking 

manufactured housing working group 

(‘‘MH working group’’) to discuss and, 

if possible, reach consensus on a 

proposed rule. 79 FR 33873. On July 16, 

2014, the MH working group was 

established under the Appliance 

Standards and Rulemaking Federal 

Advisory Committee (‘‘ASRAC’’) in 

accordance with the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act and the Negotiated 

Rulemaking Act. 79 FR 41456; 5 U.S.C. 

561–570, App. 2. The MH working 

group consisted of representatives of 

interested stakeholders with a directive 

to consult, as appropriate, with a range 

of external experts on technical issues 

in developing a term sheet with 

recommendations on the proposed rule. 

The MH working group consisted of 22 

members, including one member from 

ASRAC, and one DOE representative. 79 

FR 41456. The MH working group met 

in person during six sets of public 

meetings held in 2014 on August 4–5, 

August 21–22, September 9–10, 

September 22–23, October 1–2, and 

October 23–24. 79 FR 48097 (Aug. 15, 

2014); 79 FR 59154 (Oct. 1, 2014). 

On October 31, 2014, the MH working 

group reached consensus on energy 

conservation standards for 

manufactured housing and assembled 

its recommendations for DOE into a 

term sheet that was presented to 

ASRAC. Public docket EERE–2009–BT– 

BC–0021–0107 (‘‘Term Sheet’’). ASRAC 

approved the term sheet during an open 

meeting on December 1, 2014, and sent 

it to the Secretary of Energy to develop 

a proposed rule. 

On February 11, 2015, DOE published 

an RFI requesting information that 

would aid in determining proposed 

solar heat gain coefficient (‘‘SHGC’’) 

requirements for certain climate zones. 

80 FR 7550 (‘‘February 2015 RFI’’). 

Following preparation and submission 

of the term sheet by the MH working 

group, DOE also consulted further with 

HUD regarding DOE’s proposed energy 

conservation standards. In addition to 

meeting with HUD, DOE prepared two 

presentations to discuss the proposed 

rule with MHCC members, which were 

designed to gather information on 

development of the proposed 

standards.15

On June 17, 2016, DOE published a 

NOPR for the manufactured housing 

energy conservation standards 

rulemaking. 81 FR 39755. (‘‘June 2016 

NOPR’’) DOE posted the NOPR analysis 

as well as the complete NOPR TSD on 

its website.16 In response to comments 

on the 2013 RFI, DOE also published the 

2016 EA–RFI to accompany the 2016 

NOPR. The draft EA drew no 

conclusions regarding the potential 

impacts on the indoor air quality of 

manufactured homes as a result of 

implementing any final energy 

conservation standards for these 

structures. DOE held a public meeting 

on July 13, 2016, to present the June 

2016 NOPR, which included the 

proposed prescriptive and performance 

requirements, in addition to the LCC, 

NIA, manufacturer impact analysis 

(‘‘MIA’’), and emissions analyses. DOE 

received a number of responses to its 

June 2016 NOPR. Further, in December 

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 

deadlines 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 response to concerns related to 

potential adverse impacts on pricesensitive, low-income purchasers of 

manufactured homes from the 

imposition of energy conservation 

standards on manufactured housing, 

DOE sought additional information from 

the public regarding these impacts by 

publishing the August 2018 NODA. See 

83 FR 38073 (August 3, 2018). That 

NODA indicated that DOE had reexamined its available data and reevaluated its approach in developing 

standards for manufactured housing. 

See 83 FR 38073, 38075. These 

discussions with HUD, along with a 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
32738 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

17 DOE has not identified each and every 

individual commenter in the Table II.2 of this 

document, but has included and addressed their 

comments in this final rule 

concern over the initial first-cost 

impacts that DOE’s earlier proposal 

would have on low-income buyers, led 

DOE to examine a potential tiered 

proposal that would set varying levels of 

energy efficiency performance with 

specified increases in incremental 

upfront costs that would still improve 

the overall energy efficiency of 

manufactured homes. See 83 FR 38077. 

In November 2019, the court in the 

above-referenced litigation entered a 

consent decree in which DOE agreed to 

complete the rulemaking by stipulated 

dates. 

On August 26, 2021, DOE published 

a supplemental NOPR (‘‘SNOPR’’) for 

the manufactured housing energy 

conservation standards rulemaking. 86 

FR 47744 (‘‘August 2021 SNOPR’’). In 

response to comments to the June 2016 

NOPR and August 2018 NODA, DOE 

proposed two standards, one being the 

primary ‘‘tiered’’ proposal and the other 

being the alternate ‘‘untiered’’ proposal. 

DOE’s primary proposal was the 

‘‘tiered’’ approach, based on the 2021 

IECC, wherein a subset of the energy 

conservation standards would be less 

stringent for certain manufactured 

homes in light of the cost-effectiveness 

considerations required by EISA. DOE’s 

alternate proposal was the ‘‘untiered’’ 

approach, wherein energy conservation 

standards based on the 2021 IECC 

would apply to all manufactured homes 

without a subset of less stringent 

standards for certain manufactured 

homes. Under the tiered proposal, two 

sets of standards would be established 

in proposed 10 CFR part 460, subpart B 

(i.e., Tier 1 and Tier 2). Tier 1 would 

apply to manufactured homes with a 

manufacturer’s retail list price of 

$55,000 or less, and incorporate 

building thermal envelope measures 

based on certain thermal envelope 

components subject to the 2021 IECC, 

but would limit the incremental 

purchase price increase to an average of 

less than $750. Tier 2 would apply to 

manufactured homes with a 

manufacturer’s retail list price above 

$55,000, and incorporate building 

thermal envelope measures based on 

certain thermal envelope components 

and specifications of the 2021 IECC (i.e., 

the Tier 2 requirements would be the 

same as those under the proposed 

single, ‘‘untiered’’ set of standards). 86 

FR 47744, 47746. Both proposals 

replaced DOE’s June 2016 proposal. 

Additionally, DOE noted in the August 

2021 SNOPR that it had considered, and 

was still considering, tiers based upon 

metrics other than manufacturer’s retail 

list price such as size (e.g., square 

footage, number of sections) and 

regional variations, and requested 

feedback on the use of these other bases 

for the tier thresholds. Id. at 86 FR 

47760–47761. Further, DOE also 

considered in the August 2021 SNOPR 

the impacts on the LCC savings of 

requiring less stringent exterior wall 

insulation for Tier 2 climate zones 2 and 

3 (at R-21 instead of R-20+5) to remove 

the continuous insulation requirement. 

Id. at 86 FR 47802–47803. DOE held a 

public meeting on September 28, 2021, 

to present the August 2021 SNOPR. 

On October 26, 2021, DOE published 

a NODA regarding updated inputs to the 

August 2021 SNOPR and results of 

corresponding analyses, including 

certain sensitivity analyses. 86 FR 59042 

(‘‘October 2021 NODA’’) The updated 

inputs resulted, in part, in raising the 

threshold between Tiers 1 and 2 to 

$63,000. Also, as contemplated in the 

August 2021 SNOPR and based on 

feedback from stakeholders and HUD, 

the additional analyses in the NODA 

included analysis and impacts of a 

sized-based tier threshold (based on 

number of sections) and analyses of 

alternative exterior wall insulation 

requirements (R-21) for climate zones 2 

and 3. DOE reopened the public 

comment period on the SNOPR through 

November 26, 2021, and sought 

comment on the updated $63,000 tier 

threshold, the size-based tier threshold, 

and alternate exterior wall insulations 

requirements. In response to the August 

2021 SNOPR and the October 2021 

NODA, DOE received public comments 

from a variety of stakeholders. DOE also 

received over 900 substantively similar 

mass mail campaign letters from 

organizations and individuals in 

response to the August 2021 SNOPR, 

and over 300 in response to the October 

2021 NODA. Further, DOE also received 

a number of comments from individual 

commenters.17 All of the comment 

submissions are available in the docket 

for this rulemaking. 

On January 14, 2022, DOE published 

the draft environmental impact 

statement for proposed energy 

conservation standards for 

manufactured housing (DOE/EIS–0550). 

87 FR 2430 (‘‘January 2022 DEIS’’) DOE 

prepared the January 2022 DEIS in 

support of the August 2021 SNOPR. The 

January 2022 DEIS analyzed price-based 

alternatives based around the $63,000 

threshold for manufacturer retail list 

price and different wall insulation 

requirements. It also analyzed the 

alternatives based on the size of the 

manufactured housing (single sections 

and multiple sections with differences 

in wall insulation requirements), 

untiered alternatives with only 

differences in wall insulation 

requirements, and a ‘‘no action’’ 

alternative (i.e., no DOE standard). 

Accordingly, DOE published a notice reopening the comment period on the 

rulemaking proceeding to consider how 

the January 2022 DEIS should inform 

the final energy conservation standards 

for manufactured housing. January 14, 

2022 (87 FR 2359) 

In response to the January 2022 DEIS, 

DOE received additional public 

comments from a variety of stakeholders 

as to how the DEIS should inform the 

final rule. In this final rule, DOE is only 

including and addressing comments as 

the comments relate to the energy 

conservation standards. As such, DOE is 

not including or addressing comments 

on the discussion and analyses 

presented in the January 2022 DEIS; 

those comments are addressed as part of 

the environmental impact assessment 

process. DOE also received over 300 

substantively similar form letters from 

individuals in response to the January 

2022 DEIS. All of the comment 

submissions are available in the docket 

for this rulemaking. The comments and 

DOE’s responses are discussed in 

sections III, IV, and V of this document. 

Table II.1 presents a summary of all 

the written comments received for the 

August 2021 SNOPR, October 2021 

NODA, and the January 2022 DEIS, as 

it relates to the energy conservation 

standards. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 32739 

TABLE II.1— SUMMARY OF WRITTEN COMMENTS * 

Organization(s) Reference in this final rule Organization type 

Alliance to Save Energy, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, 

E4TheFuture, Earth Advantage, Elevate Energy, Environmental and Energy 

Study Institute, Institute for Market Transformation, National Association of Energy Service Companies, National Association of State Energy Officials, Next 

Step Network, Natural Resources Defense Council.

Joint Commenters ................. Efficiency organization. 

Adventure Homes .................................................................................................... Adventure Homes ................. Manufacturer. 

American Chemistry Council’s Foam Sheathing Committee .................................. ACC FSC .............................. Trade association. 

American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy ............................................... ACEEE .................................. Efficiency organization. 

American Homestar ................................................................................................. American Homestar .............. Manufacturer. 

American Public Gas Association, The Aluminum Association, American Chemistry Council, American Exploration & Production Council, American Farm Bureau Federation, American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, American 

Gas Association, American Highway Users Alliance, American Iron and Steel 

Institute,.

American Petroleum Institute, American Public Gas Association, American Public 

Power Association, Associated Builders and Contractors, Associated General 

Contractors of America, Council of Industrial Boiler Owners, The Fertilizer Institute, Independent Petroleum Association of America, National Association of 

Manufacturers, National Lime Association, National Mining Association, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, Portland Cement Association, 

U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

APGA et. al. .......................... Trade association. 

Arizona Department of Housing .............................................................................. ADOH .................................... State Government. 

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers ......... ASHRAE ................................ Trade association. 

Attorneys General of NY, IL, ME, MN, NV, NJ, NM, OR, VT, WA, MA, and NY ... State Attorneys General ........ State Government—State Attorneys General. 

Blount County Habitat for Humanity ........................................................................ Blount County Habitat for Humanity.Non-profit. 

C2ES, Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU Law, Sierra Club, Union of Concerned 

Scientists.

C2ES et. al. ........................... Environmental Non-profit. 

California Energy Commission ................................................................................ CEC ....................................... Efficiency Organization. 

CASA of Oregon ...................................................................................................... CASA of Oregon ................... Non-profit. 

Cavco Industries ...................................................................................................... Cavco .................................... Manufacturer. 

Champion Home Builders Inc. ................................................................................. Champion Home Builders ..... Manufacturer. 

Clayton Home Building Group ................................................................................. Clayton Homes ...................... Manufacturer. 

Connecticut Manufactured Home Owners Alliance ................................................. CMHOA ................................. Non-profit. 

Community Housing Partners .................................................................................. CHP ....................................... Affordable Housing and Community Development Nonprofit. 

E4TheFuture ............................................................................................................ E4TheFuture ......................... Efficiency Organization. 

Earthjustice & Prosperity Now ................................................................................. Earthjustice and Prosperity 

Now.

Efficiency Non-profit. 

Fahe ......................................................................................................................... Fahe ...................................... Community Development Financial Institution. 

Habitat for Humanity of Greater Los Angeles ......................................................... Habitat for Humanity of LA ... Non-profit. 

Idaho Manufactured Housing Association ............................................................... IMHA ..................................... Non-profit/Trade association. 

Indiana Manufactured Housing Association/Recreation Vehicle Indiana Council ... IMHA/RVIC ............................ Trade association. 

International Code Council ...................................................................................... ICC ........................................ Codes organization. 

Kansas Manufactured Housing Association ............................................................ KMHA .................................... Non-profit/Trade association. 

LifeStyle Factory Homes LLC .................................................................................. LifeStyle ................................. Manufacturer. 

Local Initiatives Support Corporation ....................................................................... LISC ...................................... Non-profit. 

Manufactured & Modular Home Association of Minnesota ..................................... MMHA ................................... Trade association. 

Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform .................................... MHARR ................................. Trade association. 

Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee ....................................................... MHCC .................................... Advisory committee. 

Manufactured Housing Institute ............................................................................... MHI ........................................ Trade association. 

Michigan Manufactured Housing Association .......................................................... Michigan MHA ....................... Non-profit/Trade association. 

Mississippi Manufactured Housing Association ....................................................... Mississippi MHA .................... Non-profit/Trade association. 

Modular Lifestyles, Inc. ............................................................................................ Modular Lifestyles ................. Manufacturer. 

National Association of Home Builders ................................................................... NAHB .................................... Trade association. 

National Association of State Energy Officials ........................................................ NASEO .................................. Non-profit. 

National Manufactured Home Owners Association ................................................. NMHOA ................................. Non-profit. 

National Rural Electric Cooperative Association ..................................................... NRECA .................................. Electric cooperative. 

Natural Resources Defense Council ....................................................................... NRDC .................................... Efficiency organization. 

Network for Oregon Affordable Housing ................................................................. NOAH .................................... Non-profit. 

New Building Institute .............................................................................................. NBI ........................................ Non-profit. 

New Jersey Manufactured Housing Association ..................................................... NJMHA .................................. Trade association. 

New York State Energy Research and Development Authority .............................. NYSERDA ............................. State corporation. 

Next Step Network, Inc. ........................................................................................... Next Step .............................. Efficiency organization. 

North American Insulation Manufacturers Association ............................................ NAIMA ................................... Trade association. 

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance ...................................................................... NEEA ..................................... Efficiency organization. 

Northwest Power and Conservation Council ........................................................... NPCC .................................... Interstate Compact Agency. 

Ohio Manufactured Homes Association .................................................................. OMHA .................................... Non-profit. 

Oliver Technologies Inc. .......................................................................................... Oliver Technologies .............. Manufacturer. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
32740 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE II.1— SUMMARY OF WRITTEN COMMENTS *—Continued 

Organization(s) Reference in this final rule Organization type 

PA Department of Community and Economic Development .................................. PA–DCED ............................. Government. 

Pennsylvania Manufactured Housing Association ................................................... PMHA .................................... Trade association. 

PathStone Corporation ............................................................................................ PathStone .............................. Not-for-profit organization. 

People’s Self-Help Housing, Inc. ............................................................................. People’s Self-Help Housing .. Non-profit. 

Pleasant Valley Homes, Inc. .................................................................................... Pleasant Valley ..................... Manufacturer. 

Redwood Energy ..................................................................................................... Redwood Energy ................... Designers. 

ReFrame Foundation ............................................................................................... ReFrame Foundation ............ Non-profit. 

Responsible Energy Codes Alliance ....................................................................... RECA .................................... Efficiency organization. 

Rural Community Assistance Corporation ............................................................... RCAC .................................... Non-profit. 

Schulte, Philip .......................................................................................................... Schulte .................................. Individual. 

Skyline Champion Corporation ................................................................................ Skyline Champion ................. Manufacturer. 

Texas Manufactured Housing Association .............................................................. TMHA .................................... Trade association. 

Trellis ........................................................................................................................ Trellis ..................................... Non-profit. 

Members of Congress of the United States (David Kustoff, Larry Bucshon, Bill 

Huizenga, Lance Gooden, William Timmons, Bryan Steil, Gary Palmer, Bill 

Johnson, Tim Walberg, Greg Pence, Ann Wagner, John Rose, French Hill, 

Debbie Lesko, John Joyce, H. Morgan Griffith, Barry Loudermilk, Tom Emmer, 

Andy Barr).

Select Representatives of 

Congress.

Government. 

University of Arizona and Arizona State University ................................................. University of Arizona and Arizona State.University. 

University of Colorado Boulder ................................................................................ UCB ....................................... University. 

University of Colorado Denver ................................................................................. UCD ....................................... University. 

University of Colorado Law School ......................................................................... UC Law School ..................... University. 

Urban Habitat Initiatives Inc. .................................................................................... UHI ........................................ Sustainability Consultant. 

Verde ........................................................................................................................ Verde ..................................... Non-profit. 

Vermont Energy Investment Corporation ................................................................ VEIC ...................................... Efficiency organization. 

Vermont Law School ................................................................................................ Vermont Law School ............. University. 

Virginia Manufactured and Modular Housing Association ....................................... VAMMHA ............................... Trade association. 

West Indianapolis Development Corporation .......................................................... WIDC ..................................... Trade association. 

Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association .................................... WMA ...................................... Trade association. 

Westland Distributing ............................................................................................... Westland ............................... Distributor. 

Wisconsin Housing Alliance ..................................................................................... WHA ...................................... Trade association. 

* DOE received a number of comments in response to the January 2022 DEIS that were almost identical in substance to comments submitted 

by the same commenters in response to the August 2021 SNOPR or October 2021 NODA. Accordingly, for the purposes of this notice, DOE is 

only referencing the submission ID of the first submission of comments with identical content. 

On April 8, 2022, DOE published the 

notice of availability for the final EIS 

(DOE/EIS–0550). 87 FR 20852. (‘‘April 

2022 FEIS’’) The final EIS includes the 

information presented in the January 

2022 DEIS as well as further analyses 

developed in response to public 

comments on the January 2022 DEIS. 

Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal 

Register, DOE has issued its record of 

decision (‘‘ROD’’) pursuant to its 

obligations under NEPA. The ROD 

finalizes DOE’s considerations of the 

environmental impacts under the NEPA 

process and memorializes DOE’s 

determinations and approach chosen 

consistent with this final rule. Further 

discussion of the final EIS, the ROD and 

the NEPA process may be found in 

section V.D. of this document. 

The comments and DOE’s responses 

are discussed in sections III, IV, and V 

of this document. 

C. Abbreviations 

The abbreviations used in this 

document, other than abbreviations of 

the names of commenters listed in Table 

II.1, Summary of Written Comments, are 

defined as follows: 

ACCA: Air Conditioning Contractors of 

America. 

ACH: Air changes per hour. 

ACH50: Air changes per hour at 50 Pascals 

pressure difference between the inside and 

outside of the home. 

AEO: Annual Energy Outlook. 

AFUE: Annual fuel utilization efficiency. 

AHS: American Housing Survey. 

AMI: Area median income. 

ANOPR: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking. 

BECP: Building Energy Codes Program. 

CCE: certification, compliance, and 

enforcement. 

CDFI: Community Development Financial 

Institutions. 

cfm: Cubic feet per minute. 

CFR: Code of Federal Regulations. 

DEIS: Draft environmental impact 

statement. 

DHP: Ductless heat pump. 

DOE or in context, ‘‘the Department’’: U.S. 

Department of Energy. 

DTI: Debt-to-income ratio. 

E.O.: Executive Order. 

EA: Environmental Assessment. 

EAP: Equity Action Plan. 

EEM: Energy efficiency measure. 

EGUs: Electric generating units. 

EIA: U.S. Energy Information 

Administration (within DOE). 

EIS: Environmental impact statement. 

EISA: Energy Independence and Security 

Act of 2007. 

EPA: U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

EPCA: Energy Policy and Conservation 

Act. 

ERI: Energy Rating Index. 

ERV: Energy recovery ventilator. 

FEIS: Final environmental impact 

statement. 

FFC: Full-fuel-cycle. 

FHA: Federal Housing Administration 

(within HUD). 

FRFA: Final regulatory flexibility analysis. 

GRIM: Government Regulatory Impact 

Model. 

GSE: Government-sponsored enterprise. 

HAP: Hazardous air pollutants. 

HoF: ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamentals. 

HRV: Heat recovery ventilator. 

HSPF: Heating seasonal performance 

factor. 

HUD Code: HUD Manufactured Home 

Construction and Safety Standards. 

HUD: U.S. Department of Housing and 

Urban Development. 

HVAC: Heating, ventilation, and air 

conditioning. 

IECC: International Energy Conservation 

Code. 

INPV: Industry net present value. 

IRFA: Initial regulatory flexibility analysis. 

IWG: Interagency Working Group on the 

Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 32741 

LCC: Life-cycle cost. 

MATS: Mercury and Air Toxics Standards. 

MH: Manufactured home or manufactured 

housing. 

MHCSS: Manufactured home construction 

and safety standards. 

MHI: Manufactured Housing Institute. 

MHS: Manufactured Housing Survey. 

MIA: Manufacturer impact analysis. 

NAAQS: National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards. 

NAICS: North American Industry 

Classification System. 

NEMS: National Energy Modeling System. 

NES: National energy savings. 

NIA: National impact analysis. 

NODA: Notice of Data Availability. 

NOPR: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

NPV: Net present value. 

OIRA: Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs (within OMB). 

OMB: Office of Management and Budget. 

PBP: Payback period. 

PITI: Principal, interest, taxes, and 

insurance. 

PM2.5: Fine particulate matter (with an 

aerodynamic equivalent diameter of 2.5 

micrometers (microns)). 

PUF: Public use file. 

RFI: Request for information. 

SBA: U.S. Small Business Administration. 

SC: Social cost. 

SEER: Seasonal energy efficiency ratio. 

sf: Square foot or square feet. 

SHGC: Solar heat gain coefficient. 

SNOPR: Supplemental notice of proposed 

rulemaking. 

TSD: Technical support document. 

UMRA: Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995. 

Uo: Overall thermal transmittance. 

III. Discussion of the Standards 

A. The Basis for the Standards 

EISA requires DOE to base standards 

for manufactured housing on the IECC. 

However, application of the IECC 

standards is also subject to a number of 

considerations set forth by the statute in 

order to ensure standards will be 

appropriately tailored for manufactured 

homes and the manufactured home 

market. Specifically, EISA requires that 

DOE establish energy conservation 

standards for manufactured housing that 

are ‘‘based on the most recent version of 

the [IECC], except in cases in which 

[DOE] finds that the [IECC] is not costeffective, or a more stringent standard 

would be more cost-effective, based on 

the impact of the [IECC] on the purchase 

price and on total life-cycle construction 

and operating costs.’’ (42 U.S.C. 

17071(b)(1)) 

In addition to the required costeffectiveness considerations, EISA 

explicitly allows DOE to consider the 

differences in design and factory 

construction techniques of 

manufactured homes, as compared to 

site-built and modular homes. (42 

U.S.C. 17071(b)(2)) As noted in section 

II.B.2, the 2021 IECC applies generally 

to residential buildings, including sitebuilt and modular housing, and is not 

specific to manufactured housing. 

Additionally, EISA requires DOE to 

consult with HUD, which may seek 

further counsel from the MHCC, prior to 

establishing the standards. 42 U.S.C. 

17071(a)(2)(B). EISA also allows DOE to 

base the standards on climate zones 

established by HUD, and to provide for 

alternative practices that result in net 

estimated energy consumption equal to 

or less than the specified standards. 42 

U.S.C. 17071(b)(2)) As discussed more 

in section III.F, DOE has opted to base 

its standards on the climate zones 

established by HUD. Additionally, 

DOE’s standards provide two methods 

by which to achieve compliance with 

the building thermal envelope 

requirements of Subpart B: A 

prescriptive pathway (which utilizes the 

components specified by DOE) and an 

overall Uo performance pathway (which 

allows for compliance based on the 

overall thermal performance of the 

manufactured home). The latter 

approach, i.e., the Uo method, gives 

manufacturers the flexibility to use any 

combination of energy efficiency 

measures as long as the minimum Uo is 

met. Manufacturers do not need to meet 

both the prescriptive and the 

performance method; rather they have 

the option to only meet one. 

The energy conservation standards in 

this final rule are based on 

specifications included in the 2021 

IECC while also accounting for the 

unique aspects of manufactured 

housing. DOE carefully considered the 

following aspects of manufactured 

housing design and construction in 

developing the standards: 

• Manufactured housing structural 

requirements contained in the HUD 

Code; 

• External dimensional limitations 

associated with transportation 

restrictions; 

• The need to optimize interior space 

within manufactured homes; and 

• Factory construction techniques 

that facilitate sealing the building 

thermal envelope to limit air leakage. 

In DOE’s view, the language Congress 

used in instructing DOE to set standards 

for these structures is broad and does 

not require the imposition of 

requirements for manufactured homes 

that are identical to those that IECC 

provides for site-built structures. The 

use of the phrase ‘‘based on’’ readily 

indicates that Congress anticipated that 

DOE would need to use its discretion in 

adapting elements of the IECC’s 

provisions for manufactured housing 

use, including whether those elements 

would be appropriate in light of the 

specific circumstances related to the 

structure. Congress also provided that 

DOE has discretion to depart from the 

IECC to the extent it is not cost-effective, 

or a more stringent standard could be 

more cost-effective. Finally, Congress 

required DOE to consult with HUD, the 

primary regulator of manufactured 

housing, for input prior to establishing 

the DOE standards. 

Pursuant to this discretion afforded by 

Congress, DOE is establishing tiered 

standards based on the 2021 IECC. 

Specifically, DOE is finalizing a tiered 

standard whereby single-section 

manufactured homes (‘‘Tier 1’’ 

manufactured homes) would be subject 

to different building thermal envelope 

requirements (subpart B of 10 CFR part 

460) than all other manufactured homes 

(‘‘Tier 2’’ manufactured homes). Both 

tiers are based on the 2021 IECC in that 

both tiers have requirements for the 

building thermal envelope, duct and air 

sealing, installation of insulation, HVAC 

specifications, service hot water 

systems, mechanical ventilation fan 

efficacy, and heating and cooling 

equipment sizing provisions consistent 

with the 2021 IECC. In light of the firstcost concerns raised during the EISArequired consultation with HUD and the 

MHCC, and in comments from 

stakeholders, Tier 1 provides tailored 

improvements in efficiency with regard 

to building thermal envelope 

components based on the 2021 IECC, 

which are projected to result in an 

average incremental price increase of 

less than $750 for single-section homes. 

Tier 2 focuses on the building thermal 

envelope, duct and air sealing, 

insulation installation, HVAC 

specifications, service hot water 

systems, mechanical ventilation fan 

efficacy, and heating and cooling 

equipment sizing provisions, at 

stringencies consistent with those for 

site-built homes in the 2021 IECC, and 

is estimated to result in an average 

incremental price increase of $4,100– 

$4,500 for multi-section homes. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
32742 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

18Specifically, manufactured homes typically 

have a lower overall height compared to site-built 

homes, which leads to constrained space, and 

therefore limited ability to increase exterior ceiling 

insulation. 

19CFPB report, 2021. https://files.consumer

finance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_manufacturedhousing-finance-new-insights-hmda_report_2021- 

05.pdf. 

Further, with regards to the aspects of 

manufactured housing design and 

construction, DOE considered the range 

of efficiency measures originally 

identified by the MH working group as 

appropriate for manufactured home 

design, which included the following: 

exterior ceiling R–22 to R–38; exterior 

wall R–11 to R–21+5; exterior floor R– 

11 to R–30; window U-factor U–1.08 to 

U–0.30; and window SHGC 0.7 to 0.25. 

(See chapter 5 of the final rule TSD) 

Accordingly, based on the information 

provided by the MH working group, 

DOE did not include several of the 2021 

IECC requirements, including the more 

stringent ceiling R-value requirements 

(greater than R–38) 18 and requirement 

for the exterior ceiling insulation to be 

of uniform thickness or uniform density, 

given the space constraints of 

manufactured homes. 

DOE determined that the energy 

conservation standards in this final rule 

are cost-effective by evaluating the 

impact on the purchase price of a 

manufactured home and on the total 

lifecycle construction and operating 

costs. Both Tier 1 and Tier 2 are costeffective for the 30-year period that was 

analyzed. Specifically, section I.A 

presents the benefits and burdens to 

purchasers of manufactured homes, 

with Table I.1 and Table I.3 presenting 

the total incremental purchase price 

under the standards, and Table I.3 

presenting the estimated national 

average LCC savings. The incremental 

purchase price was determined by 

calculating the difference in the energy 

efficiency measure (‘‘EEM’’) costs of 

DOE-compliant and minimally 

compliant HUD homes. These 

incremental costs correspond to the 

purchase prices seen by the homeowner, 

and thus account for manufacturer and 

retail markups. The LCC savings 

accounts for the energy cost savings and 

purchase costs (including down 

payment, mortgage and taxes based on 

incremental purchase price) over the 

entire analysis period discounted to a 

present value. As presented in Table I.3, 

there are positive national average LCC 

savings over the life of the 

manufactured home (i.e., 30-years). In 

addition, the positive 30-year LCC 

savings carries through to every climate 

zone and city analyzed. (See Chapter 8 

of the TSD for results.) Finally, Table I.3 

presents the national average simple 

payback period to be 3.7 years and 8.9 

years for single- and multi-section 

homes respectively. 

As noted previously, in establishing 

standards for manufactured housing, 

Congress directed DOE to: (1) Consult 

with the Secretary of HUD (42 U.S.C. 

17071(a)(2)(b)), and (2) base the 

standards on the most recent version of 

the IECC, except in cases in which the 

Secretary finds that the code is not costeffective, or a more stringent standard 

would be more cost-effective, based on 

the impact of the codeon the purchase 

price of manufactured housing and on 

total life-cycle construction and 

operating costs. (42 U.S.C. 17071(b)(1)) 

Relatedly, the Secretary of HUD is 

mandated to establish standards for 

manufactured housing that, in part, 

‘‘ensure that the public interest in, and 

need for, affordable manufactured 

housing is duly considered in all 

determinations relating to the Federal 

standards and their enforcement.’’ (42 

U.S.C. 5401(b)) 

In this consultative role, HUD raised 

concerns with the potential adverse 

impacts on manufactured housing 

affordability that could result from 

additional energy efficiency standards 

proposed for manufactured homes in 

the June 2016 NOPR and the August 

2021 SNOPR. More specifically, HUD 

noted concerns that increases in the 

purchase prices for manufactured 

homes resulting from the costs of 

requiring to meet standards based upon 

the IECC could result in prospective 

manufactured homeowners being 

unable to purchase a manufactured 

home. With this concern in mind, DOE 

reviewed the 2021 Consumer Financial 

Protection Bureau report, 

‘‘Manufactured-Housing Finance: New 

Insights from the Home Mortgage 

Disclosure Act Data (HMDA),’’ 

(hereinafter, ‘‘2021 CFPB Report’’) 19, 

and in the October 2021 NODA, 

presented updated analyses based on 

this report and sought comment on the 

report and these updates. 86 FR 59042, 

59044. 

DOE’s review of the 2021 CFPB 

Report’’, presented the following key 

findings: 

• Manufactured homes represent an 

affordable housing option for millions of 

Americans because they cost less on 

average than site-built homes and are 

one of the least expensive forms of 

housing available without government 

subsidies. 

• Manufactured home homeowners 

tend to have lower incomes (median is 

$52,000 for manufactured home 

homeowners with chattel (i.e., personal 

property) loans and $53,000 for those 

with mortgage loans) and less net worth 

than their counterparts who own sitebuilt homes (median is $83,000); 

• Borrowers who own their land can 

either finance their home purchase with 

a chattel loan or a mortgage, whereas 

those who do not own their land are 

typically only able to finance with a 

chattel loan. 

• Manufactured home loan amounts 

for (1) chattel loans range from $40,500 

(25th percentile) to $80,785 (75th 

percentile), with median at $58,672; (2) 

mortgage loans range from $90,330 (25th 

percentile) to $172,812 (75th 

percentile), with median at $127,056. 

Comparatively, site-built home loan 

amounts range from $162,011 (25th 

percentile) to $342,678 (75th 

percentile), with median at $236,624. 

• Of the manufactured housing loans 

acquired, the percentage of chattel loans 

nationally is estimated to range from 42 

percent (from the 2019 HMDA, which 

includes new and used homes) to 76 

percent (from 2019 Manufactured 

Housing Survey, which includes new 

homes only). 

Compared to mortgages for site-built 

homes, MH mortgages tend to have 

smaller loan amounts, higher interest 

rates, fewer refinances, and less of a 

secondary market, patterns that are even 

more acute for chattel loans. 

Additionally, chattel loans have shorter 

loan terms than mortgages for either MH 

or site-built homes. A key reason for this 

difference is that the vast majority of 

manufactured housing stock is titled as 

chattel (i.e., personal property), 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 site-built homeowners. While most 

manufactured homeowners 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). 2021 

CFPB, pp. 33–34. 

In response to the affordability 

concerns raised by HUD and 

commenters regarding purchasers and 

renters who may live in these homes, 

and the general financial circumstances 

for manufactured housing occupants, 

DOE is finalizing a tiered standard in 

this final rule that would mitigate firstcost impacts for purchasers at the lower 

end of the manufactured home price 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 32743 

range. To the extent that manufactured 

home purchasers are cost-driven, in 

conjunction with the lower median 

income and net worth of these 

purchasers, consumers at the lower end 

of the manufactured home purchase 

price range are generally likely to be 

more sensitive to increases in purchase 

price. DOE’s considerations of 

affordability and cost-effectiveness in 

establishing these standards, and 

associated responses to comments, are 

discussed more below in sections III.A.1 

and III.B. 

Finally, the standards established in 

this final rule are based on the climate 

zones of the HUD Code. EISA also 

allows DOE to base standards on the 

climate zones of the HUD Code instead 

of the IECC. (42 U.S.C. 17071(b)(2)(B)) 

There are differences in the number and 

boundaries of the HUD zones as 

compared to the IECC climate zones. For 

example, under the 2021 IECC climate 

zone map, California is divided into five 

climate zones (including zone variation 

based on moisture regimes), with four of 

the zones subject to SHGC maximums 

(0.40 applicable to climate zones 4 and 

5, and 0.25 applicable to climate zones 

2 and 3). Under the HUD zone map, all 

of California is within a single zone. 

Developing energy conservation 

standards based on the HUD zones, as 

permitted under EISA, necessitates 

deviating from the IECC. DOE has 

determined that aligning the climate 

zones between the DOE requirements 

and the HUD Code would reduce the 

complexities and burden faced by 

manufacturers of compliance with the 

DOE standards. The updated standards 

would establish thermal envelope 

requirements, as does the 2021 IECC, 

but setting the values for those 

requirements necessitates that DOE 

develop standard levels different than 

those in the 2021 IECC to account for 

the difference in the number of climate 

zones. Use of the HUD zones in DOE’s 

standards is discussed more in section 

III.F.2.a. of this document. 

As discussed more in sections III.C 

and D, DOE is not addressing a test 

procedure, or compliance and 

enforcement provisions for energy 

conservation standards for 

manufactured housing in this 

document. DOE notes that HUD has an 

established design approval, monitoring 

and enforcement system, defined in 24 

CFR part 3282, that is robust and 

provides compliance and enforcement 

of the manufactured housing industry 

standards. Moreover, manufacturers 

must comply with referenced standards 

incorporated by HUD in its regulations. 

DOE continues to consult with HUD 

about pathways to address testing, 

compliance and enforcement for these 

standards in a manner that may leverage 

the current HUD inspection and 

enforcement process so that such 

testing, compliance and enforcement 

procedures are not overly burdensome 

or duplicative for manufacturers, and 

are well understood by manufacturers 

and consumers alike. 

In response to the August 2021 

SNOPR proposal and the October 2021 

NODA, DOE received a number of 

comments regarding the statute, IECC 

and the rulemaking in general, which 

are summarized and addressed in the 

following sections. 

1. Affordability 

Multiple commenters stated that the 

proposed energy requirements fail the 

EISA statutory requirement of costeffectiveness and the proposal will 

eliminate manufactured housing as an 

affordable housing option for families. 

Additionally, they commented that the 

proposal ignores the unique features of 

factory-built housing, to the point that 

many parts of the proposal are simply 

not feasible from a construction and 

transportation standpoint. Further, they 

stated that the development of the rule 

was not compliant in any meaningful 

way with the EISA requirement to 

consult with HUD or MHCC and does 

not follow an accurate cost-benefit 

analysis as the statute requires. (MMHA, 

No. 995 at p. 4); (Michigan MHA, No. 

1012 at p. 2–3); (WHA, No. 1025 at p. 

2); (PMHA, No. 1165 at p. 3); (Westland, 

No. 1263 at p. 2); (Pleasant Valley, No. 

1307 at p. 2); (American Homestar, No. 

1337 at p. 2–3); (Oliver Technologies, 

No. 1350 at p. 3); (KMHA, No. 1368 at 

p. 2); (Adventure Homes, No. 1383 at p. 

3); (NJMHA, No. 1451 at p. 3); (WMA, 

No. 1452 at p. 2); (IMHA/RVIC, No. 

1466 at p. 2); (Cavco, No. 1497 at p. 3); 

(Skyline Champion, No. 1499 at p.2); 

(Mississippi MHA, No. 1588 at p. 4); 

(Clayton Homes, No. 1589 at p. 3) The 

campaign form letter(s) stated that the 

proposed rule will eliminate a 

significant source of affordable housing 

for hundreds of thousands of American 

families and, in many cases, it would be 

simply impossible to construct and 

transport homes built with the 

requirements. Commenters stated that 

increased costs will never be recouped 

by the homeowner, and for many buyers 

the increased cost will pose a barrier to 

homeownership in the first place. In 

addition, commenters stated that DOE’s 

energy conservation standards must 

balance affordability with energy 

efficiency, which commenters alleged 

the proposed rule did not. (Campaign 

Form Letter, Multiple submissions at p. 

1) An individual commenter would not 

support the proposed rule unless 

modified because of affordability issues. 

(Wangelin, No. 975 at p. 1) Another 

individual commenter stated that the 

cost of the new energy standards might 

outweigh the effects it will have on the 

environment because manufactured 

homes are made to be affordable. 

(Heidbreder, No. 940 at p. 1) Another 

individual commenter suggested that 

either tier would be a big upgrade from 

current requirements. (Major, No. 1023 

at p. 1) 

MHI commented that the higher home 

cost associated with the proposed 

standards will make manufactured 

housing far more expensive, excluding 

potential buyers and reducing total 

manufactured housing sales. MHI also 

commented that DOE’s own analysis 

shows the proposal will increase costs 

for homebuyers without reciprocal 

energy savings, and many households 

will simply be priced out of 

homeownership due to this proposal. 

MHI’s survey of manufacturers found 

that it is unlikely that a buyer 

purchasing a new home and financing 

90 percent of the purchase price would 

recover these upfront costs at a future 

sale, and while there are several reasons 

contributing to this, the fact that 

homebuyers usually sell their homes 

within the first 7–10 years is the most 

relevant. (MHI, No. 1592 at p. 3, 4) 

Further, MHI stated that the proposal 

could jeopardize homeownership for 

millions of Americans at a time when 

there is an affordable housing shortage. 

MHI further stated that this increase 

will have a disproportionate impact on 

minority communities, who face the 

most significant burden in obtaining 

affordable homeownership, and that this 

would be in direct contrast to the 

Administration’s goal of achieving racial 

equity in homeownership. (MHI, No. 

1592 at p. 3, 23); (Clayton Homes, No. 

1589 at p. 14) 

MHARR stated that it opposed the 

proposed standards because they are a 

baseless and useless burden on both 

moderate and lower-income consumers 

and will lead to a decrease in 

homeownership and higher levels of 

homelessness. (MHARR, No. 1388 at p. 

2–3); (MHARR, No. 1974 at p. 2) UCB 

stated that the rule will eliminate 

affordable housing for many low-income 

people. They stated that although DOE 

says the initial cost increase will be paid 

back over the life of the home from 

energy savings, most owners will not 

see this payback. (UCB, No. 1405 at p. 

1) An individual commenter stated that 

the proposed changes would very likely 

eliminate hundreds of thousands of 

buyers from the market during a time 

when housing is in short supply, and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
32744 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

that, if adopted, the new energy 

standards would dramatically increase 

the cost of manufactured homes and 

likely eliminate many of the design 

features that make manufactured homes 

livable (high ceilings, overhead HVAC 

ducts, etc.). Moreover, this commenter 

stated that the upfront cost from higher 

down payments would disqualify many 

home buyers for a mortgage, and any 

future utility cost savings would take 

decades to recoup. (Individual 

Commenter, No. 1496 at p. 1) 

IMHA stated that the proposal is 

fundamentally flawed and will 

eliminate manufactured housing as an 

affordable housing option for families 

throughout Idaho. Further, they were 

concerned that DOE’s cost analysis 

assumptions and the average tenure of 

a manufactured homeowner will result 

in a situation where the homeowner 

will never recoup the additional costs of 

these measures with energy savings. 

They stated that imposing these 

standards on manufactured homes built 

in Idaho (or elsewhere) will rob their 

industry of seeking out those 

amendments that make the energy code 

best fit the construction practices of a 

manufactured home, and that this will 

add to costs and complications that will 

certainly price homeowners out of the 

market. (IMHA, No. 1453 at p. 1) 

NRECA commented that the proposed 

standards in the SNOPR could put home 

ownership out of reach for those who 

cannot afford site-built homes, thus 

denying them the potential opportunity 

to attain this milestone for themselves 

and their families. They stated that their 

members have explored and 

implemented many different initiatives 

to improve energy efficiency for their 

consumer-members and that they are 

doing so in a way that balances costs 

and benefits. Therefore, they urged DOE 

to reconsider the proposal in its SNOPR 

to balance affordability of manufactured 

housing with common-sense, proven 

methods at improving their energy 

efficiency. (NRECA, No. 1406 at p. 2) 

ADOH was concerned that the proposed 

changes will equate to a price point that 

is either out of reach for a potential 

purchaser of a manufactured home, or 

will eliminate or prevent a 

manufactured home from being an 

affordable housing option. ADOH 

recommended continued reliance on the 

existing standards in the National 

Manufactured Housing Construction 

and Safety Act. (ADOH, No. 1459 at p. 

1) 

Select Representatives of Congress 

were concerned that the proposed rule 

would require manufacturers to 

redesign most (if not all) of their 

existing floorplans to comply with 

standards concerning thermal systems 

and air and duct sealing. Select 

Representatives of Congress stated that 

this would result in a significant price 

increase that would delay or prevent 

some potential manufactured 

homebuyers—whose median annual 

household income is around $33,000— 

from buying a home. They urged DOE 

to analyze closely the effective cost and 

impact of any proposed energy 

efficiency standards on those who are 

pursuing affordable homeownership. 

(Select Representatives of Congress, No. 

1445 at p. 1) 

UC Law School stated that the 

purchase price for manufactured homes 

should not factor into the cost-benefit 

analysis because DOE did not deliver 

economic considerations and integrated 

efforts with other agencies to secure 

affordability to the manufactured 

homes. Instead, they suggested that only 

the social cost of carbon and GHG 

emissions should be factored into the 

cost-benefit analysis, based on the 

Interagency Working Group (IWG). (UC 

Law School, No. 1634 at p. 11, 13, 14) 

UCB stated the SNOPR should consider 

the emissions costs associated with not 

implementing stricter energy efficiency 

standards for manufactured homes over 

a 30-year lifetime, which, in the 

commenter’s view, would create a good 

comparison to show how much of a 

difference these standards would make. 

(UCB, No. 1618 at p. 17) 

NAHB urged DOE to continue to 

facilitate consumer choice by ensuring 

any new energy conservation standards 

and regulatory reform efforts do not 

favor manufactured homes over other 

types of residences, leading to consumer 

confusion and unfair competition in the 

marketplace. (NAHB, No. 1398 at p. 3) 

An individual commenter stated that a 

consumer should have the freedom to 

choose a less energy efficient, but less 

expensive, window, door, or 

construction method for the home they 

are building, and that absorbing the 

SNOPR proposed requirement 

expenditure is quite difficult. (Hoover, 

No. 1566 at p. 1) 

In light of the concerns it noted, 

MHARR stated that DOE must withdraw 

the proposed manufactured housing 

energy standards as being inappropriate 

for MH, excessively costly in violation 

of applicable law, destructive of the 

affordable MH market, not cost-justified 

and fundamentally arbitrary, capricious 

and an abuse of discretion in violation 

of the federal Administrative Procedure 

Act, federal MH law and the EISA of 

2007. (MHARR, No. 1640 at p. 9) 

MHARR commented that the average 

MH energy costs for all fuel types 

tracked by the U.S. Census Bureau are 

already lower than those for much more 

costly site-built homes, none of which 

are subject to the 2021 IECC. MHARR 

also stated that alleged climate benefits 

of the proposed standards would be 

miniscule in relation to the economic 

costs, and that newer data published in 

the 2019 AHS shows that manufactured 

homes have lower median monthly 

energy costs than site-built homes in all 

major fuel categories. MHARR also 

suggested that DOE should reject cost 

comparisons based on a ‘‘per-square 

foot’’ energy usage and should instead 

consider ‘‘whole-house’’ energy usage. 

(MHARR, No. 1388 at p. 3, 5–6); 

(MHARR, No. 1974 at pp. 5–6; 11–12) 

Multiple commenters suggested that 

the most appropriate code to utilize to 

update energy standards for 

manufactured homes is the HUD Code, 

and to instead include new energy 

efficiency standards as part the HUD 

Code. (MMHA, No. 995 at p. 4); 

(Michigan MHA, No. 1012 at p. 2); 

(WHA, No. 1025 at p. 2); (PMHA, No. 

1165 at p. 3); (Westland, No. 1263 at p. 

2); (Pleasant Valley, No. 1307 at p. 2); 

(American Homestar, No. 1337 at p. 2); 

(Oliver Technologies, No. 1350 at p. 2); 

(KMHA, No. 1368 at p. 2); (Adventure 

Homes, No. 1383 at p. 2); (NJMHA, No. 

1451 at p. 2–3); (WMA, No. 1452 at p. 

2); (IMHA/RVIC, No. 1466 at p. 2); 

(Cavco, No. 1497 at p. 2); (Skyline 

Champion, No. 1499 at p.2); 

(Mississippi MHA, No. 1588 at p. 2) ; 

(Skyline Champion, No. 1612 at p. 3); 

(Cavco, No. 1622 at p. 2); (VAMMHA, 

No. 1624 at p. 2); (Champion Home 

Builders, No. 1639 at p. 4); (IMHA, No. 

1453 at p. 2); (MHI, No. 1592 at p. 4– 

6, 25) MHI believes the most 

appropriate code to utilize to update 

energy standards for manufactured 

homes is the HUD Code. (MHI, No. 1592 

at p. 25) 

Alternatively, NASEO stated that 

failure to update the standards in a 

manner consistent with EISA will only 

increase the difficulty of meeting future 

standards and unnecessarily leaves 

manufactured home residents with 

homes built to decades-old standards 

and high energy bills. (NASEO, No. 

1565 at p. 3) Another individual 

commenter commented that although 

the rule would incur some upfront 

costs, there is long-term benefit in the 

rule related to reducing carbon 

emissions. (Anonymous, No. 593 at p. 1; 

(Anonymous, No. 781 at p. 1) Another 

individual commenter suggested that 

although the tiered system of cost 

implementation creates significantly 

more administrative responsibility, it is 

a more equitable and desirable means of 

accomplishing the aforementioned 

agency goals. They suggested that the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 32745 

20Next Step cited the following HUD program 

definitions: 50% median income = $33,761 = Very 

Low Income; 80% Median Income = $54,017 = Low 

Income; 

21 In their review, they stated that manufactured 

homes are a portfolio of housing that serves a 

median income of $38,087 for owners and $28,280 

for renters. Based on the federal low-income 

housing definitions, 60 percent median income 

(which is a multifamily tax subsidy income limit) 

amounts to $40,513 (in 2020 dollars) and 50 percent 

median income (which is the very low income 

limit) amounts to $33,761. 

22Choi, J.H., and Goodman, L. (2020, August). 22 

Million Renters and Owners of Manufactured 

Homes Are Mostly Left Out of Pandemic 

Assistance. The Urban Institute. https://

www.urban.org/urban-wire/22-million-renters-andowners-manufactured-homes-are-mostly-left-outpandemic-assistance. 

23HUD defines spending more than 30 percent of 

income on housing costs as cost-burdened. 

Spending more than 50 percent of income on 

housing costs is considered severely cost-burdened. 

proposed rule by DOE seems adequately 

supported by reasonable inquiries into 

emission reduction, energy efficiency, 

and cost allocation for thermal 

requirements of manufactured homes. 

(Gustafson, No. 778 at p. 1) NAIMA 

supported the updates recommended as 

a good faith attempt of the 2021 IECC 

while recognizing unique construction 

challenges. NAIMA also stated that a 

home’s energy efficiency and 

affordability is not an either/or 

proposition. (NAIMA, No. 1017 at p. 1) 

NYSERDA supported DOE’s two-tier 

approach to address the affordability 

concerns. (NYSERDA, No. 1620 at p. 1) 

In addition, Schulte stated that 

ENERGY STAR-certified homes 

represent a significant market share of 

home production especially in Zone 2 

States and this fact would support that 

manufactured home purchasers are 

willing to purchase more expensive and 

energy efficient homes that save them 

money in the long run. Also, Schulte 

stated that there is no evidence from 

sales figures that enhanced thermal 

standards reduced the demand of 

manufactured homes from 1990–1999. 

Finally, Schulte stated that adopting 

Tier 1 standards would substantially 

reduce the price hike for additional 

energy investments. However, it would 

also mean that utility bills would 

remain high for many manufactured 

home purchasers who tend to have 

lower incomes than the median family 

income. (Schulte, No. 1028 at p. 14, 15, 

18 & 22) 

ACEEE suggested that the impact on 

affordability should consider energy 

burden (i.e., energy cost as a percentage 

of income) and housing cost burden 

(i.e., total housing costs as a percentage 

of income). In their comment and 

analysis, they interpreted high energy 

burden to be energy bills exceeding 6 

percent of the income and high housing 

burden to be total housing costs 

exceeding 30 percent of the income. 

They stated that based on the 2019 AHS, 

for residents of manufactured homes, 

the median energy burden (i.e., the 

energy cost as a percentage of income) 

is 5.3 percent compared to 2.9 percent 

for all homes, and 44 percent of 

manufactured home residents face a 

high energy burden. They stated that 

setting stronger efficiency standards can 

improve the affordability of these homes 

by lowering their occupants’ high 

energy burdens. (ACEEE, No. 1631 at 

pp. 2–3) NRDC recommended using a 

more reasonable cost effectiveness 

metric, such as a present value analysis 

using a defensible discount rate, such as 

the 3 percent real rate that DOE employs 

in appliance efficiency analysis, over 

the observed lifetime of the home. 

(NRDC, No. 1599 at p. 5, 7) 

Next Step commented that 

manufactured homes are a critical 

component of America’s affordable 

housing stock, and the need for 

increased energy efficiency in housing 

is particularly acute for low-income 

homebuyers. (Next Step, No. 1617 at p. 

1) They commented that based on the 

median income of manufactured home 

owners and renters and the HUD 

definitions for what constitutes ‘‘lowincome,’’ 20 manufactured housing 

serves households below 60 percent 

median income for low-income owners 

and below 50 percent median income 

for very low-income renters.21 (Next 

Step, No. 1617 at p. 2) Further, they 

commented that based on a 2020 Urban 

Institute study,22 the monthly housing 

costs for manufactured home occupants 

falls within 30 percent of monthly 

income, which is defined as ‘‘costburdened’’ based on HUD’s housing cost 

burden metric.23 Accordingly, they 

supported increased energy efficiency 

standards, arguing that data suggest that 

the incremental costs for energy 

efficiency upgrades (added to other 

housing costs) keep manufactured 

housing affordable and accessible to 

low-income homeowners earning less 

than 60 percent of median income. 

(Next Step, No. 1617 at p. 1) 

Finally, Next Step also commented 

that Freddie Mac’s research analyzed 

energy efficient homes rated between 

2013 and 2017 and found the following: 

(1) From the property value analysis, 

rated homes are sold for, on average, 2.7 

percent more than comparable unrated 

homes; (2) Better-rated homes are sold 

for 3–5 percent more than lesser-rated 

homes; (3) From the loan performance 

analysis, the default risk of rated homes 

is not, on average, different from 

unrated homes (once borrower and 

underwriting characteristics are 

considered). Loans in the high debt-toincome (‘‘DTI’’) bucket (45 percent and 

above) that have ratings, however, 

appear to have a lower delinquency rate 

than unrated homes. (Next Step, No. 

1617 at p. 6) Further, Next Step noted 

Freddie Mac’s GreenCHOICE program, 

which weighs energy efficiency into its 

underwriting and covers manufactured 

housing. Id 

EISA directs DOE to establish energy 

conservation standards for 

manufactured housing. (42 U.S.C. 

17071) Further, EISA directs that costeffectiveness is determined based on the 

impact of the IECC on the purchase 

price of manufactured housing and on 

total life-cycle construction and 

operating costs. (42 U.S.C. 17071(a) and 

(b)(1)) 

In response to the affordability 

concerns raised by HUD and 

commenters on first cost impacts, and 

the general financial circumstances for 

manufactured housing owners, DOE is 

finalizing a tiered standard, based on 

the 2021 IECC, that would alleviate firstcost impacts for purchasers at the lower 

end of the manufactured home price 

range. Tier 1 would apply to singlesection manufactured homes, and 

incorporate building thermal envelope 

measures based on certain thermal 

envelope components subject to the 

2021 IECC and would increase the 

incremental purchase price increase by 

less than $750 for single-section homes. 

This lower incremental cost would 

allow those first-cost sensitive 

purchasers, assumed to be those with 

lower median income and net worth, to 

still purchase a new manufactured 

home with improved energy efficiency 

measures that will generate cost savings 

to the purchaser over time. Accordingly, 

Tier 1 limits the incremental purchase 

price such that a purchaser would, on 

average, realize a positive cash flow 

within Year 1 of the standard based on 

the down payment, incremental loan 

payment, and energy cost savings. See 

Table III.4 for results. 

Tier 2 would apply to multi-section 

manufactured homes, and incorporate 

building thermal envelope measures 

based on certain thermal envelope 

components and specifications of the 

2021 IECC, with alternate exterior wall 

insulation requirement (R–21) for 

climate zones 2 and 3 (see section 

III.F.2.b which includes further 

discussion on wall insulation). 

Otherwise, DOE notes that the adopted 

Tier 2 requirements in this final rule 

will only update the window U-factor 

requirements for all climate zones 

compared to the term sheet agreed upon 

by the MH working group (window UVerDate Sep<11>2014 17:37 May 27, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31MYR2.SGM 31MYR2

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
32746 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

24See Marshall, M.I. & Marsh, T.L. Consumer and 

investment demand for manufactured housing 

units. J. Hous. Econ. 16, 59–71 (2007). 

25Manufactured Housing Institute. 2021 

Manufactured Housing Facts: Industry Overview. 

26Manufactured Housing Institute. 2021 

Manufactured Housing Facts: Industry Overview. 

22Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. 

Manufactured Housing Finance: New Insights from 

the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Data (2021). 

factor of 0.35 and 0.32; to 0.32 and 0.30, 

respectively), which is the same as what 

was proposed in the August 2021 

SNOPR. The window U-factors were 

updated consistent with the 2021 IECC. 

Adopting R–21 instead of R–20+5 also 

resolves issues regarding shipping 

width that the stakeholders commented 

on, which is discussed in section 

III.F.2.b. of this document. 

The total life-cycle construction and 

operating costs of the home is calculated 

based on the total expected lifetime of 

the home, which is 30 years. Both Tier 

1 and Tier 2 standards would provide 

benefits in energy savings to the 

consumer which, over the span of the 

payback period (‘‘PBP’’), would offset 

the increase in purchase price. Under 

the tiered proposal, manufactured 

homes that would be subject to the Tier 

1 standards would, in all cases, have a 

PBP less than 10 years, with a range of 

1.4 years to 7.4 years amongst all cities 

analyzed, and a national average of 3.7 

years. This is well within the range 

suggested by MHI in which first 

homeowners often sell their 

manufactured homes. Further 

discussion on these results is provided 

in section IV.A.2. of this document. 

DOE estimates in this final rule the 

number of households no longer able to 

purchase a manufactured home from the 

pool of households planning to 

purchase a manufactured home (which 

is much smaller than the total number 

of American households). DOE 

estimates the final rule would result in 

a loss in demand and availability 

because of the increase in upfront home 

price for each tier. Therefore, DOE 

includes in the analysis a price 

elasticity of demand. Price elasticity is 

typically represented as a ratio of the 

percentage change in quantity relative to 

a percentage change in price. DOE 

considered a price elasticity of ¥0.48 

based on a study by Marshall and 

Marsh 24 and considered an additional 

price elasticity as part of a scenario 

analysis (See appendix 11A for further 

information). 

In the study published in the Journal 

of Housing Economics by Marshall and 

Marsh, the authors conclude that 

national and local programs that cause 

small price increases in manufactured 

housing units (e.g., increasing energy 

efficiency) will not necessarily deter 

thousands of low-income families from 

purchasing manufactured homes and 

that such consumers are likely to be 

willing to accept incrementally higher 

prices from improvements in energy use 

and cost efficiency. Specifically, the 

study states that these consumers are 

not nearly as price-sensitive because 

‘‘the cost of a manufactured home still 

ranges from 21 to 65 percent of the cost 

of a site built home and low- and 

moderate-income families have few lowcost choices for home ownership.’’ 22

Costs provided by a 2021 manufactured 

housing industry overview fact sheet 

developed by MHI suggests that in 2019, 

on average, the average sales price of a 

manufactured home compared to a new 

single-family site built home is about 27 

percent (without land).25

As such, DOE estimated the final rule 

would result in a loss in demand and 

availability of about 31,975 homes 

(single section and multi-section 

combined) for the tiered standard using 

a price elasticity of demand of ¥0.48 for 

the 30-year analysis period (2023–2052). 

Out of the 31,975 homes in the tiered 

standard, the majority of the reduction 

is in Tier 2 (80 percent) vs. Tier 1 (20 

percent). Within Tier 1, DOE estimates 

a 0.55 percent reduction in demand and 

availability of single-section homes for 

low-income purchasers due to Tier 1 

standards. DOE assumes that lowincome consumers generally purchase 

lower priced manufactured homes (i.e., 

many single section homes) based on 

data that shows single-section homes, 

on average, have householders with 

lower to median incomes, as opposed to 

multi-section homes (see conclusions in 

section III.B.1). Accordingly, DOE 

concludes that low-income consumers 

would not be priced out by the Tier 1 

standards adopted in this final rule. 

Finally, for those manufactured home 

purchasers that buy new homes, even 

with the incremental costs, DOE notes 

that the median purchase price of a 

manufactured home would continue to 

be significantly lower than site-built 

homes (per 2019 AHS, the median 

purchase price of manufactured homes 

is $32,000 vs. a single-detached home is 

$158,000). Costs provided by a 2021 

manufactured housing industry 

overview fact sheet developed by MHI 

suggests that in 2019, on average, the 

average sales price of a manufactured 

home compared to a new single-family 

site built home is about 27 percent 

(without land).26 Additionally, the 2021 

CFPB Report 27 states that manufactured 

homes represent an affordable housing 

option for millions of Americans 

because they cost less on average than 

site-built homes and are one of the least 

expensive forms of housing available 

without government subsidies. 

In conclusion, based on the input 

received from HUD during consultation 

and input from commenters, DOE 

believes that access to affordable 

housing and reducing energy burdens of 

the purchasers are of the utmost 

importance in the manufactured 

housing market. The tiered standard 

adopted in this final rule addresses both 

of these concerns. Both tiers within the 

tiered standard reduce energy costs and 

provide positive LCC savings for 

homeowners over the life of the average 

manufactured home (i.e., 30-years). 

Further, Tier 1 of the tiered standard 

mitigates first-cost impacts for 

purchasers at the lower end of the 

manufactured home price range, and 

would provide, on average, a positive 

cash flow within Year 1 of the standard 

based on the down payment, 

incremental loan payment, and energy 

cost savings. Accordingly, as discussed 

further, DOE has adopted the tiered 

approach in this final rule. 

2. Loan Qualification 

MHARR stated that neither the NODA 

nor the original DOE SNOPR considers, 

or accounts in any way, for the impact 

that regulatory-driven purchase price 

increases, attributable both directly and 

indirectly to the proposed rule, would 

have on the ability of lower and 

moderate-income consumers to access 

financing for, and purchase, mainstream 

manufactured homes. (MHARR, No. 

1640 at p. 4, 5) Several commenters 

stated that the proposed standards 

ignore the large number of homebuyers 

who will no longer be able to buy a MH 

because they no longer qualify for an 

FHA, Fannie Mae, or Freddie Mac 

mortgage loan due to the impact of 

increased mortgage payments on debtto-income ratios. (Westland, No. 1263 at 

p. 2); (Pleasant Valley, No. 1307 at p. 3); 

(American Homestar, No. 1337 at p. 3); 

(Oliver Technologies, No. 1350 at p. 3); 

(Adventure Homes, No. 1383 at p. 3); 

(Champion Home Builders, No. 1639 at 

p. 5); (MHI, No. 1592 at pp. 3, 11) MHI 

stated that FHA’s customary DTI 

requirement is 43 percent, and therefore 

any homebuyer at the edge of this 43 

percent DTI requirement will no longer 

qualify for an FHA loan because of the 

higher price caused by the new energy 

standards. (MHI, No. 1592 at p. 3, 11) 

MHARR stated that the higher level of 

loan rejection rates within the chattel or 

personal property loan sector will 

disproportionately impact and harm 

‘‘Hispanic white, Black and AfricanAmerican and American Indian and 

Alaska Native borrowers’’ and will have 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 32747 

28https://fhalenders.com/fha-debt-to-incomeratio/. 

29This figure includes home-equity lump sum 

mortgages, but excludes home-equity credit lines 

and reverse annuity mortgages. 

a racially-disproportionate impact. 

(MHARR, No. 1640 at p. 5) 

Separately, NASEO stated that by 

failing to establish cost-effective 

baselines of energy efficiency in the 

lowest-cost homes, DOE increases the 

likelihood that the residents of these 

homes will require federal and state 

public assistance from the 

Weatherization Assistance Program, 

Low-Income Home Energy Assistance 

Program, or other bill payment 

assistance programs in the future. 

(NASEO, No. 1565 at p. 2) 

LISC recommended the federal 

government ensure there is flexibility in 

federally insured and guaranteed home 

mortgage program regulations to permit 

an increase in debt to income ratios 

when paired with reductions in energy 

costs. In addition, they suggested that 

the federal government should 

proactively market these programs and 

other potential assistance to help with 

incremental cost increases, including 

ENERGY STAR tax credits and other 

financing vehicles that factor in future 

energy savings. (LISC, No. 1233 at p. 3) 

NRECA suggested DOE could 

incentivize dealers to showcase 

ENERGY STAR-qualified manufactured 

homes on their lots by providing rebates 

for the price difference to the dealers so 

that the price difference does not force 

the consumer to make a choice between 

affordability and home ownership. They 

commented that such action would 

improve the overall efficiency of new 

manufactured homes up front in such a 

way that would not jeopardize home 

ownership potential for consumers. 

(NRECA, No. 1406 at p. 1, 3) 

UCB stated that DOE should be 

working with HUD to come up with 

subsidies and offsets/ways to pay for 

extra insulation, and that the previous 

DOE claim that there is no authority to 

provide this is incorrect. (UCB, No. 1405 

at p. 2) They recommended that for lowincome purchasers, the DOE front the 

chattel loans in a government program 

similar to other federal agencies 

programs—HUD, the U.S. Department of 

Veteran Affairs, and the USDA’s rural 

housing service—to provide lower 

interest rates and additional consumer 

protections that could cover the cost of 

better insulation. They also stated that, 

although the tiered standards are more 

cost-effective overall for homebuyers, 

the cost of these homes should still be 

subsidized, and loan programs should 

be created by the DOE in collaboration 

with HUD. Finally, they noted that DOE 

should consider providing a renter’s tax 

credit targeted at certain MH buyers. 

(UCB, No. 1618 at p. 9–11) Schulte 

advised that in the coming years, DOE 

may want to work with EPA and other 

agencies to encourage more utilities to 

provide rebates for energy efficient 

manufactured homes, because these 

rebates can help offset part of the cost 

increases. (Schulte, No. 1028 at p. 16) 

UC Law School commented that DOE 

should subsidize the costs of lowincome participants who might be 

directly impacted by the Final Rule, 

including consideration of financing, 

tax credits, or other financial incentives 

or assistance for consumers of 

manufactured housing. (UC Law School, 

No. 1634 at pp. 5, 9, 10) UCB stated that 

DOE should consider policies that 

would reinforce anti-discrimination 

housing laws and support novel lending 

practices to involve people of color who 

may not otherwise be eligible for a 

traditional loan while making certain 

the sustainability of their loan protects 

the investment of equity. (UCB, No. 

1618 at p. 9) 

Next Step commented that the 

incremental costs for energy-efficiency 

upgrades do not price out manufactured 

home residents. They noted that 

manufactured housing is often 

considered a source of Naturally 

Occurring Affordable Housing (defined 

as unsubsidized housing that meets the 

affordability standard for households 

making 60–80 percent of area median 

income, or AMI). They commented that 

two of the most prominent affordable 

housing, new construction programs 

(the HOME Program and the LowIncome Housing Tax Credit Program), 

are used for individual and family 

household incomes below 60 percent 

AMI. In their evaluation of Tier 2 of the 

proposed standard, they used CFPB’s 

median loan data in conjunction with 

DOE’s average incremental cost increase 

and concluded that loans will remain 

affordable to those at 60 percent of 

median income (‘‘AMI’’), even when 

accounting for increased energy 

efficiency upgrades. (Next Step, No. 

1617 at pp. 5, 7–9) Finally, Next Step 

commented that the Federal Housing 

Administration (‘‘FHA’’) and other 

government-backed lenders, 

conventional lenders, and Community 

Development Financial Institutions 

(‘‘CDFIs’’) generally underwrite 

manufactured home loans to ensure 

affordability by using a housing ratio of 

29 percent of gross monthly income 

applied to housing costs, which 

includes the principal, interest, taxes, 

and insurance (‘‘PITI’’). However, The 

FHA’s Energy Efficient Mortgage 

absorbs energy savings for efficient 

homes and stretches the ratio to 31 

percent, and Freddie Mac’s GreenChoice 

Program weighs energy efficiency into 

its underwriting and includes 

manufactured housing. (Next Step, No. 

1617 at p. 6) 

The State Attorneys General stated 

that analyses performed by Next Step, a 

member of the federal advisory MHCC 

with expertise in affordable housing, 

confirm that despite potential increases 

in purchase price due to incremental 

construction costs associated with 

improved efficiency requirements, a 

manufactured home built to DOE’s 

proposed IECC-based standards would 

remain affordable to even the most price 

sensitive consumers due to the 

availability of federal and state tax 

incentives, and loan and down-payment 

assistance programs to assist low 

income home buyers. (State Attorneys 

General, No. 1625 at p. 5) 

The 2021 CFPB report provides some 

data on borrower characteristics for 

manufactured homes. As suggested by 

the commenters, DOE confirmed that 

the standard FHA guidelines allow for 

a DTI up to 43 percent on the back end, 

but allow for higher ratios based on 

compensating factors like residual 

income, cash reserves, good credit score, 

etc.28 The back-end DTI ratio refers to 

the ratio of the applicant’s total monthly 

debt to the total monthly income. Table 

7 of the 2021 CFPB summarizes that the 

median debt-to-income DTI ratio for 

chattel loans is 35.7 percent, and for 

mortgage loans is 38.9 percent. DOE 

notes the DTI data presented are not 

separated for new manufactured homes, 

so DOE presumes the ratio is for all 

manufactured homes. Further, Table 3 

of the 2021 CFPB shows that chattel 

loans, despite being potentially eligible 

for FHA loans, are seldom FHA for 

manufactured housing; 0.7 percent of 

chattel loans are FHA loans and 39.4 

percent of mortgage loans are FHA 

loans. The 2019 AHS also estimates that 

only 16 percent of all MH homeowners 

with at least one regular mortgage 29

report having FHA insurance. Therefore, 

DOE concludes that FHA loans may not 

be as prevalent for consumers for 

manufactured homes because of the low 

percentage of borrowers presented in 

both the 2021 CFPB and the 2019 AHS, 

and therefore amended energy 

conservation standards may not have as 

much of an impact as commenters are 

suggesting. 

As discussed, Tier 1 in the final rule 

responds to concerns on first-cost 

impacts for low-income consumers. As 

presented in Table I.1, the national 

average incremental housing purchase 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
32748 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

price for Tier 1 single-section homes is 

$660. As such, the Tier 1 standard 

would slightly increase the monthly 

debt portion of the DTI ratio; assuming 

chattel rate at 9 percent with 23-year 

loan term and a down-payment of 10 

percent (see chapter 8 of the final rule 

TSD for further discussion on these 

assumptions), this would increase 

monthly payments by approximately $6. 

Table 7 of the 2021 CFPB suggests a 

median income of $52,000 for chattel 

loans, which can be used to calculate 

the original median monthly debt of 

$1,547 (35.7 DTI * 52,000/12). All else 

equal, with the increase in monthly 

payments of approximately $6 for 

single-section homes resulting from this 

final rule, DTI can be recalculated as 

35.8 DTI, which increases the DTI by 0.1 

and is still under the standard 43 DTI 

limit for the small portion of consumers 

for manufactured homes that use FHA 

loans (although as noted previously, this 

ratio can be higher based on certain 

compensating factors). Considering 

average household income of singlesection homeowners (approximately 

$40,000 based on the 2019 AHS), the 

incremental monthly payments of 

approximately $6 would increase the 

DTI to 35.9, which is 0.2 above the 

median DTI ratio for chattel loans 

presented in the 2021 CFPB and well 

under the 43 DTI limit. Further, DTI 

does not take into account any 

reduction in energy costs from the 

standards established in this final rule. 

Finally, DOE only considered the effect 

of DTI on the Tier 1 standard because 

commenters were focused on how the 

energy conservation standards could 

affect DTI on low-income consumers 

who have higher DTIs and affordability 

concerns. Accordingly, DOE concludes 

that the final rule will not have the 

impact on loan qualification that the 

commenters suggest, and to the extent 

there are such impacts, Tier 1 of the 

final rule helps mitigate them because of 

the lower first-costs. 

Finally, as mentioned by Next Step, 

Freddie Mac has a GreenChoice 

Mortgage® program which facilitates the 

financing of energy efficient home 

improvements and energy efficient 

homes, including manufactured homes. 

This program is specifically also meant 

for borrowers who want to qualify for 

greater purchasing power despite their 

higher DTI and housing expense-toincome for manually underwritten 

loans. With respect to commenters’ 

suggestions that DOE provide forms of 

financial assistance or other aid to assist 

manufactured home purchasers, EISA 

does not authorize DOE to provide such 

assistance in establishing the standards 

for manufactured housing. However, 

DOE will work with other Federal 

agencies within its statutory authorities 

to assist homeowners, including 

manufactured homeowners, in 

achieving energy burden reductions in 

an affordable and equitable manner. 

3. IECC 

Multiple commenters stated that that 

the IECC does not take into 

consideration all the construction 

aspects unique to manufactured 

housing, and its application to 

manufactured housing would require 

the industry to comply with a building 

code that was developed for commercial 

and site-built residential buildings. 

(MMHA, No. 995 at p. 3); (Michigan 

MHA, No. 1012 at p. 2); (WHA, No. 

1025 at p. 2); (PMHA, No. 1165 at p. 3); 

(Westland, No. 1263 at p. 2); (Pleasant 

Valley, No. 1307 at p. 2); (American 

Homestar, No. 1337 at p. 2); (Oliver 

Technologies, No. 1350 at p. 2); (KMHA, 

No. 1368 at p. 2); (Adventure Homes, 

No. 1383 at p. 2); (NJMHA, No. 1451 at 

p. 2); (WMA, No. 1452 at p. 2); (IMHA/ 

RVIC, No. 1466 at p. 2); (Cavco, No. 

1497 at p. 2); (Skyline Champion, No. 

1499 at p. 2); (Mississippi MHA, No. 

1588 at p. 3); (Mississippi MHA, No. 

1588 at p. 4); (Skyline Champion, No. 

1627 at p. 2); (Campaign Form Letter, 

Multiple submissions at p. 1–2) NRECA 

commented that they are concerned that 

the 2021 IECC standard and the other 

features of the SNOPR could ultimately 

price many consumers out of the market 

and urged DOE to consider alternatives. 

(NRECA, No. 1406 at p. 3) Accordingly, 

NRECA questioned the use of the 2021 

IECC standard for manufactured 

housing in the SNOPR, while most 

states are still following the 2009 IECC 

standard for site-built homes. They 

suggested that DOE look to other 

iterations of the IECC standard which 

could better balance efficiency and 

affordability, while still including an 

efficient building envelope as part of the 

standard. (NRECA, No. 1406 at p. 4) 

Clayton Homes stated that they 

believe that requiring the industry to 

comply with the IECC is not an 

appropriate solution. (Clayton Homes, 

No. 1589 at p. 16) The MHCC stated that 

they believe the energy efficiency 

requirements from the 2021 IECC, as 

currently proposed, are not the 

appropriate resource to be used in 

updating manufactured housing energy 

requirements, as the 2021 IECC was not 

developed or intended for these homes. 

(MHCC, No. 1600 at p. 6) TMHA stated 

the IECC was never intended to apply to 

HUD-Code manufactured homes and as 

proven in Texas it poses significant 

issues to the factory-built home 

manufacturing process at affordable 

price points. TMHA stated that they 

believe that DOE, in concert with HUD 

and the MHCC, should reach an 

agreement on which elements from the 

Code deliver the most energy 

conservation gains while minimizing 

the increase in construction cost to 

protect low-income consumers and the 

supply of affordable housing. (TMHA, 

No. 1628 at p. 3) MHARR commented 

that manufactured homes have never 

previously been subject to any version 

of the IECC. Thus, for manufactured 

homes, the increase in costs entailed in 

implementing the 2021 IECC would not 

be an ‘‘incremental’’ or marginal 

increase over and above the cost of the 

2018 IECC, but the total, cumulative 

costs of implementing all elements of 

the IECC incorporated within its 2021 

iteration, dating back to the very first 

version of that code. (MHARR, No. 1640 

at p. 8) 

Alternatively, Earthjustice and 

Prosperity Now stated that DOE must 

adopt standards based on the most 

recent version of the IECC, except as 

expressly permitted by EISA. They 

stated that the language of EISA makes 

clear that DOE must analyze the IECC’s 

cost effectiveness on a provision-byprovision basis. (Earthjustice and 

Prosperity Now, No. 1637 at p. 1, 2) 

Further, ASHRAE stated that the most 

recent edition of their standard ANSI/ 

AHSRAE/IEC 90.2–2018 includes 

manufactured housing within scope and 

because Standard 90.2 is an industrybased standard, it allows manufacturers 

credit for energy savings from a wider 

variety of measures than are used in 

other model codes such as the IECC 

prescriptive standards, including the 

use of higher efficiency heating and 

cooling equipment, and also solar 

panels. Accordingly, they recommended 

that DOE evaluate whether ASHRAE 

90.2–2018 would be more cost-effective 

than the proposed standard, and for 

DOE to consider Standard 90.2 

alongside or in place of the 2021 IECC. 

(ASHRAE, No. 1373 at p. 2) NRDC also 

recommended the use of ASHRAE 90.2– 

2018 as a starting point to set the 

standards at a higher level. NRDC stated 

that the one known method of reducing 

default risk is to increase energy 

efficiency and require disclosable 

energy ratings/quality assurance. NRDC 

stated that ASHRAE 90.2 accomplishes 

both goals, and urged DOE to evaluate 

this standard as well as the IECC 2021 

code as the basis for its standards for 

manufactured housing, since ASHRAE 

90.2 requirements have been 

demonstrated to be cost-effective. 

(NRDC, No. 1599 at p. 5–7) 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 32749 

As described in section II.A, EISA 

mandates that the manufactured 

housing energy conservation standards 

be based upon the most recent IECC, 

except in cases in which the Secretary 

finds that the IECC is not cost-effective, 

or 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 lifecycle construction and operating costs. 

(42 U.S.C. 17071(b)(1)) As noted 

previously and discussed more below in 

section IV, DOE has found today’s final 

rule, which is based on the 2021 IECC, 

to be cost-effective. Accordingly, DOE 

evaluated the requirements of the IECC 

along with the other considerations 

enumerated by EISA in establishing 

these standards. In DOE’s view, the 

directive that these standards ‘‘shall be 

based on’’ the most recent version of the 

IECC indicates Congress’ intent that 

DOE exercise discretion in establishing 

these standards and does not require 

these standards for manufactured homes 

to be an identical or verbatim equivalent 

of the IECC, especially in light of the 

other considerations DOE must make 

under the statute (i.e., the design and 

construction techniques of 

manufactured homes, cost-effectiveness, 

etc.). 

Additionally, DOE disagrees with 

Earthjustice and Prosperity Now’s 

comment that DOE must analyze the 

cost-effectiveness of the IECC on a 

provision-by-provision basis. Nothing in 

section 413 of EISA suggests that 

Congress intended for DOE to conduct 

a provision-by-provision costeffectiveness analysis of the IECC. If 

Congress wanted DOE to take such a 

granular approach, it would have 

specified such a requirement. Moreover, 

while DOE disagrees with the 

commenters’ assertion, DOE nonetheless 

has engaged in an analysis to determine 

which IECC provisions are 

appropriately applied to manufactured 

housing and which impact first-cost and 

affordability considerations, consistent 

with the considerations enumerated in 

EISA. But, unlike the analysis 

commenters suggest, DOE’s evaluations 

have been in the context of the whole 

home, rather than considering 

individual provisions in isolation, 

which is more consistent with the 

approach for which manufactured 

housing has met current HUD energy 

conservation requirements via a Uo for 

the entire home. Considerations 

regarding the design and construction of 

manufactured homes were a main focus 

of the MH working group while 

developing the recommendations that 

DOE has considered in this rulemaking. 

For example, section R402.2.4 of the 

2015 IECC (which was considered by 

the MH working group) and the 2021 

IECC (which is the latest version of the 

IECC) include a specification for vertical 

doors that provide access from 

conditioned to unconditioned spaces to 

meet certain fenestration insulation 

requirements. However, internal doors 

that separate conditioned and 

unconditioned space rarely are relevant 

to manufactured homes. Therefore, the 

MH working group recommended that 

this provision be removed from the 

energy conservation standards as it was 

deemed not relevant to manufactured 

housing design and construction. 

Further, DOE did not incorporate 

requirements for uniform thickness or a 

uniform density for the exterior ceiling 

insulation given that the space between 

the roof and exterior ceiling is limited 

in a manufactured home as compared to 

a site-built home, particularly at the 

eaves, and as such uniformity of 

thickness may not be possible at the 

insulation levels established in this final 

rule. Because the IECC is specific to sitebuilt structures, the approach finalized 

in this document would establish 

requirements using modified versions of 

those related IECC provisions that can 

be adapted for manufactured homes. 

With respect to ASHRAE Standard 

90.2–2018, DOE notes that, while 

commenters provided some information 

regarding the cost-effectiveness of 

Standard 90.1–2018 to site-built homes, 

they did not provide information 

regarding the cost-effectiveness of 90.2– 

2018 as applied to manufactured homes. 

Moreover, the commenters did not 

provide information on how 90.2–2018 

applies to manufactured homes relative 

to the 2021 IECC-based requirements 

DOE proposed in the August 2021 

SNOPR and finalized in this rule. EISA 

does allow DOE to base its 

manufactured housing energy 

conservations standards on a code other 

than the IECC to the extent that the IECC 

is not cost-effective, or the alternate 

code is more stringent and more costeffective. At this time, DOE is declining 

to make such determinations for 

Standard 90.2–2018. Instead, DOE has 

elected to maintain the 2021 IECC as the 

basis for this final rule, consistent with 

the considerations of EISA section 413 

and the recommendations of the MH 

working group and other stakeholders. 

DOE remains open to consideration of 

Standard 90.2–2018 or other building 

energy codes that may be appropriately 

applied to manufactured housing and 

meet the increased stringency and costeffectiveness requirements of EISA 

section 413 in future rulemakings for 

these standards. 

B. Final Standards 

DOE is finalizing tiered standards that 

would prescribe cost-effective energy 

conservation requirements based on 

requirements in the 2021 IECC. The Tier 

1 standards would apply to singlesection manufactured homes. The Tier 1 

requirements incorporate IECC-based 

building thermal envelope component 

measures that result in an incremental 

purchase price increase less than $750 

for single-section homes. In other 

words, the Tier 1 requirements address 

many of the same thermal envelope 

components of a home as the IECC (after 

accounting for the design and factory 

construction considerations under EISA 

discussed previously), but with lesser 

stringencies to address the affordability 

concerns raised by HUD during 

consultation and in stakeholder 

comments. The Tier 2 standards would 

apply to multi-section manufactured 

homes. The Tier 2 standards would be 

based on the most recent version of the 

IECC with similar stringencies for 

thermal envelope components, taking 

into consideration the design and 

factory construction techniques of 

manufactured homes. Tier 2 includes 

the alternate exterior wall insulation 

requirement (R–21) for climate zones 2 

and 3, as presented in the August 2021 

SNOPR and October 2021 NODA. Tier 

2 is estimated to result in an average 

incremental price increase of $4,100– 

$4,500 for multi-section homes. Both 

Tier 1 and Tier 2 standards also include 

requirements that are applicable to 

manufactured homes related to ducts; 

HVAC; service hot water systems; 

mechanical ventilation fan efficacy; and 

heating and cooling equipment sizing. 

These requirements are also based on 

the 2021 IECC after accounting for the 

design and factory construction 

considerations under EISA, and are 

applicable to all manufactured homes 

(single-section and multi-section). 

1. Size-Based Threshold 

In this final rule, DOE is finalizing 

standards based on home size instead of 

the August 2021 SNOPR proposed 

manufacturer’s retail list price. DOE 

initially considered a retail-price 

threshold to address the affordability 

concerns expressed by HUD and other 

stakeholders. 86 FR 47744, 47760. DOE 

received a number of comments against 

using manufacturer’s retail list price, 

and alternate suggestions to use a sizebased threshold instead, as discussed in 

section III.B.3 of this document. DOE 

noted in the August 2021 SNOPR that 

it had considered a size-based threshold 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
32750 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

30 DOE also evaluated a sized-based threshold 

among the alternatives for both the January 2022 

DEIS and April 2022 FEIS. 87 FR 2430; 87 FR 

20852. 

31Manufactured Housing Survey, Public Use File 

(PUF) 2020. www.census.gov/data/datasets/2020/ 

econ/mhs/puf.html. 

32Manufactured Housing Survey, Annual Tables 

of New Manufactured Homes: 2014—2020; 

www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/econ/mhs/ 

annual-data.html. 

33Manufactured Housing Institute, Annual 

Production and Shipment Data; 

www.manufacturedhousing.org/annualproduction/. 

34 In the AHS tables, poverty status was 

determined by comparing the combined income of 

the individuals living in the household to the 

appropriate size-based poverty threshold (i.e., twoperson poverty threshold, three-person poverty 

threshold, etc.). Further details on the definition for 

poverty status is found in the AHS definitions 

handbook (www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/ 

ahs/2019/2019%20AHS%20Definitions.pdf). 

35U.S. Census Bureau. Poverty Thresholds. 

www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/ 

income-poverty/historical-poverty-thresholds.html. 

and requested comment on the use of a 

size-based threshold, or other alternate 

threshold, in place of the retail list price 

threshold. Id. at 47760–47762. DOE also 

performed a sensitivity analysis 

regarding an alternate sized-based tier 

threshold in the October 2021 NODA.30

86 FR 59042. 

The manufactured housing survey 

(‘‘MHS’’) 2020 public use file (‘‘PUF’’) 

data, provides estimates of average sales 

prices for new manufactured homes 

sold or intended for sale by geographical 

region and size of home.31 Table III.1 

summarizes the average, minimum and 

maximum sales prices based on census 

region and section. 

TABLE III.1—MHS PUF 2020 CENSUS REGION AND SALES PRICE DATA

Census region 

Single-section sales price (2020$) Dual-section sales price (2020$) 

Average Minimum Maximum Average Minimum Maximum 

Northeast ................................................. $57,916 $35,600 $95,000 $107,951 $56,000 $233,000 

Midwest ................................................... 56,983 33,200 79,000 104,987 54,000 184,000 

South ....................................................... 56,798 31,400 79,000 106,942 58,000 170,000 

West ........................................................ 61,748 34,100 117,000 118,282 64,000 236,000 

All ..................................................... 57,233 31,400 117,000 108,583 54,000 236,000 

Further, the MHS also summarizes 

average manufactured home sales price 

by state.32 Table III.2 presents the 

average sales prices in 2020 per HUD 

zone based on the MHS data discussed 

previously and manufactured home 

shipments published by Manufactured 

Housing Institute.33

TABLE III.2—MHS AVERAGE SALES PRICE DATA BY HUD ZONE

HUD zone Single-section average sales 

price (2020$) 

Dual-section average sales 

price (2020$) 

1 .......................................................................................................................... $57,124 $107,003 

2 .......................................................................................................................... 57,290 111,208 

3 .......................................................................................................................... 56,207 109,147 

As presented in Table III.1 and Table 

III.2, the average, minimum and 

maximum sales price for single-section 

homes are significantly lower than the 

same for multi-section homes. 

The 2019 AHS separately provides 

data relating household income to 

manufactured housing size. On average, 

the household income for households in 

single-section homes ($39,331) is lower 

than that of multi-section homes 

($51,358). The 2019 AHS also provides 

data relating the poverty status 34 (using 

the federal poverty level thresholds 35) 

to size of home. Table III.6 summarizes 

that a larger portion of single-section 

homes have residents at poverty levels 

less than 100 and 200 percent of the 

Federal Poverty Level compared to 

multi-section homes. 

TABLE III.3—2019 AHS POVERTY LEVEL SUMMARY DATA

Poverty level 

Number of units (thousands) Percentage of units (%) 

Single-wide Double-wide Single-wide Double-wide 

Less than 100 percent ............................................................ 1109 506 29 17 

Less than 200 percent ............................................................ 2278 1307 60 45 

Accordingly, DOE concludes that 

single-section homes, on average, have 

lower sales prices than multi-section 

homes. Further, DOE concludes that 

single-section homes, on average, have 

householders with lower to median 

incomes than multi-section homes. To 

the extent that manufactured home 

purchasers are cost-driven, in 

conjunction with the lower average 

income, consumers at the lower end of 

the manufactured home purchase price 

range generally would be more sensitive 

to increases in purchase price. Based on 

the relationship between home size and 

cost, DOE has determined that, similar 

to the retail list price-based threshold, 

the size-based threshold addresses 

affordability concerns. However, as 

noted by commenters, the size-based 

threshold would not be susceptible to 

fluctuations in pricing due to changing 

market conditions or consumer 

customization that could impact the 

applicability of standards (see the 

discussion in section III.B.3 of this 

document). The size-based threshold 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2

I I II 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 32751 

therefore provides greater certainty for 

manufacturers and consumers as to the 

applicability of standards to individual 

manufactured homes and reduces 

opportunities for gaming. Accordingly, 

DOE is finalizing a tiered standard with 

the Tier 1 standard applicable to singlesection homes and the Tier 2 standard 

applicable to multi-section homes. 

2. Tiered Standard 

DOE developed the Tier 1 standard 

with the lower incremental purchase 

price in response to concerns from HUD 

and other commenters regarding the 

incremental purchase price of a 

manufactured home built to a DOE 

standard, and the current ability of the 

first homeowner/purchaser of these 

homes to recoup the increase in 

purchase price and realize the savings 

offered by the greater energy efficiency 

of a Tier 1 manufactured home. The Tier 

1 standard includes requirements for 

thermal envelope components similar to 

those of the 2021 IECC, but at lesser 

stringencies than the 2021 IECC to lower 

the incremental purchase price in order 

to address the affordability concerns 

raised by HUD and other stakeholders. 

In determining the energy efficiency 

measure (‘‘EEM’’) combinations 

included in Tier 1, DOE ensured that 

the performance-based overall thermal 

transmittance (Uo) for these 

combinations would be more stringent 

than the current HUD requirements. 

DOE’s objective in defining the Tier 1 

incremental purchase price threshold 

was based on implementing efficiency 

improvements by which a low-income 

buyer purchasing a single-section home 

(using typical loan terms currently 

available to these homebuyers, 

primarily chattel loans with higher 

interest rates) would, on average, realize 

a positive cash flow within Year 1 of the 

standard based on the down payment, 

incremental loan payment, and energy 

cost savings. DOE believes this 

approach addresses the concerns raised 

by HUD and other stakeholders 

regarding affordability as low-income 

purchasers, whom DOE considered in 

developing Tier 1 standards, would 

begin to quickly realize the energy cost 

savings of the standards. As such, DOE 

determined that an incremental 

purchase price of less than $750 for a set 

of energy efficiency measures provided 

a beneficial financial outcome for these 

consumers given lifecycle cost savings 

and energy cost savings, while 

minimizing first cost impacts in the 

manner noted above. Specifically, for 

single-section manufactured homes, 

DOE determined the set of energy 

efficiency measures with an average 

incremental purchase price of $660 (as 

presented in Table I.1) with a 10 percent 

down payment (using a chattel loan) 

would, on average, result in a positive 

cash flow within the first year, as 

presented in Table III.4. Further 

discussion on the LCC inputs to this 

subgroup calculation are presented in 

section Chapter 9 of the TSD. 

TABLE III.4—TIER 1 LCC SUB-GROUP NATIONAL RESULTS

Single-section only; 30-year analysis period; national results Tier 1 

Incremental cost .................................................................................................................................................................................. $660 

Incremental down-payment (10%) ....................................................................................................................................................... 66 

Yearly Incremental Loan Payment ...................................................................................................................................................... 67 

First Year Incremental Payment (Down-payment + Loan) ................................................................................................................. 133 

Yearly Energy Cost Savings ................................................................................................................................................................ 177 

First Year Savings (Energy Cost Savings—Incremental Payment) .................................................................................................... 44 

The Tier 2 standard would apply the 

same thermal envelope EEMs to multisection homes, but at similar 

stringencies as the 2021 IECC, with 

consideration of cost-effectiveness and 

design and factory construction 

techniques of manufactured homes 

taken into account. (42 U.S.C. 

17071(b)(1); 42 U.S.C. 17071(b)(2)(A)) 

Tier 2 also incorporates the alternate 

exterior wall insulation requirement (R– 

21) for climate zones 2 and 3, as 

presented in the August 2021 SNOPR 

and October 2021 NODA. DOE notes 

that Tier 2 requirements adopted in this 

final rule will update only the window 

U-factor requirements for all climate 

zones compared to the term sheet agreed 

upon by the MH working group 

(window U-factor: 0.35 and 0.32; to 0.32 

and 0.30 respectively). The window Ufactors were updated consistent with the 

2021 IECC, while the other updates 

were not included because of the design 

and factory construction of a 

manufactured home or costeffectiveness considerations (see further 

discussion in section III.F.2.b of this 

document). Otherwise, the remaining 

Tier 2 EEMs are consistent with the 

recommendations from the MH working 

group, except based on the three HUD 

zones (as opposed to the four climate 

zones recommended in the Term sheet). 

Further discussion of the climate zones 

may be found in section III.F.2.a. of this 

document. 

The required building thermal 

envelope requirements for both tiers are 

presented in section III.F.2.b of this 

document. 

3. Comments on the August 2021 

SNOPR Proposal and the October 2021 

NODA 

DOE received a number of comments 

regarding whether a tiered or the 

alternative untiered approach should be 

considered. 

Multiple commenters supported 

single-tier (i.e., untiered) standards for 

energy conservation based on the 2021 

IECC standards. They stated that all 

manufactured homes should be as 

efficient as would be cost-effective, 

considering the construction costs, 

energy costs, and financing over the lifecycle of the homes. They also 

commented that homebuyers 

purchasing homes in Tier 1 should not 

be subjected to the pitfalls of lowerquality, inefficient homes, which would 

also reduce resale value. The 

commenters also noted that a two-tiered 

approach would further stratify the 

growing homeownership gap for 

underserved communities, depriving 

individuals and families from quality, 

energy-efficient housing choices. (CASA 

of Oregon, No. 925 at p. 1–2) (Verde, No. 

928 at p. 1–2), (Trellis, No. 974 at p. 1– 

2), (NOAH, No. 976 at p. 1–2), 

(PathStone, No. 1013 at p. 1–2), (Habitat 

for Humanity of LA, No. 1015 at p. 1– 

2), (WIDC, No. 1016 at p. 1–2), (RCAC, 

No. 1183 at p. 1–2), (UCD, No. 1030 at 

p. 1–2), (LISC, No. 1233, at p. 2–3); 

(CHP, No. 1384 at p. 1–2); (Blount 

County Habitat for Humanity, No. 1417 

at p. 1–2); (ReFrame Foundation, No. 

1424 at p. 1–2); (People’s Self-Help 

Housing, No. 1591 at p. 1); (Fahe, No. 

1572 at p. 1–2); (NBI, No. 1404 at p. 1– 

2); (NPCC, No. 1567 at p. 2); 

(E4TheFuture, No. 1374 at p. 1); (Next 

Step, No. 1617 at p. 10, 11); (UHI, No. 

1026 at p. 1); (E4TheFuture, No. 1976 at 

p. 1); (ICC, No. 1979 at p. 2); 

(NYSERDA, No. 1981 at p. 1); (Next 

Step, No. 1984 at p. 1, 2) UHI stated that 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
32752 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

36 Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21–cv–1074–JDC–KK 

(W.D. La.). 

lower-quality, less efficient homes will 

be less comfortable and subject 

residents to potential health and safety 

hazards from poor ventilation, poor 

insulation, and a lesser ability to 

withstand extreme weather conditions. 

(UHI, No. 1026 at p. 1) VEIC 

recommended that DOE pursue a single 

standard for all manufactured homes 

that is based on the 2021 IECC and 

incorporate all measures that are costeffective based on total lifetime costs of 

the home, including energy costs. (VEIC, 

No. 1633 at p. 3) NMHOA stated that 

while establishing a tiered system may 

somewhat address the issue of the 

higher upfront costs associated with 

purchasing a home, doing so fails to 

address the core purpose of the 

proposed rule: addressing the ongoing 

costs of ownership. (NMHOA, No. 1635 

at p. 3) UC Law School stated the 

untiered approach makes the most sense 

from a climate perspective, provided 

DOE could solve the affordability 

problem. (UC Law School, No. 1634 at 

p. 6, 7, 10) NBI commented that 

proposed Tier 2 energy conservation 

standards missed significant energy 

savings by not applying the entire scope 

of the 2021 IECC to manufactured 

homes. (NBI, No. 1404 at p. 1–2) 

ACEEE commented that the proposed 

Tier 1 standards are illegal. The 

authorizing statute (42 U.S.C. 17071) 

requires DOE to set the standards based 

on the most recent version of the IECC 

(currently the 2021 IECC) except when 

that code is not cost-effective or a more 

stringent standard would be more costeffective. It specifies that costeffectiveness is based on ‘‘the purchase 

price . . . and on total life-cycle 

construction and operating costs.’’ Thus, 

they stated that DOE must base any 

change from the 2021 IECC on costeffectiveness, including total life-cycle 

energy costs. (ACEEE, No. 1631 at p. 4) 

ACEEE also expressed concern that the 

proposed Tier 1 would not help lowincome residents, that there may be 

cheaper savings not included in the 

draft standard. (ACEEE, No. 1498 at p. 

1) ACEEE also commented that tiered 

standards will reinforce inequitable 

outcomes. Setting weaker standards for 

cheaper homes will result in inequitable 

access to the benefits of higher quality, 

more efficient construction, and will 

create a dangerous precedent by setting 

standards that are targeted according to 

consumer income level. (ACEEE, No. 

1631 at p. 3) Instead, ACEEE 

commented that untiered standards will 

ensure that all residents benefit 

equitably from the same strong, costeffective efficiency standards. They 

stated that the proposed threshold for 

Tier 2 is arbitrary and subject to gaming 

and the use of manufacturer’s retail list 

price is a notional amount that can be 

manipulated. (ACEEE, No. 1631 at p. 4– 

6) Further, ACEEE also stated that the 

untiered standards are justified based on 

legal requirements, cost-effectiveness, 

and environmental impacts without 

consideration of the economic or other 

impacts from greenhouse gas reduction, 

and thus, the recent injunction 36 on the 

use of the social cost of carbon should 

not delay this standard. (ACEEE, No. 

1988 at p. 3) Finally, ACEEE stated that 

the EIS confirms that the untiered 

standards deliver the highest 30-year 

LCC savings to residents and provides 

the greatest climate, environmental 

justice, socioeconomic, and health 

benefits. In addition, they stated the 

untiered standards deliver the largest 

reduction in ongoing energy costs, 

which is an essential part of preserving 

the affordability of manufactured 

housing and lowering high energy 

burdens for its residents. (ACEEE, No. 

1988 at p. 1) 

Vermont Law School commented that 

DOE lacked the legal authority to adopt 

the proposed less energy efficient tiered 

standards based on a manufactured 

home’s retail list price or number of 

sections because the 2021 IECC does not 

base any of its provisions on a home’s 

list price, number of sections, ‘‘first cost 

impacts on purchasers,’’ or 1–10 year 

payback periods, and DOE has not 

affirmatively found that the 2021 IECC 

standard is not cost effective. (Vermont 

Law School, No. 1638 at p. 2–4) 

Vermont Law School reiterated their 

concern that the tiered approach was 

not cost-effective, nor consistent with 

the 2021 IECC, then went on to 

acknowledge that ‘‘DOE has, however, 

explicitly and affirmatively found that 

the untiered approach, which is based 

on the IECC, is cost-effective.’’ Vermont 

Law School also commented that the 

untiered approach goes much further 

than the tiered approach in addressing 

the financial, health, and energy 

burdens faced by low-income residents, 

and will reduce the energy burden of all 

new residents of manufactured homes. 

(Vermont Law School, No. 1991 at p. 1– 

3) 

The CEC urged DOE to adopt the 

untiered approach that applies the 2021 

IECC to all manufactured housing, 

regardless of retail cost or size. They 

stated that adopting either tiered 

approach (retail cost-based or sizebased) would impede the nation’s and 

individual states’ efforts to address 

climate change in a just and equitable 

way. CEC also stated that, because DOE 

may not deviate from establishing 

standards based on the IECC for all 

manufactured housing unless it makes a 

finding that the code is not costeffective, DOE must finalize the 

untiered approach. (CEC, No. 1629 at p. 

2, 3) While CEC acknowledged that to 

make the standards meaningful, DOE 

has discretion to adopt standards based 

on the IECC rather than identical IECC 

standards, they disagreed with DOE’s 

conclusion that this discretion extends 

to the bifurcated application of IECC 

standards based on cost or configuration 

in a way that reduces energy savings, 

utility savings, or greenhouse gas 

emissions. This interpretation would 

effectively render the statutory 

requirement meaningless. (CEC, No. 

1629 at p. 3) Finally, CEC commented 

that they were concerned regarding 

equity considerations and the 

disproportionate impact the tiered 

proposals would have on low-income 

residents. (CEC, No. 1629 at p. 4) Next 

Step commented that by sacrificing 

energy-efficiency features in lower-cost 

manufactured homes, the proposed DOE 

rule will adversely impact lower-income 

communities—including immigrant 

communities and communities of color, 

and that the rulemaking should be 

considered under President Biden’s 

January 20, 2021, Executive Order on 

Advancing Racial Equity and Support 

for Underserved Communities Through 

the Federal Government. (Next Step, No. 

1617 at p. 7, 11) In April 2022, DOE 

released its Equity Action Plan (EAP) to 

implement this Executive order: https:// 

www.energy.gov/equity. As directed by 

the Executive order, the EAP lays out a 

roadmap for how DOE will incorporate 

equity considerations in procurement, 

financial assistance, and stakeholder 

engagement across DOE programs. In 

developing this rule, DOE has taken 

equity impacts into account and the 

Administration’s comprehensive 

approach to advancing equity. 

Moreover, the FEIS provides a detailed 

analysis of socioeconomic and 

environmental justice considerations. 

Earthjustice, Prosperity Now, and 

Sierra Club urged DOE to abandon the 

proposed tiered approach and to apply 

a strengthened version of the proposed 

Tier 2 standards to all new homes. They 

stated that DOE has entirely failed to 

consider the beneficial impacts of 

stronger standards on renters of new 

homes, and therefore has ignored an 

important aspect of the affordability 

problem it claims to be addressing. 

(Earthjustice and Prosperity Now, No. 

1637 at pp. 1, 5, 6, 8); (Earthjustice, 

Prosperity Now, and Sierra Club, No. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 32753 

1992 at p. 2) Further, they commented 

that (1) the Tier 1 standards are not 

based on 2021 IECC and DOE has not 

shown that standards based on the 2021 

IECC are not cost-effective; and (2) the 

tiered approach raises significant equity 

concerns. (Earthjustice and Prosperity 

Now, No. 1637 at p. 3) In addition, they 

stated by prescribing weaker energy 

efficiency standards for the lowest cost 

homes as DOE has proposed, these 

commenters assert that DOE would limit 

access to the benefits of higher quality, 

more efficient construction, particularly 

for families renting a manufactured 

home and those who own a home and 

rent a lot in a manufactured housing 

community, in which a significant share 

of lower-cost homes are placed. 

(Earthjustice and Prosperity Now, No. 

1637 at p. 6) Finally, they noted that 

there is ample evidence in the record to 

support DOE’s nationwide adoption of 

standards that are far stronger and more 

comprehensive than the requirements 

included in the proposed Tier 2 

standards, even if the economic impacts 

of avoiding greenhouse gas emissions 

are completely ignored. (Earthjustice, 

Prosperity Now, and Sierra Club, No. 

1992 at p. 9) 

RECA urged DOE to take the untiered 

approach proposed in the SNOPR 

because it is the only proposed 

alternative consistent with the relevant 

statute, and it is the most equitable longterm solution because it recognizes that 

reducing utility bills is just as important 

(and likely more important) for lowincome households as it is for higherincome households. RECA stated that, 

unless DOE has specifically found a lack 

of cost-effectiveness or a more stringent 

cost-effective measure than what is 

contained in the IECC, the 2021 IECC 

should be the standard for energy 

conservation in manufactured housing. 

(RECA, No. 1570 at pp. 1, 2, and 7) 

NASEO commented that DOE and 

HUD are proposing energy efficiency 

standards for Tier 1 homes which are or 

will soon be less efficient than the 

efficiency codes and standards in place 

in the various states, and which states 

are unable to supersede due to federal 

pre-emption. NASEO was particularly 

concerned that it has been nearly 30 

years since the last update to MH 

standards. NASEO stated that 

establishing a two-tiered standard that 

excludes the lowest cost homes from 

energy efficiency saddles those 

residents with high energy bills for the 

30–40 year average lifetime of a 

manufactured home. (NASEO, No. 1565 

at p. 2) 

NEEA strongly opposed a two-tier 

approach for four reasons: (1) Those 

who buy a Tier 1 home may have a 

lower first cost, but future buyers will 

have to bear higher life-cycle and energy 

costs; (2) the 2-tier approach based on 

retail list price will shift market pricing 

practices to keep advertised price low 

while adding higher priced dealer 

options at the point of sale; (3) park 

owners will continue to purchase less 

efficient Tier-1 homes since rent is set 

on market rates and energy bills will be 

paid by the tenants; and (4) a 2-tier 

approach introduces complexity into 

this code and sets a bad precedent for 

other product categories. NEEA 

commented that DOE must recognize 

the landlord-tenant relationship (where 

landlords are not incentivized to invest 

in energy efficiency because they are not 

paying the utility bills) and implement 

single tier, strong energy conservation 

standards for manufactured housing. 

(NEEA, No. 1601 at pp. 2, 3, 6, 8, and 

9) 

The State Attorneys General urged 

DOE to prescribe the requirements set 

forth in DOE’s untiered proposal. They 

commented that a tiered approach is 

inconsistent with the IECC. Were DOE 

to adopt a tiered approach, it would do 

so in violation of 42 U.S.C. 17071(b)(1), 

which provides that DOE’s standards for 

manufactured housing ‘‘shall be based 

on’’ the IECC. Accordingly, they stated 

that DOE should adopt standards based 

on the 2021 IECC and make them 

applicable to all manufactured homes, 

regardless of home cost or size. They 

argued that DOE’s untiered proposal is 

a significant improvement over the 

current HUD Code, but DOE should still 

adopt a more stringent set of 

requirements to fully comply with EISA. 

(State Attorneys General, No. 1625 at 

pp. 2, and 4–6) Further, they 

commented that the tiered approach 

would create a double standard that will 

perpetuate persistent poverty and 

inequality. (State Attorneys General, No. 

1625 at p. 4) UC Law School stated that 

the untiered approach is the most costeffective when the cost-benefit analysis 

factors in only the social cost of carbon 

and the emissions reductions into the 

equation. (UC Law School, No. 1634 at 

p. 11, 13, 14). 

University of Arizona and Arizona 

State strongly endorsed the application 

of minimum standards for energy 

conservation based on the 2021 IECC for 

all new manufactured homes sold (as in, 

did not endorse the tiered standards) in 

order to reduce future health and 

financial vulnerabilities among 

manufactured housing residents. They 

stated that manufactured homes also 

provide housing for high concentrations 

of heat-sensitive populations, including 

older adult, low-income and minority 

groups, and that new standards for 

manufactured housing energy-efficiency 

are long overdue and should be issued 

and implemented as soon as possible. 

(University of Arizona and Arizona 

State, No. 1379 at p. 1–2) 

MHI also supported a single-tier 

standard, albeit not with the 

requirements that DOE proposed in the 

untiered approach. MHI recommended 

less stringent component and Uo

requirements for the single-tier 

standards (which are discussed further 

in section III.F.2.b). (MHI, No. 1990 at 

p. 14–17) 

On the other hand, NAHB did not 

support the untiered standards and thus 

supports the adoption of a tiered 

approach to allow builders and 

manufacturers to have options when 

implementing building thermal 

envelope requirements. They stated that 

the ‘‘tiered’’ approach provides options 

for builders and manufacturers when 

implementing building thermal 

envelope requirements. However, they 

also stated that it is unclear if using the 

manufacturer’s retail price is an 

appropriate metric for the two tiers. 

(NAHB, No. 1398 at p. 2) An 

anonymous commenter offered its 

support for the tiered standards as a way 

to strike a balance between increased 

energy efficiency and affordable 

housing. (Anonymous, No. 1446 at p. 1, 

2) Clayton Homes commented that the 

untiered proposal is not cost-effective in 

general or for low-income consumers. 

(Clayton Homes, No. 1589 at p. 16) 

UC Law School stated that the 

untiered approach risks making 

manufactured homes unaffordable for 

low-income consumers. First, under the 

untiered standard, purchase price 

increases could represent a significant 

portion of the average consumer’s 

annual income while those customers 

are likely already living paycheck to 

paycheck. Second, under the untiered 

approach, the dramatic increase in 

purchase price will increase the amount 

of chattel or real property loan taken out 

by the buyer to obtain a manufactured 

home. Third, DOE stated in the SNOPR 

that various factors contribute to 

consumers of manufactured homes 

being more price-sensitive to changes 

that would impact the cost of a 

manufactured home. Accordingly, they 

suggested that DOE should consider this 

when evaluating the tiered and untiered 

approaches for this proposed rule, as 

only the tiered approach considers the 

financial hardship the rule will pose to 

low-income consumers. (UC Law 

School, No. 1634 at p. 7, 8) 

An individual commenter stated that 

the proposed rule is a necessary step in 

reducing U.S. energy usage and 

increasing manufactured housing 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
32754 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

efficiency, and that the ‘‘tiered’’ 

approach to regulating homes’ thermal 

envelopes would help to reduce overall 

energy consumption while also keeping 

home costs relatively unchanged. 

(Kurfman, No. 941 at p. 1) Another 

individual commenter suggested that 

although the tiered system of cost 

implementation creates significantly 

more administrative responsibility, it is 

a more equitable and desirable means of 

accomplishing the aforementioned 

agency goals. They suggested that the 

proposed rule by DOE seems adequately 

supported by reasonable inquiries into 

emission reduction, energy efficiency, 

and cost allocation for thermal 

requirements of manufactured homes. 

(Gustafson, No. 778 at p. 1) NYSERDA 

supported DOE’s two-tier approach to 

address the affordability concerns. 

(NYSERDA, No. 1620 at p. 1) 

Further, DOE also received a number 

of comments on the tiered approach, 

specifically as it relates to the proposed 

threshold (i.e., manufacturer’s retail list 

price), which are summarized in the 

following paragraphs. 

Multiple commenters suggested that 

the $55,000 low-income threshold for 

the eligibility for streamlined energy 

efficiency requirements for the tiered 

standard should be eliminated (or 

significantly increased), and that it is 

incorrect that homes above $55,000 are 

not affordable to low-income 

homebuyers. (MMHA, No. 995 at p. 4); 

(Michigan MHA, No. 1012 at p. 2); 

(WHA, No. 1025 at p. 2); (PMHA, No. 

1165 at p. 3); (Westland, No. 1263 at p. 

2); (Pleasant Valley, No. 1307 at p. 2); 

(American Homestar, No. 1337 at p. 2); 

(Oliver Technologies, No. 1350 at p. 2); 

(KMHA, No. 1368 at p. 2); (Adventure 

Homes, No. 1383 at p. 2); (NJMHA, No. 

1451 at p. 2–3); (WMA, No. 1452 at p. 

2); (IMHA/RVIC, No. 1466 at p. 2); 

(Cavco, No. 1497 at p. 2); (Skyline 

Champion, No. 1499 at p.2); 

(Mississippi MHA, No. 1588 at p. 2) ; 

(Skyline Champion, No. 1612 at p.2); 

(Cavco, No. 1622 at p. 2); (VAMMHA, 

No. 1624 at p. 2); (Champion Home 

Builders, No. 1639 at p. 4); (IMHA, No. 

1453 at p. 2); (MHI, No. 1592 at p. 4– 

6, 25) 

MHARR stated that the $55,000 

dividing line between Tier 1 and Tier 2 

standards selected by DOE is 

fundamentally arbitrary and would limit 

the applicability of the proposed Tier 1 

standards to a mere 17.3 percent of the 

total HUD Code market notwithstanding 

the fact that all manufactured housing is 

identified and protected as affordable 

housing under applicable federal law. 

MHARR also objected to any threshold 

set so low, including the updated 

$63,000 price threshold, because it 

would subject a significant majority of 

all manufactured homes and all 

manufactured homeowners to 

prohibitively costly energy standards. 

MHARR further stated that the 

inflationary and supply chain pressures 

will increase the threshold amounts by 

the time of the implementation of any 

such standard. (MHARR, No. 1640 at p. 

2–4) NBI stated that establishing a price 

threshold for manufactured homes that 

must meet lower energy efficiency 

requirements will no doubt risk gaming 

of the threshold by manufacturers and 

inadvertently shift more of the market to 

less efficient manufactured homes. (NBI, 

No. 1404 at p. 1–2) 

If DOE keeps the tiered proposal, 

multiple commenters commented that 

the $55,000 low-income price cap 

threshold for streamlined energy 

efficiency requirements should be 

eliminated or significantly increased to 

at least $110,260. (Westland, No. 1263 at 

p. 1); (Pleasant Valley, No. 1307 at p. 2); 

(American Homestar, No. 1337 at p. 2); 

(Oliver Technologies, No. 1350 at p. 2); 

(Adventure Homes, No. 1383 at p. 2); 

(NJMHA, No. 1451 at p. 3); (WMA, No. 

1452 at p. 2); (IMHA/RVIC, No. 1466 at 

p. 2); (Cavco, No. 1497 at p. 3); (Skyline 

Champion, No. 1499 at p.2); 

(Mississippi MHA, No. 1588 at p. 4); 

(MHI, No. 1592 at p. 17); (Cavco, No. 

1622 at p.3); (Champion Home Builders, 

No. 1639 at p. 4) Clayton Homes 

recommended that the $55,000 lowincome price cap threshold should be 

either eliminated or increased to at least 

$110,000 for a single section and 

$140,000 for a multi-section home to 

better reflect today’s affordable housing 

market. (Clayton Homes, No. 1589 at p. 

13, 15, 16, 18) 

MHI commented that if a tiered 

system based on price is used, the price 

point in Tier 1 must be significantly 

increased to at least $110,260, and must 

be updated annually to reflect actual 

costs, which can change dramatically. 

MHI says that as of now, the $55,000/ 

$63,000 threshold is arbitrary, and it 

excludes significant numbers of low 

income manufactured housing 

homebuyers. (MHI, No. 1592 at p. 2, 17) 

MHI stated that home price is 

determined by the retailer based on the 

home features selected by the consumer, 

and requiring approval of every 

floorplan after consumer choices are 

made (which would determine the retail 

price) would mean every house would 

have to be approved separately, adding 

astronomical costs and slowdowns to 

the process. (MHI, No. 1592 at p. 7, 22, 

23, 25) In addition, MHI and Clayton 

Homes suggested that the Tier 2 

definition should not have a threshold 

price; instead, a Tier 2 home should be 

defined as ‘‘A manufactured home that 

is not qualified as a Tier 1 home.’’ (MHI, 

No. 1592 at p. 30); (Clayton Homes, No. 

1589 at p. 21) 

MHCC stated that they do not believe 

a tiered approach based on 

manufacturer’s retail list price is 

appropriate. Using manufacturer’s retail 

list price as a basis for thresholds could 

lead to situations where, for a single 

model, multiple plan sets may need to 

be generated leading to multiple plan 

review and approvals. (MHCC, No. 1600 

at p. 3, 4) Schulte recommended that if 

DOE wishes to use the Tier 1 method, 

the price limit should be closer to the 

anticipated average sales price in 2022 

(e.g., $75,000) to cover 68 percent of the 

single wide market as stated in the 

proposed value. However, they stated 

that the manufactured home production 

costs are very likely to increase due to 

rising component, construction labor, 

financing and transportation costs, and 

therefore the price baseline could 

rapidly become obsolete. (Schulte, No. 

1028 at p. 5, 22) Further, they 

commented that the differing parts and 

components of the two tiers of homes 

will make compliance with the 

published designs and components of 

the quality assurance system even more 

challenging than it already is. (Schulte, 

No. 1028 at p. 21) 

Skyline Champion commented that 

the $55,000 low-income price cap 

threshold for streamlined energy 

efficiency requirements should be 

eliminated. Skyline Champion strongly 

disagreed with any tiered system. 

Skyline Champion stated that they 

believe a single set of requirements 

based on value and affordability that 

offers the customer a clear path to a cost 

benefit is the best solution. (Skyline 

Champion, No. 1612 at p. 3) They 

suggested for the untiered standard, 

adjusting the tier 1 values slightly 

upward to improve requirements of 

ceiling insulation for thermal zones 2 

and 3 along with floor insulation on 

thermal zone 3. (Skyline Champion, No. 

1612 at p. 3) 

TMHA stated that the price increase 

considerations that were appropriately 

made by DOE regarding the Tier 1 

standards need to be applied to all 

HUD-Code homes regardless of their 

price. TMHA stated that they do not 

believe that a price threshold should be 

used at all, and the HMDA data for lowincome manufactured home purchases 

provides evidence that HUD-Code 

homes across the price distribution 

deserve cost-effectiveness consideration 

as intended under 42 U.S.C. 17071(b)(1), 

which makes no mention of segmenting 

manufactured housing by price and 

instead only states that HUD zones be 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 32755 

used for any differentiation. If DOE 

decides to use a price threshold still, 

TMHA recommended that DOE at least 

apply the 70th percentile calculation to 

the entire set of home prices as opposed 

to limiting the data used to only singlesection homes. (TMHA, No. 1628 at p. 

1, 2) TMHA stated that the entire range 

of manufactured housing property 

values that went to these low-income 

households is a better representation of 

affordable home values and should be 

considered for the same costeffectiveness protection. (TMHA, No. 

1628 at p. 2) 

While MHI does not believe a price 

threshold is at all appropriate, MHI 

suggested that if used there absolutely 

needs to be an index to increase the 

price over time. The proposed rule 

should establish the Federal agency 

tasked with providing the annually 

adjusted threshold values. Whether it is 

HUD or the DOE, MHI suggested that a 

single adjusted value must be provided 

to ensure consistency across the 

industry. Also, MHI stated the 

application of the AEO to the 

adjustment of home price needs to be 

standardized and established in the rule 

for the purposes of enforcement. (MHI, 

No. 1592 at p. 16, 23) UCB stated that 

DOE should use the untiered standards 

if they are to choose a price-based 

alternative, but otherwise consider other 

potentially effective options for 

determining energy efficiency 

thresholds. (UCB, No. 1618 at p. 3, 10– 

12) 

Alternatively, ACC FSC commented 

that DOE should consider thresholds 

based on square footage instead of retail 

price. They stated that a square footage 

threshold is more objective than a 

manufacturer’s suggested retail price 

and should be more reliably 

implemented and enforced, and would 

still target the affordable housing 

market. They suggested that Tier 1 

should only apply to single-section 

homes. (ACC FSC, No. 1364 at p. 1) UCB 

suggested using different monetary 

standards for tiers, size-based tiers, or 

location-based tiers. (UCB, No. 1405 at 

p. 3) Clayton Homes urged DOE to 

consider other thresholds such as square 

footage (recommending 1650 sq. ft. of 

living space) or a measure that 

differentiates based on location where 

the home will be sited, rather than 

price. (Clayton Homes, No. 1589 at p. 

15) MHI stated DOE must seriously 

consider an alternative tier approach 

such as square footage or sections. (MHI, 

No. 1592 at p. 2, 17) MHCC stated that 

if DOE moves forward with a tiered 

approach, single- or multi-section 

would be the most appropriate metric. 

(MHCC, No. 1600 at p. 3, 4) ACEEE 

supported a metric that is harder to 

manipulate (such as home floor area) if 

DOE insisted on creating multiple tiers. 

ACEEE also stated that disclosure prior 

to initial sale or rental should clearly 

identify lower-tier homes and inform 

buyers and renters that they are likely 

to pay higher energy bills and may face 

other problems. (ACEEE, No. 1631 at p. 

4–6) 

As discussed previously, in response 

to feedback from stakeholders and based 

on the statutorily required consultation 

with HUD, DOE proposed the ‘‘tiered’’ 

approach in the August 2021 SNOPR to 

mitigate the potential adverse impacts of 

increased costs on manufactured 

housing affordability for low-income 

consumers that may arise from 

increasing the stringency of energy 

efficiency requirements applied to 

manufactured homes. In this final rule, 

DOE is finalizing a size-based tiered 

approach as it mitigates the potential 

adverse impacts of increased first-costs 

on manufactured housing affordability 

from increasing the stringency of energy 

efficiency requirements applied to 

manufactured homes. 

In response to comments opposing the 

tiered approach, the tiered approach is 

‘‘based on’’ the 2021 IECC, as DOE 

interprets the statute. As noted 

previously in DOE’s reading, the 

language Congress used in instructing 

DOE to set standards for these structures 

does not require the imposition of 

requirements for manufactured homes 

that are identical to those that IECC 

provides for site-built structures. 

Instead, DOE reads the language of the 

statute as readily indicating that 

Congress anticipated that DOE would 

need to use its discretion in adapting 

the IECC’s provisions for manufactured 

housing use, including whether those 

elements would be appropriate in light 

of the design and factory construction 

techniques of manufactured homes and 

to the extent the IECC is not costeffective. As noted previously, the IECC 

does not apply to manufactured homes, 

and the IECC’s provisions could not be 

transferred verbatim to manufactured 

homes because of differences in these 

structures. Moreover, Congress directed 

DOE to ‘‘establish standards for energy 

efficiency in manufactured housing’’ 

that are ‘‘based on’’ the IECC. Congress 

could have, but did not, require DOE to 

establish standards that are ‘‘equivalent 

to’’ those in the IECC, ‘‘the same as’’ 

those in the IECC, or similar such 

language that would indicate a lack of 

discretion. Therefore, it is DOE’s 

reading of the statute that Congress 

provided DOE with ample discretion to 

adapt the IECC to the unique design, 

manufacturing, transportation, and cost 

characteristics of manufactured homes 

and the associated market. 

In addition, because DOE does not 

read ‘‘based on’’ as being ‘‘identical to,’’ 

there is no reason to make a finding that 

the IECC is not cost-effective, which is 

required only when DOE is not basing 

its standards on the IECC (or, 

alternatively, utilizing more stringent 

standards than found in the IECC). Here, 

DOE is basing its standards on the IECC, 

but necessarily adapting these standards 

to the unique features of manufactured 

housing. If, in EISA, Congress did 

intend for ‘‘based on’’ to be ‘‘identical 

to’’ (contrary to DOE’s interpretation), 

then DOE would necessarily have to 

conclude that the IECC is not costeffective because it is impracticable to 

copy standards for site-built housing to 

manufactured housing. Thus, DOE still 

would adopt the standards adopted in 

this final rule because they promote the 

energy efficiency of manufactured 

housing based on the criteria set forth 

by Congress. 

The tiered approach in this final rule 

is ‘‘based on’’ the 2021 IECC. As noted 

in the August 2021 SNOPR, both tiers 

are based on the 2021 IECC in that both 

tiers have requirements for the building 

thermal envelope, duct and air sealing, 

installation of insulation, HVAC 

specifications, service hot water 

systems, mechanical ventilation fan 

efficacy, and heating and cooling 

equipment sizing provisions consistent 

with those of the 2021 IECC. 86 FR 

47757. In other words, both tiers in this 

final rule regulate the same components 

of a home as the 2021 IECC, with 

modifications made by DOE to account 

for the design, construction, 

transportation and cost-effectiveness 

considerations for manufactured homes 

required by EISA, and as agreed upon 

by the MH working group. Pursuant to 

the discretion afforded DOE by 

Congress, neither the tiered nor the 

untiered standard (i.e., Tier 2) replicates 

the 2021 IECC as it would apply to site 

built homes. Rather, both tiers adopted 

in this final rule are ‘‘based on’’ the 

2021 IECC. Even if DOE had opted 

against tiering of standards in this rule, 

the standards adopted still would not be 

identical to the 2021 IECC (as 

alternatively proposed in the SNOPR), 

because, as repeatedly noted, it is not 

possible to impose standards developed 

for site-built structures to manufactured 

homes. 

DOE also disagrees with commenters 

suggestion that the Tier 1 requirements 

are inconsistent with section 413 of 

EISA because DOE tentatively found the 

proposed untiered standard to be costeffective, or otherwise did not show that 

the untiered standard was not costVerDate Sep<11>2014 17:37 May 27, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31MYR2.SGM 31MYR2

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
32756 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

37 In the October 2021 NODA, DOE estimated that 

the untiered standard would result in a reduction 

in shipments of 70,203 homes (single and multisection combined), and 53,185 homes for the 

untiered standard using the alternative R–21 wall 

insulation in Climate Zones 2 and 3. 86 FR 59060. 

effective. First, as noted previously, the 

tiered standard is based on the 2021 

IECC and is cost-effective, and is 

therefore consistent with the statute. 

Second, the only differences between 

the tiered standard and the untiered 

standard are the lesser stringencies of 

the building thermal envelope 

components for Tier 1 homes that DOE 

incorporated in order to address the 

first-cost and affordability concerns 

raised by HUD in the EISA-required 

consultation, as well as other 

stakeholders throughout the rulemaking 

process. (See section III.C of this 

document for more discussion on DOE’s 

consultation process with HUD) As the 

primary regulator of manufactured 

homes for nearly 50 years, HUD has 

significant expertise in the unique 

design, construction, transportation and 

cost characteristics of manufactured 

homes. In requiring consultation under 

EISA, Congress intended for DOE to 

benefit from this expertise. To ignore 

the advice and concerns voiced by HUD 

would render the statutory consultation 

requirement meaningless. 

Moreover, as noted previously, DOE 

estimates a 0.55 percent reduction 

(essentially no reduction) in demand 

and availability of single-section homes 

for low-income purchasers due to Tier 

1 standards. Given that low-income 

consumers generally purchase lower 

priced manufactured homes (i.e., many 

single section homes), DOE concludes 

that low-income consumers would not 

be priced out by the Tier 1 standards 

adopted in this final rule. In contrast, as 

noted in the October 2021 NODA, DOE 

estimated a 2.8 percent reduction in 

shipments due to the untiered standard 

(2.1 percent reduction for the untiered 

standard using the R–21 wall insulation 

in Climate Zones 2 and 3).37 See 86 FR 

59060. DOE believes the tiered standard 

adopted in this final rule better 

addresses the affordability concerns 

raised by HUD during consultation, and 

other stakeholder comments, because it 

will ensure continued availability for 

the homes most often purchased by lowincome purchasers (single-section 

homes) with little change to the current 

market, while providing energy cost 

savings that provide positive cash flow 

within 1 year of purchase. Accordingly, 

DOE incorporated the tiered structure 

into its rule in order to ensure that 

HUD’s first-cost and affordability 

concerns were addressed. 

With respect to comments regarding 

equity concerns related to the tiered 

approach, DOE understands and 

acknowledges that, under the tiered 

approach, purchasers of some singlesection homes (which are more likely to 

be low-income individuals) will not 

obtain the same long-term energy 

savings benefits as purchasers of multisection homes. However, the tiered 

standards adopted in today’s final rule, 

in addition to increasing energy 

efficiency relative to the current HUD 

code, will help mitigate first-cost 

impacts to prospective manufactured 

home purchasers. With respect to 

comments that the standard—tiered or 

untiered—should not be based on the 

IECC, as described previously, EISA 

requires DOE to base the standards on 

the latest version of the IECC, which in 

this case is the 2021 IECC, unless the 

standards based on the IECC would not 

be cost-effective. 42 U.S.C. 17071(b)(1). 

As discussed previously, the tiered 

standards are based on the 2021 IECC, 

and DOE has found them cost-effective 

consistent with the other considerations 

contained in EISA. Thus, DOE is 

finalizing a tiered standard based on the 

2021 IECC. 

With respect to comments regarding 

the threshold for the tiered standard, 

based on further review and 

consideration of the comments received, 

DOE is not establishing the tier 

threshold based on the proposed 

manufacturer’s retail list price, and is 

instead finalizing tiers based threshold 

on manufactured home size (singlesection and multi-section). DOE agrees 

with commenters that a price-based 

threshold may be difficult to implement. 

DOE notes that applicability of the sizebased threshold, as compared to a retaillist-price based threshold, would be 

impacted less by variations within a 

specific model that may change the 

retail list price. Further, DOE notes that 

a manufacturer is able to determine the 

size of the home they are manufacturing 

prior to distribution in commerce for 

sale or installation in the field. As such, 

basing the tiers on size would provide 

greater certainty as to the applicability 

of standards for specific manufactured 

home models, reducing the potential for 

‘‘gaming,’’ as well as reduce the 

complexity of any potential enforcement 

of the standards. 

In addition, as discussed in III.B.1 of 

this document, DOE understands that 

affordability is directly tied with 

manufactured home size, in that singlesection homes are consistently less 

expensive than multi-section homes. To 

the extent that manufactured home 

purchasers are cost-driven, in 

conjunction with the lower median 

income and net worth of these 

purchasers, these purchasers would 

tend to buy less expensive homes, and 

generally would also be more sensitive 

to increases in purchase price. 

Accordingly, given the relationship 

between home size and cost, basing the 

standards on the home size still 

responds to first-cost impact concerns, 

while allowing for a less burdensome 

and more objective mechanism for 

manufacturers to comply with standards 

and achieving significant energy savings 

relative to the HUD code. Therefore, 

DOE is finalizing a size-based tiered 

standard in this final rule. 

C. Rulemaking Process 

As part of developing energy 

conservation standards for 

manufactured housing, DOE has 

undertaken a multi-stage process 

providing numerous opportunities for 

public comment and engagement, as 

discussed in further detail in section 

II.B.3 of this document. For this 

rulemaking, EISA requires DOE to 

‘‘consult with the Secretary of HUD, 

who may seek further counsel from the 

Manufactured Housing Consensus 

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

Pursuant to the statutory requirement, 

DOE has consulted with HUD 

throughout the development of these 

standards, as discussed in section II.B.3. 

of this document, DOE met with HUD 

multiple times during the preliminary 

stages of the proposed rule, as well as 

throughout the rest of the rulemaking 

process, and consulted HUD in the 

development of the August 2021 

SNOPR, the October 2021 NODA and 

this final rule. As EISA expressly states 

that the Secretary of HUD may engage 

with the MHCC with regard to this 

rulemaking, DOE has attended three 

MHCC meetings, most recently in June 

of 2021, to gather further information 

and input on the rule. This rule 

addresses comments submitted by the 

MHCC (MHCC, No. 1600), which 

mirrored comments from other 

individual stakeholders. A number of 

other stakeholders, including industry 

stakeholders, have also provided 

information, data, and opinions 

regarding the rule. 

In response to the August 2021 

SNOPR and the October 2021 NODA, 

DOE received several comments 

regarding the rulemaking process used 

by DOE in developing these energy 

conservation standards. 

MHI commented that DOE’s proposal 

failed to comply with the statutory 

requirement to consult with HUD. (MHI, 

No. 1592 at p. 10) MHI also stated that 

many of the changes conflict with 

current HUD Code requirements, and no 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 32757 

38 DOE presented to the MHCC on December 3, 

2014, August 18, 2015, and June 10, 2021. The 

minutes of these meetings can be found at 

www.hud.gov/program_offices/housing/rmra/mhs/ 

mhccom. 

direction is given as to how the two 

differing standards should be integrated, 

which will result in complicated, 

overlapping requirements. (MHI, No. 

1592 at pp. 6–7) MHARR commented 

that DOE should rescind the SNOPR 

and pursue a legitimate rulemaking 

based on the unique nature, 

construction and affordability of MH 

using the pre-existing Federal 

manufactured home construction and 

safety standards (‘‘MHCSS’’) and 

statutory HUD manufactured housing 

consensus process. (MHARR, No. 1388 

at p. 2–3) Select Representatives of 

Congress were concerned that the 

proposed rule may conflict with 

statutory obligations contained within 

the National Manufactured Home 

Construction and Safety Standards Act, 

which establishes HUD as the primary 

regulator of construction and safety 

standards for manufactured housing. To 

change energy efficiency standards for 

manufactured housing, they stated that 

DOE is required by EISA to consult with 

HUD, which in turn can seek further 

counsel from the MHCC. Select 

Representatives of Congress requested 

that DOE develop the proposed rule and 

a subsequent implementation strategy in 

consultation with HUD and MHCC, in 

line with statutory requirements. (Select 

Representatives of Congress, No. 1445 at 

p. 1, 2) PA–DCED stated that it would 

be more appropriate to review existing 

requirements within the MHCSS and to 

modify those standards through 

submissions to the MHCC for possible 

revisions rather than a separate agency 

implementing a totally new standard(s). 

(PA–DCED, No. 1485 at p. 2) Clayton 

Homes also recommend that DOE work 

with HUD and MHCC to evaluate the 

energy standard improvements that will 

add the most value in energy savings 

and account for the cost impact to 

consumers. (Clayton Homes, No. 1589 at 

p. 4) 

As stated earlier, DOE is conducting 

this rulemaking pursuant to the 

statutory provisions in EISA that direct 

DOE to establish energy conservation 

standards for manufactured housing. 

This statutory directive is separate from 

the 1974 National Manufacturing 

Housing Construction and Safety 

Standards Act that governs HUD’s 

authority in promulgating regulations 

for manufactured housing. Additionally, 

DOE demonstrates in section III.F of this 

document how the standards do not 

conflict with those established by HUD. 

Furthermore, this discussion and related 

supporting analyses together present the 

analytical approach used by DOE in 

evaluating the relevant information and 

on which DOE based its determinations 

regarding the proposed requirements in 

accordance with the directives in EISA, 

the Administrative Procedure Act and 

the Negotiated Rulemaking Act. 

Accordingly, as discussed previously, in 

preparation for the prior negotiated 

rulemaking that produced the June 2016 

NOPR, DOE set up a negotiated 

rulemaking process in accordance with 

the Federal Advisory Committee Act 

and the Negotiated Rulemaking Act, 

which included a broad and balanced 

array of stakeholder interests and 

expertise, and included a representative 

from MHARR. 79 FR 41456 (July 16, 

2014). Further, as stated previously, 

DOE has consulted both with HUD and 

engaged with the MHCC with regard to 

this rulemaking, and has incorporated 

information and considerations 

provided by HUD and the MHCC into 

this final rule.38

D. Test Procedure 

DOE published a test procedure 

NOPR for manufactured housing on 

November 9, 2016. 81 FR 78733 

(November 2016 test procedure NOPR). 

The November 2016 test procedure 

NOPR proposed applicable test methods 

to determine compliance with the 

following metrics that were included in 

a June 2016 NOPR: The R-value of 

insulation; the U-factor of windows, 

skylights, and doors; the SHGC of 

fenestration; U-factor alternatives to Rvalue requirements; the air leakage rate 

of air distribution systems; and 

mechanical ventilation fan efficacy. The 

November 2016 test procedure NOPR 

proposed test methods that would 

dictate the basis on which a 

manufactured home’s performance is 

represented and how compliance with 

the energy conservation standards 

would be determined. DOE notes that a 

number of the test methods that were 

proposed were consistent with test 

methods from the IECC, which includes 

test methods for R-value of insulation, 

U-factor and SHGC of fenestration, duct 

leakage and mechanical fan efficacy. 

The November 2016 test procedure 

NOPR provided stakeholders an 

opportunity to comment on the 

proposed test procedure for 

manufactured housing. In response to 

the August 2021 SNOPR, DOE received 

some comments on the test procedure. 

MHI stated that testing requirements 

for each of the systems being modified 

in the proposal are not included and 

must be addressed before any rule is 

published. If testing is required to be 

performed by a third-party or in cases 

where the installer is not capable of 

performing the testing, the additional 

cost of testing could be $600 or more. 

For example, MHI questioned whether 

the duct testing will require every unit 

to be tested thus requiring each 

manufacturer to hire one individual to 

test the ducts in line. Further, if each 

multi-section home will need to be 

tested on-site, they stated it will cost 

around $1,000 per unit, assuming the 

duct system passes the first time. Also, 

although MHI supports efforts to limit 

duct leakage, they believe such tests 

should be limited to testing of duct 

systems in the factory only, where such 

testing provides the best value to 

consumers. (MHI, No. 1592 at pp. 20, 

22, and 28) Clayton Homes said DOE 

must not propose a rule without 

including the required testing 

requirements, so any analysis can 

include the true impact. (Clayton 

Homes, No. 1589 at pp. 3–5) 

ICC stated that testing and inspection 

should be conducted under the purview 

of either a state program or third-party 

entities with the requisite knowledge 

and procedures to assure the results. In 

states without state programs, thirdparty providers should be permitted to 

conduct testing and inspection. DOE 

should require third-party providers be 

accredited to ISO/IEC 17020, which 

ensures the competence of inspection 

bodies, their impartiality, and the 

consistency of their inspection 

activities. (ICC, No. 1621 at p. 3) 

As discussed previously, DOE is not 

addressing a test procedure in this 

rulemaking. DOE will consider the 

comments related to test procedures, 

including an analysis of any related 

costs, in any future action on test 

procedures. 

E. Certification, Compliance, and 

Enforcement 

In the November 2016 test procedure 

NOPR and in the August 2021 SNOPR, 

DOE did not propose a system of 

certification, compliance, and 

enforcement (‘‘CCE’’), instead indicating 

those items would be addressed in a 

separate rulemaking. At this time, DOE 

is not addressing CCE issues in this 

rulemaking, but may do so in the future. 

DOE received a number of comments 

regarding CCE implementation and 

costs. 

UCB stated that compliance and 

implementation need to be included in 

the rule since it will make a large 

difference on how the standard is 

enforced, and suggested that DOE 

should work with HUD not only outside 

of the rulemaking, but also as part of the 

rulemaking. (UCB, No. 1405 at p. 1) 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
32758 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

NEEA urged DOE to move quickly to 

address compliance and enforcement of 

the standards with opportunity for 

stakeholder input. (NEEA, No. 1601 at 

p. 15) An anonymous commenter stated 

that DOE should expand the proposed 

rule to include the projected regulatory 

compliance and implementation of the 

proposed rule, because the current 

proposal does not consider additional 

regulatory costs that will occur with a 

change in the regulatory policy. 

(Anonymous, No. 1446 at p. 1, 2) 

Clayton Homes commented that the rule 

does not include energy testing or 

compliance costs, which would further 

exacerbate homeownership affordability 

challenges in the wake of the recent 

escalation of home prices, and could 

amount to $600 or more. (Clayton 

Homes, No. 1589 at p. 6) MHI stated that 

DOE’s proposal is based on improper 

calculations and methodologies, 

including not considering the costs of 

testing procedures and compliance. 

(MHI, No. 1592 at pp. 4–6, 25) MHARR 

stated that the analysis does not include 

additional purchase price impacts due 

to costs related to enforcement, testing, 

and regulatory compliance. (MHARR, 

No. 1640 at pp. 2–4) Campaign Form 

Letter commented that failure to 

implement a comprehensive compliance 

path creates competing regulations 

(HUD and DOE) would both cause 

uncertainty in quality assurance 

processes, and cause delays in 

production, which in turn would harm 

the industry and consumers who are 

eagerly seeking the affordable housing 

the manufactured homes provide. 

(Campaign Form Letter, Multiple 

submissions at p. 2) 

Regarding compliance approach, 

Schulte stated that DOE staff should 

work directly with HUD so that both 

agencies can meet their separate 

statutory responsibilities. Initially, they 

stated that DOE may wish to visit the 

primary inspection agencies, 

manufacturing plants to see the factory 

inspection process in action along with 

the inspection process for the placement 

of the homes. In Schulte’s view, doing 

this will give DOE the opportunity to 

evaluate the current HUD regulatory 

process and whether DOE wants to 

participate in the current enforcement 

system managed by HUD rather than 

instituting a separate compliance 

process under 10 CFR part 429. They 

suggested that HUD and DOE should 

publish amendments to 10 CFR part 460 

and 24 CFR part 3280 to reflect the final 

standards issued by both agencies. 

(Schulte, No. 1028 at p. 28, 32) Schulte 

also stated that the HUD Code already 

contains a number of certification 

documents which can be modified to 

accommodate many different items and 

therefore the cost of updating these 

certifications will be negligible and have 

no real impact on the life-cycle cost 

analysis. (Schulte, No. 1028 at p. 31) 

Skyline Champion stated that HUD 

already has a well-established system 

for enforcement which is working 

effectively, and Skyline Champion 

strongly encouraged the use of this 

established system with any final rule 

created. (Skyline Champion, No. 1627 at 

p. 3); (Champion Home Builders, No. 

1639 at p. 3) MHI and Clayton Homes 

stated that it is unnecessary for DOE to 

develop a new enforcement mechanism 

because the HUD Code is an alreadyestablished enforcement mechanism 

that mandates a uniform standard for 

design, construction, and installation, 

including federal requirements for 

safety, durability, and energy efficiency. 

Accordingly, they urged DOE to work 

with HUD to utilize the compliance and 

enforcement provisions already in place 

today. (Clayton Homes, No. 1589 at p. 

6, 7); (MHI, No. 1592 at p. 10) 

ICC commented that DOE should 

coordinate any compliance verification 

processes it mandates with the existing 

program in place at HUD. Overlapping 

or disjointed requirements would create 

process inefficiencies for manufacturers 

and inspection agencies, potentially 

raising costs. Finally, ICC encouraged 

DOE to consider the 2021 IECC 

pathways to achieve compliance in the 

rulemaking. Should DOE consider 

options that require verification onsite, 

post transport, they stated that DOE 

should be mindful of the scope of local 

building officials’ inspection authority 

with respect to manufactured housing. 

(ICC, No. 1621 at p. 3) NMHOA stated 

that HUD should be the lead agency in 

implementing the new rules. They 

stated that compliance should be 

addressed in the final rule to ensure 

DOE and HUD efforts and coordinated, 

and that HUD’s regulatory and 

inspections processes appear to be the 

most appropriate mechanism for 

ensuring compliance without creating a 

new, complicated system of two-party 

inspections. (NMHOA, No. 1635 at p. 4) 

Separately, NAIMA commented that 

new manufactured homes should carry 

a label that details all relevant 

information related to energy efficiency 

standard compliance, similar to the 

2021 IECC permanent certificate which 

includes insulation R-values, U-factors 

of fenestration, duct leakage testing 

results, and types and efficiencies of 

heating, cooling and water heating 

equipment. They stated that requiring 

the same certification on manufactured 

housing will promote owner/occupant 

awareness and help ensure 

manufacturer compliance with the 

standard. (NAIMA, No. 1017 at p. 1) 

ACEEE stated that DOE should ensure 

that buyers, owners, and renters have 

understandable and usable information 

on the overall efficiency or energy use 

of each home and on its efficiency 

features, and recommended that 

disclosure in the sales process and a 

permanent label could provide the 

information. (ACEEE, No. 1631 at p. 16) 

DOE notes 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), and therefore such efforts 

would result in minimal additional 

costs to manufacturers. However, DOE 

acknowledges that it has not fully 

enumerated testing and enforcement 

costs at this time. DOE continues to 

work with HUD on potential approaches 

for compliance, enforcement and 

labeling that may leverage the existing 

HUD inspection and enforcement 

process to ensure manufacturer 

compliance with the standards in a 

manner that is not overly burdensome 

or costly to manufacturers. Accordingly, 

DOE has also not included any potential 

associated costs of testing, compliance 

or enforcement at this time. DOE will 

consider the comments related to CCE, 

testing and labeling received in this 

rulemaking and will continue to consult 

with HUD in any future actions. 

F. Energy Conservation Standards 

Requirements 

This section discusses in detail the 

energy conservation standards in this 

final rule. DOE is codifying in a new 

part of the CFR under 10 CFR part 460 

subparts A, B, and C. 

Subpart A provides the scope of the 

standards, definitions of key terms, and 

other commercial standards that are 

incorporated by reference into this part. 

The subpart also would establish a 

compliance date of one year following 

the publication of the final rule. 

Subpart B would include the energy 

conservation standards requirements 

associated with the building thermal 

envelope of a manufactured home 

according to the tier and climate zone in 

which the home is located. DOE bases 

its standards on the three HUD zones. 

Manufacturers would be able to choose 

between two pathways to comply, with 

each one ensuring an appropriate level 

of thermal transmittance through the 

building thermal envelope. The first 

pathway relies on prescriptive 

requirements for components of the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 32759 

building thermal envelope. The second 

pathway relies on performance 

requirements, under which a 

manufactured home is required to 

achieve a maximum Uo in addition to 

fenestration U-factor and SHGC 

requirements. Manufactured homes 

would be required to comply with one 

of these two pathways. Subpart B would 

also establish prescriptive requirements 

for insulation and sealing the building 

thermal envelope to limit air leakage. 

Subpart C includes requirements 

related to duct leakage, HVAC 

thermostats and controls, service water 

heating, mechanical ventilation fan 

efficacy, and equipment sizing. 

1. Subpart A: General 

a. § 460.1 Scope 

Section 413 of EISA directs DOE to 

establish energy conservation standards 

for manufactured housing. (42 U.S.C. 

17071(a)(1)) In this final rule, § 460.1 

would (1) restate the statutory 

requirement and introduce the scope of 

the requirements, and (2) require 

manufactured homes that are 

manufactured on or after one year 

following publication of the final rule to 

comply with the requirements 

established, consistent with the August 

2021 SNOPR. 

In response to the August 2021 

SNOPR, multiple commenters stated 

that these standards for manufactured 

housing energy-efficiency are long 

overdue and should be issued and 

implemented as soon as possible. 

(CASA of Oregon, No. 925 at p. 1); 

(Verde, No. 928 at p. 1), (Trellis, No. 974 

at p. 1), (NOAH, No. 976 at p. 1), 

(PathStone, No. 1013 at p. 1), (Habitat 

for Humanity of LA, No. 1015 at p. 1), 

(WIDC, No. 1016 at p. 1), (RCAC, No. 

1183 at p. 1), (UCD, No. 1030 at p. 1), 

(LISC, No. 1233, at p. 3); (CHP, No. 1384 

at p. 1–2); (Blount County Habitat for 

Humanity, No. 1417 at p. 1–2); 

(ReFrame Foundation, No. 1424 at p. 2); 

(NPCC, No. 1567 at p.2); (Fahe, No. 1572 

at p. 1); (People’s Self-Help Housing, 

No. 1591 at p. 1) (Joint Commenters, No. 

1630 at p. 1). UC Law School stated that 

DOE should consider a 1-year lead time 

as sufficient for compliance with the 

DOE standards for the purposes of the 

HUD certification process. (UC Law 

School, No. 1634 at p. 15) Next Step 

stated that HUD and the manufactured 

housing industry should implement the 

law within one to two years, with 

allowance for exceptions. (NextStep, 

No. 1617 at p. 12) ACEEE commented 

that a one-year lead time before 

compliance is required should be 

sufficient. They stated that if particular 

provisions of the standards cannot be 

met in that timeframe, then DOE could 

allow temporary exceptions or waivers 

(as for appliance standards) or could set 

a later compliance date for those 

provisions. (ACEEE, No. 1631 at p. 15) 

NYSERDA encouraged DOE to move as 

swiftly as possible to finalize the 

rulemaking. (NYSERDA, No. 1620 at p. 

2); (NYSERDA, No. 1981 at p.2) Schulte 

commented that moving forward with a 

final rule in 2022 would give 

consumers, especially low- to moderateincome Americans the benefits of lower 

energy bills and increased comfort. 

(Schulte, No. 1028 at p. 10) Further, 

they commented that due to HUD’s 

performance-based code and the 

efficiencies inherent in factory 

production based on approved designs, 

manufactured home producers are 

nimble and can adjust relatively quickly 

to new standards. (Schulte, No. 1028 at 

p. 18) 

On the other hand, Clayton Homes 

stated that the proposed rule would 

impose more extreme changes than the 

industry can absorb in one code cycle, 

and recommended that the 

implementation period should be 5 

years. The ICC updates building codes 

such as the IECC in three-year cycles, 

and States normally consider adoption 

on similar three-to-five-year cycles. The 

commenter believes the best first step 

should be to improve the minimum 

standards that are currently in place that 

are workable in the present market 

environment, and then continue to 

evaluate additional improvements to the 

standards over time. (Clayton Homes, 

No. 1589 at p. 3); (Clayton Homes, No. 

1986 at p. 3–5) NAHB also supported 

allowing for a longer time than the 

proposed 1-year timeframe so that 

manufacturers have enough time to 

adjust procurement, design, and 

production practices while managing 

their limited resources. (NAHB, No. 

1398 at p. 3) NMHOA commented that 

the proposed one-year lead time to 

implementation is not sufficient given 

the changes required to the production 

process, inspections process, and more 

than likely, the other public policy 

changes that would be required to make 

the higher upfront costs work for 

consumers and suggested that a threeyear time frame seems more 

appropriate. (NMHOA, No. 1635 at p. 4) 

Champion Home Builders urged DOE to 

provide the industry with ample time of 

3–5 years to properly implement the 

adopted energy conservation standards 

once they are finalized. (Champion 

Home Builders, No. 1983 at p. 3, 4) MHI 

stated that when DOE makes changes to 

appliance standards there is generally a 

five-year compliance period. Given that 

the process for manufacturing homes is 

at least as complex as appliances, the 

same time period should apply. (MHI, 

No. 1592 at p. 24); (MHI, No. 1990 at p. 

4) MHCC commented that major 

changes to the manufacturer’s process, 

facilities, home designs, and supply 

chains would be required to comply 

with the DOE standards and a more 

realistic time frame for implementation 

would be a minimum of 5 years. 

(MHCC, No. 1600 at p. 5) TMHA 

requested that any effective date 

consider having backlogs and supplychains to have returned to normal. 

(TMHA, No. 1628 at p. 4) 

DOE notes that the industry has 

experience with the means to comply 

with the performance requirements (i.e., 

Uo), as they have had to comply with 

HUD Uo requirements previously. 

Further, many manufacturers have 

complied with ENERGY STAR Version 

2 efficiency requirements for homes 

produced on or after June 1, 2020, 

which includes both component 

specific and overall Uo requirements. 

Finally, certain manufacturers have 

been complying with the NEEM 

program (i.e., NEEM+ certification), 

which also includes component specific 

and overall Uo requirements. Therefore, 

DOE believes that many manufacturers 

already have experience complying with 

efficiency requirements similar to what 

DOE is requiring in this final rule. 

DOE notes that section 413 requires 

DOE to update the manufactured home 

standards within one year following an 

update to the IECC. (42 U.S.C. 

17071(b)(3)(B)) This one-year rule 

development time period provides DOE 

the time to evaluate industry 

compliance with the standards prior to 

DOE’s consideration of updates to the 

IECC in 2024, as required by the statute. 

The one-year rule development time 

period would also minimize the lag time 

between updates to the IECC and any 

potential updates to the DOE standards, 

ensuring that manufactured home 

purchasers are receiving energy savings 

based on the most recent model energy 

codes. 

DOE recognizes that compliance with 

the DOE energy conservation standards 

may require manufacturers to update 

designs required under the HUD Code. 

However, EISA requires DOE to base the 

energy conservation standards for 

manufactured homes on the latest 

edition of the IECC, with considerations 

made for cost-effectiveness. As 

discussed in detail in section I.A of this 

document, while manufacturers may 

incur costs to update designs to meet 

the proposed standards, DOE’s analysis 

indicates these costs are outweighed by 

the benefits gained in energy savings by 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
32760 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

manufactured home purchasers as a 

result of the standards, as discussed in 

section III.A of this document. 

b. § 460.2 Definitions 

In this final rule, DOE is finalizing all 

definitions proposed in the August 2021 

SNOPR, except DOE is modifying the 

definition for ‘‘whole-house mechanical 

ventilation system’’ based on a comment 

received. Accordingly, DOE is finalizing 

the definitions for the following terms 

proposed in the August 2021 SNOPR in 

§ 460.2: ‘‘access (to),’’ ‘‘air barrier,’’ 

‘‘automatic,’’ ‘‘building thermal 

envelope,’’ ‘‘ceiling,’’ ‘‘climate zone,’’ 

‘‘conditioned space,’’ ‘‘continuous air 

barrier,’’ ‘‘door,’’ ‘‘dropped ceiling,’’ 

‘‘dropped soffit,’’ ‘‘duct,’’ ‘‘duct 

system,’’ ‘‘eave,’’ ‘‘equipment,’’ 

‘‘exterior ceiling,’’ ‘‘exterior floor,’’ 

‘‘exterior wall,’’ ‘‘fenestration,’’ ‘‘floor,’’ 

‘‘glazed or glazing,’’ ‘‘insulation,’’ 

‘‘heated water circulation system,’’ 

‘‘2021 IECC,’’ ‘‘manufactured home,’’ 

‘‘manufacturer,’’ ‘‘manual,’’ ‘‘opaque 

door,’’ ‘‘R-value (thermal resistance),’’ 

‘‘rough opening,’’ ‘‘service hot water,’’ 

‘‘skylight,’’ ‘‘skylight well,’’ ‘‘solar heat 

gain coefficient (SHGC),’’ ‘‘state,’’ 

‘‘thermostat,’’ ‘‘U-factor (thermal 

transmittance),’’ ‘‘Uo (overall thermal 

transmittance),’’ ‘‘ventilation,’’ ‘‘vertical 

fenestration,’’ ‘‘wall,’’ ‘‘window,’’ and 

‘‘zone.’’ 

In response to comments received to 

the August 2021 SNOPR, DOE is 

updating the definition for the term 

‘‘whole-house mechanical ventilation 

system’’ as follows: means an exhaust 

system, supply system, or combination 

thereof that is designed to mechanically 

exchange indoor air with outdoor air 

when operating continuously or through 

a programmed intermittent schedule to 

satisfy the whole house ventilation 

rates. 

The following paragraphs summarize 

the comments received in response to 

the August 2021 SNOPR regarding the 

definitions and the discussion regarding 

the ‘‘whole-house mechanical 

ventilation system’’ definition update. 

MHI recommended that the definition 

of ‘‘whole-house mechanical ventilation 

system’’ must be revised to include ‘‘to 

satisfy the whole house ventilation 

rates’’ at the end of the definition. They 

stated that as proposed in the August 

2021 SNOPR, the definition would 

include all exhaust fans including bath 

fans and range hoods, systems that MHI 

stated that they do not believe should be 

included. (MHI, No. 1592 at pp. 16, 21) 

In reviewing section R202 of 2021 IECC, 

DOE notes that the definition is in line 

with the MHI recommendation, in that 

it includes ‘‘to satisfy the whole house 

ventilation rates’’ at the end of the 

definition. Further, the MH Working 

Group also recommended including the 

full definition of the term from the 2015 

IECC, which included ‘‘to satisfy the 

whole house ventilation rates’’ at the 

end of the definition. Term Sheet, No. 

107 at p. 11. DOE notes that the 

definition remained unchanged in the 

2021 IECC update. Therefore, to be 

consistent with the 2021 IECC and the 

MH Working Group recommendation, 

DOE is updating the definition to be 

finalized as follows: Means an exhaust 

system, supply system, or combination 

thereof that is designed to mechanically 

exchange indoor air with outdoor air 

when operating continuously or through 

a programmed intermittent schedule to 

satisfy the whole house ventilation 

rates. 

NEEA commented that improved 

clarity on what is considered interior 

conditioned space is needed. NEEA 

stated that the space under the floor but 

above insulation should not be 

considered conditioned space. (NEEA, 

No. 1601 at p. 15) DOE received the 

same exact comment from NEEA in 

response to the June 2016 NOPR. In 

response to this comment, DOE 

recognized that there was an error 

regarding the ‘‘conditioned space’’ 

definition proposed in the June 2016 

NOPR and instead, proposed in the 

August 2021 SNOPR that the definition 

be updated to match the 2021 IECC 

definition. DOE stated that under the 

proposed definition, the space under the 

floor but above the insulation is 

considered conditioned space, and 

because DOE is proposing the term as 

defined in the IECC, the term is 

appropriately understood by industry. 

86 FR 47744, 47767. As such, in this 

final rule, DOE is finalizing the same 

proposed definition for ‘‘conditioned 

space,’’ consistent with the August 2021 

SNOPR and the 2021 IECC. 

NEEA also recommended that 

‘‘skylight wells’’ be defined as exterior 

walls, to clearly indicate that they 

require insulation to at least exterior 

wall insulation levels. (NEEA, No. 1601 

at p. 16) Again, DOE received the same 

exact comment from NEEA in response 

to the June 2016 NOPR. In response to 

this comment, DOE agreed with NEEA’s 

suggestion to define skylight well and 

proposed the following definition: The 

exterior walls underneath a skylight that 

extend from the interior finished surface 

of the exterior ceiling to the exterior 

surface of the location to which the 

skylight is attached. DOE also proposed 

to specify that skylight wells are exterior 

walls by updating the definition of 

‘‘exterior wall’’ to include skylight 

wells. 86 FR 47744, 47767. DOE did not 

receive any other comments on this 

proposal. As such, in this final rule, 

DOE is finalizing the same proposed 

definition for ‘‘skylight well,’’ consistent 

with the August 2021 SNOPR. 

NEEA also commented that a clearer 

definition of ‘‘access’’ should be 

included. (NEEA, No. 1601 at p. 15) In 

the August 2021 SNOPR, DOE discussed 

that the 2021 IECC replaced 

‘‘accessible’’ with ‘‘access (to)’’ within 

the code. As the definition of the word 

‘‘access’’ was found in the 2021 IECC, 

DOE proposed to include a definition 

for this term. Further, to prevent 

confusion, DOE proposed to revise the 

regulatory text to incorporate the use of 

the word ‘‘access’’ instead of 

‘‘accessible,’’ similar to the updates in 

the 2021 IECC. 86 FR 47744, 47767– 

47768. DOE did not receive any other 

comments on this proposal. As such, in 

this final rule, DOE is finalizing the 

same proposed definition for ‘‘access 

(to),’’ consistent with the August 2021 

SNOPR. 

ACC FSC commented that the 

prescriptive R-value requirement in the 

proposed standards includes a 

continuous insulation component that is 

not adequately described or explained 

in the currently proposed Tier 2 

provisions for HUD Zones 2 and 3. 

Therefore, they stated that continuous 

insulation is directly and indirectly a 

part of the proposed standards and a 

definition is needed together with a 

table footnote explaining the insulation 

components such as cavity insulation 

and continuous insulation where they 

are combined. Accordingly, they 

recommended DOE include the IECC 

definition for continuous insulation: 

insulating material that is continuous 

across all structural members without 

thermal bridges other than fasteners and 

service openings. It is installed on the 

interior or exterior, or is integral to any 

opaque surface, of the building 

envelope. (ACC FSC, No. 1364 at p. 4) 

In this final rule, DOE is no longer 

including the exterior wall continuous 

insulation requirement and instead is 

finalizing an R–21 exterior wall 

insulation for Tier 2 climate zones 2 and 

3; comments and discussion related to 

this topic are provided in section 

III.E.2.b of this document. Therefore, 

because continuous insulation is no 

longer included as part of the 

requirements, a definition for the same 

is not necessary in this final rule. 

VEIC recommended that DOE adopt 

the IECC definition for ‘‘high-efficacy 

light sources’’. (VEIC, No. 1633 at p. 6) 

Because the regulatory text adopted in 

this final rule does not use the term 

‘‘high-efficacy light sources,’’ DOE is not 

defining this term. Further discussion 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 32761 

on lighting is provided in section III.F.2 

of this document. 

Finally, Clayton Homes recommended 

that DOE adopt a proposed definition 

for ‘‘Manufacturer’s retail list price.’’ 

(Clayton Homes, No. 1986 at p. 9) In 

addition, Clayton Homes recommended 

language revisions to§ 460.4(b) and (c) 

regarding the tiered system proposed in 

the August 2021 SNOPR. (Clayton 

Homes, No. 1986 at p. 10) In this final 

rule, DOE is adopting tiered energy 

conservation standards based on home 

size, and not based on manufacturer’s 

retail list price. Because the threshold 

based on manufacturer’s retail list price 

is no longer applicable, DOE is not 

including a definition for 

manufacturer’s retail list price in this 

final rule. 

c. § 460.3 Materials Incorporated by 

Reference 

In this final rule, DOE is not 

incorporating the 2021 IECC by 

reference. The 2021 IECC serves as the 

basis for the regulations proposed in 

this document, with the proposed 

requirements addressing technical 

issues specific to manufactured homes, 

relying on the HUD zones, and 

addressing issues related to health and 

safety, as well as the need to preserve 

the affordability of manufactured 

homes. 

Further, DOE is incorporating by 

reference Air Conditioning Contractors 

of America (‘‘ACCA’’) Manual J; ACCA 

Manual S; and ‘‘Overall U-Values and 

Heating/Cooling Loads—Manufactured 

Homes’’ by Conner and Taylor (the 

Battelle Method). DOE is incorporating 

by reference ACCA Manuals J and S in 

§ 460.205 of the regulatory text and 

would relate to the selection and sizing 

of heating and cooling equipment. In 

addition, PNL–8006 (‘‘Overall U-values 

and Heating/Cooling Loads– 

Manufactured Homes’’), or the Battelle 

Method, is an industry standard 

methodology for calculating the overall 

thermal transmittance (Uo) of a 

manufactured home and is also 

currently referenced in the HUD Code 

for calculation of overall thermal 

transmittance. DOE is incorporating by 

reference the Battelle Method to 

determine the same (Uo). 

DOE received a number of comments 

regarding the materials incorporated by 

reference. DOE also received technical 

comments regarding the application of 

ACCA Manuals S and J for 

manufactured housing, which are 

discussed in section III.F.3.e of this 

document. 

MHI recommended deleting the 

reference to the specific sections of the 

2021 IECC in the proposed regulatory 

text § 460.102 through § 460.204. (MHI, 

No. 1592 at pp. 17 through 21) 

Conversely, the ICC requested that in 

referencing the IECC, DOE ensures it has 

respected the Code Council’s rights as a 

copyright holder. Referencing Office of 

Management and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) 

Circular A–119, ‘‘Federal Participation 

in the Development and Use of 

Voluntary Consensus Standards and in 

Conformity Assessment Activities, 

Revised,’’ ICC commented that in order 

to meet the minimum requirements, 

DOE must ‘‘(a) expressly acknowledge 

that the IECC is a copyright protected 

document, published and owned by 

ICC; (b) explicitly state that any 

reproduction or copying of the standard 

(other than for personal, noncommercial purposes) requires express 

written permission or license from ICC; 

and (c) state that copies of the IECC are 

available for purchase from ICC at its 

website, www.iccsafe.org.’’ Accordingly, 

the ICC encouraged that DOE 

incorporate by reference the 

copywritten material from the IECC. 

(ICC, No. 1621 at p.2) 

Subject to copyright law, DOE 

acknowledges that the IECC is a 

copyright protected document, 

published and owned by the ICC, and 

that reproduction or copying of the IECC 

requires written permission or license 

from the ICC. As noted previously, 

copies of the IECC are available for 

purchase at www.iccsafe.org. They may 

also be viewed for free on ICC’s public 

access website at: https://

codes.iccsafe.org/public/collections/ICodes. As discussed previously, DOE 

and the manufactured housing working 

group evaluated the 2015 IECC, and 

DOE subsequently evaluated the 2018 

and the 2021 IECC. The MH working 

group recommendations and the June 

2016 NOPR were based on the 2015 

IECC, but as explained throughout this 

document, modifications are necessary 

to address technical issues that are 

specific to manufactured housing, as 

opposed to site-built housing, which is 

the focus of the IECC. As such, this final 

rule is (1) based directly on certain IECC 

sections, (2) based on other sections of 

the IECC with modification, and (3) 

does not include certain other sections 

as they were either not pertinent to 

manufactured housing or not needed to 

establish energy conservation standards. 

2. Subpart B: Building Thermal 

Envelope 

The requirements in subpart B relate 

to climate zones, the building thermal 

envelope, installation of insulation and 

building thermal envelope leakage for 

manufactured homes. The following 

sections provide further details, a 

discussion of comments on the August 

2021 SNOPR and October 2021 NODA 

relevant to subpart B and responses to 

any such comments. As discussed 

previously, for the tiered standards, Tier 

1 manufactured homes (i.e., singlesection homes) would be subject to 

different building thermal envelope 

requirements than all other 

manufactured homes (Tier 2 

manufactured homes; i.e., multi-section 

homes). The requirements are discussed 

in the following sections. 

a. § 460.101 Climate Zones 

Pursuant to EISA, DOE may base its 

energy conservation standards on the 

climate zones established by HUD rather 

than on the climate zones contained in 

the IECC. (42 U.S.C. 17071(b)(2)(B)) The 

potential for climatic differences to 

affect energy consumption supports an 

approach in which energy conservation 

standards account for geographic 

differences in climate. In this final rule, 

DOE aligns with the HUD zones. 

As indicated in Figure III.1, the HUD 

Code divides the United States into 

three distinct climate zones for the 

purpose of setting its building thermal 

envelope requirements, the boundaries 

of which are separated along state lines. 

By contrast, as indicated in Figure III.2, 

section R301 of the 2021 IECC divides 

the country into nine climate zones, the 

boundaries of which are separated along 

county lines. The 2021 IECC also 

provides requirements for three possible 

variants (dry, moist, and marine) within 

certain climate zones, as indicated in 

Figure III.2. The HUD Code zones were 

developed to be sensitive to the manner 

in which the manufactured housing 

industry constructs and places 

manufactured homes into the market. 

The IECC climate zones are separated 

along county lines to reflect a more 

granular overview of climate 

distinctions within the United States, 

and to facilitate state and local 

enforcement of the IECC for residential 

and commercial buildings, including 

site-built and modular construction. 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
32762 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–C 

In the August 2021 SNOPR and 

October 2021 NODA, DOE proposed 

three climate zones consistent with the 

HUD zones. DOE received several 

comments regarding climate zones. 

UCB suggested that DOE should 

consider different climate zone maps 

that are more representative of actual 

U.S. climate variability. They 

commented that the zones do not 

accurately reflect areas of similar 

weather and climate for the country. 

Accordingly, they stated that a more 

complex climate zone map that 

accounts for different areas of climate 

variability would be more sufficient in 

determining these different levels of 

efficiency standards, and therefore DOE 

should create a new climate zone map 

based on the IECC zones. (UCB, No. 

1618 at p. 3, 12–14) On the other hand, 

MHI appreciated DOE’s use of the HUD 

Code zones to match manufacturing 

practices more appropriately. (MHI, No. 

1592 at p. 17) MHCC and Clayton 

Homes also strongly supported using 

the current HUD zones for the purpose 

of this standard. (MHCC, No. 1600 at p. 

6); (Clayton Homes, No. 1589 at p. 16) 

Schulte stated that while there are 

similarities in the proposed insulation 

requirements for components for zones 

1 and 2 walls and floors, the climates of 

temperate zone states are sufficiently 

different from those of warm states to 

justify a separate thermal zone. (Schulte, 

No. 1028 at p. 12) 

As already discussed, EISA explicitly 

permits the use of HUD zones. (42 

U.S.C. 17071(b)(2)(B)) The HUD zones 

were developed with specific 

consideration of the manner in which 

the manufactured housing industry 

constructs and places manufactured 

homes into the market. The HUD zone 

boundaries are separated along state 

lines. Aligning the climate zones 

between the DOE requirements and the 

HUD Code would reduce the 

complexities and burden faced by 

manufacturers of compliance with the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER31MY22.210</GPH> ER31MY22.211</GPH>

Figure 111.1 Uo Zones in the HUD Code 

---►-------llalat~ 

Figure 111.2 Climate Zones in the 2021 IECC 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 32763 

39UA is the U-factor multiplied by area. 

40 DOE used shipments for 2020 from the annual 

production and shipment data provided by MHI. 

See Manufactured Home Shipments by Product 

Mix, Manufactured Housing Institute (2020). 

DOE standards. Additionally, it would 

reduce the potential for confusion of 

manufactured home purchasers by 

allowing them to rely on a single map 

to determine whether a manufactured 

home would be appropriate for a given 

location, as opposed to requiring them 

to consult one map under the HUD Code 

and a different map under the DOE 

requirements. As such, in this final rule, 

DOE maintains the three climate zones, 

consistent with the HUD zones. DOE 

understands that the HUD code may be 

updated in the future to adopt more 

representative HUD zones. Should HUD 

update those zones, DOE would move in 

a timely manner to consider adopting 

aligning changes in its own code in 

future rulemakings for manufactured 

housing as DOE understands the 

importance of harmonization and 

reducing complexities for 

manufacturers. 

b. § 460.102 Building Thermal Envelope 

Requirements 

For the standard, Tier 1 would 

incorporate building thermal envelope 

measures based on the 2021 IECC but 

would limit the incremental purchase 

price increase to an average of less than 

$750 for single-section homes. For Tier 

2, the building thermal envelope 

measures are based on those proposed 

in the June 2016 NOPR, updated to 

reflect the HUD zones and cost-effective 

measures based on the 2021 IECC 

requirements. Further, Tier 2 includes 

alternate exterior wall insulation 

requirement (R–21) for climate zones 2 

and 3, as presented in the August 2021 

SNOPR and October 2021 NODA. 

Consistent with the August 2021 

SNOPR, DOE is including § 460.102 in 

the regulatory text to establish 

requirements related to the building 

thermal envelope, including the 

materials within a manufactured home 

that separate the interior conditioned 

space from the exterior of the building 

or interior spaces that are not 

conditioned space. Further § 460.102(a) 

would provide manufacturers the option 

of choosing one of two pathways for 

compliance to ensure that the building 

thermal envelope would meet more 

stringent energy conservation levels. 

These two pathways are known as the 

prescriptive approach and the 

performance approach. Consistent with 

the recommendation of the MH working 

group, DOE will allow manufacturers to 

choose between these two pathways for 

compliance, which would result in costeffective energy savings for homeowners 

while providing for flexibility within 

the manufactured housing industry. 

Term Sheet, No. 107 at pp. 3–4. This 

approach is also consistent with the 

2021 IECC, which provides a climate 

zone-specific prescriptive building 

thermal envelope component pathway 

(R402.1.2) and an alternate pathway to 

compliance, which allows for a home to 

be constructed using a variety of 

materials as long as the entire building 

thermal envelope has a maximum, 

singular total UA value 39 (R402.1.5). 

Further, consistent with the August 

2021 SNOPR and the October 2021 

NODA, DOE continues to include 

prescriptive requirements that would 

establish specific component minimum 

R-value, maximum U-factor, and SHGC 

requirements, providing a 

straightforward option for construction 

planning. The prescriptive requirements 

would be under § 460.102(b), with the 

building thermal envelope requirements 

under § 460.102(b)(1). The compliance 

option based on performance 

requirements, on the other hand, would 

allow a manufactured home to be 

constructed using a variety of materials 

with varying thermal properties so long 

as the building thermal envelope 

achieved a required level of overall 

thermal performance. The performance 

requirements thus would provide 

manufacturers with greater flexibility in 

identifying and implementing costeffective approaches to building thermal 

envelope design. The Uo requirements 

would be determined by applying the 

adopted prescriptive building thermal 

envelope requirements to manufactured 

homes using typical dimensions and 

construction techniques and then 

calculating the resulting Uo. 

In developing the set of Tier 1 energy 

efficiency measures, DOE considered 

measures for building elements of 

manufactured homes based on building 

components subject to the 2021 IECC 

(i.e., exterior floor, exterior walls, 

exterior ceiling, and fenestration). DOE 

evaluated different combinations of 

energy efficiency measures and 

stringencies for exterior floor, wall, 

ceiling, and windows (fenestration). 

DOE compared the potential energy 

savings for each of the different 

combinations analyzed and determined 

the optimal set of energy efficiency 

measures that would yield an 

incremental cost increase less than 

$750. 

In developing the set of Tier 2 energy 

efficiency measures, DOE first mapped 

the June 2016 NOPR requirements 

(based on four climate zones) to HUD 

zones (based on three climate zones). 

DOE used the manufactured home 

national shipment percentages for each 

of the cities analyzed,40 and the 

corresponding HUD zone and the June 

2016 NOPR climate zone identifiers for 

each of the cities. DOE then summed the 

shipment percentages of the cities with 

the same June 2016 NOPR proposed 

climate zones within each of the HUD 

zones. According to which of the June 

2016 NOPR-proposed climate zones 

showed the maximum shipment weight 

per HUD zone, DOE incorporated those 

proposed June 2016 NOPR requirements 

for that HUD zone. 

As part of the energy efficiency 

measures, DOE considered the updates 

to the 2021 IECC. In reviewing Section 

R402.1 of the 2021 IECC, DOE 

determined the following relevant 

updates are merited when compared to 

the 2015 IECC that the MH working 

group had considered: 

• The maximum fenestration Ufactors were updated from 0.35 to 0.30 

for IECC climate zones 3 and 4 (except 

marine); and from 0.32 to 0.30 for IECC 

climate zones marine 4, 5 through 8. 

• The maximum glazed fenestration 

SHGC was updated from NR to 0.40 for 

IECC climate zones 5 and marine 4. 

• The minimum ceiling R-value was 

updated from R-38 to R-49 for IECC 

climate zones 2 and 3; and from R-49 to 

R-60 for IECC climate zones 4 through 

8. 

• The minimum wall R-value was 

updated from R-13 to R-13 or R-0+10 for 

IECC climates zones 0 through 2; from 

R-20 or R-13+5 to R-20 or R-13+5ci or 

R-0+15 for IECC climate zones 3; from 

R-20 or R-13+5 to R-20+5 or R-13+10ci 

or R-0+15 for IECC climate zones 4 and 

5; and from R-20+5 or R-13+10ci to R20+5ci or R-13+10ci or R-0+20 for IECC 

climate zones 6 through 8. 

With regards to the 2021 IECC 

updates, DOE did not incorporate the 

minimum ceiling R-value updates given 

the physical space constraints of 

manufactured homes and because EISA 

allows DOE to consider the design and 

factory construction techniques of 

manufactured homes as compared to 

site-built and modular homes. (42 

U.S.C. 17071(b)(2)). Specifically, 

manufactured homes typically have a 

lower overall height compared to sitebuilt homes, which leads to constrained 

space, and therefore there is less 

exterior ceiling insulation. DOE did 

consider all other updates consistent 

with EISA and the analysis done for the 

June 2016 NOPR and the August 2021 

SNOPR. Accordingly, DOE similarly 

mapped the 2021 IECC updates to the 

corresponding climate zone. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
32764 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

41 ‘‘Overall U-Values and Heating/Cooling 

Loads—Manufactured Homes’’ by Conner and 

Taylor. 

Therefore, for the standard, the Tier 1 

prescriptive building thermal envelope 

requirements are presented in Table III.5 

and the Tier 2 prescriptive building 

thermal envelope requirements are 

presented in Table III.6. Further 

discussion on the requirements is 

provided in the forthcoming sections. 

TABLE III.5—TIER 1 BUILDING THERMAL ENVELOPE PRESCRIPTIVE REQUIREMENTS

Climate zone 

Exterior wall 

insulation 

R-value 

Exterior 

ceiling 

insulation 

R-value 

Exterior 

floor 

insulation 

R-value 

Window 

U-factor 

Skylight 

U-factor 

Door 

U-factor 

Glazed 

fenestration 

SHGC 

1 ................................... 13 22 22 1.08 0.75 0.40 0.7 

2 ................................... 13 22 19 0.5 0.55 0.40 0.6 

3 ................................... 19 22 22 0.35 0.55 0.40 Not applicable 

TABLE III.6—TIER 2 BUILDING THERMAL ENVELOPE PRESCRIPTIVE REQUIREMENTS

Climate zone 

Exterior wall 

insulation 

R-value 

Exterior 

ceiling 

insulation 

R-value 

Exterior 

floor 

insulation 

R-value 

Window 

U-factor 

Skylight 

U-factor 

Door 

U-factor 

Glazed 

fenestration 

SHGC 

1 ................................... 13 30 13 0.32 0.75 0.40 0.33 

2 ................................... 21 30 19 0.30 0.55 0.40 0.25 

3 ................................... 21 38 30 0.30 0.55 0.40 Not applicable 

As discussed, use of the HUD zones 

instead of the IECC climate zones does 

not allow for use of the IECC 

requirements absent modification. In 

line with the building thermal envelope 

requirements and use of the HUD zones, 

DOE is finalizing the following 

proposals from the August 2021 SNOPR: 

• The requirement regarding the use 

of a combination of R-21 batt insulation 

and R-14 blanket insulation in lieu of R30 for the purpose of compliance with 

the Climate Zone 3 exterior floor 

insulation R-value requirement. (This 

would be applicable for Tier 2 only.) 

• The maximum U-factor values as 

alternatives to the minimum R-value 

requirements. DOE calculated the 

maximum U-factor values by using the 

Battelle Method that was recommended 

by the MH working group.41 DOE 

performed these calculations based on 

typical wall, ceiling, and floor 

assemblies used by the manufactured 

home industry. Table III.7 provides the 

updated maximum U-factor values for 

Tier 1 manufactured homes (which 

would be for single-section homes only). 

• Table III.8 provides the updated 

maximum U-factor values for Tier 2 

manufactured homes (which would be 

for multi-section homes only). 

TABLE III.7—U-FACTOR ALTERNATIVES TO THE TIER 1 R-VALUE REQUIREMENTS

Climate zone 

Exterior 

ceiling 

U-factor 

Exterior wall 

U-factor 

Exterior 

floor 

U-factor 

1 ................................................................................................................................................... 0.061 0.094 0.049 

2 ................................................................................................................................................... 0.061 0.094 0.056 

3 ................................................................................................................................................... 0.061 0.068 0.049 

TABLE III.8—U-FACTOR ALTERNATIVES TO THE TIER 2 R-VALUE REQUIREMENTS

Climate zone 

Exterior 

ceiling 

U-factor 

Exterior wall 

U-factor 

Exterior 

floor 

U-factor 

1 ................................................................................................................................................... 0.043 0.094 0.078 

2 ................................................................................................................................................... 0.043 0.063 0.056 

3 ................................................................................................................................................... 0.037 0.063 0.032 

• Uo values using the Battelle Method 

for single- and multi-section 

manufactured homes. Table III.9 

provides the updated Uo values for Tier 

1 manufactured homes. The Tier 1 

standards provide energy efficiency 

standards more stringent than the HUD 

thermal protection standards required in 

24 CFR 3280.506(a). Table III.10 

provides the updated Uo values for Tier 

2 manufactured homes. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 32765 

TABLE III.9—TIER 1 BUILDING THERMAL ENVELOPE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS

Climate zone Single-section Uo

1 ...................................... 0.110 

2 ...................................... 0.091 

3 ...................................... 0.074 

TABLE III.10—TIER 2 BUILDING THERMAL ENVELOPE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS

Climate zone Multi-section Uo

1 ...................................... 0.082 

2 ...................................... 0.066 

3 ...................................... 0.055 

• Area-weighted average vertical 

fenestration U-factor requirements to 

not exceed 0.48 in Climate Zone 2 or 

0.40 in Climate Zone 3. 

• Area-weighted average skylight Ufactor requirements to not exceed 0.75 

in Climate Zone 2 and Climate Zone 3. 

The following sections discuss 

comments DOE received regarding the 

building thermal envelope requirements 

proposed in the August 2021 SNOPR 

and presented in the October 2021 

NODA. Further, the following sections 

also provides the reasoning for the 

amended final rule prescriptive and 

performance requirements. 

Tier 1 Standard Requirements 

DOE received a number of comments 

regarding the proposed Tier 1 standard 

requirements. Schulte stated that Tier 1 

standards are only a minor 

improvement from the existing HUD 

standards issued nearly 30 years ago, 

and that it is hard to see how approving 

these standards would accomplish the 

EISA goals. (Schulte, No. 1028 at p. 12) 

RECA stated that the Uo baseline should 

be improved by at least a similar 

percentage as the improvements in the 

IECC made since the 2007 EISA. RECA 

stated that, even if the efficiency 

requirements for specific components 

may not match the IECC perfectly, they 

would expect the percentage 

improvement in the Uo targets for both 

single- and multi-section units to 

improve by as much as the IECC over 

the period since Congress included this 

requirement in the 2007 EISA, and 

likely even more, considering how far 

behind these standards were in 2007. 

RECA also mentioned that the proposed 

Uo targets for Tier 1 (for both singlesection and multi-section units) are only 

moderately improved (5.17–9.38 

percent) from the current targets in 24 

CFR 3280.506(a), and capture only a 

fraction of the IECC improvements 

adopted since 2007. Because of this, 

RECA recommended that DOE eliminate 

Tier 1 Uo targets and instead use Tier 2 

Uo targets for all buildings, consistent 

with the improvements in the IECC 

since the 2007 EISA. If different Tier 1 

targets are deemed absolutely necessary, 

they suggested that the standards should 

be set at least 20–25 percent more 

stringent than the current requirement. 

(RECA, No. 1570 at pp. 4–6) 

In response to August 2021 SNOPR 

and October 2021 NODA, Clayton 

Homes stated that proposed Tier 1 

energy conservation standards are a 

reasonable first step in raising the 

energy standards for MH. (Clayton 

Homes, No. 1589 at p. 16) MHI stated 

that based on the calculations 

performed on prototypical homes, the 

proposed Zone 1 requirements should 

be able to be met with upgraded 

insulation and upgraded windows. MHI 

recommended the following changes for 

Table 460.102–5 of the regulatory text: 

Change Zone 1 total Uo to 0.098 for 

single and 0.096 for multi-sectional, 

Zone 2 total Uo to 0.081 for single and 

0.079 for multi-sectional, and the Zone 

3 total Uo to 0.076 for single and 0.073 

for multi-sectional. (MHI, No. 1592 at p. 

9, 18); (Clayton Homes, No. 1589 at p. 

9) 

However, in response to the January 

2022 DEIS, both MHI and Clayton 

provided alternate recommendations. 

MHI recommended untiered standards 

with less stringent requirements than 

Tier 2. (MHI, No. 1990 at p. 14–17) 

Clayton Homes separately 

recommended the following changes to 

Table 460.102–1 of the regulatory text: 

Change Zone 1 exterior wall insulation 

requirements to R–11, exterior ceiling 

insulation to R–22, and exterior floor 

insulation requirements to R–13; 

Change zone 2 exterior wall insulation 

requirements to R–11 and exterior 

ceiling insulation requirements to R–25; 

and change Zone 3 exterior wall 

insulation requirements to R–15, and 

exterior ceiling insulation requirements 

to R–25. In addition, Clayton Homes 

recommended the following changes to 

Table 460.102–3 of the regulatory text: 

Change Zone 1 exterior wall U-factor to 

0.111 and exterior floor U-factor to 

0.078, and change Zone 2 exterior wall 

U-factor to 0.111. (Clayton Homes, No. 

1986 at p. 11, 13) 

Regarding specific Tier 1 component 

requirements, RECA recommended that 

climate zone 2 be set at the same 

insulation R-value level as climate 

zones 1 and 3 for floor insulation, 

because they see no reason why climate 

zone 2 should be lower than climate 

zone 1 or 3. (RECA, No. 1570 at pp. 4– 

6) RECA also commented that the 

fenestration requirements for Tier 1 are 

unreasonably weak given the ubiquity of 

reasonably efficient and cost-effective 

fenestration with U-factors at or below 

0.30 and SHGCs less than 0.25. Further, 

RECA stated that the proposed 

requirements for Tier 1 ceiling 

insulation, particularly in Climate Zone 

3, are lower than the prescriptive 

requirements for any climate zone set by 

any version of the IECC published in the 

past 15 years. (RECA, No. 1570 at p. 3, 

6) VEIC stated that they find it 

unacceptable that DOE would allow for 

single pane windows or single pane 

with storm windows in any climate 

zone. VEIC stated that if tiered 

standards are adopted, DOE should 

increase the prescriptive window 

efficiency standards for all zones. (VEIC, 

No. 1633 at p. 6, 7) 

As discussed previously, in 

developing the set of Tier 1 energy 

efficiency measures, DOE started with 

the 2021 IECC building components and 

then adjusted the requirements to meet 

a first cost target. As such, DOE 

compared the potential energy savings 

for each of the different combinations 

analyzed (those building components 

subject to the 2021 IECC, i.e., exterior 

floor, exterior walls, exterior ceiling, 

and fenestration) using the range of 

efficiency measures originally identified 

by the MH working group as appropriate 

for manufactured home design and 

determined the optimal set of energy 

efficiency measures that would yield an 

incremental cost increase less than 

$750. 

DOE’s objective in defining the Tier 1 

incremental purchase price threshold 

was based on which threshold a lowincome buyer purchasing a singlesection home (using typical loan terms 

available to these homebuyers, 

primarily chattel loans with higher 

interest rates) would, on average, realize 

a positive cash flow within Year 1 of the 

standard based on the down payment, 

incremental loan payment, and energy 

cost savings. DOE considered positive 

cash flow within Year 1 to ensure 

manufactured homes would remain 

affordable for a low-income consumer. 

DOE believes this addresses the 

concerns raised by HUD and other 

stakeholders. As such, DOE determined 

that an incremental purchase price of 

less than $750 provided a beneficial 

financial outcome for these consumers 

given lifecycle cost savings and energy 

cost savings, while minimizing first cost 

impacts. 

Accordingly, because of the objective 

of the tier to develop an optimal set of 

measures, the analysis resulted in 

different insulation requirements 

depending on climate zone, and for 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
32766 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

certain insulation requirements to be 

higher than others. Therefore, any 

changes in requirements would have 

negative effects on positive cash flow for 

low-income consumers, which is 

contrary to DOE’s intentions regarding 

housing affordability. Any decrease in 

efficiency measures would not provide 

the original benefit of expected energy 

cost savings within Year 1 of the 

standard. Finally, DOE notes that the 

performance method, i.e., Uo method, 

provides manufacturers more flexibility 

with determining the component 

specific requirements, as long as the 

minimum Uo requirements are met. As 

such, DOE maintains the Tier 1 energy 

efficiency options proposed in the 

August 2021 SNOPR. 

Additional Efficiency Packages 

Section R401.2.5 of the 2021 IECC 

requires that in addition to the 

prescriptive compliance option, 

additional energy efficiency 

requirements must be utilized to 

achieve further energy savings. Section 

408.2 provides five additional efficiency 

package options to achieve these 

additional energy savings, which 

include: (1) Enhanced envelope 

performance; (2) more efficient HVAC 

equipment performance; (3) reduced 

energy use in service water heating; (4) 

more efficient duct thermal distribution; 

and (5) improved air sealing and 

efficient ventilation systems. In 

developing recommendations, the MH 

working group evaluated the 2015 IECC, 

which did not include comparable 

provisions to sections R401.2.5 and 

R408.2 of the 2021 IECC. In the August 

2021 SNOPR, DOE did not propose any 

of the additional efficiency packages 

either because of consideration of the 

design and factory construction of 

manufactured homes, or potential costeffectiveness constraints. 86 FR 47744, 

47773–47774. 

In response to the August 2021 

SNOPR, DOE received a number of 

comments regarding these additional 

efficiency packages. 

NPCC stated that the standards should 

ensure additional savings through 

prescriptive requirements and an 

additional efficiency requirement with 

package options based on the model 

code. (NPCC, No. 1567 at p. 2) The CEC 

recommended that DOE should 

incorporate the State Attorneys 

General’s request to require 

manufacturers to include the additional 

efficiency packages consistent with 

IECC R401.2.5.1. (CEC, No. 1629 at p. 4) 

NBI stated that the 2021 IECC requires 

homes following the prescriptive 

pathway to choose among several 

efficiency packages, which they believe 

should apply to manufactured homes. 

(NBI, No. 1404 at p. 1–2) The Joint 

Commenters stated that neither DOE’s 

tiered nor untiered standards require 

manufacturers to provide additional 

energy savings through efficiency 

package options such as those required 

by IECC R401.2.5.1. Therefore, to ensure 

compliance with EISA, they stated that 

DOE’s final standards should include 

such a requirement. (Joint Commenters, 

No. 1630 at p. 1, 2) The Attorneys 

General urged DOE to consider 

additional energy savings through 

efficiency package options such as those 

required by IECC R401.2.5.1 to ensure 

compliance with EISA. (Attorneys 

General, No. 1625 at p. 2, 4, 6) 

RECA stated that the final rule should 

incorporate the additional efficiency 

options of equivalent energy savings. 

RECA commented that the fact that 

specific requirements in the IECC are 

not already adapted for use in 

manufactured housing does not release 

DOE from its obligation to set energy 

conservation standards that are 

consistent with the model code, and 

RECA urged DOE to reconsider this 

decision and to require a 5 percent 

improvement and/or to find other 

alternatives to achieve similar energy 

savings. (RECA, No. 1570 at p. 1, 2, 7) 

Earthjustice and Prosperity Now 

suggested that DOE is required to 

evaluate provisions of sections R401.2.5 

and R408 of the 2021 IECC. They stated 

that DOE has not yet determined 

whether this requirement would be costeffective. Further, they suggested that 

HRV/ERVs (i.e., heat recovery and 

energy recovery ventilators) must be 

addressed. They commented that DOE is 

required to consider the statutorilymandated analysis and must address 

this defect in the final rule. (Earthjustice 

and Prosperity Now, No. 1637 at p. 7) 

Major mentioned that furnaces in MH 

are always oversized and that there are 

no furnace standards mentioned in the 

document. (Major, No. 1023 at p. 1) 

NRECA stated that they have 

researched upgrading the ‘‘shell’’ or 

envelope of the manufactured home 

through rebates but doing so did not 

make sense once applying a cost-benefit 

analysis. Instead, they suggested 

focusing on upgrading the heating/ 

cooling of the manufactured home made 

the most economic sense. NRECA stated 

that the most effective way to both 

improve efficiency in manufactured 

homes and lead to lower electricity bills 

for their consumer-members is by 

upgrading to high-efficiency heat pumps 

in the heating systems of these homes 

up front, before the home is delivered. 

They suggested that providing rebates to 

install high-efficiency heat pumps in 

new or existing MH would be helpful. 

(NRECA, No. 1406 at p. 1, 3) 

NEEA recommended inclusion of the 

five IECC options plus a ‘‘limited house 

size’’ option. For enhanced envelope 

performance, not only did NEEA 

encourage DOE to increase the attic 

insulation to align with the IECC 2021 

prescriptive path, but also to insert an 

additional efficiency package focused 

on envelope improvements that could 

reward manufacturers who are already 

building efficient envelopes. (NEEA, No. 

1601 at p. 4) For more efficient HVAC, 

NEEA encouraged an additional 

efficiency package that requires airsource heat pumps instead of electric 

furnaces or electric baseboard heat will 

have significant energy and cost savings 

(NEEA found that 40 percent of MH use 

low efficiency electric furnaces). NEEA 

encouraged DOE to require 10 HSPF/16 

SEER air source heat pumps, which 

aligns with IECC 2021. For gas furnaces 

in manufactured homes, NEEA 

encouraged requiring a 95 percent 

AFUE condensing gas furnace plus 16 

SEER air conditioning unit, which 

would be installed instead of a noncondensing gas furnace. NEEA 

referenced a study that suggested that 

there is an incremental cost of $217 for 

a 95 AFUE gas furnace compared to 

current practice baseline assumed at 92 

AFUE. (NEEA, No. 1601 at pp. 4–5) 

For reduced energy use in service 

water heating, NEEA encouraged DOE to 

consider more efficient heat pump water 

heaters and tankless gas water heaters. 

Due to challenges in retrofitting heat 

pump water heaters into manufactured 

homes after initial construction, NEEA 

recommends encouraging their 

installation during initial construction. 

For distribution or ductwork, NEEA 

encouraged ductless heat pump 

(‘‘DHP’’) solutions that eliminate all 

energy losses due to ductwork. They 

suggested that allowing a 10 HSPF/16 

SEER DHP option to satisfy the 

distribution criteria could lead to 

significant energy savings. 

Alternatively, NEEA suggested that 

bringing ducts inside the building shell 

to reduce the amount of heat loss 

external to the building. (NEEA, No. 

1601 at p. 5) Regarding enhanced air 

sealing, NEEA stated that technology 

such as pressurized whole-building air 

sealing could be used in a warehouse 

and result in a very low-infiltration rate 

of the building shell. Further, they 

suggested an Energy Recovery Ventilator 

(‘‘ERV’’) or Heat Recovery Ventilator 

(‘‘HRV’’) for continuous mechanical 

ventilation could address poor air 

quality. Finally, NEEA encouraged a 

sixth additional efficiency option 

package based on limited house size. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 32767 

42Bell-Pasht, A., and L. Ungar. 2021. Strong 

Universal Energy Efficiency Standards Will Make 

Manufactured Homes More Affordable. 

Washington, DC: American Council for an EnergyEfficient Economy. aceee.org/white-paper/2022/01/ 

strong-universal-energy-efficiencystandardsmanufactured-homes. 

43Home Innovation Research Labs. 2021. 2021 

IECC Residential Cost Effectiveness Analysis; 

Report No. CR1391_06112021. https://

www.nahb.org/-/media/NAHB/advocacy/docs/toppriorities/codes/code-adoption/2021-iecc-costeffectiveness-analysis-hirl.pdf. 44PNNL–31440 prepared for U.S. DOE; July 2021; 

Energy Savings Analysis: 2021 IECC for Residential 

Buildings; https://www.energycodes.gov/sites/ 

default/files/2021-07/2021_IECC_Final_

Determination_AnalysisTSD.pdf. 

They suggested that manufacturers 

could build a single wide home to the 

untiered standards and select the 

limited house size option (i.e., they 

would not need to choose one of the five 

additional energy package options). For 

multi-section homes, however, NEEA 

suggested these homes would still need 

to select from the five other options. 

(NEEA, No. 1601 at p. 6) 

ACEEE stated that a heat pump for 

cooling and heating, a heat pump water 

heater, a better thermal distribution 

system, better air sealing and 

ventilation, and possibly a better 

envelope all may be cost-effective 

options for additional savings. They 

stated that heat pumps can provide 

highly efficient heating (especially 

compared to electric resistance heat, the 

most common source in MH) and that 

heat pump water heaters also can 

provide large energy and carbon savings 

at a reasonable cost. ACEEE further 

provided a detailed study, with costs 

and energy savings, for including a heat 

pump option for manufactured homes.42

(ACEEE, No. 1631 at p. 6) VEIC strongly 

recommended DOE adopt the additional 

efficiency package options requirement 

and modify the package options as 

appropriate to manufactured housing. 

They stated that only one option needs 

to be selected to demonstrate costeffectiveness of the code overall, and 

provided an example of one potential 

package option, where ductwork was 

brought inside the thermal envelope by 

a factory located in New England. They 

stated that these duct designs could 

easily be integrated into a manufactured 

home assembly line. (VEIC, No. 1633 at 

p. 7, 8) 

On the other hand, MHI stated that 

HRV and ERV provisions would add 

significantly to the cost (because of 

redesign and construction) of 

manufactured homes. (MHI, No. 1592 at 

p. 25) MHCC also stated that HRV and 

ERV systems are not cost effective for 

manufactured housing and have proven 

to be problematic in certain climate 

zones (without providing further details 

as to why). (MHCC, No. 1600 at p. 11) 

Regarding costs, Schulte stated that 

the costs and energy savings for the five 

additional efficiency packages in the 

IECC have been evaluated by several 

organizations. The first is the National 

Association of Home Builders Home 

Innovation Research Lab Report No. 

CR1391: 2021 IECC Residential Cost 

Effectiveness Analysis.43 The report 

covered the five additional efficiency 

options based on a 2,500 square foot 

standard reference single family home 

and the changes from the 2018 to the 

2021 IECC standards. The report 

concluded that the five optional 

efficiency packages would have very 

long simple paybacks ranging from 20 

years for the water heater to as much as 

90 years for the improved ventilation, 

electric house with improved air 

tightness. The enhanced water heater 

had substantially shorter payback 

periods than the HVAC or duct sealing 

options. Schulte stated that the water 

heater option might be cost efficient, but 

even that option has a payback period 

of 20 years. Further, they referenced the 

PNNL–31440 Report 44 which they 

stated confirms the other findings that 

optional efficiency measure R408.2.3 for 

water heaters is the most cost-effective 

way to achieve the 5 percent additional 

reduction in energy usage. (Schulte, No. 

1028 at p. 24–25) 

As discussed in the August 2021 

SNOPR and further in this section, 

consistent with the recommendations of 

the MH working group, the performance 

requirements in the proposed energy 

conservation standards are specific to 

the building thermal envelope only, and 

do not incorporate any specifications on 

HVAC energy efficiency. Accordingly, 

DOE did not consider the more efficient 

HVAC equipment performance and 

reduced energy use in service water 

heating options. Further, DOE also did 

not examine the more efficient duct 

thermal distribution option based on 

EISA’s allowance to consider the design 

and factory construction techniques of 

manufactured housing. This option in 

the 2021 IECC focuses primarily on the 

location of the duct or ductless systems 

in a home (in terms of duct thermal 

distribution design) as opposed to 

improving efficiency of the ducts as 

already installed and designed, and 

therefore is not appropriate for this rule. 

(42 U.S.C. 17071(b)(2)) Finally, for the 

enhanced envelope performance option, 

DOE was unable to incorporate this 

requirement given the building thermal 

envelope energy efficiency measure 

limitations based on the space 

constraints of manufactured homes. 86 

FR 47744, 47773–47774 

For the remaining efficiency package 

option, i.e., improved air sealing and 

efficient ventilation system option, DOE 

acknowledges the possibility of 

achieving additional energy savings for 

manufactured homes, as suggested by 

commenters. In the August 2021 

SNOPR, DOE presented the Building 

Energy Codes Program (‘‘BECP’’) 

analysis on HRVs and stated that that it 

had not yet determined whether 

including HRV or ERV would be costeffective for manufactured homes. 86 FR 

47744, 47774. Accordingly, DOE 

requested costs and savings data 

associated with this requirement (in 

addition to the other additional 

efficiency package options). Id. DOE did 

not receive any data regarding the costeffectiveness of the ERV/HRV 

requirement. At this time, DOE does not 

have sufficient data to provide a 

reasonable assessment of these measures 

when applied to manufactured homes as 

required by the EISA statute. In other 

words, DOE is unable to determine 

whether these measures are appropriate 

for manufactured homes when 

considering the unique design and 

construction techniques of these homes 

and whether such measures would be 

cost-effective when applied to them. 

Accordingly, DOE is not considering 

these additional efficiency package 

options in this final rule. However, DOE 

will continue to accept any data 

regarding these measures and may 

consider these options in any future 

rulemakings. 

Tier 2 Exterior Wall Insulation 

Requirement 

In the August 2021 SNOPR, DOE 

proposed R–20+5 insulation for climate 

zone 2 and 3 for the Tier 2/Untiered 

standard to be consistent with the 2021 

IECC. 86 FR 47744, 47772. DOE 

received a number of comments on the 

proposed Tier 2 Climate Zones 2 and 3 

proposed R–20+5 continuous exterior 

wall insulation requirement. 

VEIC applauded DOE’s inclusion of a 

continuous insulation requirement for 

zones 2 and 3. VEIC recommended that 

DOE maintain the 2021 IECC alternative 

prescriptive approaches to obtaining the 

intended exterior wall efficiency, by 

specifically including the additional 

prescriptive wall insulation options 

within the prescriptive requirements 

table, i.e., the 2021 IECC Table R402.1.3 

minimum insulation R-value 

requirement for wood frame walls is 

written as follows: R–20+5 or 13+10 or 

0+20. (VEIC, No. 1633 at p. 5) NEEA 

encouraged DOE not to revert to R–21 as 

explored in the NODA. They stated that 

continuous wall insulation reduces 

thermal bridging and increases occupant 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
32768 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

45 In the energy simulation analysis, DOE 

considered a 2 x 6 stud for any R-values at or greater 

than R–19 and a 2 x 4 stud for any R-values less 

than R–19. Chapter 7, Section 7.4.2 of the August 

2021 SNOPR TSD. 

46Section 3280.504 has requirements for the 

perm rating of the exterior wall assemblies. 

comfort, and they stated that there is 

evidence of potential cost savings from 

stick-built practices. NEEA 

recommended keeping the continuous 

insulation provision to align with IECC 

in Climate Zones 2 and 3, and that 

Climate Zone 1 better aligns with 2021 

IECC currently. (NEEA, No. 1601 at pp. 

4, 16) 

ACC FSC suggested that DOE consider 

alternatives to 2 x 6 R–20 construction 

for Climate Zones 2 and 3 in the Tier 2 

provisions.45 They stated that 2 x 4 

construction is much more common and 

suitable for manufactured housing, and 

recommended that if a compromise to 

the IECC levels of wall performance is 

needed, the most practical and 

reasonable cost-effective solutions 

should turn to 2 x 4 wall assembly 

options which may include R–15+5, R– 

13+7.5, R–15+7.5, or similar 

prescriptive R-value solutions for HUD 

Zones 2 and 3. They stated that the 

alternatives (R–15+5, R–13+7.5, or R– 

15+7.5) will make use of and employ 

the mentioned economic and 

performance benefits of a continuously 

insulated wall assembly, will more 

closely maintain the basis of the 2021 

IECC, and will make modifications to 

better accommodate the practical 

constraints of manufactured housing as 

the authority given to DOE in EISA 

allows. (ACC FSC, No. 1364 at p. 2) 

Further, ACC FSC commented that 

the R–20+5 analysis misses the benefits 

of foam plastic continuous insulation by 

protecting the wall assembly from 

moisture and condensation by providing 

an insulation ratio effect that is effective 

in HUD Zones 2 and 3. They 

commented that the benefits tend to 

result in better performing and more 

resilient manufactured homes, which 

will also tend to improve the economics 

of home-ownership by having extended 

life-expectancy (typically more than 40- 

years, not 30-years as assumed by DOE). 

ACC FSC also commented that vapor 

and moisture control strategies are 

inextricably linked to energy efficiency 

measures such as insulation properties, 

amount, and location on the assembly. 

(ACC FSC, No. 1364 at p. 2–3) Finally, 

ACC FSC stated that the R–20+5 vs. R– 

21 wall insulation analysis missed the 

economic benefit of having reduced 

heating/cooling load and equipment 

sizing with the R–20+5 option, and that 

this benefit would also apply to 

consideration of the above-mentioned 

R–15+5, R–13+7.5, and R–15+7.5 

alternatives. (ACC FSC, No. 1364 at p. 

3) 

On the other hand, Schulte stated it 

is not clear that the energy savings for 

R–20+5 will offset the added investment 

cost, and therefore DOE should defer 

imposition of the R–20+5 requirement 

until it can demonstrate its cost 

effectiveness. (Schulte, No. 1028 at p. 

23) Cavco stated that homes built for 

thermal zones 2 and 3 will no longer 

allow for 2 x 4 wall construction but 

will require 2 x 6 walls with rigid foam 

insulation. They stated that this simple 

change increases the cost of materials, 

adds steps to the production process, 

decreases the available habitable space 

and requires floor plans to be redrawn 

and resubmitted. Cavco stated that this 

large jump is not cost justified, 

especially when considering the impact 

to the production process. (Cavco, No. 

1497 at p. 2) 

In response to the August 2021 

SNOPR and October 2021 NODA, 

Clayton Homes commented that 

insulated foam sheathing is not a good 

option for manufactured homes because 

it adds a layer of flexible foam product 

between rigid framing and sheathing 

materials, which adversely impacts 

homes transportation performance. 

(Clayton Homes, No. 1589 at p. 4, 6) 

Clayton Homes stated that R–21 wall 

insulation without a continuous 

insulation should be the benchmark 

requirement in Climate Zones 2 and 3. 

(Clayton Homes, No. 1589 at p. 16) MHI 

stated that the requirement of R–20 in 

the exterior wall will force the sidewall 

to 2 x 6 construction resulting in the 

following: (1) The installation of the 

exterior insulation will be more costly 

for manufacturers to install, stemming 

from the overall cost of the home being 

higher from the increased material and 

labor costs; (2) The exterior insulation 

will also require most plants to re-work 

their production stations to allow time 

for this installation; (3) The exterior 

insulation will also create an additional 

problem for fastening the exterior finish 

siding since the siding would now have 

to be fastened thru the exterior 

insulation—currently, there are no 

approved fasteners to penetrate through 

the 1-inch exterior insulation and the 

fasteners themselves would also have to 

support the siding during 

transportation; (4) Windows and doors 

will need to be installed on framed 

extensions to pack out nailing surfaces 

to the thickness of the continuous R–5 

insulation; (5) Continuous flashing may 

be required at the bottom edge of the 

rigid insulation layer to protect from 

exposure to weather and infestation; 

and (6) The extra thickness of insulation 

on the exterior wall would either 

increase the shipping width or decrease 

the habitable space on the interior. 

Accordingly, MHI stated that for houses 

currently designed to maximize the 

legal shipping width, there is no 

additional width available on the 

exterior, and therefore, the space for the 

exterior insulation on these homes 

would have to be taken from the interior 

of the home. (MHI, No. 1592 at p. 8) 

Further, MHI stated that the use of 

continuous insulation is problematic 

due to the required changes in design, 

associated costs, and need for products 

that do not exist. Additionally, they 

stated that the R–20 wall insulation 

listed in Tier 2 for zones 2 and 3 may 

not be readily available in roll form, as 

typically used in production. In 

addition, they commented that having a 

continuous insulation on the outside of 

the studs may become problematic for 

siding installation due to transportation. 

Accordingly, MHI recommended 

revising 20+5 wall R-values to R–21 or 

R–13+5. Further, they stated it will be 

difficult to source a material to use as 

the R–5 continuous exterior insulation 

that will meet the requirements of the 

proposed changes as well as the current 

HUD Code.46 MHI stated that the perm 

ratings of the rigid foam may also lead 

to redundant vapor barriers and stud 

cavities that may not breathe properly, 

and therefore this may be a potential 

area where the proposed changes and 

the current HUD Code may have a 

conflict. (MHI, No. 1592 at p. 6, 17, 29); 

(Clayton Homes, No. 1589 at p. 9, 21) 

In response to the January 2022 DEIS, 

however, Clayton Homes and MHI 

provided alternative recommendations. 

They recommended that DOE change 

the exterior wall insulation R-value for 

Climate zone 2 to R–13, and for Climate 

Zone 3 to R–15. In addition, they 

recommended that DOE change the Ufactor alternative for the exterior wall 

insulation to 0.094 for Climate Zone 2, 

and 0.076 for Climate Zone 3. (Clayton 

Homes, No. 1986 at p. 13); (MHI, No. 

1990 at p. 16) 

MHCC also stated that an R–20+5 

exterior wall insulation is neither cost 

effective or feasible for MH, asserting 

that implementing continuous exterior 

wall insulation would negatively impact 

throughput rates of manufacturers and 

significantly increase overall costs. 

(MHCC, No. 1600 at p. 7, 12) Skyline 

Champion commented that the 

requirement of continuous R–5 

insulation in thermal zones 2 and 3 not 

only adds significant direct material and 

labor expense but also adds indirect 

material and labor costs. Indirect costs 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 32769 

like flashing, window/door 

installations, jamb extensions, sliding 

installation changes, soffit and floor 

width impacts are some of the costs that 

Skyline Champion argued DOE’s 

analysis may have not properly 

captured. Skyline Champion 

recommended holding prescriptive Rvalues in wall assemblies to R–19 for 

zones 2 and 3 for tier 2 and adjust 

overall U-values accordingly. (Skyline 

Champion, No. 1627 at p. 2); (Champion 

Home Builders, No. 1639 at p. 2) 

In this final rule, DOE is requiring R– 

21 insulation instead of the August 2021 

SNOPR proposed R–20+5 for the 

prescriptive requirements for Tier 2 

climate zone 2 and 3. As presented in 

the August 2021 SNOPR (and with 

updated inputs in the October 2021 

NODA), both the R–20+5 and R–21 Tier 

2 30-year life-cycle cost savings results 

for the nation are positive. 86 FR 59042, 

59048. However, San Francisco resulted 

in negative Tier 2 30-year LCC savings 

for R–20+5, which is not the case for R– 

21. 86 FR 47744, 47802; 86 FR 59042, 

59055. 

EISA requires consideration of costeffectiveness of the standards (42 U.S.C. 

17071(a) and (b)(1)) and the design and 

factory construction techniques of 

manufactured homes (42 U.S.C. 

17071(b)(2)). As discussed in section 

III.A of this document, DOE determined 

the cost-effectiveness of the standards 

by considering the LCC savings over the 

life of the manufactured home not only 

for the nation, but also for each city 

analyzed. Therefore considering at least 

one city during the 30-year analysis in 

Tier 2 resulted in negative LCC savings 

with R–20+5 exterior wall insulation, in 

this final rule, DOE is adopting the next 

stringent insulation, R–21 for Tier 2. 

Further, DOE was unable to assess the 

other implications presented by the 

stakeholders at this time, including but 

not limited to the limitations on 

including R–20+5 with the design of the 

home. DOE needs to conduct further 

study on the full implementation of the 

continuous insulation requirement on 

manufactured homes, and therefore is 

not including this requirement at this 

time. Finally, adopting R–21 instead of 

R–20+5 also resolves issues regarding 

shipping width that the stakeholders 

commented on, which is discussed in a 

following section. However, DOE is 

open to receiving further data to 

consider this requirement in future 

standards. 

DOE notes, however, that requiring R– 

21 for Tier 2 prescriptive standards does 

not preclude manufacturers in using R– 

20+5 to comply with Tier 2 prescriptive 

standards. Further, the performance 

method (i.e., Uo) allows manufacturers 

flexibility in using any combination of 

energy efficiency measures as long as 

the minimum Uo is met, including, but 

not limited to, R–20+5. 

DOE also received other comments 

regarding exterior wall insulation. 

NAIMA commented that the standards 

should include minimum mandatory 

wall insulation requirements under 

460.102(c) of the regulatory text, 

consistent with the 2021 IECC, which 

includes minimum insulation 

requirements for performance path 

compliance. They recommended a 

mandatory minimum wall insulation 

requirement of R–13 in Tier 1 and 

Climate Zone 1 Tier 2 homes and R–21 

in Climate Zones 2–3 Tier 2 homes 

when a builder selects the performance 

path for standards compliance. 

(NAIMA, No. 1017 at p. 2) The 2021 

IECC does not have a Uo-based 

performance path. However, the 2021 

IECC does include a ‘‘Total UA 

alternative’’ requirement in R402.1.5, 

which is similar in concept to Uo in that 

the calculation is done using the 

component U-factor and the component 

area. As such, R402.1.5 of the 2021 IECC 

only provides additional requirements 

for fenestration SHGC and maximum Ufactors, and does not include additional 

requirements for exterior wall 

insulation. Accordingly, DOE is only 

including additional requirements for 

fenestration SHGC and maximum Ufactors in 460.102(c)(2)–(4). 

ACC FSC requested that the wall Ufactors (associated with the prescribed 

R-values) in Tables 460.102–3 and 

460.102–4 be revised (decreased) to be 

consistent with a typical or ‘‘default’’ 

framing factor of 15 percent and that the 

Uo values in Tables 460.102–5 and 

460.102–6 be adjusted accordingly, as 

opposed to the 25 percent that was used 

for the baseline framing for walls. They 

stated that the Uo approach (and the 

referenced Battelle Method) provide a 

default value of 15 percent for typical 

manufactured housing walls (see also 

HUD Code Section 3280.509). (ACC 

FSC, No. 1364 at p. 4) DOE notes that 

the Battelle Method report cites the 

1989 ASHRAE Handbook of 

Fundamentals (‘‘HoF’’) as the source of 

the 15 percent framing factor for exterior 

walls with 16′′ on center (o.c.). The 1993 

edition of the ASHRAE handbook, 

however, updated the framing factor for 

exterior walls 16′′ o.c. to 25 percent and 

all successive editions through the 2021 

edition of the HoF have included a 25 

percent factor. In addition, a 25 percent 

framing factor was used during the MH 

working group negotiations. At this 

time, DOE has not found any data on 

whether framing factors should be lower 

for manufactured housing. Therefore, 

DOE continued to use 25 percent 

framing factor as part of the analysis. 

Tier 2 Exterior Ceiling Insulation 

Requirement 

In the August 2021 SNOPR, for the 

untiered/Tier 2 standard, DOE proposed 

R–30 for climate zone 1 and 2, and R– 

38 for climate zone 3. DOE proposed not 

to incorporate the minimum ceiling Rvalue updates from the 2021 IECC given 

the physical space constraints of 

manufactured homes. Accordingly, DOE 

proposed ceiling insulation 

requirements that were consistent with 

the June 2016 NOPR requirements (as 

recommended by the MH working 

group), updated from four climate zones 

to three climate zones. 86 FR 47744, 

47772. DOE received multiple 

comments regarding the exterior ceiling 

insulation requirement. 

MHI stated that due to the thicker 

insulation of R–30 in the ceiling, the 

proposed standards state that a 5.5-inch 

truss heel height would be required. 

This change in the truss profile will 

affect the overall shipping height of the 

home unless other conciliatory changes 

are made. (MHI, No. 1592 at p. 6, 8) 

Further, MHI stated that for the exterior 

ceiling insulation as R–38, the depth of 

insulation will be difficult to achieve on 

lower sloped roofs and cathedral style 

truss profiles. (MHI, No. 1592 at p. 8) 

Skyline Champion stated that 

requirements for ceiling insulation and 

heel height will force significant truss 

re-designs to accommodate energy heels 

and shipping limitations in many 

circumstances. Popular design options 

may be severely limited or eliminated 

due to increased cavity volume 

requirements of the truss profiles. 

Regarding climate zone 3 floor 

insulation, they suggested that all 

homes will require increased floor joist 

sizes to create enough space in joist 

cavities for additional insulation 

requirements, leading to additional 

labor and materials that are likely not 

properly reflected in cost calculations. 

(Skyline Champion, No. 1627 at p. 2); 

(Champion Home Builders, No. 1639 at 

p. 3) 

On the other hand, VEIC stated that 

they have worked with factory partners 

that have demonstrated the ability to 

cost-effectively install insulation levels 

above R–38 in the ceiling/roof assembly 

and still maintain overall height 

requirements of MH. They presented an 

example of an MH design that allows for 

a ceiling insulation system that 

accommodated R–38 uncompressed and 

continuous insulation over the entire 

attic with 7.5–8.5′ ceiling height and a 

3/12 pitch roof system. They stated that 

blocking is utilized at the eaves to 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
32770 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

47Further details on specification can be found 

here: www.energystar.gov/newhomes/energy_star_

manufactured_homes. 

48Further details on specification can be found 

here: https://www.neemhomes.com/efficiencycertified/#what-is-neem-plus. 

49See Figure 2 on page 10—https://static1.square

space.com/static/5b10a91989c172d4391ab016/t/ 

5b45160b2b6a286e299e4ba5/1531254288322/ 

3157.pdf. 

ensure that full-height insulation can be 

a simple low-cost application such as a 

cardboard product. Accordingly, VEIC 

suggested that if DOE intends to 

maintain the R–38 ceiling insulation 

requirement for zone 3, they 

recommend the standards also require 

that R–38 is installed uncompressed at 

full height over 100 percent of the 

ceiling or attic area extended over the 

wall top plate at the eaves, as per 2021 

IECC Section R402.2.1. Alternatively, 

DOE could set higher R-value standards 

with the allowance for a lower R-value 

when installed uncompressed over the 

entire ceiling area. (VEIC, No. 1633 at 

pp. 3–5) 

As discussed previously, DOE took 

into consideration the range of 

efficiency measures originally 

considered by the MH working group 

that was appropriate for manufactured 

home design, which included the 

following: Exterior ceiling R–22 to R–38. 

DOE notes that ceiling height 

constraints in manufactured homes 

limit the amount of ceiling insulation 

that can be installed without 

compression. While NEEM and NEEM+ 

homes require ceiling insulation of R–40 

and R–44 respectively, DOE conducted 

the analysis up to ceiling insulation 

levels of R–38 based on the 

recommendations of the MH working 

group. DOE notes that typical R–30 and 

R–38 insulation has thicknesses of 

approximately 9.7′′ and 12.3′′ 

respectively. A common MH home truss 

design is 17′′ deep at the marriage line 

and can accommodate these levels of 

insulation, except the compression at 

the eaves. Accordingly, DOE 

understands that there is enough room 

in the truss to accommodate higher 

insulation without having to redesign. 

Further, DOE confirmed with an 

industry expert in the Pacific Northwest 

that almost all manufactured home 

trusses can accommodate ceiling 

insulation up to R–40. While DOE did 

not consider ceiling insulation levels 

beyond R–38, DOE notes that almost all 

roof truss designs can accommodate 

insulation up to R–40, but there is a 

very small incremental improvement in 

thermal performance between R–38 and 

R–40. The MH working group also did 

not consider the requirements regarding 

uncompressed insulation in R402.2.1 of 

the 2015 IECC (which is also included 

in the 2021 IECC), and therefore did not 

assess the cost-effective impact as part 

of this rulemaking. DOE will plan to 

consider these updates in future 

rulemakings. 

Further, as stated by VEIC, homes are 

currently being built with insulations at 

the higher end of the range, with no 

issues with transportation. In addition, 

even current ENERGY STAR 

requirements, under the envelope-only 

package, require ceiling insulation at R– 

38.47 DOE also confirmed that the 

Northwest Energy-Efficient 

Manufactured Housing Program 

(NEEM)+ homes,48 which go beyond 

ENERGY STAR and provide ceiling 

insulation up to R–44, do not deal with 

transportation issues because of the 

added insulation. 

Finally, DOE notes that manufacturers 

can also comply with the standards 

using the performance, Uo, method, 

which gives manufacturers the 

flexibility in using any combination of 

energy efficiency measures as long as 

the minimum Uo is met. Accordingly, 

DOE is unpersuaded that the Tier 2 

ceiling insulation requirements will 

significantly limit design options, 

necessitate changes in truss profiles, or 

impact transportation of MH models, 

and therefore DOE maintains the August 

2021 SNOPR Tier 2 exterior ceiling 

insulation requirements in this final 

rule. 

Tier 2 Exterior Floor Insulation 

Requirement 

In the August 2021 SNOPR, for the 

untiered/Tier 2 standard, DOE proposed 

R–13 for climate zone 1, R–19 for 

climate zone 2, and R–30 for climate 

zone 3. DOE did not identify any 

updated floor insulation requirements 

in the 2021 IECC applicable to 

manufactured homes. Accordingly, DOE 

proposed floor insulation requirements 

that were consistent with the June 2016 

NOPR requirements (as recommended 

by the MH working group), updated 

from four climate zones to three climate 

zones. 86 FR 47744, 47772. DOE 

received multiple comments regarding 

the exterior floor insulation 

requirements. 

Several commenters suggested that for 

Climate Zone 3, most floors are 

constructed with 2 x 6 framing but with 

an R–30 insulation requirement, DOE 

analysis assumes 2 x 8 floor joist and 

insulation thicknesses that exceed 5.5- 

inches, which cannot reasonably be 

assumed in HUD home construction. 

Further, they stated that placing more 

than R–11 blankets under the floor joists 

cannot be done without offsetting 

outriggers and providing blocking 

between joists because compressing 

more than R–11 insulation between an 

outrigger and a joist results in noticeable 

humps in the floor at each outrigger 

location. (MMHA, No. 995 at p. 2); 

(Michigan MHA, No. 1012 at p. 1–2); 

(WHA, No. 1025 at p. 1–2); (PMHA, No. 

1165 at p. 1–2); (Westland, No. 1263 at 

p. 1–2); (Pleasant Valley, No. 1307 at p. 

1–2); (American Homestar, No. 1337 at 

p. 1–2); (Oliver Technologies, No. 1350 

at p. 1–2); (KMHA, No. 1368 at p. 1–2); 

(Adventure Homes, No. 1383 at p. 1–2); 

(Clayton Homes, No. 1589 at p. 22) 

MHI stated that DOE’s analysis 

assumes that the floor joists are 2 x 6 

with insulation up to and including R– 

22, and 2 x 8 floor joists insulated to R– 

30 and above. They stated that 

currently, 90 percent of floors produced 

use 2 x 6 floor joists. They also stated 

that the 2′′ floor joist change will also 

increase the shipping height. (MHI, No. 

1592 at p. 25–26); (Clayton Homes, No. 

1589 at p. 16–18, 22); (MHCC, No. 1600 

at p. 6) In response to the January 2022 

DEIS, MHI recommended that DOE 

change the exterior floor insulation Rvalue for Climate zone 3 to R–25. In 

addition, they recommended that DOE 

change the U-factor alternative for the 

exterior floor insulation to 0.036 for 

Climate Zone 3. (Clayton Homes, No. 

1986 at p. 11, 13); (MHI, No. 1990 at p. 

15, 16) 

As previously stated, DOE did not 

update the Tier 2 exterior floor 

insulation requirements from those 

recommended by the MH working group 

in the term sheet, besides updating the 

June 2016 NOPR-proposed four climate 

zones to the August 2021 SNOPRproposed three HUD zones. NEEM+ 

homes provide floor insulation at R–33, 

and do not deal with transportation 

issues because of the added insulation. 

Even though the analysis assumes 2 x 8 

floor joists for floor insulation above R– 

30, DOE notes NEEM homes meet R–33 

floor insulation by incorporating a 

combination of R–11 blankets and R–22 

in 2 x 6 joists and R–33 belly insulation 

below joists.49 Finally, even current 

ENERGY STAR requirements, under the 

envelope-only package, require floor 

insulation in Climate Zone 3 at R–33. 

Accordingly, considering current 

techniques can still be implemented, 

DOE is unpersuaded that the Tier 2 floor 

insulation requirements will 

significantly impact shipping height and 

result in transportation issues. 

Finally, DOE notes that manufacturers 

can also comply with the standards 

using the performance, Uo, method, 

which gives manufacturers the 

flexibility to use any combination of 

energy efficiency measures as long as 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 32771 

50 DOE used shipments for 2019 from the annual 

production and shipment data provided by MHI. 

See Manufactured Home Shipments by Product 

Mix, Manufactured Housing Institute (2019). 

the minimum Uo is met. Accordingly, 

DOE maintains the August 2021 SNOPR 

Tier 2 exterior floor insulation 

requirements in this final rule. 

Tier 2 Fenestration Requirements 

In the August 2021 SNOPR, for the 

untiered/Tier 2 standard, DOE proposed 

the following window U-factors: 0.32 for 

climate zone 1, 0.30 for climate zone 2, 

and 0.30 for climate zone 3. In addition, 

DOE also proposed the following glazed 

fenestration SHGCs: 0.33 for climate 

zone 1, 0.25 for climate zone 2, and ‘‘not 

applicable’’ for climate zone 3. DOE 

proposed window U-factors consistent 

with the 2021 IECC. For the SHGC, DOE 

proposed requirements based on the 

updated window U-factors, and the 

recommendations by the MH working 

group. 86 FR 47744, 47772. DOE 

received multiple comments regarding 

fenestration requirements. 

VEIC stated that the SHGC 

requirements of the Tier 2/untiered 

proposal run contrary to best practice, 

and to IECC requirements. They stated 

that lower SHGC should be required in 

warmer climate zones. At minimum, 

VEIC recommends reversing the SHGC 

requirements for zone 1 and zone 2. 

(VEIC, No. 1633 at p. 6, 7) ACEEE stated 

that the proposed standards have higher 

(less stringent) SHGC values in Climate 

Zone 1 than in Climate Zone 2 and none 

in Climate Zone 3. They stated that this 

difference is counter to the IECC and to 

the logic of increased savings where 

there is increased sunlight and it should 

be corrected. (ACEEE, No. 1631 at p. 8) 

RECA also recommended that DOE set 

the maximum SHGC for both Climate 

Zones 1 and 2 at 0.25, which is 

consistent with the 2021 IECC 

requirement for IECC climate zones 1– 

3 and has been in the IECC since the 

2012 edition. RECA stated there is no 

reason why HUD Zone 1 should have a 

higher SHGC than Climate Zone 2. 

(RECA, No. 1570 at p. 6) 

During the MH working group 

negotiations, to determine the number 

of climate zones (which at the time was 

four climate zones), one of the building 

thermal requirements that DOE 

analyzed for cost-effectiveness was the 

window SHGC. For the June 2016 

NOPR-proposed Climate Zone 1, DOE 

analyzed a range of window SHGC from 

0.25 to 0.40. DOE proposed the most 

cost-effective SHGC requirement, which 

was 0.25. The MH working group agreed 

on the SHGC for Climate Zone 1 in the 

term sheet. See Term Sheet at 3. For the 

June 2016 NOPR-proposed Climate 

Zone 2, the MH working group 

recommended that DOE perform a 

sensitivity analysis of the total cost of 

ownership to determine the most costeffective SHGC, rather than 

recommending a specific SHGC value in 

the term sheet. See Term Sheet at 3. 

DOE performed its SHGC sensitivity 

analysis using SHGC values of 0.25, 

0.30, and 0.33. This analysis indicated 

an SHGC of 0.33 had the greatest total 

cost of ownership savings; therefore, in 

the June 2016 NOPR, DOE proposed 

requiring a SHGC value of 0.33. Except 

for the SHGC, all other proposed 

building thermal requirements for the 

June 2016 NOPR-proposed Climate 

Zones 1 and 2 were the same. 81 FR 

39756, 39772. 

In the August 2021 SNOPR, for the 

Tier 2 standards, DOE mapped the June 

2016 NOPR climate zones (based on 

four climate zones) to the HUD zones 

(based on three climate zones). DOE 

used the manufactured home national 

shipment percentages for each of the 

cities analyzed,50 and the corresponding 

HUD zone and the June 2016 NOPR 

climate zone identifiers for each of the 

cities. For HUD Zone 1, the cities 

identified were in either the June 2016 

NOPR-proposed Climate Zones 1 or 2; 

however, the summed shipment weights 

per the June 2016 NOPR-proposed 

climate zone did not provide an obvious 

indicator as to which of the energy 

efficiency measures to incorporate for 

HUD Zone 1. The only difference 

between the June 2016 NOPR-proposed 

Climate Zone 1 and Climate Zone 2 

energy efficiency measures was the 

glazed fenestration requirement. 

Therefore, in the August 2021 SNOPR, 

DOE proposed to use the less stringent 

glazed fenestration requirement (0.33 vs. 

0.25) to accommodate cost-effective 

measures that were proposed in the June 

2016 NOPR for HUD Zone 2. 86 FR 

47744, 47772. This evaluation is 

consistent with the recommendations 

from the MH working group. 

For this final rule, DOE reassessed the 

cost-effectiveness of 0.33 vs. 0.25 SHGC 

for Tier 2 Climate Zone 1. The new 

analysis continued to conclude that an 

SHGC of 0.33 is more cost-effective than 

0.25. Therefore, consistent with the 

recommendation to require the more 

cost-effective measure as part of the 

standards, DOE maintains the proposed 

0.33 SHGC for Tier 2 Climate Zone 1 in 

this final rule. 

DOE also received comments from 

MHI and Clayton Homes recommending 

that the prescriptive requirements for 

window U-factor be changed to 0.5 for 

Climate Zone 1, 0.35 for Climate Zone 

2, and 0.32 for Climate Zone 3, but did 

not provide any justification for these 

changes. (MHI, No. 1990 at p. 14, 15); 

(Clayton Homes, No. 1986 at p. 11) As 

previously noted, DOE proposed 

window U-factor requirements 

consistent with the 2021 IECC. Further, 

as discussed in section III.A of this 

document, DOE has determined the 

adopted Tier 2 requirements are costeffective based on the resulting positive 

30-year LCC savings. Accordingly, DOE 

is adopting the August 2021 SNOPR 

proposal Tier 2 window U-factors. 

MHI recommended adding the 

following language to section R402.3.4 

of the proposal: ‘‘[R402.3.4] Opaque 

door exemption. One side-hinged 

opaque door assembly not greater than 

24 square feet (2.22 m2) in area shall be 

exempt from the U-factor requirement in 

Section R402.1.2. This exemption shall 

not apply to the Total UA alternative in 

Section R402.1.5.’’ (MHI, No. 1592 at p. 

18) In the June 2016 NOPR, DOE did not 

propose adopting this requirement 

because excluding these types of doors 

from this proposed rulemaking also 

would represent the loss of a significant 

source of home energy conservation. 81 

FR 39756, 39773. DOE carried this 

proposal forward with the August 2021 

SNOPR. As such, in this final rule DOE 

continues to exclude this exemption for 

the same reason, consistent with what 

was proposed in the August 2021 

SNOPR. 

Further, MHI recommended adding 

the following language to section 

R402.3.3 of the proposal: ‘‘[R402.3.3] 

Glazed fenestration exemption. Not 

greater than 15 square feet (1.4 m2) of 

glazed fenestration per dwelling unit 

shall be exempt from the U-factor and 

SHGC requirements in Section R402.1.2. 

This exemption shall not apply to the 

Total UA alternative in Section 

R402.1.5.’’ (MHI, No. 1592 at p. 26) 

MHCC also stated that the fenestration 

exemptions that exist in the 2021 IECC 

must also be included. (MHCC, No. 

1600 at p. 7, 12) DOE notes that this 

specific requirement was deleted by the 

MH working group, and instead the 

recommendation was to supersede this 

requirement with the term sheet. See 

Term Sheet at 17. DOE discussed in the 

June 2016 NOPR that DOE did not 

propose to adopt this requirement 

because the prescriptive fenestration 

SHGC and U-factor requirements would 

apply to all fenestration. Given that 15 

square feet represents a large portion of 

the overall fenestration area that 

comprises a manufactured home, DOE 

noted that the adoption of this 

requirement would potentially exclude 

from these requirements a significant 

source of energy conservation. 81 FR 

39756, 39773. DOE carried this proposal 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
32772 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

forward with the August 2021 SNOPR. 

Therefore, in this final rule, DOE 

continues to exclude this exemption for 

the same reason consistent with what 

was proposed in the August 2021 

SNOPR. 

As noted in the August 2021 SNOPR, 

based on comments and consistent with 

the 2015 and 2021 IECC, DOE proposed 

to remove the maximum ratio of 12 

percent for glazed fenestration area to 

floor area for energy modeling purposes, 

consistent with the recommendation 

from the MH working group. MHI and 

MHCC agreed that DOE should not limit 

the amount of glazed fenestration. (MHI, 

No. 1592 at p. 26); (MHCC, No. 1600 at 

p. 7, 12) As such, DOE is finalizing this 

proposal in this final rule. 

Tier 2 Uo Performance Requirements 

MHI stated that the Untiered/Tier 2 

standards requirements represent 

significant changes over the current 

HUD Code and will be more of a 

challenge to implement in a costeffective manner. (MHI, No. 1592 at pp. 

7, 9) Clayton Homes and MHI 

commented that the proposed 

requirements should be significantly 

reduced (specifically, they encouraged 

DOE to lower proposed requirements 

within Climate Zone 3 to more closely 

align to IECC Climate Zone 3 

requirements). (Clayton Homes, No. 

1589 at p. 4, 6); (MHI, No. 1592 at p. 25) 

Schulte mentioned that there are 

already HUD-Code homes which have 

been designed and constructed to meet 

the 2009 IECC standards, and ENERGY 

STAR homes. However, the increase in 

home prices, especially in Zone 2 is 

significant and, in this zone, the lifecycle cost savings are relatively slight. 

Accordingly, they recommended 

adopting less stringent Uo values as a 

first action which would reduce the 

price increases and the impact on 

affordability, and suggested that the 

next version of the standards assess the 

level of state adoption of the 2021 IECC 

code and address some of the other 

issues that have been deferred. (Schulte, 

No. 1028 at p. 19, 23, 26) Specifically, 

they recommended the following Uo: 

0.081 for Climate Zone 1; 0.075 for 

Climate Zone 2, and 0.060 for Climate 

Zone 3. (Schulte, No. 1028 at p. 13) 

MHI and Clayton Homes stated that in 

Climate Zone 2, based on the 

calculations MHI performed on the 

prototypical homes, the proposed Zone 

2 requirements would require many 

changes such as upgraded insulation, 2 

x 6 wall construction, upgraded 

windows, and taller truss heel. For 

Climate Zone 3, MHI was not able to 

satisfy the overall U factor requirements 

using common options that are available 

to most manufacturers. Upgrading 

insulation, 2 x 6 exterior walls, deeper 

trusses, deeper floor joists, and 

upgraded windows did not lower the 

overall U-factor enough to meet the 

proposed requirements. However, for 

the calculations that MHI performed, 

they did not evaluate the addition of 

continuous exterior insulation due to 

the installation and transportation 

issues involved with this product. 

Accordingly, MHI recommended the 

following changes for the Uo

requirements: Change Climate Zone 1 

total Uo to 0.093 for single-section and 

0.090 for multi-section; change Climate 

Zone 2 total Uo to 0.081 for singlesection and 0.076 for multi-section and 

the Climate Zone 3 total Uo to 0.065 for 

single-section and 0.061 for multisection. (MHI, No. 1990 at p. 17); 

(Clayton Homes, No. 1986 at p. 13) 

Clayton Homes had the same 

recommendations, however instead 

elected to change the Climate Zone 3 

total Uo to 0.064 for multi-section. 

On the other hand, NEEA stated that 

more than half of the manufactured 

homes in the Northwest are built with 

a Uo equal to Tier 2 of the August 2021 

SNOPR. They stated that they have been 

applying 2 x 6 frame walls to homes for 

the past 14 years. (NEEA, No. 1601 at p. 

14) Further, NEEA commented that 

industry and others have made false 

claims that the incremental cost of a 

home should be based on internal floor 

area of the homes, suggesting that 

increasing framing in Climate Zone 3 

from 2 x 4 to 2 x 6 stud walls would 

increase the cost per square foot of the 

home. They stated that DOE should 

avoid this logic as it presumes homes 

are sold based on interior floor area 

when in fact the advertised area of a 

manufactured home is on the exterior 

frame dimensions of the house. (NEEA, 

No. 1601 at p. 10) 

As discussed previously, in 

developing the set of Tier 2 energy 

efficiency measures, DOE’s objective 

was for it to be based on the most recent 

version of the IECC, with consideration 

of cost-effectiveness and design and 

factory construction techniques of 

manufactured homes. (42 U.S.C. 

17071(b)(1); 42 U.S.C. 17071(b)(2)(A)) 

As such, in the analysis, DOE took into 

consideration the range of efficiency 

measures originally considered by the 

MH working group that was considered 

appropriate for manufactured home 

design, which included the following: 

exterior ceiling R–22 to R–38; exterior 

wall R–11 to R–21+5; exterior floor R– 

11 to R–30; window U-factor U–1.08 to 

U–0.30; and window SHGC 0.7 to 0.25. 

(See chapter 5 of the final rule TSD) 

DOE did not consider any energy 

efficiency measures beyond the ranges 

considered by the MH working group. 

DOE notes that adopted Tier 2 

requirements in this final rule will only 

update the window U-factor 

requirements for all climate zones 

compared to the term sheet agreed upon 

by the MH working group (window Ufactor: 0.35 and 0.32; to 0.32 and 0.30 

respectively). The window U-factors 

were updated consistent with the 2021 

IECC. Otherwise, the remaining Tier 2 

EEMs are consistent with the 

recommendations from the MH working 

group, except based on three climate 

zones (as opposed to the four climate 

zones recommended in the Term sheet). 

As discussed in section III.A of this 

document, DOE has determined that the 

adopted Tier 2 requirements are costeffective because of the positive LCC 

savings over the life of the 

manufactured home for both the nation, 

and every city analyzed. As such, Table 

III.6 presents the amended building 

thermal envelope prescriptive 

requirements. DOE used the Battelle 

Method to determine the associated Uo

performance values, which are provided 

in Table III.9. 

Construction and Transportation 

DOE received multiple comments that 

the Tier 2/untiered building thermal 

envelope requirements will make 

transportation of manufactured homes 

incredibly challenging, as many states 

have height restrictions that will be 

impossible to meet due to the new 

design requirements. (MMHA, No. 995 

at p. 2); (Michigan MHA, No. 1012 at p. 

1–2); (WHA, No. 1025 at p. 1–2); 

(PMHA, No. 1165 at p. 1–2); (Westland, 

No. 1263 at p. 1–2); (Pleasant Valley, 

No. 1307 at p. 1–2); (American 

Homestar, No. 1337 at p. 1–2); (Oliver 

Technologies, No. 1350 at p. 1–2); 

(KMHA, No. 1368 at p. 1–2); (Adventure 

Homes, No. 1383 at p. 1–2); (Clayton 

Homes, No. 1589 at p. 22); (IMHA, No. 

1453 at p.1) 

PMHA commented that their factories 

are concerned that several of the 

proposed changes will change the 

building thermal systems, which in turn 

will affect the overall shipping height 

and width of a home. By increasing the 

truss heel height, increasing floor joist 

depth and adding insulation outside of 

the studs, the overall shipping envelope 

would change and in most cases be 

significant. They stated that homes built 

in Pennsylvania are sold throughout the 

Northeast and Mid-Atlantic (70 percent 

of production is shipped outside of 

Pennsylvania) and that the Northeast 

relies heavily on the Pennsylvania 

factories for supply. They stated that the 

Northeast has the most restrictive laws 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 32773 

51All frame and related dimensional descriptions 

(e.g., ‘‘2 x 6’’) are denoted in inches. 

52The NEEM website lists Clayton Homes in CA, 

ID, NV, OR, UT, and WA as retailers for NEEMcertified homes; https://www.neemhomes.com/ 

where-to-buy. NEEM and NEEM+ require insulation 

levels greater than Tier 2 for ceilings and floors. 

for transporting manufactured homes. 

(PMHA, No. 1165 at p. 2) PMHA 

commented that most of Pennsylvania’s 

market region limits height to 14′6′′ 

when transporting homes, whereas 

several states such as Connecticut and 

Massachusetts limit height to 13′6′′. 

They stated that the highways in 

Connecticut and Massachusetts are vital 

when shipping homes to homebuyers in 

Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine. 

PMHA commented that Pennsylvania 

would not entertain future efforts to 

increase the loads beyond 16 feet width. 

They stated that width restrictions take 

the body of the home in consideration, 

in addition to eave overhangs, 

doorknobs, windowsills, siding, exterior 

trims etc. (PMHA, No. 1165 at p. 3) 

Mississippi MHA stated that the 

Mississippi Department of 

Transportation allows width up to 16 

feet and 15 feet and 6 inches for height 

for manufactured homes. Any home that 

exceeds these dimensions will require a 

special permit which will cost the 

customer more in transportation costs. 

Therefore, they stated that the proposed 

standards may even prohibit a customer 

in rural Mississippi from buying a home 

due to the transporting requirements on 

rural roads. (Mississippi MHA, No. 1588 

at p. 3) 

NJMHA commented, having no 

manufacturers located in New Jersey, 

that the proposal will directly impact 

the transportation of manufactured 

homes and add additional cost for 

homes delivered to New Jersey. They 

stated that the added challenge of 

transporting a manufactured home into 

New Jersey, coupled with their supply 

issues, will decrease their ability to 

supply homes at an affordable price 

point. (NJMHA, No. 1451 at p. 2) 

Clayton Homes and MHI and multiple 

others stated that the proposed rule fails 

to take into consideration construction 

methods, transportation demands, and 

short on-site completion duration that 

are unique to manufactured housing. 

(Campaign Form Letter, Multiple 

Submissions at p. 1) Clayton Homes and 

MHI stated that several of the changes 

in the proposed rule would apply to the 

building thermal systems which may 

affect the overall shipping height and 

width of a home, and by changing 

various factors, the overall shipping 

envelope will change. For example, the 

additional height could prevent 

shipping a home into an area of the 

country with low bridges, resulting in 

consumers having to settle for a 

different style of home, or, more than 

likely, being forced out of the housing 

market due to a lack of affordable 

housing. Also, additional escorts could 

add thousands of dollars to the purchase 

price of the home. Essentially, they 

stated that by increasing the truss heel 

height, increasing floor joist depth, and 

adding insulation outside of the studs, 

the overall shipping envelope will 

change. (Clayton Homes, No. 1589 at p. 

3, 6); (MHI, No. 1592 at p. 2) MHI also 

stated that for houses currently designed 

to maximize the legal shipping width, 

there is no additional width available on 

the exterior, and therefore, the space for 

the exterior insulation (i.e., proposed R– 

20+5 continuous insulation) on these 

homes would have to be taken from the 

interior of the home. (MHI, No. 1592 at 

p. 8) 

On the other hand, NEEA stated that 

more than half of the manufactured 

homes in the Northwest are built with 

a Uo equal to Tier 2 of the August 2021 

SNOPR. They stated that they have been 

applying 2 x 6 frame walls to homes for 

the past 14 years.51 (NEEA, No. 1601 at 

pp. 13–14) 

DOE understands the construction 

and transportation issues that the 

stakeholders are commenting on relate 

specifically to the increased insulation 

for exterior wall, floor and ceiling 

insulation required by Tier 2 in this 

final rule. As discussed in the previous 

sections (which provides further detail, 

but is summarized here), for Tier 2 

exterior wall insulation, DOE is 

finalizing an R–21 exterior wall 

insulation for climate zones 2 and 3, 

which should resolve a number of the 

width concerns. For Tier 2 exterior 

ceiling insulation, DOE notes that there 

is enough room in the truss to 

accommodate higher insulation without 

having to redesign. For Tier 2 exterior 

floor insulation, DOE confirmed that 

there are homes being built that meet R– 

33 floor insulation by incorporating a 

combination of R–11 blankets and R–22 

in 2 x 6 joists, and R–33 belly insulation 

below joists (instead of only using 2 x 

8 joists). Accordingly, DOE is 

unpersuaded with the concerns that 

amended Tier 2 standards would 

require changes in exterior home 

dimensions and cause transportation 

issues beyond any transportation issues 

that currently exist. 

Additionally, as suggested by NEEA, 

DOE notes that there are homes that are 

currently being built with insulation 

levels at the Tier 2 requirements, with 

no issues with transportation. Even 

current ENERGY STAR requirements, 

under the envelope-only package, 

require insulation similar to the Tier 2 

standards. Finally, DOE confirmed that 

the Northwest Energy-Efficient 

Manufactured Housing Program 

(NEEM)+ homes, which go beyond 

ENERGY STAR, do not deal with 

transportation issues because of the 

added insulation. DOE is 

acknowledging that changes will be 

needed to accommodate higher 

insulation. However, DOE understands 

that around 53,400 NEEM homes have 

been transported over the last 20 years 

without any issues. In addition, the 

northwest went through the transition 

in 1990s and Clayton Homes also has 

models meeting the higher insulation 

requirements.52

Finally, DOE also notes that 

manufacturers can also comply with the 

standards using the performance, Uo, 

method, which gives manufacturers the 

flexibility to use any combination of 

energy efficiency measures as long as 

the minimum Uo is met. 

Other Efficiency Improvements 

Greer suggested that DOE consider 

light pollution and recommended using 

downward positioning lighting for the 

outside of the buildings. (Greer, No. 

1443 at p. 1) DOE’s authority for this 

rule is only with regards to establishing 

energy conservation standards (42 

U.S.C. 17071(a) and (b)(1)), which does 

not encompass light pollution or the 

position of lighting, and therefore those 

topics are not addressed in this rule. 

VEIC recommends that DOE adopt the 

IECC R404 requirement for 100 percent 

high efficacy lighting in permanently 

installed fixtures and controls. (VEIC, 

No. 1633 at p. 6) The NPCC stated that 

the standards should include additional 

cost-effective energy-saving measures, 

including equipment, because measures 

beyond the building shell, including 

efficient lighting, heating and cooling 

equipment, water heating equipment, 

appliances, and ducts could yield large 

cost-effective energy savings. (NPCC, 

No. 1567 at p. 2) Next Step also stated 

the standards should include costeffective energy-saving measures, 

including equipment. Next Step also 

stated the standards should include 

ventilation and moisture control 

measures, if needed, to ensure that air 

sealing improves the health of residents. 

(Next Step, No. 1617 at p. 10, 11) The 

Attorneys General urge DOE to include 

a requirement that manufacturers 

provide additional energy saving 

features such as high-efficiency 

appliances or heating and cooling 

systems using an ENERGY STAR®- 

certified heat pump. (Attorneys General, 

No. 1625 at p. 2, 4, 6) 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
32774 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

53Earthjustice and Prosperity Now also stated 

that DOE’s refusal to consider lighting efficacy 

measures is inconsistent with its rationale for 

refusing to evaluate the HVAC and water heating 

equipment requirements in the 2021 IECC because 

the 2014 working group specifically recommended 

that DOE include the lighting efficacy provisions 

from the 2015 IECC in the negotiated manufactured 

housing standards. Earthjustice, Prosperity Now, 

and Sierra Club, No. 1992 at p. 7). However, in the 

June 2016 NOPR, DOE stated that it was not 

proposing the lighting efficacy requirements from 

the 2015 IECC recommended by the working group 

because of DOE’s ongoing rulemaking efforts to 

establish nationwide minimum lamp efficacy 

standards under EPCA, and requested comment on 

the sufficiency of DOE’s rulemaking efforts for lamp 

efficacy to achieve lighting efficiency in 

manufactured homes. See 81 FR 39780. 

54See http://energy.gov/eere/buildings/standardsand-test-procedures. 

Earthjustice and Prosperity Now 

suggested that several important 

provisions of the 2021 IECC are absent 

from DOE’s analysis of potential 

manufactured housing standards, 

including lighting efficacy requirements 

found in section R404 of the 2021 IECC. 

(Earthjustice and Prosperity Now, No. 

1637 at p. 7) They stated that in DOE’s 

previous response suggesting that ‘‘the 

energy efficiency of those products is 

specifically governed by the 

comprehensive Appliance Standards 

program established under [the Energy 

Policy and Conservation Act (‘‘EPCA’’)] 

(42 U.S.C. 6291–6317)’’ DOE cites no 

authority for the proposition that it can 

ignore IECC provisions applicable to 

covered appliances, nor does the 

Department make any attempt to 

explain why Congress would have 

intended to allow DOE to ignore IECC 

provisions that address the efficiency of 

regulated appliances. Id. In addition, 

Earthjustice, Prosperity Now, and Sierra 

Club commented saying that DOE’s 

characterization of its appliance 

efficiency program as ‘‘comprehensive’’ 

ignores that the Department has long 

refused to update the standards for some 

furnaces used in manufactured homes 

because such standards allegedly could 

not meet other requirements applicable 

under EPCA. (Earthjustice, Prosperity 

Now, and Sierra Club, No. 1992 at p. 8, 

9) 

While the 2021 IECC does include 

certain efficiency requirements for 

HVAC, water heaters, lighting, furnaces, 

and appliances, DOE is not adopting 

energy conservation standards for these 

products in the manufactured home 

energy conservation standards. As 

discussed in section III.A of this 

document, section 413 of EISA requires 

DOE to base the manufactured housing 

energy conservation standards on the 

latest version of the IECC, except where 

not cost-effective or where a more 

stringent code would be more costeffective (42 U.S.C. 17071(b)(1)). The 

use of the phrase ‘‘based on’’ readily 

indicates that Congress anticipated that 

DOE would need to use its discretion in 

adapting elements of the IECC’s 

provisions for manufactured housing 

use. This language does not require the 

imposition of requirements for 

manufactured homes that are identical 

to those of the IECC. 

DOE also did not simply ignore the 

updated provisions of the 2021 IECC 

related to appliance and product energy 

efficient requirements that were not 

included in the 2015 IECC, and 

therefore not considered by the working 

group. In the August 2021 SNOPR, DOE 

addressed the fact that the MH working 

group evaluated the 2015 IECC, which 

does not include updated sections of the 

2021 IECC, such as comparable 

provisions to sections R401.2.5 and 

R408.2 of the 2021 IECC. 86 FR 47773– 

47774. With respect to those provisions 

of the 2021 IECC, DOE noted that the 

MH working group generally did not 

recommend provisions addressing 

minimum appliance or equipment 

efficiencies for manufactured housing, 

and therefore, DOE declined to adopt 

such measures consistent with the 

approach of the working group. Id. 

Accordingly, the performance 

requirements in the energy conservation 

standards proposed in the August 2021 

SNOPR and adopted in this document 

are specific to the building thermal 

envelope only, and do not incorporate 

any specifications on HVAC or 

appliance energy efficiency.53

The energy efficiency of those 

products is specifically governed by the 

comprehensive Appliance Standards 

program established under EPCA. (42 

U.S.C. 6291–6317) Covered products 

going into newly built manufactured 

homes will still have to meet the 

minimum energy conservation 

standards set by the Appliance 

Standards program. DOE notes that 

under this final rule, manufacturers 

would not be prohibited from installing 

more efficient appliances than the 

minimum standards set by the 

Appliance Standards program into 

newly manufactured homes.54

Insulation Supply and Demand 

MHI stated that manufacturers are 

currently using R–11 for most of the 

insulation which is predominantly used 

in the walls and floors for Zones 1 and 

2. Further, manufacturers typically 

prefer to use two layers of R–11 if they 

need more insulation in the floors. 

However, they are concerned that the 

proposed changes do not use R–11, but 

rather the lowest insulation value used 

is R–13. Therefore, MHI stated that this 

may cause a supply issue for the 

manufacturers that have ramped up to 

supply large quantities of R–11, and the 

same supply issue will be present for R– 

20 and R–19, which is currently not 

used in large quantities. Further, the 

availability of R–30 insulation in a 

blanket style may be an issue in meeting 

this requirement or force further 

production changes to accommodate 

other styles of insulation. (MHI, No. 

1592 at pp. 6, 8) Clayton Homes stated 

that the proposed standards would 

require manufactured homes to have 

significantly more insulation, which 

would cause the demand for fiberglass 

insulation to overwhelm a market that is 

already under substantial stress from the 

current insulation shortage, which is 

projected to continue for a few more 

years. (Clayton Homes, No. 1589 at p. 4, 

6) 

DOE notes that the performance path, 

i.e., Uo method, gives manufacturers the 

flexibility in using any combination of 

energy efficiency measures as long as 

the minimum Uo is met. Manufacturers 

do not need to meet both the 

prescriptive and the performance 

method; rather they have the option to 

only meet one. As such, manufacturers 

can continue to use current insulation 

types and techniques to meet the energy 

conservation standards. DOE is not 

restricting the type of insulation being 

used, as long as the standards (either 

prescriptive or performance) are met. 

Other Remaining Comments 

Redwood Energy suggested that DOE 

adopt an all-electric version of ENERGY 

STAR as the standards. They suggested 

that all-electric design is already 

roughly 50 percent of manufactured 

housing and produces less net GHGs 

than natural gas or propane on clean 

grids. They stated that ENERGY STAR 

yellow tags show the lowest utility bills 

only to ENERGY STAR heat pump for 

HVAC and DHW. They also commented 

that there was some support from the 

Director of Business Development of 

Champion Homes for a California 

Energy Commission grant, illustrating 

their willingness to build with a 2 x 6 

framed walls, 14′′ deep attic insulation 

and all-electric. (Redwood Energy, No. 

1363 at p. 1) The statutory authority for 

this rulemaking requires DOE to base its 

standards on the most recent version of 

the IECC and any supplements to that 

document, subject to certain exceptions 

and considerations. (42 U.S.C. 

17071(b)(1)) Accordingly, DOE 

developed the standards based on the 

requirements in the 2021 IECC. 

In addition, regarding NFRC labels, 

NEEA recommended that the final rule 

be explicit that the NFRC labels should 

remain on the windows until the house 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 32775 

arrives at the site. (NEEA, No. 1601 at 

pp. 14–15) DOE’s authority for this 

rulemaking is to establish energy 

conservation standards for 

manufactured housing as manufactured. 

(42 U.S.C. 17071(c)) The energy 

conservation standards are specific only 

to the building thermal requirements for 

a manufactured home. However, DOE 

notes that DOE’s energy conservation 

standards would not prevent industry 

from pursuing this labeling practice 

suggested by NEEA. 

Schulte stated that setting the Uo

values for the home and letting 

manufacturers decide how to meet these 

performance standards encourages 

innovation by allowing manufacturers 

to choose higher efficiency windows or 

other changes to achieve the required Uo

values. (Schulte, No. 1028 at p. 23) VEIC 

recommended considering a compliance 

option using an Energy Rating Index 

(‘‘ERI’’) compliance alternative, which 

not only allows for prescriptive and 

total UA compliance approaches, but 

also provides performance-based 

compliance based on annual modeled 

energy costs of the whole-home. (VEIC, 

No. 1633 at p. 3) Consistent with the 

recommendations of the MH working 

group, the performance requirements in 

the energy conservation standards are 

specific to the building thermal 

envelope only, and do not provide for 

tradeoffs with mechanical equipment 

such as appliances. DOE does allow 

tradeoffs between the building thermal 

envelope components as long as the Uo 

is met through the performance path. 

This is similar to the Total UA path in 

the IECC. Similar to those sections, a Uo

calculation gives the manufactured 

home manufacturer the flexibility to 

design the manufactured home, as long 

as the overall Uo is met. 

NEEA recommended that the final 

rule be explicit about what needs to be 

included in an installation manual, 

specifically that the multi-section 

marriage line air seal shall be installed 

at the factory with proper QA/QC. 

(NEEA, No. at p. 14, 15) All 

requirements in this final rule would 

apply to the manufactured home as 

manufactured, i.e., the manufacturer of 

the manufactured home is responsible 

for ensuring compliance with the 

requirements. (42 U.S.C. 17071(c)) A 

manufactured home would have to 

comply with the requirements, once 

finalized, prior to being installed in the 

field. Therefore, DOE has included a 

clarification in § 460.1 of the regulatory 

text that the requirements apply to the 

manufactured home as manufactured at 

the factory, prior to distribution in 

commerce for sale or installation in the 

field. 

ACC FSC stated that the proposed 

standards do not appear to address, 

amend, or prohibit use of § 3280.508 of 

the HUD Code which provides for a socalled ‘‘high efficiency heating and 

cooling equipment credit’’, and 

requested that this loophole be removed 

to avoid erosion of durable envelope 

energy efficiency in trade-off for shorterlived equipment that happens to exceed 

NAECA minimum efficiency 

requirements which, in some key cases, 

have not kept up with the market. They 

stated that while DOE indicated that 

equipment trade-offs are ‘‘only allowed 

within the building thermal envelope, 

and not HVAC equipment or other 

appliances’’, this issue still remains 

unclear in the proposed standards and 

in DOE’s documentation. (ACC FSC, No. 

1364 at p. 4–5). EISA directs DOE to 

establish energy conservation standards 

for manufactured housing. 42 U.S.C. 

17071. As such, § 3280.508 is under 

HUD’s authority and not DOE. However, 

DOE’s energy conservation standards 

are more stringent than the HUD code 

in a number of key respects, and 

manufacturers must comply with both 

HUD and DOE’s requirements. 

Nevertheless, DOE acknowledges this 

comment and will plan to coordinate 

with HUD, as needed, on the 

application of the DOE requirements in 

relation to the HUD heat loss/heat gain 

requirements. 

MHI and Clayton Homes 

recommended clarifying the language in 

§ 460.102 paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(5) of 

the proposed regulatory text as follows: 

adding that the applicable R-value for 

the prescriptive requirements is the 

‘‘nominal value of insulation’’, 

specifying the maximum U-factor as 

‘‘glazing maximum U-factor’’, and 

adding that compliance with the 

applicable requirements in paragraph 

(b)(1) may be determined using the 

‘‘maximum component U-factor’’ values 

set forth in § 460.102 of the proposed 

regulatory text. (Clayton Homes, No. 

1986 at p. 11–13); (MHI, No. 1990 at p. 

14, 15) DOE views these additions as 

adding further specificity to the 

prescriptive requirements, and therefore 

has adopted the recommendations. 

Finally, MHI recommended that DOE 

delete the entirety of § 460.3 of the 

regulatory text, as well as paragraph 

(c)(2) of § 460.3. In addition, MHI also 

recommended deleting Tables 460.102– 

1 and 460.102–3 of the regulatory text 

as proposed in the August 2021 SNOPR. 

(MHI, No. 1990 at p. 11, 12, 14, 16) DOE 

understands MHI’s recommended 

deletion in the regulatory text to suggest 

that MHI does not recommend a tiered 

standard, but rather an untiered 

standard albeit with requirements less 

stringent than those proposed by DOE. 

As previously discussed in section III.A 

of this document, in light of 

affordability and cost-effectiveness 

concerns, DOE is adopting the tiered 

standards in this final rule. Therefore, 

DOE is maintaining the Tier 1 regulatory 

text requirements. Otherwise, responses 

to MHI’s recommendations for the 

prescriptive and performance 

requirements for the tiered standards are 

already addressed in previous sections. 

c. § 460.103 Installation of Insulation 

Consistent with the August 2021 

SNOPR, in this final rule, DOE is 

adopting in § 460.103 of the regulatory 

text, the requirement for manufacturers 

to install insulation according to both 

the insulation manufacturer’s 

installation instructions and the 

instructions set forth in proposed Table 

460.103. § 460.103 specifies 

requirements for the installation of 

insulation, which is based on the R402 

of the 2021 IECC. DOE is also adopting 

the requirement for manufacturers to 

comply with the insulation 

manufacturer’s installation instructions 

to ensure that the intended performance 

of the insulation is achieved. Further, 

consistent with the August 2021 

SNOPR, DOE is adopting as part of a 

new Table 460.103 several component 

installation requirements, including 

general requirements, and requirements 

for access hatches, panels and doors, 

baffles, ceiling or attic, narrow cavities, 

rim joists, shower or tub adjacent to 

exterior wall, and walls, and is 

removing installation requirements for 

eave vents. 

In addition, in response to comments 

received on the August 2021 SNOPR 

proposal, DOE is adding clarifying 

language for the ‘‘baffles’’ component as 

it relates to air-permeable insulation in 

vented attics and eave venting, and to 

the ‘‘Access hatches, panels, and doors’’ 

component as it relates to doors. The 

installation of insulation requirements 

would apply to both Tier 1 and Tier 2 

homes. 

The following paragraphs discuss 

comments DOE received regarding the 

installation of insulation requirements 

proposed in the August 2021 SNOPR. 

DOE received comments on the 

August 2021 SNOPR regarding the 

language used in Table 460.103, 

particularly the ‘‘baffles’’ component. 

MHCC commented that DOE should 

clarify that the requirements for baffles 

in Table 460.103 should apply when the 

baffles are used in conjunction with 

eave venting. (MHCC, No. 1600 at p. 8) 

The 2021 IECC does not include 

specification that the installation 

requirements for baffles are only 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
32776 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

applicable when the baffles are used in 

conjunction with eave venting. 

However, DOE notes that baffles are 

typically used in conjunction with eave 

venting. As such, DOE understands 

MHCC’s recommended change to be 

more of a clarification specific to 

manufactured housing. Therefore, in 

this final rule, DOE is adding clarifying 

language for ‘‘baffles’’ to specify that the 

requirements apply when they are used 

in conjunction with eave venting, 

consistent with the recommendation by 

the MHCC. 

MHI commented that DOE should add 

a statement clarifying that baffles must 

extend over the top of the attic 

insulation ‘‘where insulation is 

restrained from full depth in order to 

maintain 1-inch minimum air space 

between insulation and roof decking.’’ 

(MHI, No. 1592 at p. 26, 27); (Clayton 

Homes, No. 1589 at p. 10, 13, 16); 

(MHCC, No. 1600 at p. 2, 3) DOE notes 

that the proposed August 2021 SNOPR 

requirement is stronger in terms of 

maintaining the clear path of airflow 

between the insulation and the eaves in 

all cases. Specifically, the baffles 

component in proposed Table 460.103 

states that ‘‘baffles must be constructed 

using a solid material, maintain an 

opening equal or greater than the size of 

the vents, and extend over the top of the 

attic insulation’’ ensuring that baffles 

are always properly installed, and that 

insulation does not fall into the vents 

and block the air path. Adding in MHI’s 

recommended language would lead to 

ambiguity when determining where 

baffles must be installed over the top of 

the attic insulation. Therefore, DOE has 

chosen to maintain the August 2021 

SNOPR requirements. 

VEIC commented that it is essential 

that the factories install solid baffles and 

venting at the eaves to ensure that 

compliant insulation levels extend to 

the outside of the exterior wall, and that 

there is ventilation along the roof 

sheathing to prevent moisture issues. 

(VEIC, No. 1633 at p. 4) DOE appreciates 

the comment and agrees that this is 

good building practice. This practice is 

covered in Table 460.103 under the 

installation requirements for ‘‘baffles’’ 

and therefore DOE maintains the 

proposed language in the final rule. 

DOE received comments regarding the 

installation requirements for ‘‘eave 

vents’’ in Table 460.103. MHI and 

MHCC suggested that the language 

regarding ‘‘eave vents’’ be removed, 

since it is not within the 2021 IECC and 

is not relevant to manufactured housing. 

MHI also said that it should be 

acceptable to use nonpermeable 

insulation adjacent to ventilated soffits 

as long as the required free air path is 

maintained. (MHI, No. 1592 at p. 18, 

27); (MHCC, No. 1600 at p. 8) DOE notes 

that R402.2.3 of 2021 IECC discusses 

eave vents as it relates to baffles. 

Specifically, R402.2.3 includes language 

that ‘‘for air-permeable insulation in 

vented attics, a baffle shall be installed 

adjacent to soffit and eave vents.’’ As 

such, consistent with the 2021 IECC, 

DOE has removed the separate ‘‘eave 

vents’’ row in Table 460.103, and 

included the same requirements in the 

‘‘baffles’’ row instead. Further, DOE 

notes that this requirement only clarifies 

insulation installation criteria as it 

relates to air permeable insulation; the 

requirement is not restricting use of 

other insulation products. 

DOE also requested comment in the 

August 2021 SNOPR on whether the 

2021 IECC updates on the installation 

criteria for baffles are applicable to 

manufactured housing and should be 

considered in this rulemaking. 86 FR 

47744, 47781. DOE did not receive any 

comments regarding the applicability of 

these requirements to manufactured 

homes and is therefore not including 

them in the final rule. 

DOE received a comment regarding a 

language change for the ‘‘Access 

hatches, panels, and doors’’ component 

of Table 460.103. MHCC suggested that 

‘‘doors’’ be deleted from Table 460.103 

under ‘‘Access hatches, panels, and 

doors.’’ MHCC stated that doors are 

commonly used for exterior access of 

utility and water heater room in certain 

regions of the country, and they are 

specified by the U-factor requirements 

already established in § 460.102. 

(MHCC, No. 1600 at p. 8, 9) In addition, 

MHI stated that the requirement that 

access hatches, panels, and doors 

between conditioned space and 

unconditioned space must be insulated 

to a level equivalent to the insulation of 

the surrounding surface does not seem 

to be consistent with the discussion 

around exterior doors in the earlier 

section of the proposed standards. (MHI, 

No. 1592 at p. 7) 

DOE understands that there is 

confusion regarding the door U-factor 

requirements specified in Table 460.102 

compared to the door installation of 

insulation requirements in Table 

460.103. In this final rule, DOE is 

clarifying the requirements in Table 

460.102 specifically relate to attic or 

crawlspace access doors. External doors, 

which are used to block or allow access 

to an entrance of a manufactured home, 

would be required to meet the 

requirements in Table 460.102. As such, 

DOE is retaining the door insulation 

installation requirements and adding 

the clarification that it applies to attic 

and crawlspaces in Table 460.102. 

DOE received a comment on the 

August 2021 SNOPR regarding the 

language used in Table 460.103, 

particularly the ‘‘walls’’ component. 

ACC FSC commented that Table 

460.103 appears to be restrictive of and 

only addresses ‘‘air permeable’’ 

insulation products, to the exclusion of 

many others. Specifically, they 

identified that the proposed installation 

requirements state that air-permeable 

insulation must completely fill cavities, 

and this potentially excludes or 

disfavors the use of other cavity 

insulation materials and methods, such 

as a combination of closed-cell spray 

foam and fibrous insulation. (ACC FSC, 

No. 1364 at p. 5) DOE notes that the 

wall component specifications only 

clarify the wall insulation installation 

criteria as it relates to air permeable 

insulation. The wall component 

specifications are not restricting use of 

other insulation products. The MH 

working group recommended that DOE 

modify the language of the 2015 IECC 

requirement with this clarification to 

account for the unique design of 

manufactured housing. See 9/23 

Working Group Transcript, EERE–2009– 

BT–BC–0021–0122 at p. 315. The 2021 

IECC did not update the wall insulation 

installation criteria from the 2015 IECC. 

Accordingly, DOE continues to include 

this requirement, as recommended by 

the MH working group, to ensure that 

wall assemblies in manufactured homes 

achieve the thermal performance 

requirements set forth under § 460.102. 

Regarding duct insulation, NEEA 

recommended that all crossover ducts 

should have R-8 insulation. (NEEA, No. 

1601 at p. 14, 15) DOE’s research 

indicates that HVAC ducts are generally 

located between the floor and the 

insulation and are therefore within the 

conditioned space. Therefore, because 

ducts are already located within the 

conditioned space, and would already 

be insulated because of the insulation 

required within the conditioned space, 

DOE is not adopting any additional 

insulation for ducts in this final rule. 

NEEA also commented that a clearer 

definition of how a proper air barrier 

should be designed was needed to make 

construction requirements more 

specific, and to establish a single 

meaning without ambiguity. (NEEA, No. 

190 at p. 2). NEEA did not provide 

further explanation of how the proposed 

requirements for an air barrier were 

lacking or present an opportunity for 

misapplication. As stated earlier in this 

section, DOE has listed many specific 

requirements for proper air barrier 

installation in Table 460.104. These 

requirements were based on Table 

R402.4.1.1 of the 2021 IECC and related 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 32777 

recommendations from the MH working 

group. Further, DOE reviewed the 2021 

IECC to make any additional updates to 

the air barrier criteria (see Table III.14 

in the August 2021 SNOPR). 

NEEA also recommended adding a 

clearer statement that, as installed, 

insulation should contain no voids or 

compression. (NEEA, No. 1601 at p. 15) 

DOE requires that insulation must be 

installed according to the insulation 

manufacturer’s installation instructions. 

Certain insulation manufacturer’s 

installation instructions specifically 

state that compression must be avoided 

when installing insulation, because 

compression will reduce the R-value. 

Therefore, DOE continues to find that 

the requirements proposed in § 460.103 

of the August 2021 SNOPR are sufficient 

to prohibit compression and voids, and 

will adopt these requirements without 

change, consistent with R303.2 of the 

2021 IECC. 

In the August 2021 SNOPR, DOE also 

requested comment on removing the 

proposed requirement that exterior floor 

insulation installed must maintain 

permanent contact with the underside 

of the rough floor decking over which 

the finished floor, flooring material, or 

carpet is laid. 86 FR 47744, 47780. 

Commenters supported exempting 

manufactured housing from the 

requirement that exterior floor 

insulation installed must maintain 

permanent contact with the underside 

of the rough floor decking. They stated 

that doing this will result in many 

design changes which will increase 

shipping height. (MHI, No. 1592 at p. 

25–26); (Clayton Homes, No. 1589 at p. 

16–18, 22); (MHCC, No. 1600 at p. 6) As 

such, DOE is finalizing the August 2021 

SNOPR proposal in this final rule. 

In the August 2021 SNOPR, DOE also 

requested comment on the proposal to 

not require that exterior ceiling 

insulation must have uniform thickness 

or a uniform density. 86 FR 47744, 

47778. NAHB supported DOE’s proposal 

to not require exterior ceiling insulation 

to have uniform thickness or density. 

They also agreed that space constraints 

make several of the insulation 

requirements in the 2021 IECC not 

applicable to manufactured housing. 

(NAHB, No. 1398 at p. 3) MHI, Clayton 

Homes and MHCC agreed that 

manufactured homes should not have a 

uniform thickness of installation 

requirement. Installing insulation with a 

non-uniform thickness is required to 

construct most manufactured homes 

due to shipping height restrictions and 

the need to minimize truss heel height. 

They provided further supporting 

information to remove this requirement. 

(MHI, No. 1592 at p. 25–26); (Clayton 

Homes, No. 1589 at p. 16–18, 22); 

(MHCC, No. 1600 at p. 6) As such, in 

this final rule, DOE is not requiring that 

exterior ceiling insulation must have 

uniform thickness or a uniform density. 

d. § 460.104 Building Thermal Envelope 

Air Leakage 

Consistent with the August 2021 

SNOPR, DOE is adopting § 460.104 to 

require manufacturers to seal 

manufactured homes against air leakage. 

Air leakage sealing limits air infiltration 

through the building thermal envelope, 

which in turn reduces heating and 

cooling loads. Section 460.104 would 

specify both general and specific 

requirements for sealing a manufactured 

home to prevent air leakage, all of 

which are based on Table R402.4.1.1 of 

the 2021 IECC with modifications based 

on recommendations from the MH 

working group. Term Sheet No. 107 at 

p. 5. The MH working group also 

recommended prescriptive air leakage 

sealing requirements that are designed 

to achieve an overall air exchange rate 

of five air changes per hour (‘‘ACH’’) 

within a manufactured home. Term 

Sheet No. 107 at p. 5. 

The general requirements in § 460.104 

would require that manufacturers seal 

all joints, seams, and penetrations in the 

building thermal envelope to establish a 

continuous air barrier and use 

appropriate sealing materials to allow 

for differential expansion and 

contraction of dissimilar materials. The 

specific requirements in Table 460.104 

include air barrier criteria for ceiling or 

attic, duct system register boots, 

electrical box or phone on exterior 

walls, floors, mating line surfaces, 

recessed lighting, rim joists, shower or 

tub adjacent to exterior wall, walls and 

windows, skylights and doors. In 

response to comments, however, DOE is 

adjusting language for the air barrier 

installation criteria for ‘‘rim joists’’ in 

Table 460.104 based on a 

recommendation received from MHI, 

which is discussed below. The adopted 

building thermal envelope air leakage 

requirements would apply to both Tier 

1 and Tier 2 homes. 

In developing its recommendations, 

the MH working group also identified 

concerns regarding the potential 

impacts of the air sealing requirements 

on the indoor air quality in 

manufactured homes, but understood 

indoor air quality to be outside the 

scope of the working group. (MH 

Working Group Meeting Transcript No. 

115, pp. 95–96) As such, DOE published 

the January 2022 DEIS to, in part, 

address the impacts of DOE’s proposed 

standards on indoor air quality. As 

discussed more in section V.D, DOE 

received numerous comments on indoor 

air quality issues in the January 2022 

DEIS, and DOE considered all of the 

information presented in the analyses 

and comments from the January 2022 

DEIS, and the analyses in the final EIS 

in constructing this final rule. 

The following paragraphs discuss 

comments DOE received regarding the 

building thermal envelope air leakage 

requirements proposed in the August 

2021 SNOPR. 

DOE received a comment regarding a 

language change in Table 460.104. MHI 

recommended removing ‘‘to the sill 

plate and the rim board’’ from Table 

460.104 in the ‘‘Rim Joists’’ section. 

MHI stated that mud sill plates are not 

typically used in manufactured housing 

and, if used, would be installed on-site 

by others outside the scope of this rule. 

(MHI, No. 1592 at p. 19) As DOE 

understands this situation, a sill plate is 

the board laid directly on top of the 

foundation wall attached to the 

foundation wall with anchor bolts. DOE 

proposed the aforementioned 

requirements in the August 2021 

SNOPR because the 2021 IECC included 

the update. However, DOE also 

requested comment on whether the 

proposed update applies to 

manufactured home construction. 86 FR 

47744, 47784 Therefore, although the 

2021 IECC included updates that the 

junctions of the rim board to the sill 

plate and the rim board and the subfloor 

shall be air sealed, based on MHI’s 

comment, DOE has concluded that sill 

plates and their air leakage installation 

criteria are not directly applicable to 

manufactured housing construction in 

the factories. To be consistent with EISA 

in considering the design and factory 

construction techniques for 

manufactured homes (42 U.S.C. 

17071(b)(2)), DOE has removed ‘‘to the 

sill plate and the rim board’’ from the 

air barrier installation criteria of the 

‘‘Rim Joists’’ component of Table 

460.104 in the final rule. 

DOE received a comment regarding 

duct sealing methodologies. Schulte 

commented that the requirement that 

the duct sealing should be done in 

accordance with the duct 

manufacturer’s instructions is consistent 

with the approach used for many 

manufactured housing systems. 

(Schulte, No. 1028 at p. 25) DOE notes 

that this is consistent with what was 

proposed in the August 2021 SNOPR; 

therefore, DOE maintains the 

requirement in the final rule. 

DOE received a comment regarding 

sealing exemptions. MHI recommended 

that holes in the floor, such as under 

bathtubs and showers, must be 

exempted from sealing to permit the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
32778 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

installation of p-traps in 2 x 6 floor 

systems, because these holes do not 

allow air intrusion from the exterior 

because the exterior floor air barrier is 

the bottom board and is not the floor 

itself. (MHI, No. 1592 at p. 27–28) DOE 

understands this comment to mean that 

holes in the floor must not be sealed to 

allow future installation of plumbing 

pipe components. However, DOE’s 

research confirms that the holes in the 

floor around bathtubs and showers are 

difficult to go back and fix, and need to 

be sealed correctly the first time. In 

addition, DOE’s requirement is 

consistent with the air barrier criteria in 

Table R402.4.1.1 of the 2021 IECC 

which states that all holes created by 

wiring, plumbing or other obstructions 

in the air barrier assembly shall be air 

sealed. Therefore, DOE maintains the 

requirement in the final rule to ensure 

that efficiency standards are being met. 

DOE received several comments 

regarding the requirements for sealing of 

duct system register boots. MHI and 

Clayton Homes stated that in 

manufactured homes with heat ducts 

installed in the belly of the home, there 

is no need to seal the duct register and 

boots to the sub-floor because they are 

installed within the thermal envelope. 

(MHI, No. 1592 at p. 6, 7); (Clayton 

Homes, No. 1589 at p. 8, 10,11, 15, 20) 

DOE notes that the duct system register 

boots requirement is consistent with 

Table R402.4.1.1 of the 2021 IECC, and 

additionally states that only the HVAC 

supply and return register booths that 

penetrate building thermal envelope 

shall be sealed to the subfloor, wall 

covering, or ceiling penetrated by the 

boot. Therefore, this requirement only 

applies when the duct system penetrates 

the building thermal envelope. If the 

duct system does not penetrate the 

building thermal envelope, this 

requirement would not apply. 

Therefore, to ensure proper sealing for 

when HVAC supply and return register 

booths penetrate the building thermal 

envelope, DOE maintains the 

requirement in the final rule. 

DOE received several comments 

regarding a language clarification in 

Table 460.104. MHI, Clayton Homes and 

MHCC stated that the ‘‘shower or tub 

adjacent to exterior wall’’ component of 

Table 460.104 should be deleted or 

clarified to apply only when interior 

wall surface is used as an air barrier. 

(MHI, No. 1592 at p. 19); (Clayton 

Homes, No. 1589 at p. 18); (MHCC, No. 

1600 at p. 9, 10) Table R402.4.1.1 of the 

2021 IECC states, with regards to the 

shower/tub on exterior wall component, 

that the air barrier installed at exterior 

walls adjacent to showers and tubs shall 

separate the wall from the shower or 

tub, and that exterior walls adjacent to 

showers and tubs shall be insulated. 

This IECC requirement has been both 

accepted by the MH working group and 

has been implemented for years, as it 

was in the 2015 version of the IECC as 

well. In addition, having an air barrier 

between the showers/tubs and the 

exterior wall is necessary to prevent 

energy loss through these gaps and to 

prevent the shower or tub enclosures 

from getting too cold. Therefore, DOE 

maintains the requirement in the final 

rule. 

DOE received a comment regarding 

the air barrier criteria for electrical 

boxes or phone boxes on exterior walls. 

MHCC stated that the option to provide 

an air barrier behind junction boxes or 

seal around the junction boxes should 

remain as written in Table 460.104. 

(MHCC, No. 1600 at p. 9) As such, DOE 

is finalizing the proposed requirement 

as it relates to the air barrier installation 

criteria for electrical boxes or phone 

boxes on exterior walls. 

DOE received comments regarding the 

air leakage rate target. ACC FSC 

commented that for HUD zones 2 and 3, 

the air leakage rate target should be set 

at 3 air changes per hour at 50 Pascals 

pressure difference between the inside 

and outside of the home (ACH50). 

Further, they stated that the IECC 

requires whole building air leakage 

testing with the air barrier installation 

requirements providing minimum 

practices to achieve the required air 

leakage control and recommended that 

whole building air leakage testing be 

implemented in a manner that provides 

assurance of the intended performance 

on a model-by-model basis, not 

necessarily for every installation of a 

model. (ACC FSC, No. 1364 at p. 6) 

VEIC recommended that the air leakage 

testing requirement as part of the thirdparty certification process be included 

in the HUD Code as follows: Maximum 

air leakage rate of 5 ACH50 for HUD 

zones 1 and 2, and maximum air leakage 

rate of 3 ACH50 for HUD zone 3. (VEIC, 

No. 1633 at p. 6) MHCC stated that in 

the absence of building leakage testing 

criteria, it is unrealistic for the MHCC to 

provide proper feedback, and that there 

are current requirements and 

terminology in the proposed rule that do 

not apply to manufactured homes. 

(MHCC, No. 1600 at p. 9) 

Conversely, DOE received a comment 

from MHI saying that there is 

substantial evidence that the 

prescriptive building thermal envelope 

air leakage standards incorporated 

within the rule are adequate to ensure 

homes achieve an air leakage rate of 5 

ACH50. Further, MHI believes that 

whole house air leakage testing is 

unnecessary. (MHI, No. 1592 at p. 27) 

The requirement of 5 ACH50 was 

evaluated by the MH working group. 

Specifically, the requirements set forth 

in the working group term sheet were 

intended to provide a prescriptive path 

for reaching envelope tightness of 5 

ACH when pressurized to 50 Pascals. 

(Term Sheet, No. 107 at p. 5). Therefore, 

the rule would not establish maximum 

building thermal envelope air leakage 

rate requirements. Instead, the MH 

working group recommended sealing 

requirements that would ensure that a 

home can be tightly sealed with 

techniques that can be visually 

inspected, thus minimizing the 

compliance burden on manufacturers. 

Because the working group agreed upon 

the requirements to reach an air leakage 

rate target of 5 ACH50 to minimize 

burden, DOE is finalizing requirements 

that meet that leakage rate in this final 

rule. Further, as discussed previously, 

this rulemaking only specifies energy 

conservation standards for 

manufactured housing and is not 

addressing a test procedure in this 

rulemaking. 

In the August 2021 SNOPR, DOE 

requested comments on whether any 

other air barrier criteria language for 

recessed lighting, narrow cavities and 

plumbing from the 2021 IECC are 

applicable to manufactured housing. 86 

FR 47744, 47784. MHI and MHCC stated 

that no additional language needs to be 

added for narrow cavities as any such 

activities are rare in manufactured 

housing and when they do occur, they 

generally do not disrupt the air barrier 

and are insulated or gasketed. Similarly, 

they stated that additional information 

does not need to be added for wiring 

and plumbing as most often these 

utilities are routed in the floor systems 

within the thermal envelope and larger 

vent piping is already caulked and 

sealed. (MHCC, No. 1600 at p. 10); 

(MHI, No. 1592 at p. 27) In addition, 

MHCC stated that they did not find any 

additional 2021 IECC updates that 

would be relevant to manufactured 

housing. (MHCC, No. 1600 at p. 9) MHI 

and MHCC stated that recessed lighting 

housings do not need specification on 

air leakage rates, as these fixtures are 

usually insulated contact rated and 

significantly airtight especially when 

considering that they are buried in the 

attic and will be sealed at the ceiling 

penetration. (MHI, No. 1592 at p. 27– 

28); (MHCC, No. 1600 at p. 9, 10) 

Therefore, DOE did not add any 

additional air barrier criteria language 

for recessed lighting, narrow cavities 

and plumbing and maintains the 

proposed language in the final rule. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 32779 

Finally, DOE received a comment 

from MHI recommending that DOE 

delete the recessed lighting 

requirements in Table 460.104 of the 

regulatory text without providing any 

further justification. (MHI, No. 1990 at 

p. 19) The proposed recessed lighting 

air barrier criteria requirement is 

consistent with Section R402.4.5 of the 

2021 IECC, therefore DOE has chosen to 

maintain this requirement in the final 

rule. 

3. Subpart C: HVAC, Service Water 

Heating, and Equipment Sizing 

Subpart C adopts requirements that 

are applicable to manufactured homes 

related to ducts; HVAC; service hot 

water systems; mechanical ventilation 

fan efficacy; and heating and cooling 

equipment sizing. Subpart C 

requirements would be applicable to all 

manufactured homes. The following 

sections provide further details 

regarding Subpart C. 

a. § 460.201 Duct System 

In this final rule, DOE is adopting the 

August 2021 SNOPR proposed duct 

systems requirements, and is including 

in § 460.201(a) a requirement that 

manufactured homes equipped with a 

duct system be designed to limit total 

air leakage to less than or equal to 4 

cubic feet per minute (‘‘cfm’’) per 100 

square feet of conditioned floor area 

when ducts are pressurized to 25 

Pascals. DOE determined this 

requirement to be consistent with 

section R403 of the 2021 IECC. In 

addition, DOE also will require that 

building framing cavities not be used as 

ducts or plenums under § 460.201(a), 

consistent with the 2021 IECC and the 

recommendation of the MH working 

group (Term Sheet, No. 107 at p. 1). 

Building framing cavities are typically 

not tightly sealed and do not provide an 

adequate barrier against foreign bodies 

for air quality reasons. The use of 

building framing cavities as ducts and 

plenums is generally considered to be 

poor construction practice and is not a 

typical practice in the manufactured 

housing industry. The adopted duct 

system requirements would apply to 

both Tier 1 and Tier 2 homes. 

The following paragraphs discuss 

comments DOE received regarding the 

duct system requirements proposed in 

the August 2021 SNOPR. 

DOE received multiple comments 

regarding duct leakage testing. NEEA 

recommended that ductless heat pumps 

or other HVAC systems with all 

ductwork placed inside the conditioned 

space not be required to have duct 

leakage tested. In addition, NEEA 

recommended that DOE include 

language requiring pressure testing of 

supply ducts during construction. 

(NEEA, No. 1601 at p. 11, 16) MHCC 

commented that total duct leakage is not 

an appropriate test for a manufactured 

home because the majority of duct work 

in manufactured homes is within the 

thermal barrier. (MHCC, No. 1600 at p. 

10) MHI also stated that with homes 

where the duct system is installed in the 

belly, any duct leakage that may occur 

is still within the thermal envelope of 

the home, and that the required testing 

for the duct leakage limitation is not 

included in the DOE cost analysis. In 

addition, MHI recommended DOE 

clarify the testing requirements to 

ensure supply duct systems maintain a 

leakage of less than 4 cfm per 100 

square feet of conditioned floor area as 

installed and tested within the building 

facility. (MHI, No. 1592 at p. 28) MHI 

also recommended that DOE add 

language to specify that ‘‘multi-section 

homes may have each home section 

isolated and tested separately’’ (MHI, 

No. 1592 at p. 7, 19–20) Finally, Clayton 

Homes and MHI advocated for the use 

of a specific rough-in test method to 

determine the air leakage of the duct 

systems, where Clayton Homes elects to 

include the exception for the case where 

all ducts and air handlers are located 

entirely within the building (MHI, No. 

1592 at p. 19) (Clayton, No. 1986 at p. 

15). DOE appreciates the information 

received regarding testing and 

compliance. As discussed previously, 

this rulemaking only specifies energy 

conservation standards for 

manufactured housing and is not 

addressing a test procedure at this time. 

However, DOE will consider these 

comments for any potential future 

rulemaking. 

DOE also received comments 

regarding language adjustments in 

§ 460.201. MHI recommended 

specifying in the rule that only the 

supply ducts be sealed to limit total air 

leakage to less than or equal to 4 cfm per 

100 square feet of conditioned floor 

area. (MHI, No. 1592 at p. 7, 19–20) MHI 

also recommended adding sealing 

provisions to this section regarding 

metal ducts and fittings, glass fiberboard 

ducts, connections of installed 

ductwork, and flexible ducts. (MHI, No. 

1990 at p. 20) The August 2021 SNOPR 

proposal did not specify that duct 

systems must have supply ducts be 

sealed to the limit total air leakage or 

any specific sealing provisions; rather, 

the proposal generally specified that a 

manufactured home equipped with a 

duct system be sealed to limit total air 

leakage. 86 FR 47744, 47784–47785 As 

such, DOE notes that the proposed 

requirements already apply to homes 

with supply ducts and cover all 

elements of an air distribution system. 

In addition, although DOE recognizes 

the extra provisions recommended by 

MHI as best practices for installation, in 

this final rule, DOE is being consistent 

with the 2021 IECC and allowing the 

manufacturers to use any appropriate 

sealing provisions as long as the duct 

leakage limits are met. Therefore, DOE 

is finalizing the August 2021 SNOPR 

proposed requirements. 

DOE received comments in support of 

the requirement to limit duct air leakage 

to 4 cfm per 100 square feet of 

conditioned floor area when ducts are 

pressurized to 25 Pascals. Schulte stated 

that duct leakage can be a source of 

energy loss and puts more strain on the 

HVAC equipment, and that this is a 

reasonable requirement. (Schulte, No. 

1028 at p. 25) NEEA strongly supported 

DOE’s inclusion of limiting duct leakage 

to the exterior to not more than 4 cfm 

per 100 square feet and preventing the 

use of building cavities as ductwork. 

(NEEA, No. 1601 at p. 10) However, 

NEEA also recommended that ductless 

heat pumps or other HVAC systems 

with all ductwork placed inside the 

conditioned space not be required to 

comply with the 4 cfm per 100 square 

foot requirement. Id. DOE notes that the 

duct leakage requirement only applies 

to manufactured homes equipped with 

a duct system (not ductless systems). 

Further, for manufactured homes, DOE 

understands that it is not always the 

case that ducts and air handlers are 

located entirely within the building 

thermal envelope. As such, the 

proposed duct leakage specification 

applies to all manufactured homes and 

is consistent with the recommendations 

provided by the MH working group. See 

Term Sheet at p. 5. Therefore, DOE is 

adopting the proposed requirement in 

the final rule. 

b. § 460.202 Thermostats and Controls 

In this final rule, DOE is adopting the 

August 2021 SNOPR proposed 

specifications for thermostats in 

§ 460.202(a) of the regulatory text based 

on the IECC. Section R403.1 of the 2021 

IECC specifies that at least one 

thermostat shall be provided for each 

separate heating and cooling system. 

DOE is also adopting specifications for 

programmable thermostats in 

§ 460.202(b), based on section R403.1.1 

of the 2021 IECC. Section R403.1.1 of 

the 2021 IECC specifies that the 

thermostat controlling the primary 

heating or cooling system must be 

capable of controlling the heating and 

cooling system on a daily schedule to 

maintain different temperature set 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
32780 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

points at different times of the day. In 

addition, consistent with the August 

2021 SNOPR, DOE is including in 

§ 460.202(c) specifications for heat 

pumps having supplementary heat, 

based on section R403.1.2 of the 2021 

IECC, which identifies specific controls 

that prevent supplemental heat 

operation when the heat pump 

compressor can meet the heating load. 

The adopted thermostat and control 

requirements would apply to both Tier 

1 and Tier 2 homes. 

The following paragraphs discuss 

comments DOE received regarding the 

thermostat and controls requirements 

proposed in the August 2021 SNOPR. 

DOE requested comment on DOE’s 

interpretation of section R403.1 of the 

2021 IECC, and on whether there were 

any of the 2021 IECC updates relevant 

to manufactured housing that should be 

considered as part of this rulemaking. 

86 FR 47744, 47786. Regarding 

thermostat control, MHI recommended 

that programmable thermostats should 

remain an option for the homebuyer, 

and any pre-program requirements 

should be part of regulation 

requirements on thermostat 

manufacturers if deemed appropriate 

rather than on home manufacturers. 

(MHI, No. 1592 at p. 28) MHI also stated 

they have observed that many of the 

current homeowners do not use these 

thermostats correctly or have replaced 

them with a simpler version, and that 

the programmable thermostat is not 

perceived as ‘‘providing value’’ to the 

current consumer and should not be 

mandated. (MHI, No. 1592 at p. 7) The 

proposed requirements for 

programmable thermostats are 

consistent with the requirements in 

Section R403.1.1 of the 2021 IECC. 

Further, these requirements were 

recommended to be included by the MH 

working group. See Term Sheet at 1. 

Finally, DOE notes that programmable 

thermostats help consumers save energy 

by providing the capability to reduce 

energy use automatically during 

predetermined times (generally times 

the home is not occupied). Accordingly, 

DOE is adopting the August 2021 

SNOPR language in this final rule 

without modifications. 

DOE also received recommendations 

regarding language adjustments in 

§ 460.202. MHI recommended revising 

§ 460.202(b)(3) to the following: 

‘‘Homeowner manuals should include 

recommendation that homeowners 

program thermostat with a heating 

temperature set point no higher than 

70 °F (21 °C) and a cooling temperature 

set point no lower than 78 °F (26 °C).’’ 

(MHI, No. 1592 at p. 20). The August 

2021 SNOPR originally proposed that 

any thermostat installed by the 

manufacturer that controls the heating 

or cooling system must initially be 

programmed with the previously 

mentioned heating and cooling 

temperature set points, without any 

specification about the homeowner 

manuals. The initial heating and cooling 

temperature set points that DOE 

proposed are consistent with section 

R403.1.1 of the 2021 IECC and 

recommendations from the working 

group. The 2021 IECC does not specify 

that it is the homeowner’s responsibility 

for this setting; rather that temperatures 

are programmed initially by the 

manufacturer. Accordingly, DOE is 

adopting the August 2021 SNOPR 

language in this final rule without 

modifications. 

Regarding thermostat control, NEEA 

recommended that the final rule be 

explicit that the electric resistance 

lockout in central heat pump systems 

when the outdoor air temperature is 

greater than 40 °F. (NEEA, No. 1601 at 

p. 14, 15). While section R403.1.2 of the 

2021 IECC provides requirements for the 

shutoff of heat pumps having 

supplementary electric-resistance heat 

under certain conditions, the 2021 IECC 

does not provide any temperature 

specifications for this shutoff. Therefore, 

DOE did not consider this requirement 

in the energy conservation standards. 

c. § 460.203 Service Hot Water 

In this final rule, DOE is adopting the 

August 2021 SNOPR proposed 

specifications for service hot water in 

§ 460.203(a) that requires manufacturers 

to install service water heating systems 

according to the service water heating 

system manufacturer’s installation 

instructions. Section 460.203 would 

apply to any service water heating 

system installed by a manufacturer. In 

addition, § 460.203 would require 

manufacturers to provide maintenance 

instructions for the service water 

heating system with the manufactured 

home. These requirements would 

promote the correct installation and 

maintenance of service water heating 

equipment and help to ensure that such 

equipment performs at its intended 

level of efficiency. 

Further, DOE is adopting the 

requirement in § 460.203(b) that would 

require any automatic and manual 

controls, temperature sensors, and 

pumps associated with service water 

heating systems to be similarly 

accessible. This requirement would 

ensure that homeowners would have 

adequate control over service water 

heating equipment in order to achieve 

the intended level of efficiency 

contemplated in 10 CFR part 460. This 

requirement is consistent with the 

recommendation of the MH working 

group. Term Sheet, No. 107 at p. 1. 

DOE also is adopting specifications 

for heated water circulation systems in 

§ 460.203(c) based on section R403.5.1.1 

of the 2021 IECC, which provides 

information on heated water circulation 

and temperature maintenance systems. 

The specifications include: (1) 

Requiring heated water circulation 

systems be provided with a circulation 

pump, and that the system return pipe 

be a dedicated return pipe or cold water 

supply pipe; (2) prohibiting gravity and 

thermosyphon circulation systems; (3) 

requiring that controls for heated water 

circulation system pumps identify a 

demand for hot water within the home 

when starting the pump; and (4) 

requiring the controls to automatically 

turn off the pump when the water in the 

circulation loop is at the desired 

temperature and when there is no 

demand for hot water. 

Finally, DOE is adopting the 

requirement that all hot water pipes 

outside conditioned space be required 

to be insulated to at least R-3, and that 

all hot water pipes from a water heater 

to a distribution manifold be required to 

be insulated to at least R-3. These 

requirements are consistent with the 

recommendations of the MH working 

group. Term Sheet, No. 107 at p. 6. The 

adopted service hot water requirements 

would apply to both Tier 1 and Tier 2 

homes. 

The following paragraphs discuss 

comments DOE received regarding the 

service hot water requirements 

proposed in the August 2021 SNOPR. 

DOE requested comment in the 

August 2021 SNOPR on whether the 

circulating hot water system 

temperature limit should be included as 

a requirement due to the update in 

section R403.5.1.1 of the 2021 IECC 

which states that the controls of the 

heated water circulation systems shall 

limit the temperature of the water 

entering the cold-water piping to not 

greater than 104°F (40°C). 86 FR 47744, 

47786. In response, MHI stated that 

circulating hot water systems are not 

typically used in manufactured homes, 

and that 24 CFR 3280 already has 

provisions for scald prevention that 

limit the temperature of hot water, so 

additional requirements would be 

redundant and unnecessary. (MHI, No. 

1592 at p. 28) Therefore, DOE did not 

incorporate a circulating hot water 

system temperature limit into the final 

rule. 

DOE received a comment regarding 

water heater insulation. An individual 

commenter stated that water heater 

jackets have proven effective at reducing 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 32781 

heat loss and improving energy 

efficiency and believes that the final 

rule should incorporate water heater 

insulation provisions. (Individual 

commenter, No. 1563 at p. 1) DOE 

acknowledges that water heater jackets 

and insulating entire water heater 

systems would result in higher energy 

efficiency and more savings for 

homebuyers. However, water heater 

jackets were not discussed in the 2021 

IECC and are not within the scope of 

this rulemaking. Specifically, DOE is 

not proposing energy conservation 

standards for HVAC, water heaters, 

lighting, and appliances because the 

energy efficiency of those products is 

specifically governed by the 

comprehensive Appliance Standards 

program established under EPCA. (42 

U.S.C. 6291–6317). However, 

manufacturers would not be prohibited 

from installing more efficient products 

and appliances, as long as the energy 

conservation standards for 

manufactured housing established in 

this final rule are met. 

DOE received a comment regarding 

further pipe insulation. NEEA 

recommended that pipe insulation be 

required on the hot water main branch 

and locations where the insulation is 

not in direct contact with the pipe or 

underfloor. (NEEA, No. 1601 at p. 5, 16) 

DOE’s requirement of a minimum Rvalue for all hot water pipes outside 

conditioned space, and from a service 

hot water system to a distribution 

manifold is consistent with the 2021 

IECC and the MH working group 

recommendation. Term Sheet, No. 107 

at p. 6. Therefore, DOE is adopting the 

hot water pipe insulation requirement 

from the August 2021 SNOPR. DOE 

notes that its energy conservation 

standards do not prohibit manufacturers 

from employing additional insulation 

beyond DOE’s requirements. 

DOE also received a comment 

regarding language adjustments in 

§ 460.203. MHI recommended deleting 

the proposed provision requiring that, 

when service hot water systems are 

installed by the manufacturer, the 

manufacturer must ensure that any 

maintenance instructions received from 

the service hot water system 

manufacturer are provided with the 

manufactured home. (MHI, No. 1592 at 

p. 20); (MHI, No. 1990 at p. 21) DOE 

understands MHI’s rationale for deleting 

this proposed requirement to be that 

typical water heater instructions do not 

include maintenance instructions 

because they are readily available 

online, and that this information is 

already accommodated in 24 CFR part 

3280. As discussed in the August 2021 

SNOPR, DOE included this requirement 

as it would promote the correct 

installation and maintenance of service 

water heating equipment and help to 

ensure that such equipment performs at 

its intended level of efficiency. 86 FR 

47744, 47786. Considering the added 

instruction would ensure correct 

installation, DOE continues to include 

in the requirements that maintenance 

instructions provided by the service hot 

water manufacturer must be provided 

with the manufactured home. 

d. § 460.204 Mechanical Ventilation Fan 

Efficacy 

In this final rule, DOE is adopting the 

August 2021 SNOPR proposed 

mechanical ventilation fan efficacy 

requirements, based on Table R403.6.2 

of the 2021 IECC. This includes 

minimum fan efficacy requirements for 

HRV and ERV, and air handlers that are 

integrated to tested and listed HVAC 

equipment, in addition to more 

stringent minimum efficacy 

requirements for in-line supply or 

exhaust fans, other exhaust fans (with 

separate requirements for fans having a 

minimum airflow rate of <90 cubic feet 

per minute (‘‘CFM’’) and ≥90 CFM). The 

adopted mechanical ventilation fan 

efficacy requirements would apply to 

both Tier 1 and Tier 2 homes. 

The following paragraphs discuss 

comments DOE received regarding the 

mechanical ventilation fan efficacy 

requirements proposed in the August 

2021 SNOPR. 

DOE received comments regarding 

current ventilation strategies. ACC FSC 

commented that DOE’s intent to rely on 

a continuously operated whole-house 

exhaust fan could create issues with 

maintaining a healthy indoor 

environment and humidity control 

depending on the climate and season of 

the year. (ACC FSC, No. 1364 at p. 6) 

ACEEE suggested that it appears to be 

more typical for homes to use a furnace 

fan for ventilation and to meet the HUD 

code, the furnace supply system to be in 

continuous operation in fan-only mode. 

(ACEEE, No. 1631 at p. 12) On the other 

hand, MHCC commented that they agree 

with not including alternative 

ventilation strategies since the 

mitigation measures are already 

addressed in the HUD Manufactured 

Home Construction and Safety 

Standards in § 3280.103(b)(1). (MHCC, 

No. 1600 at p. 11) In the August 2021 

SNOPR, DOE estimated the energy use 

associated with ventilations by 

modeling a dedicated central exhaust 

fan for both the base case representing 

today’s manufactured homes and the 

standards case representing 

manufactured homes that would comply 

with the proposed standards. DOE 

modeled the ventilation system in this 

manner because it represents the current 

requirements under the HUD Code as 

explained previously. The selection of 

the central exhaust fan for the energy 

use modeling was based on analysis 

from the MH Working Group. DOE 

acknowledges other ventilation 

strategies exist, and the requirements in 

this final rule do not preclude the use 

of other types of ventilation systems as 

long as the energy conservation 

standards requirements are met. 

DOE requested comment in the 

August 2021 SNOPR on the proposal to 

include the 2021 IECC fan efficacy 

standard requirements, and if any of the 

fan efficacy requirements were not 

applicable to manufactured homes. 86 

FR 47744, 47787. MHI stated that DOE 

must clarify that the requirements of the 

whole-house mechanical ventilation 

system do not apply to bath fans and 

range hoods, which are systems MHI 

does not believe should be included. 

(MHI, No. 1592 at p. 21) Separately, 

MHCC stated that the applicability of 

the increased efficacy standards would 

be dependent upon the additional costs 

associated and return of investment of 

the increased mechanical ventilation 

requirements. (MHCC, No. 1600 at p. 11) 

As discussed in section III.F.1.b of 

this document, DOE is amending the 

definition to ‘‘whole house ventilation 

system’’ in response to MHI’s comment 

and to be consistent with the 2021 IECC. 

As such, the updated definition now 

specifically includes the term ‘‘to satisfy 

the whole house ventilation rates’’. 

Otherwise, to maintain consistency with 

the 2021 IECC, DOE will not be 

incorporating extra language to exclude 

bath fans and range hoods from the 

definition of whole-house mechanical 

ventilation system. 

Schulte separately stated that 

consumers will prefer quieter rather 

than louder mechanical devices as they 

do with many household appliances, 

and therefore, it does not appear to be 

necessary to establish a maximum 

sound level for ventilation fans. 

(Schulte, No. 1028 at p. 26) DOE did not 

propose sound level requirements in the 

August 2021 SNOPR and continues not 

to in this final rule. 

e. § 460.205 Equipment Sizing 

In this final rule, DOE is adopting the 

August 2021 SNOPR proposed 

specifications for equipment sizing, 

based on section R403.7 of the 2021 

IECC, which sets forth specifications on 

the appropriate sizing of heating and 

cooling equipment within a 

manufactured home. This section of the 

2021 IECC requires the use of ACCA 

Manual S to select appropriately sized 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
32782 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

55See 24 CFR 3280.508. 56EnergyStar lookup tables https://

www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/bldrs_lenders_

raters/downloads/SizingGuidelines.pdf?59f6-4ecc. 

heating and cooling equipment based on 

building loads calculated using ACCA 

Manual J. The MH working group 

recommended the inclusion of this 

specification in the final rule. Term 

Sheet, No. 107 at p. 1. The adopted 

equipment sizing requirements would 

apply to both Tier 1 and Tier 2 homes. 

The following paragraphs discuss 

comments DOE received regarding the 

heating and cooling equipment sizing 

specifications proposed in the August 

2021 SNOPR. 

DOE received several comments on 

the August 2021 SNOPR regarding the 

removal of ACCA Manual J and ACCA 

Manual S references. MHI commented 

that the incorporation of these manuals 

is an example of trying to use a site-built 

code for manufactured homes and 

would restrict current sales practices in 

the industry especially for retailers 

located near the Zone boundaries, and 

that the use of Manual J or Manual S 

software, as proposed, will add 

additional time and cost for each model 

plan submission. (MHI, No. 1592 at p. 

7, 21, 24); (Clayton Homes, No. 1589 at 

p. 8, 9, 12, 15–17, 19–20); (MHCC, No. 

1600 at p. 10, 11) MHCC commented 

that incorporating Manual J and Manual 

S references will complicate the 

manufacturing process and will also 

increase the overall cost of the units, 

approval time, and frequency of 

approval. (MHCC, No. 1600 at p. 5) 

Further, MHI also commented that 

ACCA Manual J analysis requires 

knowledge of the orientation of the 

home with respect to the sun for cooling 

load analysis, and that the proposed 

rule must establish a default orientation. 

MHI also said that the proposed rule 

must provide the required design 

parameters to perform an ACCA Manual 

J analysis within the context of the three 

thermal zones in the proposed rule, and 

that the rule must establish a threshold 

for requiring a revised Manual J or 

Manual S analysis. (MHI, No. 1592 at p. 

7, 21, 24) In addition, MHCC 

commented that both Manual J and 

Manual S consider the orientation and 

site-specific weather for the home, 

which is unknown at the time of 

construction of manufactured homes. 

(MHCC, No. 1600 at p. 5) MHI and 

Clayton Homes also suggested that the 

proposed rule must establish alternate 

criteria for using ACCA Manual S where 

the design parameters vary within a 

thermal zone, because the variation in 

design parameters within a single 

thermal zone exceeds the sizing limits 

of ACCA Manual S. (MHI, No. 1592 at 

p. 7, 21, 24); (Clayton Homes, No. 1589 

at p. 12) Alternatively, MHI and Clayton 

Homes suggested in their comments 

submitted in response to the January 

2022 DEIS that the requirements to use 

ACCA Manual S and J in regulatory 

section 460.205 be deleted entirely. 

(MHI, No. 1990 at p. 22); (Clayton 

Homes, No. 1986 at p. 16) Clayton 

Homes also recommended deleting 

section 460.3 (b)(1) and (b)(2), which 

lists ACCA Manual J and Manual S as 

materials incorporated by reference. 

(Clayton Homes, No. 1986 at p. 9) 

On the other hand, Schulte 

commented that heating and cooling 

equipment sizing in accordance with 

ACCA Manuals J and S have been a part 

of the IECC for many years, and 

therefore, including these manuals 

would be consistent with the EISA. In 

addition, HUD has included the ACCA 

Manual J calculation for cooling loads 

for site installed air conditioners, so 

ACCA Manual J is already a part of the 

regulatory system in circumstances 

where the site of placement is known. 

(Schulte, No. 1028 at p. 11) 

Section R403.7 of the 2021 IECC 

requires the use of ACCA Manual S and 

J. Further, the same section states that 

‘‘Heating and cooling equipment shall 

be sized in accordance with ACCA 

Manual S based on building loads 

calculated in accordance with ACCA 

Manual J or other approved heating and 

cooling calculation methodologies.’’ 

DOE notes that Manual J and Manual S 

calculations require details such as 

orientation of the building which are 

unknown for manufactured housing 

until placed on site, but that these 

calculations are an important part of the 

design process. DOE expects that 

manufacturers already conduct system 

sizing calculations using best practices 

based on the load calculation and 

system sizing methodology specified in 

the HUD code.55 Further, DOE 

understands that Manual J/S 

calculations are used in the field based 

on feedback received and also 

evidenced by plants which already use 

software to conduct these calculations. 

This is confirmed by the lookup tables 

developed by EnergyStar based on 

Manual J calculations conducted by the 

Manufactured Housing Research 

Alliance for typical home configurations 

and design conditions across the 

country.56 Accordingly, DOE is 

referencing ACCA Manual J and S as 

they would apply to manufactured 

housing design, and is allowing further 

requirements for ACCA Manual J and S 

to be consistent with current 

manufacturer specifications and best 

practices. 

G. Crosswalk of Standards With the 

HUD Code 

DOE compared the energy 

conservation standards in this final rule 

to the construction and safety standards 

for manufactured homes established by 

HUD to confirm that compliance with 

the requirements would not prohibit a 

manufacturer from complying with the 

HUD Code. 

Table III.11 lists the energy 

conservation standards and discusses 

their relationship to similar 

requirements contained in the HUD 

Code. 

TABLE III.11—CROSSWALK OF FINAL RULE WITH THE HUD CODE

DOE final rule 

(10 CFR part 460) 

HUD code 

(24 CFR part 3280) Notes 

Section 460.101 would establish three climate 

zones, in line with HUD, delineated by state 

boundaries. Further, there would be different 

Uo performance requirements for single- and 

multi-section homes.

Section 3280.506 establishes three zones delineated by state boundaries. The HUD 

Code establishes one standard for homes 

of all sizes within a zone.


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 32783 

TABLE III.11—CROSSWALK OF FINAL RULE WITH THE HUD CODE—Continued 

DOE final rule 

(10 CFR part 460) 

HUD code 

(24 CFR part 3280) Notes 

Section 460.102(a) would establish building 

thermal envelope prescriptive and performance compliance requirements.

Section 3280.506 establishes a performance 

approach.

Both DOE and HUD performance requirements are based on maximum Uo requirement per zone for the building thermal envelope. DOE, however, established separate Uo requirements per climate zone for 

single- and multi-section homes, whereas 

HUD only establishes one Uo requirement, 

regardless of home size, per zone. 

Section 460.102(b) would set forth the prescriptive option for compliance with the building 

thermal envelope requirements.

Section 3280.506 establishes a performance 

approach only.

The Battelle Method is used to determine performance standards (in terms of Uo) from 

prescriptive standards. The DOE performance standards would be prescribed in 

§ 460.102(c)(1). 

Section 460.102(b)(2) would establish a minimum truss heel height.No corresponding requirement.

Section 460.102(b)(3) would establish an acceptable batt and blanket insulation combination for compliance with the floor insulation 

requirement in Tier 2 Climate Zone 3.

No corresponding requirement.

Section 460.102(b)(4) would identify certain 

skylights not subject to SHGC requirements.

No corresponding requirements. 

Section 460.102(b)(5) would establish U-factor 

alternatives for the R-value requirements 

under 460.102(b)(1).

No corresponding requirements. 

Section 460.102(c)(1) would establish maximum building thermal envelope Uo requirements.Section 3280.506(a) establishes maximum 

building thermal envelope Uo requirements 

by zone.

DOE’s maximum building thermal envelope Uo

requirements are lower than the corresponding maximum Uo requirements 

under § 3280.506(a). Compliance with the 

DOE Uo requirements achieve compliance 

with the Uo requirements under the HUD 

Code. 

Section 460.102(c)(2) would establish maximum area-weighted vertical fenestration Ufactor requirements in climate zones 2 and 3.No corresponding requirements. 

Section 460.102(c)(3) would establish maximum area-weighted average skylight U-factor requirements in climate zones 2 and 3.No corresponding requirements. 

Section 460.102(c)(4) would authorize windows, skylights and doors containing more 

than 50 percent glazing by area to satisfy the 

SHGC requirements of § 460.102(a) on the 

basis of an area-weighted average.

No corresponding requirements. 

Section 460.102(e)(1) would establish a method of determining Uo using the Overall U-values and Heating/Cooling Loads—Manufactured Homes, or the Battelle Method.Section 3280.508(a) and (b) reference the 

Overall U-values and Heating/Cooling 

Loads—Manufactured Homes, or the 

Battelle Method.

Section 460.103 would require insulating materials to be installed according to the manufacturer installation instructions and the prescriptive requirements of Table 460.103.No corresponding requirements.

Section 460.103 would establish requirements 

for the installation of batt, blanket, loose fill, 

and sprayed insulation materials.

No corresponding requirements.

Section 460.104 would require manufactured 

homes to be sealed against air leakage at all 

joints, seams, and penetrations associated 

with the building thermal envelope in accordance with the manufacturer’s installation instructions and the requirements set forth in 

Table 460.104.

Section 3280.505 establishes air sealing requirements of building thermal envelope 

penetrations and joints.

Section 460.201(a) would require each manufactured home to be equipped with a duct 

system that must be sealed to limit total air 

leakage to less than or equal to 4 cfm per 

100 square feet of floor area and specify that 

building framing cavities are not to be used 

as ducts or plenums when directly connected 

to mechanical systems.

Section 3280.715(a)(4) establishes requirements for airtightness of supply air duct 

systems.


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
32784 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE III.11—CROSSWALK OF FINAL RULE WITH THE HUD CODE—Continued 

DOE final rule 

(10 CFR part 460) 

HUD code 

(24 CFR part 3280) Notes 

Section 460.202(a) would require at least one 

thermostat to be provided for each separate 

heating and cooling system installed by the 

manufacturer.

Section 3280.707(e) requires that each space 

heating, cooling, or combination heating 

and cooling system be provided with at 

least one adjustable automatic control for 

regulation of living space temperature.

Both DOE’s rule and the HUD Code require 

the installation of at least one thermostat 

that is capable of maintaining zone temperatures. 

Section 460.202(b) would require that installed 

thermostats controlling the primary heating or 

cooling system be capable of maintaining different set temperatures at different times of 

day and different days of the week.

No corresponding requirements. 

Section 460.202(c) would require heat pumps 

with supplementary electric resistance heat 

to be provided with controls that, except during defrost, prevent supplemental heat operation when the pump compressor can meet 

the heating load.

Section 3280.714(a)(1)(ii) requires heat 

pumps to be certified to comply with ARI 

Standard 210/240–89, heat pumps with 

supplemental electrical resistance heat to 

be sized to provide by compression at least 

60 percent of the calculated annual heating 

requirements of the manufactured home, 

and that a control be provided and set to 

prevent operation of supplemental electrical 

resistance heat at outdoor temperatures 

above 40°F.

Both DOE’s rule and the HUD Code require 

heat pumps with supplemental electric resistance heat to prevent supplemental heat 

operation when the heat pump compressor 

can meet the heating load of the manufactured home. 

Section 460.203(a) would establish requirements for the installation of service hot water 

systems.

No corresponding requirements. 

Section 460.203(b) would require any automatic and manual controls, temperature sensors, pumps associated with service hot 

water systems to be accessible.

No corresponding requirement.

Section 460.203(c) would establish requirements for heated water circulation systems.No corresponding requirements. 

Section 460.203(d) would establish requirement for the insulation of hot water pipes.No corresponding requirements. 

Section 460.204 would establish requirements 

for mechanical ventilation system fan efficacy.

Section 3280.103(b) establishes whole-house 

ventilation requirements.

HUD requirements at § 3280.103(b) do not 

overlap with DOE’s rule. DOE’s requirement 

is for fan electrical efficiency, while HUD requirements specify minimum and maximum 

air flow rates. 

Section 460.205 would establish requirements 

for heating and cooling equipment sizing.

No corresponding requirements. 

IV. Discussion and Results of the 

Economic Impact and Energy Savings 

A. Economic Impacts on Individual 

Purchasers of Manufactured Homes 

DOE conducted LCC and PBP 

analyses to evaluate the economic 

impacts on individual consumers of 

energy conservation standards for 

manufactured housing. The effect of 

new or amended energy conservation 

standards on individual consumers 

usually involves a reduction in 

operating cost and an increase in 

purchase cost. DOE used the following 

two metrics to measure consumer 

impacts: 

• The LCC is the total consumer 

expense of a manufactured home over 

the life of that home, consisting of total 

installed cost plus total operating costs. 

To compute the total operating costs, 

DOE discounts future operating costs to 

the time of purchase and sums them 

over the lifetime of the product (or 

another specified period). 

• The PBP is the estimated amount of 

time (in years) it takes consumers to 

recover the increased purchase cost 

(including installation) of a moreefficient manufactured home through 

lower operating costs. 

The LCC of a manufactured home 

refers to the total homeowner expense 

over the life of the manufactured home 

(30 years), consisting of purchase 

expenses (e.g., loan or cash purchase) 

and operating costs (e.g., energy costs). 

To compute the operating costs, DOE 

discounted future operating costs to the 

time of purchase and summed them 

over the 30-year lifetime of the home 

used for the purpose of analyzing this 

rulemaking. A 10-year LCC was also 

calculated to reflect the cost of 

ownership over the tenure of the first 

homebuyer based on recommendations 

from the MH working group. First 

homebuyer tenancy is estimated to be 

13 years; however, DOE did not do a 13- 

year analysis, and instead approximates 

first tenancy with the 10-year analysis at 

the recommendation of the MH working 

group. DOE calculated the PBP by 

dividing the incremental increase in 

purchase cost by the reduction in 

average annual operating costs that 

would result from this rule. 

In the August 2021 SNOPR and the 

October 2021 NODA, the LCC analysis 

demonstrated that increased purchase 

prices due to the proposed EEMs would 

be offset by the benefits manufactured 

home homeowners would experience 

via operating cost savings. DOE 

evaluated these projected impacts on 

individual manufactured home 

homeowners by analyzing the potential 

impacts to LCC, energy savings, and 

purchase price of manufactured homes 

under the proposed rule. DOE compared 

the purchase price and LCC for 

manufactured homes built in 

accordance with the proposed rule 

relative to a baseline manufactured 

home built-in compliance with the 

minimum requirements of the HUD 

Code. Specifically, DOE performed 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 32785 

57 Double-section manufactured homes were used 

to represent all multi-section homes. Double-section 

manufactured homes have the largest market share 

by shipments (about 98 percent) of all multi-section 

homes. 

energy simulations on manufactured 

homes located in 19 geographically 

diverse locations across the United 

States, accounting for five common 

heating fuel/system types and two 

typical industry sizes of manufactured 

homes (single-section and doublesection manufactured homes).57 86 FR 

47744, 47790–47805; 86 FR 59042, 

59043. 

DOE received a number of comments 

regarding several aspects of the 

economic impacts on individual 

consumers described in the August 2021 

SNOPR and October 2021 NODA. DOE 

also received comments pertaining to 

the methodology and assumptions used 

in the economic analysis conducted. For 

this final rule, DOE conducted similar 

LCC and PBP analyses for the 

requirements adopted in this final rule. 

The changes made from the analyses 

performed for the August 2021 SNOPR 

and October 2021 NODA are discussed 

in the following sections, including any 

changes that DOE has made in the 

methodology and assumptions, along 

with a discussion of the submitted 

comments. 

1. Discussion of Comments and 

Analysis Updates 

a. General 

UC Law School stated that DOE failed 

to analyze the findings and relevant 

information from the 2021 CFPB report 

and the 2020 U.S. Census Manufactured 

Housing Survey, thereby risking a 

finding that its action was arbitrary and 

capricious. They stated that these 

documents have relevant information 

that should be taken into account for the 

rulemaking process, especially for the 

financial implications of the proposed 

rule. (UC Law School, No. 1634 at p. 6, 

7, 10) DOE reviewed the updates to the 

2021 CFPB and the 2020 MHS in the 

October 2021 NODA and provided 

updated analysis results. 86 FR 59042. 

DOE is incorporating the same updates 

in this final rule. 

Schulte stated that loans made for 

used homes are likely to be much 

smaller than for new home loans. Table 

4 of the 2021 CPFB report shows a 

median chattel loan amount is $58,672. 

Schulte also mentioned that there is 

currently no government-sponsored 

enterprise (‘‘GSE’’) secondary market for 

the purchase of chattel manufactured 

home loans, and that, until private 

financing sources decide to purchase 

chattel loan pools or the GSE’s move 

into the chattel loan market, limited 

lender choice and higher loan rates are 

likely to persist with regards to 

purchasing new manufactured homes. 

(Schulte, No. 1028 at pp. 6, 20) DOE 

appreciates the comment. As previously 

mentioned, DOE has updated the 

analysis to consider the 2021 CFPB. As 

such, the loan interest rates DOE is 

using (5 percent for consumers using 

real estate loans, 9 percent for 

consumers using chattel or personal 

property loans) is consistent with the 

rates used in the 2021 CFPB report (4.6 

percent for mortgage/real estate loans 

and 8.6 percent for chattel loans). 

b. Analysis Period for LCC 

In the August 2021 SNOPR and the 

October 2021 NODA, DOE analyzed a 

10-year LCC to represent the first 

ownership period and cost to the first 

homebuyer, and a 30-year LCC to 

represent the lifetime of the 

manufactured home and associated 

costs, which would represent the total 

costs and benefits for all occupants over 

the life of the manufactured home. The 

30-year lifetime was selected as a 

typical length that EEMs last in the 

aggregate. DOE assumed that the energy 

efficiency measures (e.g., thicker 

insulation) had a lifetime of 30 years 

before requiring replacement. In 

addition, DOE assumed that the 

monetary value of those energy 

efficiency measures depreciated linearly 

over time to having no value at the end 

of its lifetime; however, DOE assumed 

that the effectiveness of these measures 

does not decrease over time. As noted 

in the TSD, EEMs may have a shorter 

lifespan than the home if the measures 

reduce in efficacy over the 30-year 

lifetime; to the extent that this is the 

case, the energy savings presented in 

IV.D may be reduced. At the end of this 

30-year lifetime, the EEMs would have 

no monetary value. DOE received 

comments on the analysis period used. 

Based on MHI’s industry data, they 

stated that buyers usually sell their 

homes within seven to ten years of 

purchase, and therefore it is unlikely 

that a manufactured homebuyer 

financing the purchase of a new 

manufactured home being proposed 

would even recover these upfront costs 

at a future sale. (MHI, No. 1592 at p. 4) 

They stated that at the efficiency levels 

proposed by DOE, MHI’s survey of 

manufacturers found that it is unlikely 

that a buyer purchasing a new home and 

financing 90 percent of the purchase 

price would even recover these upfront 

costs at a future sale. Id 

On the other hand, Schulte stated that 

the average tenancy for a manufactured 

home is 14 years, which supports a 

longer period for the LCC analysis. 

(Schulte, No. 1028 at pp. 6, 20) NASEO 

stated that DOE should not consider the 

benefits of only 10 years for determining 

cost effectiveness, because it is 

inconsistent with DOE’s previous 

positions on the average 30 to 40-year 

lifetime of manufactured homes and an 

average ownership period of 13 years. 

They stated that the lifetime of a 

manufactured home averages 30 years as 

found by DOE in the June 2016 NOPR, 

and corroborated by DOE’s own findings 

which indicate that many manufactured 

homeowners live in their homes for 40 

or more years. Furthermore, they 

commented that DOE’s proposed benefit 

analysis indicates an ‘‘average 

ownership period of 13 years’’ for new 

homes and states ‘‘62 percent of all 

homeowners anticipate living in their 

homes for more than 10 years and that 

38 percent of homeowners do not 

anticipate ever selling their home.’’ 

Accordingly, they stated that DOE 

should account for the ‘‘total life-cycle 

construction and operating costs’’, as 

required by EISA. (NASEO, No. 1565 at 

p. 2) 

Next Step commented that HUD’s 

affordability compliance requirements 

for new housing production are up to 30 

years. (Next Step, No. 1617 at p. 7–9) 

They also stated that two of the most 

prominent affordable housing, new 

construction programs (the HOME 

Program and the Low-Income Housing 

Tax Credit Program), require 

affordability compliance periods for 30 

years for rental new construction. 

Accordingly, they recommended that 

the federal government considers the 

long-term affordability of this housing 

stock, and the same principles should 

be applied to manufactured housing. 

(Next Step, No. 1617 at p. 5) Further, 

they stated that the consideration for 

LCC costs for manufactured homes 

should be based on 30 years. (Next Step, 

No. 1617 at p. 6) Schulte also stated that 

the current HUD thermal standards were 

based on the useful life of the home (33 

years). Manufactured homes once sited 

are not often moved unless required to 

do because of a loan default or for other 

reasons. (Schulte, No. 1028 at p. 17) 

DOE appreciates the information 

provided by these organizations 

regarding the potential tenure period for 

the occupants of manufactured homes. 

Based on a review of the 2019 AHS, the 

mean year that the householder (owner 

and renter) moved to a manufactured 

home is 2008, which equates to 11 years 

living in the home in 2019. When 

separating owner and renter, the mean 

year was 2006 for the owner (equating 

to 13 years living in the home in 2019) 

and 2014 for the renter (equating to 5 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
32786 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

58Foremost Insurance Group. 2012 Mobile Home 

Market Facts. 

59Manufactured Housing Institute. 2021 

Manufactured Housing Facts: Industry Overview. 

60Bell-Pasht, A., and L. Ungar. 2021. Strong 

Universal Energy Efficiency Standards Will Make 

Manufactured Homes More Affordable. 

Washington, DC: American Council for an EnergyEfficient Economy. https://www.aceee.org/whitepaper/2022/01/strong-universal-energy-efficiencystandards-manufactured-homes. 

years living in the home in 2019). 

Further, based on the nationally 

representative housing sample data in 

the 2019 AHS, the maximum duration 

for a householder living in the home is 

49 years. Separately, a 2012 study 

conducted by Foremost Insurance 

Group found that 40 percent of 

manufactured home homeowners do not 

anticipate ever selling their 

manufactured home.58 Furthermore, a 

2021 manufactured housing industry 

overview fact sheet developed by MHI 

suggests that 62 percent of all 

homeowners anticipate living in their 

homes for more than 10 years and that 

38 percent of homeowners do not 

anticipate ever selling their home.59

Therefore, there are many factors that 

may affect the duration of time that a 

manufactured home remains under a 

given homeowner and similarly many 

factors that DOE must consider in 

developing its analysis. Considering the 

MH working group agreed on the 30- 

year and 10-year analysis periods, and 

analysis conducted by other 

organizations, including HUD, and the 

Low-Income Housing Tax Credit 

Program also conduct their analyses 

based on a 30-year analysis period, DOE 

is maintaining both the 30-year and the 

10-year analyses. 

EISA directs DOE to base the 

standards on the most recent version of 

the IECC considering, among other 

things, the total life-cycle construction 

and operating costs. (42 U.S.C. 

17071(b)(1)) Therefore, based on DOE’s 

reasoning and the comments discussed 

previously, DOE continued to perform 

the 30-year analysis to determine the 

economic impacts, as well as the 

cumulative benefits over the lifetime of 

the manufactured home. As such, DOE 

is considering the total life-cycle costs 

and operating costs of the standards 

over a 30-year period in this final rule. 

Separately, for the purposes of this 

analysis and based on the range of time 

periods provided in the comments 

discussed previously, DOE continues to 

rely on the 10-year time period as a 

reasonable representation of the 

ownership period of the first homebuyer 

for the overall manufactured housing 

market as it falls within the middle 

ground of the ranges described in the 

2019 AHS and the comments provided. 

c. LCC Methodology 

DOE received a number of comments 

regarding the LCC methodology to 

capture potential savings related to the 

rulemaking. 

Several commenters stated that using 

DOE’s cost analysis assumptions and 

the average tenure of a manufactured 

homeowner, the changes recommended 

by DOE will actually cost homebuyers 

money that they will never recoup with 

energy savings. (MMHA, No. 995 at p. 

1–2); (Michigan MHA, No. 1012 at p. 1– 

2); (WHA, No. 1025 at p. 1–2); (PMHA, 

No. 1165 at p. 1–2); (Westland, No. 1263 

at p. 1–2); (Pleasant Valley, No. 1307 at 

p. 1); (American Homestar, No. 1337 at 

p. 1); (Oliver Technologies, No. 1350 at 

p. 1); (KMHA, No. 1368 at p. 1); 

(Adventure Homes, No. 1383 at p. 1–2); 

(NJMHA, No. 1451 at p. 2); (WMA, No. 

1452 at p. 1–2); (IMHA/RVIC, No. 1466 

at p. 2); (Cavco, No. 1497 at p. 2); 

(Skyline Champion, No. 1499 at p.1); 

(Mississippi MHA, No. 1588 at p. 2) ; 

(Skyline Champion, No. 1612 at p.2); 

(Cavco, No. 1622 at p. 2); (VAMMHA, 

No. 1624 at p. 2) 

MHI stated that DOE’s analysis uses 

improper calculations and 

methodologies. They stated that the 

proper way to do the cost-benefit 

analysis is by examining each 

incremental improvement in efficiency, 

individually, which DOE did not do, 

even though DOE developed and 

promotes a Building Energy 

Optimization Tool that uses this 

incremental approach to find the 

optimum investment. MHI stated that, 

by combining all the energy measures 

together into a single figure, the slim 

benefits of adding the last, least costefficient measures, is subsumed in and 

masked by the benefits of adding the 

first, most cost-effective measures. 

(MHI, No. 1592 at p. 4) Further, MHI 

also commented that many of the 

locations selected by the DOE for its 

analysis are not locations where 

manufactured housing is prevalent. 

(MHI, No. 1592 at p. 5) Accordingly, 

MHI performed their own analysis using 

a down-payment of 10 percent, an 

interest rate of 9 percent—which MHI 

stated is at the high end of mortgage 

rates today—a loan term of 20 years, and 

a tenancy period of 10 years, MHI’s costbenefit analysis found that the DOE’s 

proposal would result in a net loss for 

single- and multi-section homes 

depending on location. (MHI, No. 1592 

at p. 4) Cavco commented that the cost 

benefit analysis should begin at the 

HUD Code minimum requirements and 

increase incrementally, taking into 

account the actual cost and potential 

savings until the elements are found to 

produce negative paybacks over a 

reasonable time period. (Cavco, No. 

1622 at p. 3) 

Generally, NRDC stated that while the 

costs of energy efficiency improvements 

are borne by the first-time owner, the 

value is reaped by all residents of the 

product, including renters and the 

purchasers of existing homes. They 

stated that neither of these actors has 

any say in determining energy efficiency 

unless they choose to perform retrofits, 

which are much less cost effective than 

building in the efficiency from the 

factory. (NRDC, No. 1599 at p. 2) 

ACEEE recommended that DOE 

update the LCC analyses to also include 

renters. Based on their analysis, they 

stated that 25 percent of residents in 

manufactured homes are renters and 29 

percent of residents are in homes less 

than ten years old. For low-income 

residents, 29 percent are renters (33 

percent of those in homes less than ten 

years old). ACEEE also commented that 

the analyses should fully include 

owners with no debt—the percentage of 

owners (not including renters) with no 

home loan increases from 30 percent of 

owners of homes less than 4 years old 

to 38 percent of homes up to 10 years, 

57 percent of homes 11–20 years, 76 

percent of homes 21–30 years, and 87 

percent of those 31–70 years old. They 

stated that 82 percent of low-income 

owners have no debt so, assuming lowincome owners disproportionately 

purchase homes for under $63,000, the 

percentage of owners with no debt is 

likely higher for the cheapest homes. 

(ACEEE, No. 1631 at p. 8–10) 

Accordingly, ACEEE referenced a 

separate white paper they conducted,60

which suggested the following updates 

to the DOE LCC analysis. First, ACEEE 

noted that affordability concerns are 

greatest for low-income households, 

only 3 percent of whom own homes that 

are less than ten years old; these 

residents tend to rent or to own older 

homes. If DOE chooses also to do 10- 

year LCC analyses, ACEEE 

recommended looking at all types of 

residents in years 1–10, 11–20, and 21– 

30 of a home to gain a better 

understanding of the impact on all 

residents. They stated that while these 

residents are roughly included in the 

30-year LCC analyses, DOE should 

either blend these residents into the 10- 

year LCC analyses or do additional 10- 

year analyses to consider the impacts on 

these residents. Second, although 

income data are limited, ACEEE stated 

that there is no evidence that taking out 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 32787 

chattel loans varies significantly by 

income level. They stated that median 

income of borrowers is almost the same 

for mortgages and chattel loans, per the 

2021 CFPB Report. Therefore, ACEEE 

recommended that residents of singlesection (or Tier 1) homes and lowerincome residents have the same mix of 

financing as other residents and that 

they did not all pay higher interest rates. 

Third, ACEEE stressed that the EEM 

costs were too high and so it 

recommended updating cost estimates 

for what they claim are ‘‘more recent’’ 

estimates. Finally, ACEEE noted that 

incorporation of a heat pump water 

heater as an ‘‘additional efficiency 

package’’ option should be included. In 

addition, ACEEE performed some 

modifications to the LCC spreadsheet, 

including the following: (1) Correcting 

the property cash flow payments to be 

in nominal dollars, such that the 

discounting used for the LCC 

calculation is consistent; (2) adjusting 

the incremental property tax payments 

to decline annually consistent with the 

residual value assumptions; and (3) 

adjusting the assumed chattel loan term 

from 15 to 23 years. 

With the updates suggested, ACEEE’s 

study found that a standard at the 

untiered/Tier 2 level would generate 

about $900 more in net life-cycle cost 

savings in the average single-section 

home than would the weaker standard. 

Their projected savings are significant 

in each climate zone, but they are 

especially striking in the South (Climate 

Zone 1), which has been the center of 

affordability concerns. Further, they 

estimated significantly higher LCC 

savings than DOE predicted because of 

the updated financing assumptions and 

updated cost assumptions. They also 

performed a 10-year LCC analysis, 

which suggested that while the first 10 

years provides modest savings for the 

untiered/Tier 2 standards (consistent 

with DOE’s analysis), the net savings 

from the untiered/Tier 2 standards 

surpass Tier 1 in the second and 

especially the third decade, as the 

energy cost savings continue and the 

cost (residual value) of the measures 

decreases. (See A. Bell-Pasht and L. 

Ungar study). 

NEEA also stated that DOE’s 

assumption that Tier 1 MH are only 

purchased by low-income households 

and financed by chattel loans is not 

accurate. (NEEA, No. 1601 at p. 6–9) 

Joint commenters also stated that the 

standards and analysis should take into 

account both the construction costs and 

the full energy costs for those who can 

buy new homes, for renters, and for 

owners of older homes. They 

commented that only 3 percent of lowincome residents of manufactured 

homes own homes that are less than ten 

years old, and only 13 percent of lowincome residents owe loan debt for their 

homes (including mortgages and chattel 

loans). (Joint Comments, No. 1630 at p. 

1) Next Step recommended DOE 

consider that the energy savings should 

not be calculated based on a simple 

payback for the first home buyer, but 

also subsequent purchasers who will 

benefit over the 40-year life expectancy 

of the home. (Next Step, No. 1617 at p. 

7) 

EISA requires that DOE establish 

energy conservation standards for 

manufactured housing with 

consideration of the cost-effectiveness 

as related to the purchase price and total 

life-cycle construction and operating 

costs generally. (42 U.S.C. 17071(b)(1)) 

As such, the LCC analysis addresses this 

requirement by incorporating the total 

homeowner expense over the life of the 

manufactured home, consisting of 

purchase expenses (e.g., loan or cash 

purchase) and operating costs (e.g., 

energy costs). Further, the LCC analysis 

focuses primarily on the effects of the 

rule on the individual consumers of 

manufactured homes. Finally, the LCC 

analysis applies to all consumers, 

regardless of whether they purchase the 

home from a commercial retailer or an 

onsite community operator. 

DOE used the LCC and PBP analyses 

developed during the MH working 

group negotiations to inform the 

development of the rule based on the 

economic impacts on individual 

purchasers of manufactured homes. 

This includes the locations identified in 

the analysis—the MH working group 

selected nineteen cities located 

throughout each of the IECC climate 

zones. DOE updated the inputs to the 

LCC and PBP analyses based on updated 

references, including Annual Energy 

Outlook 2021 (‘‘AEO 2021’’), 2021 CFPB 

and the latest U.S. Energy Information 

Administration (‘‘EIA’’) prices. In 

performing this analysis, DOE analyzed 

the costs and benefits to consumers over 

a 10-year analysis period and a 30-year 

analysis period. The 10-year analysis 

period represented the cost of 

ownership over the tenure of the first 

homebuyer, and the 30-year analysis 

period reflected the total cost of 

ownership over the lifetime of the 

manufactured home. Further discussion 

on analysis period is provided in 

IV.A.1.b. 

In reviewing the general comments 

regarding the LCC methodology, DOE 

agrees with ACEEE and has made the 

following updates: (1) Correcting all 

property cash flow payments to be in 

nominal dollars, such that the 

discounting used for the LCC 

calculation is consistent; and (2) 

adjusting the assumed chattel loan term 

from 15 to 23 years (per the 2021 CFPB 

Report). DOE notes that the chattel loan 

term was adjusted in the October 2021 

NODA. 86 FR 59042, 59044. DOE is 

maintaining the conservative 

assumption that incremental property 

tax payments should be held constant, 

as this was an assumption used by the 

MH working group, and because 

property tax is not just based on the 

value of the home, but also on the home 

location. Further, DOE is not including 

any requirements for the additional 

energy efficiency packages in this final 

rule, including heat pumps, as 

discussed in section III.F.2.b of this 

document. Finally, section IV.A.1.e 

addresses all comments regarding 

updating the incremental costs. 

As acknowledged by ACEEE, the 30- 

year LCC analysis roughly includes all 

residents of manufactured homes, 

regardless of whether they are a 

homeowner or a renter. DOE believes 

the likely effect to renters is that the 

landlord would pass on their added 

purchase costs, financing costs and 

property taxes to the renters, but the 

renters would reap the same energy 

savings benefits as already presented in 

the 10- and 30-year analyses. In 

addition, as discussed in section 

IV.A.1.b of this document, DOE is 

maintaining the 30-year analysis period 

as a reasonable representation of the 

total cost of ownership over the lifetime 

of the manufactured home. 

Regarding the 10-year analysis, DOE 

acknowledges comments that there are 

all types of residents of manufactured 

homes, not just the homeowners. 

Further, DOE acknowledges that 

including other residents could show 

additional savings than what was 

presented in the August 2021 SNOPR 

and October 2021 NODA. However, the 

10-year analysis was included in 

addition to the 30-year analysis 

specifically to represent the cost of 

ownership period over the tenure of the 

first homebuyer, per the MH Working 

Group (See page 343 at EERE–2009–BT– 

BC–0021–0120). To address 

affordability and the potential adverse 

impacts on price-sensitive, low-income 

purchasers of manufactured homes from 

the imposition of energy conservation 

standards, DOE maintains the 10-year 

analysis to continue to represent the 

first homebuyer only, consistent with 

the analysis conducted by the MH 

Working Group. 

Further, DOE analyzed Tier 1 

considering only personal property (i.e., 

chattel) loans. 86 FR 47744, 47798. 

Although the 2021 CFPB presents that 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
32788 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

61Energy Information Administration. Annual 

Energy Outlook 2021 with Projections to 2050. 

(2021). 

62Energy Information Administration. ShortTerm Energy Outlook: Real Prices Viewer. Available 

at: www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/realprices/. 

the median income of borrowers of 

chattel loans is not significantly 

different than that of mortgage loans 

($52,000 vs. $53,000; See Table 7 of the 

2021 CFPB), it also notes that borrowers 

who own their land can either finance 

their home purchase with a chattel loan 

or a mortgage, whereas those who do 

not own their land are typically only 

able to finance with a chattel loan (see 

page 33). Therefore, DOE understands 

that the chattel loan median income in 

Table 7 of the 2021 CFPB could include 

both borrowers who own their land and 

borrowers who do not. However, DOE 

notes that the Tier 1 analysis represents 

price-sensitive low-income purchasers, 

most if not all of whom would be unable 

to own land. DOE also notes that data 

presented in 2021 CFPB show that the 

median chattel loan amount for MH is 

$58,672 (versus a median amount of 

$127,056 for MH mortgages). These 

median loan amounts reflect the price 

differential between the median singlesection and multi-section MH as 

reported in the MHS PUF 2020 ($57,233 

and $108,583, respectively), which 

supports DOE’s choice to use chattel 

loan rates for all Tier 1 homes (i.e., 

single-section homes). See Table III.1. 

Further, as acknowledged by ACEEE, 

income data as it relates to chattel vs. 

mortgage loans is limited. As such, DOE 

maintains the conservative 

consideration that the Tier 1 analysis 

would apply only to personal property 

or chattel loans. 

Separately, MHARR stated that the 

October 2021 NODA assumes a lower 

inflation rate going forward than the 

August 2021 SNOPR. However, they 

suggested that current inflation easily 

exceeds both numbers cited by DOE and 

is increasing at a rapid pace. They stated 

that actual inflation is more than two 

times the rate estimated by DOE and has 

increased drastically since the 

beginning of 2021. They suggested that 

the latest cost data show that the 

purchase price impact of the DOE 

proposed rule would be even greater 

going forward than projected by the 

August 2021 SNOPR, and would 

undermine the inherent affordability of 

manufactured housing contrary to law. 

(MHARR, No. 1640 at p. 6, 7) 

DOE understands that there may be 

uncertainties regarding inflation rates 

and future prices of energy. In the 

August 2021 SNOPR, the inputs used in 

the LCC analysis, including inflation 

rates, energy prices and their escalation 

rates, were based on the AEO 2020 and 

Short-Term Energy Outlook studies, 

prepared by the U.S. EIA. In the October 

2021 NODA, DOE updated the AEO 

source to the latest version, which is 

AEO 2021.61 Further, DOE updated the 

electricity prices from the EIA ShortTerm Energy Outlook.62

The AEO presents long-term annual 

projections of energy supply, demand, 

and prices. The projections, focused on 

U.S. energy markets, are based on 

results from EIA’s National Energy 

Modeling System (‘‘NEMS’’). NEMS 

enables EIA to make projections under 

internally consistent sets of 

assumptions. DOE has determined these 

studies are the best current and future 

estimates of inflation, energy prices and 

escalation rates and uses these studies 

in support of all of its energy 

conservation standard rulemakings. In 

the final rule, DOE proposes to maintain 

the same source for establishing 

inflation rates, energy prices and 

escalation rates as the October 2021 

NODA, which was AEO 2021. 

d. Payback Periods 

DOE also received several comments 

regarding PBP results relating to the 

LCC and homeownership periods. 

NAHB supported a 10-year simple 

payback as a primary standard for 

evaluating the cost effectiveness of 

energy saving measures. They stated 

that their policy of a 10-year simple 

payback for mandatory energy measures 

is based on consumer preferences as 

determined and confirmed over many 

years through consumer surveys 

conducted by its Economics Department 

and suggested that regulations that 

exceed a 10-year simple payback should 

be supported by incentives and 

voluntary programs. NAHB also 

identified that 12 out of 19 cities would 

see paybacks over 10 years for singlesection and multi-section homes. 

Accordingly, they strongly encouraged 

that DOE re-consider the impact that the 

Tier 2 and an untiered approach would 

have on the ability for hundreds of 

thousands of Americans to be able to 

afford these homes. (NAHB, No. 1398 at 

p. 2) 

TMHA believed that payback periods 

across the climate zones should be no 

longer than four years for all homes. 

(TMHA, No. 1628 at p. 3) NRECA 

commented that the payback period in 

the SNOPR for adhering to the 2021 

IECC standard is over 10 years, which 

is too long for price-sensitive 

consumers. (NRECA, No. 1406 at p. 5) 

Further, NRECA commented that any 

new costs added to the manufactured 

home will impact the monthly financing 

payment for the home and thus will 

impact what the consumer chooses. 

Therefore, they suggested increasing 

that cost per month because of 

efficiency upgrades must have a quick 

payback to appropriately balance 

affordability issues. (NRECA, No. 1406 

at p. 4) 

On the other hand, Schulte stated 

because the current HUD thermal 

standards were based on the useful life 

of the home (33 years), a payback period 

of 6–8 years would substantially 

understate the benefits of the proposed 

energy standards and is inconsistent 

with life-cycle methodologies adopted 

by DOE and HUD. (Schulte, No. 1028 at 

p. 17, 18) Next Step stated that 

according to the National Association of 

Realtors, as of 2018, the median 

duration of homeownership in the U.S. 

is 13 years. In addition, they stated that 

according to MHI, 62 percent of all 

residents anticipate living in their 

homes for more than 10 years, and 38 

percent do not expect to sell their 

homes. (Next Step, No. 1617 at p. 7) 

Table IV.7 provides the results for 

DOE’s simple payback period analysis 

for the rule, broken out by climate zone 

for Tier 1 (single-section) and Tier 2 

(multi-section) homes. These resulting 

simple payback periods indicate that the 

first homeowner would gain a net 

benefit and would realize positive net 

savings from the proposed energy 

standards prior to the 10-year mark. As 

previously discussed, based on the 2019 

AHS, the mean homeowner duration is 

13 years. The national average simple 

payback period of a Tier 1 standard is 

3.7 years for single-section homes, and 

for a Tier 2 standard is 8.9 years for 

multi-section homes, although these 

results vary by location. The Tier 2 

standard simple PBP exceeds 13 years 

for one city, San Francisco. 

e. Incremental Cost 

In the August 2021 SNOPR, DOE 

determined the incremental cost to the 

consumer (i.e., incremental purchase 

price) by calculating the difference in 

the EEM costs of DOE-compliant and 

minimally-compliant HUD homes. 

These incremental costs correspond to 

the purchase prices seen by the 

homeowner, and thus account for 

manufacturer and retail markups. DOE 

based the incremental costs on those 

costs provided and agreed to by the MH 

working group. ASRAC Cost Analysis 

Data, EERE–2009–BT–BC–0021–0091. 

DOE received a comment indicating 

that the cost of labor, overhead, and 

profit has been underestimated in DOE’s 

cost analysis. MMHA suggested that 

DOE should be accounting for the costs 

of additional labor or the additional 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 32789 

63See, e.g., costs and savings in E. Levy, et al., 

Field Evaluation of Advances in Energy Efficiency 

Practices for Manufactured Homes (DOE, 2016), 

https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy16osti/65436.pdf. 

64Faithful+Gould, Residential Energy Efficiency 

Measures: Prototype Estimate and Cost Data, 

Revision 6.0 (2012), Tables 5.2.1 and 2.5. 

overhead and profit that would be 

associated with the higher home cost. In 

addition, MMHA stated that they 

conducted an independent cost-benefit 

analysis using DOE’s assumptions of 

cost and location and concluded that 

the proposal would add at a minimum 

of almost $1,000 to the cost of a new 

single-section home and up to $5,500 to 

the cost of a multi-section home 

depending on location. (MMHA, No. 

995 at p. 3) MHI stated that DOE’s 

proposal is based on improper 

calculations and methodologies, 

including underestimating the current 

cost of homes and the costs of the new 

materials to construct them. (MHI, No. 

1592 at p. 4–6, 25) Earthjustice and 

Prosperity Now commented that the 

costs used in the analysis are no longer 

relevant but did not provide any 

updated costs. (Earthjustice and 

Prosperity Now, No. 1637 at p. 8) 

MHARR stated that DOE failed to 

consider the most recent cost data. 

(MHARR, No. 1640 at p. 2–4) TMHA 

commented that the pricing data that 

DOE uses has a tremendous amount of 

lag. (TMHA, No. 1628 at p. 2) RECA also 

comments that Tier 1 appears to be 

based on cost information submitted by 

one or more manufacturers with no real 

connection to the model energy codes. 

(RECA, No. 1570 at p. 2, 7) 

DOE also received several comments 

about additional construction costs. 

Multiple organizations commented that 

the DOE analysis assumes that the floor 

joists are 2 x 6 with insulation up to and 

including R–22, and 2 x 8 floor joists 

insulated to R–30 and above. However, 

according to these commenters, 

currently, 90 percent of floors produced 

use 2 x 6 floor joists. Therefore, the 

commenters stated that the increased 

joists depth (i.e., going to 2 x 8 floor 

joists) will add approximately a 33 

percent material cost increase which 

will be around $200 per 14 x 76 floor. 

The commenters also stated that this 2- 

inch floor joist change will also increase 

the shipping height. (MHI, No. 1592 at 

p. 25–26); (Clayton Homes, No. 1589 at 

p. 16–18, 22); (MHCC, No. 1600 at p. 6) 

MMHA and many other organizations 

raised similar concerns, questioning if 

DOE considered the cost of changing 

from 2 x 6 to 2 x 8 floor joists. They also 

stated that placing more than R–11 

blankets under the floor joists cannot be 

done without offsetting outriggers and 

providing blocking between joists 

because compressing more than R–11 

insulation between an outrigger and a 

joist results in noticeable humps in the 

floor at each outrigger location, and 

questioned whether DOE accounted for 

these additional costs in the analysis. 

(MMHA, No. 995 at p. 2); (Michigan 

MHA, No. 1012 at p. 1–2); (WHA, No. 

1025 at p. 1–2); (PMHA, No. 1165 at p. 

1–2); (Westland, No. 1263 at p. 1–2); 

(Pleasant Valley, No. 1307 at p. 1–2); 

(American Homestar, No. 1337 at p. 1– 

2); (Oliver Technologies, No. 1350 at p. 

1–2); (KMHA, No. 1368 at p. 1–2); 

(Adventure Homes, No. 1383 at p. 1–2); 

(Clayton Homes, No. 1589 at p. 22). 

Additionally, NAHB encouraged DOE to 

work directly with the producers of 

manufactured homes to validate the 

construction cost numbers used in the 

cost effectiveness analysis because costs 

have increased substantially over the 

last two years. (NAHB, No. 1398 at p. 2) 

DOE also received multiple comments 

on the cost of testing and compliance. 

Multiple commenters stated that DOE 

underestimated the costs of new 

materials to construct homes and did 

not consider the cost of testing and 

compliance in the analysis. (MMHA, 

No. 995 at p. 1–2); (Michigan MHA, No. 

1012 at p. 1–2); (WHA, No. 1025 at p. 

1–2); (PMHA, No. 1165 at p. 1–2); 

(Westland, No. 1263 at p. 1–2); (Pleasant 

Valley, No. 1307 at p. 1); (American 

Homestar, No. 1337 at p. 1); (Oliver 

Technologies, No. 1350 at p. 1); (KMHA, 

No. 1368 at p. 1); (Adventure Homes, 

No. 1383 at p. 1–2); (NJMHA, No. 1451 

at p. 2); (WMA, No. 1452 at p. 1–2); 

(IMHA/RVIC, No. 1466 at p. 2); (Cavco, 

No. 1497 at p. 2); (Skyline Champion, 

No. 1499 at p.1); (Mississippi MHA, No. 

1588 at p. 2); (Skyline Champion, No. 

1612 at p.2); (Cavco, No. 1622 at p. 2); 

(VAMMHA, No. 1624 at p. 2) MHARR 

claimed that, in DOE’s cost-benefit 

analysis, DOE does not include 

estimated costs for testing, enforcement, 

regulatory compliance, or costs related 

to regular changes to the IECC, therefore 

making DOE’s cost analysis invalid. 

(MHARR, No. 1640 at pp. 7, 8) In 

addition, NAHB stated that the 

insulation requirements in the 2021 

IECC greatly increase the cost compared 

to the 2018 IECC, specifically 

mentioning the ceiling insulation. 

(NAHB, No. 1398 at p. 3) In addition, 

Skyline Champion suggested that 

expenses associated with design 

package updates, truss re-designs, 

structural and thermal calculation 

revisions, quality process updates, 

manufacturing process changes, and 

procurement modifications will 

contribute significantly to costs 

associated with implementation and 

compliance requirements. (Skyline 

Champion, No. 1612 at p. 2) 

Conversely, ACEEE conducted its 

own research and concluded that DOE 

overestimated the material and 

incremental costs in its cost analysis. 

ACEEE recommended that DOE 

reconsider the cost of continuous 

insulation since there is evidence the 

price at scale will be lower than what 

DOE estimated, and suggested that DOE 

should estimate the costs for 

widespread implementation under a 

standard. DOE used an installed cost of 

$0.98/sf from RS Means 2020 

construction cost estimating software. 

With an opaque wall area of 1,053 

square feet (‘‘sf’’) for single-section 

homes and 1,036 sf for double-section 

homes, as in DOE’s SNOPR analysis, 

ACEEE suggested that this would 

correspond to a price of about $1,000. 

They stated that this is confirmed in the 

previously mentioned study by E. Levy 

et al.,63 which for adding foam 

sheathing (wall insulation from House B 

to House C in Table 39) found a cost of 

$936. (ACEEE, No. 1631 at p. 10–11) In 

addition, ACEEE recommended 

reconsidering the cost of windows. 

ACEEE stated the Environmental 

Protection Agency conducted field 

research on current prices for windows 

(for a 12-window replacement project in 

site-built homes) and estimated that the 

price difference per 15 sf window from 

low-e (U-factor 0.32–0.35) to add argon 

(0.28–0.31) is $6, to lower SHGC is $7.5, 

and for two coatings with argon (0.24– 

0.26) is $29 per window (with much 

lower component costs), which 

corresponded to a total price difference 

of roughly $44 for a single-section home 

or $75 for a double-section home to add 

argon, and $214 or $363 for windows 

(based on 111 and 188 sf of windows 

respectively). They stated that Faithful + 

Gould’s 2012 report to PNNL 64

estimated a $4.18/sf difference for 0.50 

vs 1.2, $0.89/sf difference for 0.35 vs 

0.5, $0.18/sf for 0.32 vs 0.35, and $1.15/ 

sf for 0.3 vs 0.32, and this corresponded 

to a single-section cost for Tier 2 of $583 

in Climate Zone 1 and $99 in Climate 

Zone 2 in 2011 dollars (not including 

the cost of adding argon and improving 

SHGC in Climate Zone 2, which per 

ENERGY STAR data might add $100). 

They stated that the E. Levy et al. study 

found a cost for a single-section home 

of $1,382 for single-pane +storm (Uvalue 0.47/SHGC 0.73), $218 more for 

double-pane low-e (0.31/0.33), and $600 

for advanced argon-filled (0.30/0.23). 

ACEEE stated that, while not consistent, 

these costs are all much lower than in 

DOE’s current analysis, and after 

adjusting to 2023 dollars, ACEEE found 

that with the EPA report, estimates 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
32790 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

65National Cost Effectiveness of the Residential 

Provisions of the 2021 IECC: Available at https:// 

www.energycodes.gov/sites/default/files/2021-07/ 

2021IECC_CostEffectiveness_Final_Residential.pdf. 

66Available at https://www.ashrae.org/ 

file%20library/technical%20resources/research/ 

ashrae-d-rp1481-20090630.pdf. 

would reduce the estimated initial cost 

of Tier 2 by $900 to $1,500 for singlesection homes and $1,500 to $2,100 for 

multi-section homes, depending on 

climate zone. (ACEEE, No. 1631 at p. 

11–12) 

Separately, NEEA also commented 

that the cost considerations used in the 

SNOPR analysis should be revaluated 

because they are too high, resulting in 

an underestimation of cost effectiveness 

of a more stringent energy code. NEEA 

provided information based on factory 

experience in the Northwest reflecting 

fully operationalized cost, claiming that 

if DOE uses these values, payback 

periods would be reduced by up to 42 

percent. NEEA elaborated, stating that 

manufacturers will have lower cost at 

scale, especially if DOE employs an 

options table that enables trade-offs 

with house size and mechanical 

equipment. (NEEA, No. 1601 at p. 6–9) 

NEEA also states that the incremental 

costs experienced in the Northwest are 

substantially lower than the values DOE 

used because manufactured homes are 

value engineered to cut costs. They 

stated factories find ways to achieve Uo

values using building science to reduce 

heat transfer paths. (NEEA, No. 1601 at 

p. 7–8) Further, NEEA stated that in the 

Northwest housing market, 

manufactured homes built to HUD Code 

use 2x6 frame construction rather than 

2x4 construction, and if cost per square 

foot was based on interior floor area, 

then homes built to the HUD Code in 

the Northwest would logically use 2x4 

frame construction. Id. NRDC 

recommended that DOE take note that 

the ASHRAE standard allows 

manufacturers to take credit for 

compliance for several other measures, 

such as higher HVAC and water 

efficiency, ductless heat pumps, highefficiency appliances and plumbing 

fixtures, etc. NRDC stated that these 

new options will decrease costs of 

various energy efficiency measures. 

(NRDC, No. 1599 at p. 5–6) 

In the August 2021 SNOPR, DOE 

discussed that the incremental costs 

used were based on those provided by 

the MH working group, which 

represented small, medium and large 

manufacturers. Further, to corroborate 

that the costs were still relevant, DOE 

reviewed the RS Means 2020 and 

concluded that the estimates by the MH 

working group continued to remain 

mostly relevant. 86 FR 47744, 47794. 

For this final rule, DOE conducted 

another review of the cost analysis of 

the different energy efficiency measures 

to be employed as a result of this rule 

(ceiling, wall, floor, and window 

insulation). For this evaluation, DOE 

used the costs provided by the 

stakeholders in response to the August 

2021 SNOPR and the October 2021 

NODA, as summarized previously, in 

addition to costs available through RS 

Means 2020, the 2021 IECC,65

ASHRAE,66 and costs provided in 

response to the June 2016 NOPR that 

DOE evaluated in the August 2021 

SNOPR. From this analysis, DOE again 

concluded that the cost data DOE used 

in the analysis relating to wall, floor, 

and window insulation are all within 

the range of values from the different 

sources reviewed. For the cost of ceiling 

insulation, however, DOE notes that the 

cost data DOE used is slightly higher 

than the information provided by the 

stakeholders, although not 

unreasonable. Accordingly, DOE 

concludes that the incremental costs 

evaluated for the rule are reasonable 

when compared to the range of cost 

values provided by stakeholders and 

determined through other references, as 

previously discussed. With regards to 

labor costs, DOE notes that the 

incremental costs provided by the MH 

working group were costs relative to the 

purchase prices made available to the 

home buyer, which includes labor costs 

as well as markups to account for 

manufacturer overhead and profits. As 

such, the incremental costs should 

already accommodate costs beyond just 

the manufacturer production cost. 

Further, DOE discusses in section 

III.F.2.b of this document that the 

amended standards would not require 

changes in exterior home dimensions 

and can be accommodated using current 

home construction techniques. 

Therefore, the amended standards 

would primarily require choosing the 

appropriate EEMs to meet the adopted 

prescriptive or performance 

requirements. Finally, DOE performed 

an MIA to estimate the potential 

financial impact of energy conservation 

standards on manufacturers of 

manufactured homes, which is 

discussed further in section IV.B. of this 

document. 

As discussed in sections III.D and III.E 

of this document, DOE is not addressing 

test procedure or compliance issues in 

this rulemaking, and therefore has not 

incorporated any of those attendant 

costs in the analysis at this time. As 

noted previously, 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), and therefore such efforts 

would result in minimal additional 

costs to manufacturers. Moreover, DOE 

continues to work with HUD on 

potential approaches for testing, 

compliance, enforcement and labeling 

that may leverage the existing HUD 

inspection and enforcement process to 

ensure manufacturer compliance with 

the standards in a manner that is not 

overly burdensome or costly to 

manufacturers. 

DOE also received a comment 

mentioning the costs of truss redesign, 

testing, and approval. MHCC stated that 

getting a truss tested and approved for 

use in accordance with the HUD 

standard could cost upwards of $2,500 

per design. In addition, any 

modifications to the heel height would 

create additional cost and transportation 

issues that were not considered by DOE, 

and any increase in the shipping height 

of a home would lead to additional costs 

such as rerouting units, pilot vehicles, 

and/or redesign of units. (MHCC, No. 

1600 at pp. 7, 12–13) As discussed in 

section III.F.2.b of this document, DOE 

remains unconvinced that truss 

redesigns are needed to comply with the 

amended energy conservation 

standards. Further, DOE is no longer 

including the exterior wall continuous 

insulation requirement, which should 

resolve a number of issues related to 

shipping width of the home. In 

addition, DOE notes that the standards 

developed take into consideration the 

dimensional limitations of the home 

and consider the design and factory 

construction techniques of 

manufactured homes, as well as the 

associated incremental costs. As noted 

previously in section III.F.2.b, DOE has 

concluded that the amended standards 

would not require changes in exterior 

home dimensions and cause 

transportation issues. Finally, to the 

extent redesigns are necessary, DOE 

addresses the costs associated with 

model plan updates for the standards as 

part of the MIA. 

DOE also received a comment 

regarding the cost of insulation 

installation practices. Schulte said that 

there appears to be a lack of current 

research about the individual costs and 

benefits of the items noted in Table 

460.103 and their application to 

manufactured homes. (Schulte, No. 

1038 at pp. 6, 12, 23) DOE does not 

anticipate any incremental costs 

associated with the proper building 

practices of correctly installing 

insulation as listed in Table 460.103, as 

these installation practices have been 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 32791 

67CFPB report, 2021. https://

files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_

manufactured-housing-finance-new-insights-hmda_

report_2021-05.pdf. 

widely accepted by industry for many 

years. 

2. Results 

This section provides the results for 

the projected economic impacts on 

individuals, including the LCC and PBP. 

DOE also used different loan 

parameters for the tiered standard. This 

is because the Tier 1 and Tier 2 

standards each would apply to a portion 

of all manufactured homes. Specifically, 

the Tier 1 standard would apply to 

single-section manufactured homes and 

would be applicable to price-sensitive, 

low-income purchasers. This is 

consistent with data presented in 2021 

CFPB, which show that the median 

chattel loan amount for MH is $58,672 

(versus a median amount of $127,056 

for MH mortgages).67 These median loan 

amounts reflect the price differential 

between the median single-section and 

multi-section MH as reported in the 

MHS PUF 2020 ($57,233 and $108,583, 

respectively). See Table III.1. Further, 

the 2021 CFPB notes that those who do 

not own their land are typically only 

able to finance with a chattel loan. 

Therefore, DOE considered only 

personal property loans for the Tier 1 

standard analysis. For the Tier 2 

standard, DOE recalculated the loan 

percentages such that the sales-weighted 

Tier 1 and Tier 2 standard loan 

percentages would equate to the overall 

loan percentages agreed upon by the 

MH working group. See Table IV.1 for 

details on the loan parameter 

percentages used for the analyses. 

TABLE IV.1—LOAN PARAMETER PERCENTAGES

Personal 

property 

(%) 

Real estate 

(%) 

Cash 

(%) 

Tier 1 Standard ................................................................................................................ 100.0 0.0 0.0 

Tier 2 Standard ................................................................................................................ 39.5 20.5 40.0 

Overall .............................................................................................................................. 54.6 15.4 30.0 

The LCC analysis allowed DOE to 

analyze the effects of the energy 

conservation standards on both the 

individual consumer, as well as the 

aggregate benefits at the national level. 

Table IV.2 and Table IV.3 provide the 

average purchase price increases to 

manufactured homes associated with 

the HUD zones. 

TABLE IV.2—NATIONAL AVERAGE MANUFACTURED HOUSING PURCHASE PRICE (AND PERCENTAGE) INCREASES UNDER

TIER 1 STANDARD

[2020$] 

Tier 1 standard 

$ % 

Climate Zone 1 ................................................................................................................................................ $627 1.1 

Climate Zone 2 ................................................................................................................................................ 627 1.1 

Climate Zone 3 ................................................................................................................................................ 719 1.3 

National Average ............................................................................................................................................. 660 1.2 

TABLE IV.3—NATIONAL AVERAGE MANUFACTURED HOUSING PURCHASE PRICE (AND PERCENTAGE) INCREASES UNDER

TIER 2 STANDARD

[2020$] 

Tier 2 standard 

$ % 

Climate Zone 1 ................................................................................................................................................ $4,131 3.8 

Climate Zone 2 ................................................................................................................................................ 4,438 4.1 

Climate Zone 3 ................................................................................................................................................ 4,111 3.8 

National Average ............................................................................................................................................. 4,222 3.9 

Figure IV.1 illustrates the average 

annual energy cost savings for space 

heating and air conditioning for the first 

year of occupation by geographic 

location under the standards based on 

the estimated fuel costs provided in 

chapter 8 of the Final rule TSD. 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
32792 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

Table IV.4, and Figure IV.2 illustrate 

the average 30-year LCC savings by 

geographic location (averaged across the 

five different heating fuel/system types) 

associated with both single-section and 

multi-section manufactured homes. As 

discussed in detail in chapter 8 of the 

final rule TSD, the results presented 

account for LCC savings and impacts 

over a 30-year period of analysis, 

including energy cost savings and 

chattel loans or conventional mortgage 

payment increases discounted to a 

present value using the discount rates 

discussed in chapter 4 of the final rule 

TSD. 

TABLE IV.4—AVERAGE MANUFACTURED HOME LCC SAVINGS (30 YEARS) UNDER THE TIER 1 AND TIER 2 STANDARDS BY

CLIMATE ZONE

[2020$] 

Single-section 

(Tier 1) 

Multi-section 

(Tier 2) 

Climate Zone 1 ................................................................................................................................................ $1,020 $3,698 

Climate Zone 2 ................................................................................................................................................ 1,123 3,060 

Climate Zone 3 ................................................................................................................................................ 2,565 3,960 

National Average ............................................................................................................................................. 1,594 3,573 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER31MY22.212</GPH> ER31MY22.213</GPH>

f 

fll 

1200 

1000 

800 

600 

400 

200 

0 

■ Tier 1 - Single Section 

■ Tier 2 - Muhi Section 

·"' ~ ;,g, a,, .I§'#<> __ g ~ #0 ,# 1/0 r. 3': ~ ·" ~<> , ., ~ ~"' -r ✓ 1.v? ~" -1⁄4' ._..§l ~q ~~ ~ ;; # ~ <P <lf":J:_~ '¢,~ <:f ,._ ... ~,. 

(Y 4,,~ c,I- <IJ''iS o/" ~~~ 

Figure IV.1 Annual Energy Cost Savings under the Standard 

16.000 

,-..14,000 

~ 

~ 12.000 

<:,, 

t!, 10,000 t,J J 8,000 

! 6,000 

8 4,000 

~ 2,000 

~ <:,, 

~ 

Tier I -Single Section 

Tier 2-Multi Section 

Figure IV.2 Thirty-Year Life-cycle Cost Savings under the Standard 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 32793 

68Although Tier 2 homes (multi-section) in 

climate zone 2 and 3 on average show positive LCC 

savings, San Francisco (in climate zone 2) and Salem (in climate zone 3) result in negative LCC 

savings. 

Table IV.5, and Figure IV.3 illustrate 

the average 10-year LCC savings by 

geographic location (averaged across the 

five different heating fuel/system types) 

associated with both single-section and 

multi-section manufactured homes.68

TABLE IV.5—AVERAGE MANUFACTURED HOME LCC SAVINGS (10 YEARS) UNDER THE TIER 1 AND TIER 2 STANDARDS BY

CLIMATE ZONE

[2020$] 

Single-section 

(Tier 1) 

Multi-section 

(Tier 2) 

Climate Zone 1 ................................................................................................................................................ $427 $863 

Climate Zone 2 ................................................................................................................................................ 480 477 

Climate Zone 3 ................................................................................................................................................ 1,217 873 

National Average ............................................................................................................................................. 720 743 

The estimated LCC impacts under 

Figure IV vary by location for three 

primary reasons. First, each geographic 

location analyzed is situated in one of 

three climate zones and therefore would 

be subject to different energy 

conservation requirements. Second, 

geographic locations within the same 

climate zone would experience different 

levels of energy savings. Finally, the 

level of energy cost savings depends on 

the type of heating system installed and 

fuel type used in a manufactured home. 

As discussed in chapter 8 of the final 

rule TSD, DOE has accounted for 

regional differences in heating systems 

and fuel types commonly installed in 

manufactured housing. 

Table IV.6 provides the national 

average LCC savings and annual energy 

cost savings associated with the 

standards for space heating and air 

conditioning (and percentage reduction 

in space heating and cooling costs), both 

of which are measured against a 

baseline manufactured home 

constructed in accordance with the 

HUD Code. As discussed in further 

detail in chapter 8 of the final rule TSD, 

each geographic location has been 

determined to result in positive 30-year 

LCC savings and energy savings. 

TABLE IV.6—NATIONAL AVERAGE PER-HOME COST SAVINGS UNDER THE FINAL RULE

Tier 1 standard 

(single-section) 

Tier 2 standard 

(multi-section) 

Life-Cycle Cost Savings (30 Years) ................................................................................................................ $1,594 $3,573 

Annual Energy Cost Savings (2020$) ............................................................................................................. 177 475 

Table IV.7, and Figure IV.3 illustrate 

the nationwide average simple payback 

period (purchase price increase divided 

by first year energy cost savings) under 

the energy conservation standards. The 

estimated simple payback periods vary 

by geographic location based on the 

different climate zone requirements for 

manufactured housing, geographic 

climatic differences within climate 

zones, type of heating system installed, 

and fuel type used in a manufactured 

home. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER31MY22.214</GPH>

6,000 

i 5,000 ■ Tier 1 • Single Section 

~ 4,000 ■ Tier 2 - Multi Section 

j 3,000 

~ 2,000 

fl.I 

~ l,00~ ..J...o...,_.--,.. 

... 

> 

~ {1,000) f~c/❖ ~"~'❖.,/❖B;/-0.//¢,~o~;/' ~#'_;:.;pd,o ~~ &cl -,l'~~ #' //..._~.;~ 

(Y 4'~ "\'' ~~""' ~~ "II' <!fP' <I, ~~ 

Figure IV.3 Ten-Year Life-cycle Cost Savings under the Standard 
32794 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE IV.7—AVERAGE MANUFACTURED HOME SIMPLE PAYBACK PERIOD UNDER THE TIER 1 AND TIER 2 STANDARDS BY

CLIMATE ZONE

Single-section 

(Tier 1) 

Multi-section 

(Tier 2) 

Climate Zone 1 ................................................................................................................................................ 4.7 8.5 

Climate Zone 2 ................................................................................................................................................ 4.5 9.6 

Climate Zone 3 ................................................................................................................................................ 2.9 8.6 

National Average ............................................................................................................................................. 3.7 8.9 

BILLING CODE 645–01–C 

B. Manufacturer Impacts 

DOE performed an MIA to estimate 

the potential financial impact of energy 

conservation standards on 

manufacturers of manufactured homes. 

The MIA relied on the Government 

Regulatory Impact Model (‘‘GRIM’’), an 

industry cash-flow model used to 

estimate changes in industry value as a 

result of energy conservation standards. 

The key GRIM inputs are: industry 

financial metrics, manufacturer 

production cost estimates, shipments 

forecasts, conversion costs, and 

manufacturer markups. The primary 

output of the GRIM is industry net 

present value (‘‘INPV’’), which is the 

sum of industry annual cash flows over 

the analysis period (2022–2052), 

discounted using the industry average 

discount rate. The GRIM has a slightly 

different analysis period than the NIA 

and LCC since it accounts for the 

conversion period, the time between the 

announcement of the standards and the 

compliance date of the standards, 

because manufacturers may need to 

make upfront investments to bring their 

manufactured homes into compliance 

ahead of the standards going into effect. 

DOE used an industry average discount 

rate of 9.2 percent for the final rule 

analysis, which is consistent with the 

discount rate in the August 2021 

SNOPR. This rate was based on SEC 

filings for public manufacturers of 

manufactured homes. 

The GRIM estimates the impacts of 

more-stringent energy conservation 

standards on a given industry by 

comparing changes in INPV between the 

no-standards case and the standards 

cases. The GRIM estimates a range of 

possible impacts under different 

manufacturer markup scenarios to 

capture the uncertainty relating to 

manufacturer pricing strategy following 

new standards. Additional detail on the 

GRIM can be found in chapter 12 of the 

final rule TSD. 

1. Discussion of Comments and 

Analysis Updates 

a. Conversion Costs 

DOE received a number of comments 

regarding the potential conversion costs 

necessitated by the adopted standard. 

Conversion costs are the one-time, 

upfront investments manufacturers 

would need to make to comply with 

energy conservation standards. These 

upfront investments include product 

conversion costs and capital conversion 

costs. Product conversion costs are onetime expenses in research, development, 

engineering time, and other costs 

necessary to make product designs 

comply with energy conservation 

standards. Capital conversion costs are 

one-time investments in property, plant, 

and equipment to adapt or change 

existing production lines to fabricate 

and assemble new product designs that 

comply with the energy conservation 

standards. 

MHCC raised concerns about the cost 

on industry to update model plans. 

MHCC estimated engineering and thirdparty review time required for each 

model plan would be 10–12 hours. 

MHCC suggest that the number of model 

plans could range from 300 to 3,000, 

depending on the size of manufacturer 

and number of production plants. 

Skyline Champion noted that the 

company has thousands of model plans. 

Skyline Champion went on to note that 

design choices could lead to assembly 

changes and capital expenditures, such 

as jig and station adjustments. (MHCC, 

No. 1600 at pp. 12, 14); (Skyline 

Champion, No. 1612 at pp. 2–3) 

For the final rule, DOE attempted to 

take into account stakeholder comments 

on conversion costs by integrating 

numeric values, where provided. 

Specifically, DOE updated its 

conversion costs to include an average 

of 10 hours to review each model plan; 

updated its wage calculation to reflect 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER31MY22.215</GPH>

14 

12 

'6'10 

1111 

,; 

~ 8 C,I 

1111 

~ 6 1111 

~ 

f4 

J 

flJ 2 

Figure IV.3 Simple Payback Period under the Standard 

■ Tier 1 - Single Section 

Tier 2-Multi Section 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 32795 

69MHI reports there are 136 manufacturing plants 

in the Unites States for manufactured housing in 

2021. www.manufacturedhousing.org/wp-content/ 

uploads/2021/05/2021–MHI-Quick-Facts-updated05--2021.pdf. 

70U.S. Census Bureau. Manufactured Housing 

Survey. (2020). Available at: www.census.gov/data/ 

datasets/2020/econ/mhs/puf.html (Last accessed 

March 1, 2022). 

2020 fully burdened rates for 

mechanical engineering time; increased 

its estimate of the number of model 

plans in the industry to approximately 

40,800 based on 136 production plants 

in the industry 69 and 300 plans per 

plant; and incorporated expenditures 

manufacturing lines adjustments at all 

production plants. Industry conversion 

costs total $29.5 million for the final 

rule. As discussed in detail in section 

III.E.2.b of this document, DOE remains 

unconvinced that truss profile updates 

are necessitated by the standards and 

truss redesign costs have not been 

incorporated into the estimate of 

manufacturer impacts. Additional detail 

can be found in Chapter 12 of the final 

rule TSD. 

b. Higher Standards 

Schulte suggested that adopting 

higher Uo standards based on currently 

approved designs for ENERGY STAR 

homes already in production may 

prevent manufacturing disruptions due 

to the unavailability of higher energy 

efficiency components. (Schulte, No. 

1028 at p. 14). 

The structure of the DOE energy 

conservation standards for 

manufactured homes enables 

manufacturers to choose either 

prescriptive or performance options for 

compliance, thereby providing the 

industry with flexibility for compliance. 

If manufacturers have established 

supply chains for ENERGY STARcertified designs or find it more cost 

effective to streamline designs around a 

higher Uo value, this final rule does not 

prevent manufacturers from pursuing 

those options. Accordingly, DOE did not 

adopt higher Uo values as suggested by 

the commenter for this final rule or the 

accompanying analyses. 

2. Results 

a. Manufacturer Production Costs and 

Markups 

DOE analyzed the effect the standards 

would have on manufacturer production 

costs. DOE derived these costs from 

purchase price information and the 

markup factor, which is the product of 

the manufacturer markup, the retail 

markup, and sales tax. DOE used data 

from the U.S. Census Bureau to obtain 

HUD minimum purchase price data by 

state for single-section and multi-section 

manufactured homes in 2020.70 DOE 

used a shipment-weighted average to 

convert the average purchase price by 

state to an average purchase price for 

each of 19 representative cities. 

DOE added incremental purchase 

prices to the HUD minimum purchase 

prices to calculate the purchase price for 

manufactured homes built in 

compliance with the proposed standard 

levels. The incremental purchase prices 

were negotiated during MH working 

group meetings and discussed further in 

section IV.A.1.e. of this document. 

To calculate MPCs from purchase 

prices for homes at the baseline level 

and at the proposed standard levels, 

DOE divided the purchase prices by the 

markup factor. The markup factor is the 

product of the manufacturer markup, 

retail markup, and the sales tax factor. 

Consistent with the August 2021 

SNOPR, DOE used a baseline 

manufacturer markup of 1.72, a retail 

markup of 1.30, and a sales tax factor of 

1.03 in its modeling of impacts of 

manufacturers. 

b. Manufacturer Markup Scenarios 

DOE modeled two standard case 

manufacturer markup scenarios that 

reflect changes in the manufacturer’s 

ability to pass on their upfront 

investments and increases in production 

costs to the consumer. The 

manufacturer markup scenarios 

represent the uncertainty regarding 

prices and profitability for 

manufactured home manufacturers 

following the implementation of the 

rule. DOE modeled a high and a low 

scenario for manufacturers’ ability to 

pass on their increased costs to the 

consumer: (1) A preservation of gross 

margin percentage markup scenario; and 

(2) a preservation of operating profit 

markup scenario. These scenarios lead 

to different manufacturer markup values 

that result in varying revenue and cash 

flow impacts to the manufacturer when 

applied to the inputted manufacturer 

production costs. 

Under the preservation of gross 

margin percentage scenario, 

manufacturers maintain their current 

average markup of 1.72 even as 

production costs increase. 

Manufacturers are able to maintain the 

same amount of profit as a percentage of 

revenues, suggesting that they are able 

to recover conversion costs and pass the 

costs of compliance to their consumers. 

DOE considers this scenario the upper 

bound to industry profitability. 

In the preservation of operating profit 

scenario, manufacturer markups are set 

so that the per-unit operating profit in 

the standards case equals the per-unit 

operating profit in the no-standards case 

one year after the compliance date of the 

new energy conservation standard. 

Under this scenario, as the costs of 

production increase under a standards 

case, manufacturers are required to 

reduce their markups. The implicit 

assumption behind this manufacturer 

markup scenario is that the industry can 

only maintain its existing per-unit 

operating profit in absolute dollars after 

compliance with the new standards is 

required. Therefore, the operating 

margin is reduced between the nostandards case and standards case. 

Under this scenario, manufacturers are 

not able to recover the conversion 

period investments made to comply 

with the standard. This manufacturer 

markup scenario represents a lower 

bound to industry profitability under a 

new energy conservation standard. 

c. Cash-Flow and INPV Results 

DOE compares the INPV of the nostandards case to that of the standards 

level. The difference between INPV in 

the no-standards case and INPV in the 

standards case is an estimate of the 

economic impacts on the industry. 

TABLE IV.8—INPV RESULTS: PRESERVATION OF GROSS MARGIN PERCENTAGE SCENARIO * 

Single-section Multi-section 

No-standards case INPV million 2020$ .......................................................................................................... 4,489.2 10,492.0 

Standards Case INPV million 2020$ ............................................................................................................... 4,506.9 10,671.7 

Change in INPV million 2020$ ........................................................................................................................ 17.7 179.8 

Change in INPV % .......................................................................................................................................... 0.4 1.7 

Total Conversion Costs million 2020$ ............................................................................................................. 9.1 20.4 

* Values in parentheses are negative values. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
32796 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

71See Manufactured Home Shipments by Product 

Mix (1990–2020), Manufactured Housing Institute. 

72See Marshall, M.I. & Marsh, T.L. Consumer and 

investment demand for manufactured housing 

units. J. Hous. Econ. 16, 59–71 (2007). 

73Manufactured Housing Survey, Public Use File 

(PUF) 2020. https://www.census.gov/data/datasets/ 

2019/econ/mhs/puf.html. 

TABLE IV.9—INPV RESULTS: PRESERVATION OF OPERATING PROFIT MARKUP SCENARIO * 

Single-section Multi-section 

No-standards case INPV million 2020$ .......................................................................................................... 4,489.2 10,492.0 

Standards Case INPV million 2020$ ............................................................................................................... 4,459 10,313.4 

Change in INPV million 2020$ ........................................................................................................................ (29.3) (178.5) 

Change in INPV % .......................................................................................................................................... (0.7) (1.7) 

Total Conversion Costs million 2020$ ............................................................................................................. 9.1 20.4 

* Values in parentheses are negative values. 

For single-section homes, the nostandards case INPV is $4.5 billion. The 

standards level could result in a change 

of industry value ranging from –0.7 

percent to 0.4 percent, or a change of 

¥$29.3 million to $17.7 million, for 

single-section units. For multi-section 

units, the no-standards case INPV is 

$10.5 billion. The standards level could 

result in a change of industry value 

ranging from –1.7 percent to 1.7 percent, 

or a change of ¥$178.5 million to 

$179.8 million. For the entire industry, 

the no-standards case INPV is $15.0 

billion. The standards level could result 

in a change in INPV of –1.4 percent to 

1.3 percent, or a change of ¥$207.8 

million to $197.5 million. Industry 

conversion costs total $29.5 million. In 

the lower-bound INPV scenario, the 

potential decrease in INPV is less than 

2%, which suggests adopted standards 

will not significantly alter the valuation 

and structure of the manufactured 

housing industry. 

C. Nationwide Impacts 

The national impact analysis (NIA) 

assesses the national energy savings 

(NES) and the national net present value 

(NPV) from a national perspective of 

total consumer costs and savings that 

would be expected to result from new 

standards. ‘‘Consumer’’ in this context 

refers to consumers of the product being 

regulated. DOE calculates the NES and 

NPV based on projections of annual 

product shipments, along with the 

annual energy consumption and total 

incremental cost data from the LCC 

analyses. 

In the August 2021 SNOPR and 

October 2021 NODA, DOE’s NIA 

projected a net benefit to the nation as 

a whole as a result of the proposed rule 

in terms of NES and the NPV of total 

consumer costs and savings that would 

be expected as a result of the proposed 

standards in comparison with the 

minimum requirements of the HUD 

Code. DOE presented national savings to 

only accrue to projected no-standards 

case shipments that are not ENERGY 

STAR-certified. DOE calculated the NES 

and NPV based on annual energy 

consumption and total construction and 

life-cycle cost data from the LCC 

analysis (developed during the MH 

working group negotiation process), and 

shipment projections. DOE projected the 

energy savings, operating cost savings, 

equipment costs, and NPV of consumer 

benefits sold in a 30-year period from 

2023 through 2052. The analysis also 

accounted for costs and savings for a 

manufactured home lifetime of 30 years. 

86 FR 47744, 47808–47814; 86 FR 

59042, 59043. 

In the October 2021 NODA, DOE 

updated the inputs to the August 2021 

SNOPR and developed a shipments 

model to forecast the shipments of 

manufactured homes during the 

analysis period. DOE first gathered 

historical shipments spanning 1990– 

2020 from a report developed and 

written by the Institute for Building 

Technology and Safety and published 

by the Manufactured Housing 

Institute.71 Then, using the growth rate 

(0.42 percent) in new residential 

housing starts from the AEO 2021, DOE 

projected the number of manufactured 

housing shipments from 2023 through 

2052 in the no-standards case (no new 

standards adopted by DOE). For the 

standards case shipments, DOE used 

this same growth rate estimate (0.42 

percent), but also applied an estimate 

for price elasticity of demand. Price 

elasticity of demand (price elasticity) is 

an economic concept that describes the 

change of the quantity demanded in 

response to a change in price. DOE used 

the price elasticity value of –0.48 (a 10- 

percent price increase would translate 

to a 4.8-percent reduction in 

manufactured home shipments) based 

on a study published in the Journal of 

Housing Economics by Marshall and 

Marsh for estimating standards case 

shipments.72 86 FR 59042, 59045– 

59047. 

DOE developed shipments for each of 

the tiers using the MHS 2020 PUF 

data.73 First, DOE estimated that 

manufactured homes in Census regions 

(the U.S. Census Bureau divides the 

country into four census regions) 1, 2 

and 4 combined were representative of 

HUD zone 3 and manufactured homes 

in Census region 3 were representative 

of HUD zones 1 and 2. Second, DOE 

considered that a percentage of 

manufactured homes placed/sold would 

shift to less stringent standards, i.e., a 

percentage of homes from Tier 2 would 

shift to Tier 1. The inclusion of this shift 

in the market is to more accurately 

estimate energy savings (and other 

downstream results) if the proposed 

tiered standards are finalized. For the 

analysis, DOE applied a ‘‘substitution 

effect’’ of 20 percent to homes within 

$1,000 of the price threshold ($63,001– 

$64,000 in the October 2021 NODA). 

DOE chose a higher-end estimate of 20 

percent based on reports that were 

reviewed for the energy conservation 

standards rulemaking for residential 

furnaces. The reports reviewed included 

estimates for direct rebound effects of 

household heating as it relates to more 

efficient products used more 

intensively. While the concept of 

‘‘rebound effect’’ for the residential 

furnaces rulemaking is different than 

the ‘‘substitution effect’’ that is being 

considered in this rulemaking, with the 

lack of any data specific to the rebound 

effect for manufactured homes, DOE 

determined that 20 percent is a 

reasonable proxy. 86 FR 59042, 59045. 

DOE received a number of comments 

regarding several aspects of the 

nationwide impacts described in the 

August 2021 SNOPR and October 2021 

NODA. The following sections provide 

a discussion of each of the submitted 

comments as well as updates to the NIA 

conducted for this final rule. 

1. Discussion of Comments and 

Analysis Updates 

a. Shipments Analysis 

ACEEE stated that the Tier 2 

standards are well above ENERGY 

STAR levels. In addition, ENERGY 

STAR will revise its criteria to exceed 

the new standard. Thus, they stated that 

one can expect similar savings for those 

homes, and they should be included in 

the analysis. (ACEEE, No. 1631 at p. 13) 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 32797 

As discussed previously, DOE’s 

national impact analysis calculates 

savings in comparison with the 

minimum requirements of the HUD 

Code. In response to the June 2016 

NOPR, NEEA had commented about 

how a portion of the Pacific Northwest 

homes are already built to meet 

ENERGY STAR levels. 86 FR 47744, 

47808. Because ENERGY STAR-certified 

manufactured homes are more efficient 

than minimally HUD Code-compliant 

homes, DOE did not account for 

ENERGY STAR-certified homes in the 

no-standard shipments and national 

impact analyses, so as to avoid 

overestimating energy savings and NPV 

benefits to the consumer. As a result, 

the national savings in the August 2021 

SNOPR and October 2021 NODA only 

accrue to projected no-standards case 

shipments that are not ENERGY STARcertified. 

In reviewing the ENERGY STAR 

envelope-only package Uo requirements 

(see Table IV.10), DOE notes that 

depending on the climate zone, 

ENERGY STAR-certified homes either 

meet the Tier 2 DOE Uo requirements or 

are slightly below that level. While DOE 

does acknowledge there are some 

possible energy savings associated with 

ENERGY STAR-certified homes having 

to now meet the DOE standard, which 

includes other requirements beyond Uo, 

DOE considers these estimated savings 

to be minimal compared to the energy 

savings associated with HUD Codecompliant homes having to meet the 

Tier 2 DOE requirements. As such, in 

this final rule, DOE continues to not 

account for ENERGY STAR-certified 

homes in the national impact analyses, 

so as to avoid overestimating energy 

savings and benefits to the consumer. 

TABLE IV.10—Uo COMPARISON

Climate zone 

Energy Star (Uo) Tier 2 

(Uo) 

Multi-section Multi-section 

1 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0.071 0.082 

2 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0.064 0.066 

3 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0.056 0.055 

ACEEE also suggested that the 

assumption that only 20 percent of 

homes within $1,000 of the price 

threshold will shift to Tier 1 seems 

highly optimistic. They stated that the 

list price could be cut without changing 

actual prices by adding on fees or by 

pricing a stripped-down home to which 

customers add options. Therefore, they 

suggested that such pricing adjustments 

could shift the list price by thousands 

of dollars with no physical changes to 

most homes, and manufacturers could 

redesign others with cheaper 

components to avoid the first cost of the 

standard. Accordingly, ACEEE 

emphasized this is another reason why 

DOE should not set tiers. (ACEEE, No. 

1631 at p. 5) ACEEE stated that 

manufacturers may shift an even larger 

fraction of homes within perhaps 

$10,000 of the threshold to Tier 1 with 

little change in the actual homes. 

(ACEEE, No. 1631 at p. 13) As discussed 

in section III.B of this document, DOE 

is finalizing a size-based tier threshold 

in this final rule. Specifically, the Tier 

1 standard would apply to all singlesection homes, and the Tier 2 standard 

would apply to all multi-section homes. 

As such, DOE is no longer considering 

the retail list price threshold shift. Table 

IV.11 presents the updated shipments 

breakdown using the MHS 2020 PUF 

data set, which DOE had also presented 

in the October 2021 NODA. 86 FR 

59042, 59052–59053. 

TABLE IV.11—SHIPMENT BREAKDOWN BASED ON TIER

All climate zones 

Single-section 

(%) 

Multi-section 

(%) 

Total 

(%) 

Tier 1 Standard ................................................................................................................ 100 0 45 

Tier 2 Standard ................................................................................................................ 0 100 55 

Total .......................................................................................................................... 100 100 100 

MHARR noted that for potential 

purchasers excluded from the HUDcode manufactured home market, there 

would be no ‘‘savings’’ because they 

wouldn’t be able to buy a home in the 

first place. As a result, they commented 

that the January 2022 DEIS is materially 

skewed toward showing alleged benefits 

attributable to the proposed standards. 

(MHARR, No. 1974 at p. 10, 11) DOE 

notes that the NES does not account for 

the energy savings for the people who 

do not buy a manufactured home under 

the standards case because they are 

price-sensitive (using price elasticity of 

demand discussion in the next section). 

As such, NES only accounts for savings 

for those that are able to purchase a 

manufactured home. The NES is 

calculated based on the same number of 

homes purchased under both the 

standards and no standards case (using 

price elasticity of demand) such that 

there are no energy savings attributed to 

less homes purchased. 

b. Price Elasticity of Demand 

Price elasticity of demand (price 

elasticity) is an economic concept that 

describes the change of the quantity 

demanded in response to a change in 

price. Price elasticity is typically 

represented as a ratio of the percentage 

change in quantity relative to a 

percentage change in price. It allows 

DOE to assess the extent to which 

consumers and retailers are unable or 

unwilling to purchase new homes as a 

result of the increased costs. In the 

August 2021 SNOPR and the October 

2021 NODA, DOE used a price elasticity 

value of ¥0.48 to estimate the effect of 

the proposed rule on manufactured 

home shipments. This value was 

sourced from a study by Marshall and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
32798 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

74See Marshall, M.I. & Marsh, T.L. Consumer and 

investment demand for manufactured housing 

units. J. Hous. Econ. 16, 59–71 (2007). 

75See Marshall, M.I. & Marsh, T.L. Consumer and 

investment demand for manufactured housing 

units. J. Hous. Econ. 16, 59–71 (2007). 

Marsh.74 DOE received several 

comments regarding the price elasticity 

that was used. 

TMHA stated that it is inappropriate 

for the finalized rule to have any 

projected decrease in the number of 

MH’s that will ultimately be produced. 

Many TMHA manufacturers had 

previously built modular homes in 

Texas, but after the Texas Department of 

Licensing and Regulation adopted the 

2015 IECC in August of 2017 the 

number of homes built in the state 

dropped by 35 percent in the 

subsequent 2018 fiscal year due to the 

cost of compliance and the inability to 

source the materials necessary to meet 

the new standards from upstream 

suppliers. TMHA asked that DOE do 

everything they can to ensure that any 

new rule does not decrease production. 

(TMHA, No. 1628 at pp. 3, 4) Clayton 

Homes commented that very few homes 

are produced at the Tier 1 level and it 

is unlikely that additional homes will be 

manufactured at that level. Instead, 

Clayton Homes expects an overall 

reduction in the manufacturing and 

purchase of manufactured homes across 

the board. (Clayton Homes, No. 1589 at 

p. 21) 

On the other hand, ACEEE stated that 

the shipment estimates likely overstate 

the sales impact of the standard. ACEEE 

stated that the price elasticity used for 

the analysis (¥0.48 and –2.4) are based 

on data before a significant decline in 

shipments of manufactured homes after 

2007, and thus reflect volatility of a 

different market. In addition, ACEEE 

stated that the price elasticity only 

predicts changes in demand in response 

to changes in initial purchase price, and 

not to changes in the underlying value 

and quality of the home, including 

reduced energy bills, increased comfort 

and health, and improved longevity. 

They stated that under these 

assumptions any improvement to the 

homes reduces sales. (ACEEE, No. 1631 

at p. 13) NEEA stated that manufactured 

homes purchased by park owners for 

rent-to-own or rental will not be 

impacted by the increase in cost because 

rental prices are based on market rates, 

not the purchase price of the home. 

NEEA stated that rental rates are higher 

than mortgage rates that a landlord 

would pay and therefore price elasticity 

will be near zero for the fraction of the 

manufactured homes sold to park 

owners. NEEA stated that manufactured 

homes remain the low-cost affordable 

housing option in the Northwest and 

there is no evidence that higher 

efficiency has negatively impacted 

homeownership. (NEEA, No. 1601 at pp. 

8, 13) 

The Marshall and Marsh study,75

which DOE used to analyze the –0.48 

price elasticity, uses the number of new 

manufactured homes placed for 

residential use as a proxy for consumer 

demand and also separated short-term 

consumer behavior from long-term 

influences. As part of their paper, 

Marshall and Marsh reviewed all 

previous studies to determine the inputs 

into their model. They used national 

level data for their consumer demand 

model. Marshall and Marsh estimated 

the price elasticity of demand for 

manufactured homes at –0.48 using a 

two-stage regression model and 

concluded that consumers in general are 

not so price sensitive and are likely 

willing to accept incremental higher 

prices for improvements in cost 

efficiency. The paper claimed that this 

is especially true because the cost of a 

manufactured home is still significantly 

lower than the cost of a site-built home 

and low- and moderate-income families 

have few low-cost choices for home 

ownership. Accordingly, for the NIA, 

DOE determined the Marshall and 

Marsh study is still the most recent and 

accurate estimate of consumer demand 

based on price changes for 

manufactured housing and therefore, 

DOE maintains use of the ¥0.48 

elasticity value. DOE notes that for the 

tiered standard, DOE estimates that Tier 

1 would have 0.55 percent reduction in 

demand and availability, which is 

essentially no reduction. 

c. Deadweight Loss 

In the August 2021 SNOPR, DOE also 

estimated the deadweight loss 

associated with the proposed rule 

stemming from the reduced shipments 

in the standards case scenario. 

Deadweight loss is a cost to society as 

a whole generated by shifting the market 

away from the no-standards case 

equilibrium. If the supply curve is 

perfectly elastic, then the deadweight 

loss of energy conservation standards is 

entirely borne by consumers and not 

producers. The deadweight loss is 

equivalent to one-half the incremental 

price multiplied by the reduction in 

total shipments, discounted over the 30- 

year analysis. If, however, the supply 

curve’s slope near equilibrium is similar 

in magnitude to the demand curve, then 

the deadweight loss is equivalent to the 

incremental price multiplied by the 

reduction in total shipments, 

discounted over the 30-year analysis. 

DOE did not have data on the supply 

curve elasticity but estimated the 

deadweight loss for the proposed 

standards using a price elasticity of 

¥0.48. DOE tentatively estimated that 

the discounted total deadweight loss for 

the standards based on Tier 1 would 

range from $0.8 to $1.5 million (2020$, 

discounted at 3 percent) and $0.4 to 

$0.9 million (2020$, discounted at 7 

percent). DOE tentatively estimated that 

the discounted total deadweight loss for 

the standards based on Tier 2 would 

range from $75.4 to $150.9 million 

(2020$, discounted at 3 percent) and 

$43.9 to $87.8 million (2020$, 

discounted at 7 percent). DOE 

tentatively estimated that the 

discounted total deadweight loss for the 

untiered standards would range from 

$103.1 to $206.2 million (2020$, 

discounted at 3 percent) and $60 to 

$120 million (2020$, discounted at 7 

percent). 86 FR 47744, 47813. 

MHCC stated that deadweight loss 

would be significantly higher than 

DOE’s estimate as many potential 

consumers will be priced out of the 

market. For example, they referenced an 

NAHB published study in 2021 (NAHB 

Priced-Out Estimates for 2021), which 

estimated that a $1,000 increase in the 

median new home price ($346,757) 

would price 153,967 households out of 

the market. The MHCC stated that an 

increase of $1,000 would have a more 

significant impact on manufactured 

housing. (MHCC, No. 1600 at p. 13); 

(NAHB, No. 1398 at p. 3) MHI stated 

that deadweight loss will increase as a 

result of the proposal, as many potential 

consumers will be priced out of 

purchasing a manufactured home. (MHI, 

No. 1592 at p. 30) 

On the other hand, ACEEE stated that 

the use of deadweight loss is misapplied 

and not appropriate in this context. 

They commented that textbook 

treatments of deadweight loss are 

limited to analyzing the effects of taxes, 

trade tariffs, monopoly market power, or 

other price distortions on demand, all 

else equal. However, implementing upto-date efficiency standards for 

manufactured homes is not tantamount 

to a price distortion, but instead 

materially alters the quality and value of 

the home. They stated that revised 

standards will reduce energy bills, 

improve resident comfort, and likely 

increase the longevity and residual 

value of the home, none of which are 

incorporated into DOE’s analysis of the 

deadweight loss (nor captured in its 

price scenario analysis). ACEEE argued 

that there could be a possible 

substitution toward newer homes that 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 32799 

76 DOE relies on a range of discount rates in 

monetizing emission reductions as discussed in 

section IV.D.2 of this document. 

77https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/ 

whitehouse.gov/files/omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf. 

78Office of Management and Budget, Circular A– 

4, September 2003. 

become more attractive compared to 

homes subject to codes nearly 30 years 

out of date. Further, they commented 

that even if updated standards were to 

be considered as a price distortion, 

estimating deadweight loss requires a 

complex general equilibrium model, 

including both a supply and demand 

curve, which DOE did not have 

appropriate data to develop. ACEEE 

commented that estimating deadweight 

loss is unprecedented and inappropriate 

for the evaluation of the societal impacts 

of efficiency standards. (ACEEE, No. 

1631 at pp. 13–14) 

DOE agrees with ACEEE that the 

application of deadweight loss for this 

rulemaking is complex and DOE does 

not have sufficient data to provide a 

thorough analysis. Further, the 2021 

NAHB report estimates reduction in 

buyers assuming all American 

households intend to buy a home, 

whereas the DOE analysis considers the 

number of households no longer able to 

purchase a manufactured home from the 

pool of households planning to 

purchase a manufactured home (which 

is much smaller than the total number 

of American households). Finally, as 

discussed in section IV.C.1.b of this 

document, the Marshall and Marsh 

study concludes that manufactured 

home consumers are not as price 

sensitive because the cost of a 

manufactured home is still significantly 

lower than the cost of a site-built home. 

Therefore, at this time, DOE is not 

estimating deadweight loss for this rule. 

However, DOE continues to accept any 

data regarding this analysis and may 

consider deadweight loss in future 

iterations of this rule. 

d. Net Present Value 

DOE received a comment concerning 

the discount rates used to calculate the 

NPV. MHI stated that DOE’s analysis is 

incorrect in using a discount rate 

ranging from three to seven percent for 

computation of future projected energy 

savings. Using that discount rate, they 

commented that DOE significantly 

overstates the net savings. They 

recommended that DOE should use 

much higher discount rates, around 10 

percent, for personal property/chattel 

loans. (MHI, No. 1592 at p. 11) On the 

other hand, UCB stated that the 

discount rates used in the DOE’s 

analysis are much too high compared to 

historical and projected values. They 

commented that the Institute for Policy 

Integrity found the median value of 

proposed constant discount rates, 

excluding outliers, was 2%. They also 

found that many experts do not agree 

that a constant discount rate should 

even be used, and that either a declining 

rate or a rate calibrated with ‘‘ethical 

parameters’’ should be used instead. 

(UCB, No. 1618 at pp. 15–16) They also 

mentioned that high discount rates 

mean that future costs and benefits are 

undervalued. (UCB, No. 1405 at p. 2) 

DOE generally uses real discount rates 

of 3 percent and 7 percent to discount 

future costs and savings to present 

values.76 The 3- and 7-percent discount 

rates are based on Circular A–4 issued 

by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) as guidance on the 

development of regulatory analysis as 

required by Executive Order (‘‘E.O.’’) 

12866.77 The 7-percent rate is the 

established estimate of the average rate 

of return, before taxes, to private capital 

in the U.S. economy. The 3-percent rate 

is called the ‘‘social rate of time 

preference,’’ which is the rate at which 

society discounts future consumption 

flows to their present value.78 These real 

discount rates are used to calculate 

annualized benefits and costs in DOE 

rulemakings in order to perform crossindustry comparisons in a standardized 

manner. For these reasons, in the final 

rule, DOE maintains discount rates of 3 

percent and 7 percent for the NPV and 

the annualized benefits and costs. 

Additionally, DOE uses a discount rate 

based on the chattel loan interest rate in 

the LCC analysis. 

2. Results 

This section provides the results for 

the projected nationwide impact 

analyses, including the NES and NPV. 

In this final rule, DOE based all inputs 

to the NES and NPV using AEO 2021. 

This includes the housing starts growth 

rate, inflation rates, energy prices, 

energy prices growth rates, and full-fuel 

cycle energy factors, consistent with 

what was presented in the October 2021 

NODA. In addition, DOE’s shipment 

analysis includes the latest 2020 MHI 

shipments and excludes any ENERGY 

STAR shipments to avoid 

overestimating energy savings. Further 

details on the inputs are discussed in 

chapters 8, 10, and 11 of the final rule 

TSD. 

DOE notes that the NES does not 

account for the energy savings for those 

individuals who do not buy a 

manufactured home under the standards 

case because they are price-sensitive. As 

such, NES only accounts for savings for 

those individuals who are able and who 

purchase a manufactured home. The 

NES is calculated based on the same 

number of homes purchased under both 

the standards and no standards case 

such that there are no energy savings 

attributed to less homes purchased. 

Table IV.12 reflects the NES results 

over a 30-year analysis period on a 

primary energy savings basis. Primary 

energy savings apply a factor to account 

for losses associated with generation, 

transmission, and distribution of 

electricity. Primary energy savings differ 

among the different climate zones 

because of differing energy conservation 

requirements in each climate zone and 

different shipment projections in each 

climate zone. 

TABLE IV.12—CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS OF MANUFACTURED HOMES PURCHASED 2023–2052 WITH A 30- 

YEAR LIFETIME

Single-section 

(quads) 

Multi-section 

(quads) 

Total 

(quads) 

Climate Zone 1 ............................................................................................................................ 0.118 0.522 0.640 

Climate Zone 2 ............................................................................................................................ 0.096 0.443 0.538 

Climate Zone 3 ............................................................................................................................ 0.222 0.381 0.603 

Total ...................................................................................................................................... 0.436 1.346 1.782 

Table IV.13 illustrates the cumulative 

NES over the 30-year analysis period on 

an FFC energy savings basis. FFC energy 

savings apply a factor to account for 

losses associated with generation, 

transmission, and distribution of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
32800 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

electricity, and the energy consumed in 

extracting, processing, and transporting 

or distributing primary fuels. NES 

values differ among the different climate 

zones because of differing energy 

efficiency requirements in each climate 

zone and different shipment projections 

in each climate zone. 

TABLE IV.13—CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS, INCLUDING FULL-FUEL-CYCLE OF MANUFACTURED HOMES

PURCHASED 2023–2052 WITH A 30-YEAR LIFETIME

Single-section 

(quads) 

Multi-section 

(quads) 

Total 

(quads) 

Climate Zone 1 ............................................................................................................................ 0.123 0.542 0.665 

Climate Zone 2 ............................................................................................................................ 0.100 0.463 0.563 

Climate Zone 3 ............................................................................................................................ 0.239 0.408 0.648 

Total ...................................................................................................................................... 0.462 1.414 1.876 

Table IV.14 and Table IV.15 illustrate 

the NPV of consumer benefits over the 

30-year analysis period for a discount 

rate of 7 percent and 3 percent, 

respectively. The consumer NPV of 

manufactured homeowner benefits 

differ among the different climate zones 

because there are different upfront costs 

and operating cost savings associated 

with each climate zone and different 

shipment projections in each climate 

zone. For the standard being adopted in 

this final rule, all climate zones have a 

positive consumer NPV for both 

discount rates. 

TABLE IV.14—CONSUMER NET PRESENT VALUE OF MANUFACTURED HOMES PURCHASED 2023–2052 WITH A 30-YEAR

LIFETIME AT A 7% DISCOUNT RATE

Single-section 

(billion 2020$) 

Multi-section 

(billion 2020$) 

Total 

(billion 2020$) 

Climate Zone 1 ............................................................................................................................ $0.15 $0.31 $0.46 

Climate Zone 2 ............................................................................................................................ 0.13 0.20 0.33 

Climate Zone 3 ............................................................................................................................ 0.40 0.32 0.73 

Total ...................................................................................................................................... 0.68 0.84 1.52 

TABLE IV.15—CONSUMER NET PRESENT VALUE OF MANUFACTURED HOMES PURCHASED 2023–2052 WITH A 30-YEAR

LIFETIME AT A 3% DISCOUNT RATE

h Single-section 

(billion 2020$) 

Multi-section 

(billion 2020$) 

Total 

(billion 2020$) 

Climate Zone 1 ............................................................................................................................ $0.40 $1.17 $1.58 

Climate Zone 2 ............................................................................................................................ 0.35 0.89 1.24 

Climate Zone 3 ............................................................................................................................ 1.10 1.15 2.25 

Total ...................................................................................................................................... 1.85 3.21 5.06 

Table IV.16 shows the projected 

benefits and costs to the manufactured 

homeowner associated with the final 

rule, expressed in terms of annualized 

values. 

TABLE IV.16—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS TO MANUFACTURED HOME HOMEOWNERS

Discount rate 

(%) 

Monetized 

(million 2020$/year) 

Primary 

estimate ** 

Low 

estimate ** 

High 

estimate ** 

Benefits: * 

Operating (Energy) Cost ........................................................................... 7 361 322 402 

Savings ..................................................................................................... 3 551 478 627 

Costs: * 

Incremental Purchase ............................................................................... 7 221 213 231 

Price Increase ........................................................................................... 3 277 255 294 

Net Benefits/Costs: * 

7 140 109 171 

3 274 223 333 

* The benefits and costs are calculated for homes shipped in 2023–2052. 

** The Primary, Low, and High Estimates utilize forecasts of energy prices from the AEO 2021 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, 

and High Economic Growth case, respectively. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 32801 

79For example, see http://www.regulations.gov/ 

#!documentDetail;D=HUD-2014-0033-0001. 80Meeks, C., 1992, Price Elasticity of Demand for 

Manufactured Homes: 1961 to 1989. 

81U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

External Combustion Sources. In Compilation of Air 

Pollutant Emission Factors. AP–42. Fifth Edition. 

Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources. 

Chapter 1. Available at https://www.epa.gov/aiRemissions-factors-and-quantification/ap-42- 

compilation-aiR-emissions-factors. 

Further, DOE considered two 

sensitivity analyses relating to 

shipments, consistent with the August 

2021 SNOPR. First, DOE considered a 

shipment scenario in which the growth 

rate is 6.5 percent (instead of 0.42 

percent) based on the trend in actual 

manufactured home shipments from 

2011 to 2014. This growth rate applies 

to both the no-standards case and 

standards case shipments. DOE’s 

primary scenario is based on the 

residential housing start data from AEO 

2021. The sensitivity analysis calculates 

the increase in NES and NPV associated 

with a much larger future market for 

manufactured homes. Table IV.17 

summarizes the results of the sensitivity 

analysis. A detailed description of the 

scenario analysis is provided in 

appendix 11A of the final rule TSD. 

TABLE IV.17—SHIPMENTS GROWTH RATE SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS NES AND NPV RESULTS

National 

energy savings 

(full fuel cycle 

quads) 

Net present 

value 3% 

discount rate 

(billion 2020$) 

Net present 

value 7% 

discount rate 

(billion 2020$) 

0.42% Shipment Growth (primary scenario) ................................................................... 1.88 $5.06 $1.52 

6.5% Shipment Growth .................................................................................................... 6.05 14.59 3.73 

In a second scenario analysis, DOE 

considered a standards case shipment 

scenario in which the price elasticity is 

¥2.4 (instead of ¥0.48). HUD has used 

an estimate of ¥2.4 in analyses of 

revisions to its regulations 79

promulgated at 24 CFR part 3282 based 

on a 1992 paper written by Carol 

Meeks.80 (See further discussion of this 

estimate in Appendix 11A.) DOE’s 

primary scenario is based on a study 

published in 2007 in the Journal of 

Housing Economics. The scenario 

analysis calculates the decrease in NES 

and NPV associated with a larger 

decrease in shipments resulting from a 

more elastic value. See Table IV.18 for 

results of the sensitivity analysis. A 

description of the scenario analysis is 

provided in appendix 11A of the final 

rule TSD. Further, a detailed discussion 

on the corresponding change in 

shipments is provided in section 10.4 of 

chapter 10 of the final rule TSD. 

TABLE IV.18—PRICE ELASTICITY OF DEMAND SCENARIO ANALYSIS NES AND NPV RESULTS

National 

energy savings 

(full-fuel cycle 

quads) 

Net present 

value 3% 

discount rate 

(billion 2020$) 

Net present 

value 7% 

discount rate 

(billion 2020$) 

¥0.48 Price Elasticity (primary scenario) ....................................................................... 1.88 $5.06 $1.52

¥2.4 Price Elasticity ........................................................................................................ 1.76 4.77 1.44 

D. Nationwide Energy Savings and 

Emissions Benefits 

1. Emissions Analysis 

DOE estimates environmental benefits 

in the form of reduced emissions of air 

pollutants and greenhouse gases 

associated with electricity production. 

DOE bases these estimates on a 30-year 

analysis period of manufactured home 

shipments, accounting for a 30-year 

home lifetime. DOE’s analysis estimates 

reductions in emissions of six pollutants 

associated with energy savings: carbon 

dioxide (CO2), mercury (Hg), nitric 

oxide and nitrogen dioxide (NOX), 

sulfur dioxide (SO2), methane (CH4), 

and nitrous oxide (N2O). These 

reductions are referred to as ‘‘site’’ 

emissions reductions. Furthermore, 

DOE estimates reductions due to 

‘‘upstream’’ activities in the fuel 

production chain. These upstream 

activities comprise extraction, 

processing, and transporting fuels to the 

site of combustion. Together, site 

emissions reductions and upstream 

emissions reductions account for the 

FFC. 

As in the August 2021 SNOPR and 

October 2021 NODA, DOE estimated 

emissions reductions based on emission 

factors for each pollutant, which depend 

on the type of fuel associated with 

energy savings (electricity, natural gas, 

liquefied petroleum gas, fuel oil). The 

analysis of power sector emissions of 

CO2, NOX, SO2, and Hg uses marginal 

emissions factors that were derived from 

data in AEO 2020 for the August 2021 

SNOPR, updated to AEO 2021 for the 

October 2021 NODA. Full details of this 

methodology are described in chapter 

13 of the final rule TSD. 

Because the on-site operation of 

manufactured homes may require 

combustion of fossil fuels and results in 

emissions of CO2, NOX, and SO2 at the 

manufactured home sites where this 

combustion occurs, DOE also accounted 

for the reduction in these site emissions 

and the associated upstream emissions 

due to the standards. Site emissions of 

the above gases were estimated using 

emissions intensity factors from an EPA 

publication.81 The emissions intensity 

factors are expressed in terms of 

physical units per MWh or MMBtu of 

site energy savings. Total emissions 

reductions are estimated using the 

energy savings calculated in the 

national impact analysis. As discussed 

previously in section IV.C.2 of this 

document, the energy savings calculated 

does not account for the energy savings 

for the people who do not buy a 

manufactured home under the standards 

case because they are price-sensitive, 

but only accounts for savings for those 

that are able to purchase a manufactured 

home. The energy savings is calculated 

based on the same number of homes 

purchased under both the standards and 

no standards case such that there are no 

energy savings attributed to less homes 

purchased. After calculating the total 

reduction of emissions, DOE estimated 

the monetized value associated with the 

reduction of these emissions, as 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
32802 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

discussed in section IV.D.2 of this 

document. 

2. Monetizing Emissions Impacts 

As part of the analysis of the impacts 

of this final rule, DOE considered the 

estimated monetary climate and health 

benefits from the reduced emissions of 

CO2, CH4, N2O, NOX and SO2 that are 

expected to result from the standards. In 

order to make this calculation analogous 

to the calculation of the NPV of 

consumer benefit, DOE considered the 

reduced emissions expected to result 

over the lifetime of products shipped in 

the projection period for the standards. 

This section summarizes the basis for 

the values used for monetizing the 

emissions benefits in this final rule. 

C2ES et al. stated that DOE operates 

from the premise that the manufactured 

homes purchased after the proposed 

standards go into effect have 30-year 

lifetimes, which means that any 

manufactured housing purchased later 

than 2023 would exist—and provide 

value—past 2052. However, DOE’s costbenefit analysis only presents costs and 

benefits for the initial 30-year period, 

thus failing to clearly identify future 

costs and benefits beyond that 

timeframe. Instead, C2ES et al. 

recommended that DOE should project 

and disclose all costs and benefits, 

including benefits from avoided climate 

damages, out beyond the year 2052. 

DOE should identify how far into the 

future it believes the proposed 

manufactured housing energy 

conversation standards will continue to 

generate significant costs or benefits. If 

the standards will have significant 

effects after 2052, DOE should either 

extend its timeframe or else state its 

reasons for not doing so. If DOE lacks 

sufficient data to fully project costs and 

benefits beyond 2052, it should explain 

the data limitations. (C2ES et al., No. 

1399 at p. 35) As previously described, 

DOE projected the energy savings, 

operating cost savings, equipment costs, 

and NPV of consumer benefits sold in 

a 30-year period from 2023 through 

2052, in addition to accounting for costs 

and savings for a manufactured home 

lifetime of 30 years. Further, in order to 

make the emissions reduction 

calculation analogous to the calculation 

of the NPV of consumer benefit, DOE 

considered the reduced emissions 

expected to result over the lifetime of 

products shipped in the projection 

period for the standards (through 2082). 

DOE notes that the analysis of the 

monetized climate and health benefits 

was performed in support of the costbenefit analyses required by Executive 

Order 12866, and is provided to inform 

the public of the impacts of emissions 

reductions resulting from this final rule. 

The monetized climate and health 

benefits were not factored into DOE’s 

determination of whether the final rule 

is cost-effective under section 413 of 

EISA 2007. 

a. Monetization of Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions 

In the August 2021 SNOPR and 

October 2021 NODA DOE presented 

estimates of the monetized benefits of 

the reductions in emissions of CO2, CH4, 

and N2O by using a measure of the 

social cost (SC) of each pollutant (e.g., 

SC–CO2). 86 FR 47744, 47814—47122; 

86 FR 59042. DOE relied on SC–GHG 

estimates developed by an interagency 

working group (IWG) that included 

DOE, the EPA and other executive 

branch agencies and offices using three 

integrated assessment models to 

develop the SC–CO2 estimates. 86 FR 

47744, 47815. For purposes of reflecting 

a range of modeling assumptions and 

capturing the uncertainties involved in 

estimating climate risks, including the 

risk of greater-than-expected damages, 

DOE determined it was appropriate to 

include the four sets of SC–CO2 values 

as recommended by the IWG. Id. DOE 

emphasized that the SC–GHG analysis 

presented in the August 2021 SNOPR 

was performed in support of the costbenefit analyses required by Executive 

Order 12866, and was provided to 

inform the public of the impacts of 

emissions reductions resulting from this 

proposed rule. 86 FR 47744, 47817. DOE 

further emphasized that the SC–GHG 

estimates were not factored into DOE’s 

determination of whether the proposed 

rule could be cost-effective under 

section 413 of EISA 2007. Id. 

The APGA commented that the 

interim SC–GHG values developed by 

the IWG still require additional 

modifications before they are 

appropriate for use in federal agency 

rulemakings or policy decisions and 

provided a copy of comments 

previously submitted in response to a 

NODA published by the Office of 

Management and Budget on May 7, 

2021, requesting comment on the 

‘‘Technical Support Document: Social 

Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous 

Oxide Interim Estimates Under 

Executive Order 13990’’ (86 FR 24669). 

(APGA, No. 1636 at p. 2) C2ES et al. 

recommended that DOE expand upon 

its rationale for adopting a global 

damages valuation and for the range of 

discount rates it applied to climate 

effects, and presented potential legal, 

economic, and policy justifications for 

the methodological approach presented 

in the August 2021 SNOPR. (See 

generally, C2ES et al., No. 1399) 

MHARR called on DOE to withdraw the 

proposed standards entirely as a result 

of the preliminary injunction issued on 

February 11, 2022, in Louisiana v. 

Biden, No. 21–cv–1074–JDC–KK (W.D. 

La.), saying that DOE is prohibited from 

adopting, employing, treating as 

binding, or relying upon any Social Cost 

of Greenhouse Gas estimates based on 

global effects or that otherwise fails to 

comply with applicable law. (MHARR, 

No. 1848 at p. 2); (MHARR, No. 1974 at 

p. 2–5) 

On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit 

Court of Appeals (No. 22–30087) 

granted the federal government’s 

emergency motion for stay pending 

appeal of the February 11, 2022, 

preliminary injunction issued in 

Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21–cv–1074– 

JDC–KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the 

Fifth Circuit’s order, the preliminary 

injunction is no longer in effect, 

pending resolution of the federal 

government’s appeal of that injunction 

or a further court order. Among other 

things, the preliminary injunction 

enjoined the defendants in that case 

from ‘‘adopting, employing, treating as 

binding, or relying upon’’ the interim 

estimates of the social cost of 

greenhouse gases—which were issued 

by the Interagency Working Group on 

the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on 

February 26, 2021—to monetize the 

benefits of reducing greenhouse gas 

emissions. In the absence of further 

intervening court orders, DOE will 

revert to its approach prior to the 

injunction and presents monetized 

benefits where appropriate and 

permissible under law. 

DOE estimates the monetized benefits 

of the reductions in emissions of CO2, 

CH4, and N2O by using a measure of the 

SC of each pollutant (e.g., SC–CO2). 

These estimates represent the monetary 

value of the net harm to society 

associated with a marginal increase in 

emissions of these pollutants in a given 

year, or the benefit of avoiding that 

increase. These estimates are intended 

to include (but are not limited to) 

climate-change-related changes in net 

agricultural productivity, human health, 

property damages from increased flood 

risk, disruption of energy systems, risk 

of conflict, environmental migration, 

and the value of ecosystem services. 

DOE exercises its own judgment in 

presenting monetized climate benefits 

as recommended by applicable 

Executive orders, and DOE would reach 

the same conclusion presented in this 

document in the absence of the social 

cost of greenhouse gases, including the 

February 2021 Interim Estimates 

presented by the Interagency Working 

Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 32803 

Gases. DOE estimated the global social 

benefits of CO2, CH4, and N2O 

reductions (i.e., SC–GHGs) using the 

estimates presented in the Technical 

Support Document: Social Cost of 

Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide 

Interim Estimates under Executive 

Order 13990 published in February 

2021 by the Interagency Working Group 

on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases 

(IWG) (IWG, 2021). The SC–GHGs is the 

monetary value of the net harm to 

society associated with a marginal 

increase in emissions in a given year, or 

the benefit of avoiding that increase. In 

principle, SC–GHGs includes the value 

of all climate change impacts, including 

(but not limited to) changes in net 

agricultural productivity, human health 

effects, property damage from increased 

flood risk and natural disasters, 

disruption of energy systems, risk of 

conflict, environmental migration, and 

the value of ecosystem services. The 

SC–GHGs therefore, reflects the societal 

value of reducing emissions of the gas 

in question by one metric ton. The SC– 

GHGs is the theoretically appropriate 

value to use in conducting benefit-cost 

analyses of policies that affect CO2, N2O 

and CH4 emissions. As a member of the 

IWG involved in the development of the 

February 2021 SC–GHG TSD), DOE 

agrees that the interim SC–GHG 

estimates represent the most appropriate 

estimate of the SC–GHG until revised 

estimates have been developed 

reflecting the latest, peer-reviewed 

science. 

The SC–GHGs estimates presented 

here were developed over many years, 

using transparent process, peer 

reviewed methodologies, the best 

science available at the time of that 

process, and with input from the public. 

Specifically, in 2009, an IWG that 

included the DOE and other executive 

branch agencies and offices was 

established to ensure that agencies were 

using the best available science and to 

promote consistency in the social cost of 

carbon (SC–CO2) values used across 

agencies. The IWG published SC–CO2

estimates in 2010 that were developed 

from an ensemble of three widely cited 

integrated assessment models (IAMs) 

that estimate global climate damages 

using highly aggregated representations 

of climate processes and the global 

economy combined into a single 

modeling framework. The three IAMs 

were run using a common set of input 

assumptions in each model for future 

population, economic, and CO2

emissions growth, as well as 

equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS)—a 

measure of the globally averaged 

temperature response to increased 

atmospheric CO2 concentrations. These 

estimates were updated in 2013 based 

on new versions of each IAM. In August 

2016 the IWG published estimates of the 

social cost of methane (SC–CH4) and 

nitrous oxide (SC–N2O) using 

methodologies that are consistent with 

the methodology underlying the SC– 

CO2 estimates. The modeling approach 

that extends the IWG SC–CO2

methodology to non-CO2 GHGs has 

undergone multiple stages of peer 

review. The SC–CH4 and SC–N2O 

estimates were developed by Marten et 

al. (2015) and underwent a standard 

double-blind peer review process prior 

to journal publication. In 2015, as part 

of the response to public comments 

received to a 2013 solicitation for 

comments on the SC–CO2 estimates, the 

IWG announced a National Academies 

of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 

review of the SC–CO2 estimates to offer 

advice on how to approach future 

updates to ensure that the estimates 

continue to reflect the best available 

science and methodologies. In January 

2017, the National Academies released 

their final report, Valuing Climate 

Damages: Updating Estimation of the 

Social Cost of Carbon Dioxide, and 

recommended specific criteria for future 

updates to the SC–CO2 estimates, a 

modeling framework to satisfy the 

specified criteria, and both near-term 

updates and longer-term research needs 

pertaining to various components of the 

estimation process (National 

Academies, 2017). Shortly thereafter, in 

March 2017, President Trump issued 

Executive Order 13783, which 

disbanded the IWG, withdrew the 

previous TSDs, and directed agencies to 

ensure SC–CO2 estimates used in 

regulatory analyses are consistent with 

the guidance contained in OMB’s 

Circular A–4, ‘‘including with respect to 

the consideration of domestic versus 

international impacts and the 

consideration of appropriate discount 

rates’’ (E.O. 13783, Section 5(c)). 

Benefit-cost analyses following E.O. 

13783 used SC–GHG estimates that 

attempted to focus on the U.S.-specific 

share of climate change damages as 

estimated by the models and were 

calculated using two discount rates 

recommended by Circular A–4, 3 

percent and 7 percent. All other 

methodological decisions and model 

versions used in SC–GHG calculations 

remained the same as those used by the 

IWG in 2010 and 2013, respectively. 

On January 20, 2021, President Biden 

issued Executive Order 13990, which 

reestablished the IWG and directed it to 

ensure that the U.S. Government’s 

estimates of the social cost of carbon 

and other greenhouse gases reflect the 

best available science and the 

recommendations of the National 

Academies (2017). The IWG was tasked 

with first reviewing the SC–GHG 

estimates currently used in Federal 

analyses and publishing interim 

estimates within 30 days of the E.O. that 

reflect the full impact of GHG 

emissions, including by taking global 

damages into account. The interim SC– 

GHG estimates published in February 

2021 are used here to estimate the 

climate benefits for this final rule. The 

E.O. instructs the IWG to undertake a 

fuller update of the SC– GHG estimates 

by January 2022 that takes into 

consideration the advice of the National 

Academies (2017) and other recent 

scientific literature. The February 2021 

SC–GHG TSD provides a complete 

discussion of the IWG’s initial review 

conducted under E.O. 13990. In 

particular, the IWG found that the SC– 

GHG estimates used under E.O. 13783 

fail to reflect the full impact of GHG 

emissions in multiple ways. 

First, the IWG found that the SC–GHG 

estimates used under E.O. 13783 fail to 

fully capture many climate impacts that 

affect the welfare of U.S. citizens and 

residents, and those impacts are better 

reflected by global measures of the SC– 

GHG. Examples of effects omitted from 

the E.O. 13783 estimates include direct 

effects on U.S. citizens, assets, and 

investments located abroad, supply 

chains, U.S. military assets and interests 

abroad, and tourism, and spillover 

pathways such as economic and 

political destabilization and global 

migration that can lead to adverse 

impacts on U.S. national security, 

public health, and humanitarian 

concerns. In addition, assessing the 

benefits of U.S. GHG mitigation 

activities requires consideration of how 

those actions may affect mitigation 

activities by other countries, as those 

international mitigation actions will 

provide a benefit to U.S. citizens and 

residents by mitigating climate impacts 

that affect U.S. citizens and residents. A 

wide range of scientific and economic 

experts have emphasized the issue of 

reciprocity as support for considering 

global damages of GHG emissions. If the 

United States does not consider impacts 

on other countries, it is difficult to 

convince other countries to consider the 

impacts of their emissions on the United 

States. The only way to achieve an 

efficient allocation of resources for 

emissions reduction on a global basis— 

and so benefit the U.S. and its citizens— 

is for all countries to base their policies 

on global estimates of damages. As a 

member of the IWG involved in the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
32804 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

82 Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of 

Greenhouse Gases (IWG). 2021. Technical Support 

Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and 

Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates under Executive 

Order 13990. February. United States Government. 

Available at: <https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefingroom/blog/2021/02/26/a-return-to-scienceevidence-based-estimates-of-the-benefits-ofreducing-climate-pollution/. 

development of the February 2021 SC– 

GHG TSD, DOE agrees with this 

assessment and, therefore, in this final 

rule, DOE centers attention on a global 

measure of SC–GHG. This approach is 

the same as that taken in DOE regulatory 

analyses from 2012 through 2016. A 

robust estimate of climate damages to 

U.S. citizens and residents does not 

currently exist in the literature. As 

explained in the February 2021 TSD, 

existing estimates are both incomplete 

and an underestimate of total damages 

that accrue to the citizens and residents 

of the U.S. because they do not fully 

capture the regional interactions and 

spillovers discussed above, nor do they 

include all of the important physical, 

ecological, and economic impacts of 

climate change recognized in the 

climate change literature. As noted in 

the February 2021 SC–GHG TSD, the 

IWG will continue to review 

developments in the literature, 

including more robust methodologies 

for estimating a U.S.-specific SC–GHG 

value, and explore ways to better inform 

the public of the full range of carbon 

impacts. As a member of the IWG, DOE 

will continue to follow developments in 

the literature pertaining to this issue. 

Second, the IWG found that the use of 

the social rate of return on capital (7 

percent under current OMB Circular A– 

4 guidance) to discount the future 

benefits of reducing GHG emissions 

inappropriately underestimates the 

impacts of climate change for the 

purposes of estimating the SC–GHG. 

Consistent with the findings of the 

National Academies (2017) and the 

economic literature, the IWG continued 

to conclude that the consumption rate of 

interest is the theoretically appropriate 

discount rate in an intergenerational 

context (IWG 2010, 2013, 2016a, 2016b), 

and recommended that discount rate 

uncertainty and relevant aspects of 

intergenerational ethical considerations 

be accounted for in selecting future 

discount rates. 

Furthermore, the damage estimates 

developed for use in the SC–GHG are 

estimated in consumption-equivalent 

terms, and so an application of OMB 

Circular A–4’s guidance for regulatory 

analysis would then use the 

consumption discount rate to calculate 

the SC–GHG. DOE agrees with this 

assessment and will continue to follow 

developments in the literature 

pertaining to this issue. DOE also notes 

that while OMB Circular A–4, as 

published in 2003, recommends using 

3% and 7% discount rates as ‘‘default’’ 

values, Circular A–4 also reminds 

agencies that ‘‘different regulations may 

call for different emphases in the 

analysis, depending on the nature and 

complexity of the regulatory issues and 

the sensitivity of the benefit and cost 

estimates to the key assumptions.’’ On 

discounting, Circular A–4 recognizes 

that ‘‘special ethical considerations arise 

when comparing benefits and costs 

across generations,’’ and Circular A–4 

acknowledges that analyses may 

appropriately ‘‘discount future costs and 

consumption benefits . . . at a lower 

rate than for intragenerational analysis.’’ 

In the 2015 Response to Comments on 

the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory 

Impact Analysis, OMB, DOE, and the 

other IWG members recognized that 

‘‘Circular A–4 is a living document’’ and 

‘‘the use of 7 percent is not considered 

appropriate for intergenerational 

discounting. There is wide support for 

this view in the academic literature, and 

it is recognized in Circular A–4 itself.’’ 

Thus, DOE concludes that a 7% 

discount rate is not appropriate to apply 

to value the social cost of greenhouse 

gases in the analysis presented in this 

analysis. In this analysis, to calculate 

the present and annualized values of 

climate benefits, DOE uses the same 

discount rate as the rate used to 

discount the value of damages from 

future GHG emissions, for internal 

consistency. That approach to 

discounting follows the same approach 

that the February 2021 TSD 

recommends ‘‘to ensure internal 

consistency—i.e., future damages from 

climate change using the SC–GHG at 2.5 

percent should be discounted to the 

base year of the analysis using the same 

2.5 percent rate.’’ DOE has also 

consulted the National Academies’ 2017 

recommendations on how SC–GHG 

estimates can ‘‘be combined in RIAs 

with other cost and benefits estimates 

that may use different discount rates.’’ 

The National Academies reviewed 

‘‘several options,’’ including 

‘‘presenting all discount rate 

combinations of other costs and benefits 

with [SC–GHG] estimates.’’ 

As a member of the IWG involved in 

the development of the February 2021 

SC–GHG TSD, DOE agrees with this 

assessment and will continue to follow 

developments in the literature 

pertaining to this issue. While the IWG 

works to assess how best to incorporate 

the latest, peer reviewed science to 

develop an updated set of SC–GHG 

estimates, it set the interim estimates to 

be the most recent estimates developed 

by the IWG prior to the group being 

disbanded in 2017. The estimates rely 

on the same models and harmonized 

inputs and are calculated using a range 

of discount rates. As explained in the 

February 2021 SC–GHG TSD, the IWG 

has recommended that agencies to 

revert to the same set of four values 

drawn from the SC–GHG distributions 

based on three discount rates as were 

used in regulatory analyses between 

2010 and 2016 and subject to public 

comment. For each discount rate, the 

IWG combined the distributions across 

models and socioeconomic emissions 

scenarios (applying equal weight to 

each) and then selected a set of four 

values recommended for use in benefitcost analyses: An average value 

resulting from the model runs for each 

of three discount rates (2.5 percent, 3 

percent, and 5 percent), plus a fourth 

value, selected as the 95th percentile of 

estimates based on a 3 percent discount 

rate. The fourth value was included to 

provide information on potentially 

higher-than-expected economic impacts 

from climate change. As explained in 

the February 2021 SC–GHG TSD, and 

DOE agrees, this update reflects the 

immediate need to have an operational 

SC–GHG for use in regulatory benefitcost analyses and other applications that 

was developed using a transparent 

process, peer-reviewed methodologies, 

and the science available at the time of 

that process. Those estimates were 

subject to public comment in the 

context of dozens of proposed 

rulemakings as well as in a dedicated 

public comment period in 2013. 

There are a number of limitations and 

uncertainties associated with the SC– 

GHG estimates. First, the current 

scientific and economic understanding 

of discounting approaches suggests 

discount rates appropriate for 

intergenerational analysis in the context 

of climate change are likely to be less 

than 3 percent, near 2 percent or 

lower.82 Second, the IAMs used to 

produce these interim estimates do not 

include all of the important physical, 

ecological, and economic impacts of 

climate change recognized in the 

climate change literature and the 

science underlying their ‘‘damage 

functions’’—i.e., the core parts of the 

IAMs that map global mean temperature 

changes and other physical impacts of 

climate change into economic (both 

market and nonmarket) damages—lags 

behind the most recent research. For 

example, limitations include the 

incomplete treatment of catastrophic 

and non-catastrophic impacts in the 

integrated assessment models, their 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 32805 

83For example, the TSD discusses how the 

understanding of discounting approaches suggests 

that discount rates appropriate for intergenerational 

analysis in the context of climate change may be 

lower than 3 percent. 84See EPA, Revised 2023 and Later Model Year 

Light-Duty Vehicle GHG Emissions Standards: 

Regulatory Impact Analysis, Washington, DC, 

December 2021. Available at: www.epa.gov/system/ 

files/documents/2021-12/420r21028.pdf (last 

accessed January 13, 2022). 

incomplete treatment of adaptation and 

technological change, the incomplete 

way in which inter-regional and 

intersectoral linkages are modeled, 

uncertainty in the extrapolation of 

damages to high temperatures, and 

inadequate representation of the 

relationship between the discount rate 

and uncertainty in economic growth 

over long time horizons. Likewise, the 

socioeconomic and emissions scenarios 

used as inputs to the models do not 

reflect new information from the last 

decade of scenario generation or the full 

range of projections. The modeling 

limitations do not all work in the same 

direction in terms of their influence on 

the SC–CO2 estimates. However, as 

discussed in the February 2021 TSD, the 

IWG has recommended that, taken 

together, the limitations suggest that the 

interim SC–GHG estimates used in this 

final rule likely underestimate the 

damages from GHG emissions. DOE 

concurs with this assessment. 

DOE’s derivations of the SC–CO2, SC– 

N2O, and SC–CH4 values used for this 

final rule are discussed in the following 

paragraphs, and the results of DOE’s 

analyses estimating the benefits of the 

reductions in emissions of these 

pollutants are presented in section 

IV.D.3.b of this document. 

Social Cost of Carbon 

The SC–CO2 values used for this final 

rule were generated using the values 

presented in the 2021 update from the 

IWG. Table IV.19 shows the updated 

sets of SC–CO2 estimates from the latest 

interagency update in 5-year increments 

from 2020 to 2050. The full set of 

annual values used is presented in 

Appendix 14–A of the final rule TSD. 

For purposes of capturing the 

uncertainties involved in regulatory 

impact analysis, DOE has determined it 

is appropriate to include all four sets of 

SC–CO2 values, as recommended by the 

IWG.83

TABLE IV.19—ANNUAL SC–CO2 VALUES FROM 2021 INTERAGENCY UPDATE, 2020–2050 

[2020$ per metric ton CO2] 

Year 

Discount rate 

5% 3% 2.5% 3% 

Average Average Average 

95th 

percentile 

2020 ................................................................................................................. 14 51 76 152 

2025 ................................................................................................................. 17 56 83 169 

2030 ................................................................................................................. 19 62 89 187 

2035 ................................................................................................................. 22 67 96 206 

2040 ................................................................................................................. 25 73 103 225 

2045 ................................................................................................................. 28 79 110 242 

2050 ................................................................................................................. 32 85 116 260 

In calculating the potential global 

benefits resulting from reduced CO2

emissions, DOE used the values from 

the February 2021 TSD, adjusted to 

2020$ using the implicit price deflator 

for gross domestic product (GDP) from 

the Bureau of Economic Analysis. DOE 

derived values from 2051 to 2070 based 

on estimates published by EPA.84 These 

estimates are based on methods, 

assumptions, and parameters identical 

to the 2020–2050 estimates published 

by the IWG. DOE derived values after 

2070 based on the trend in 2060–2070 

in each of the four cases (see appendix 

14A). 

DOE multiplied the CO2 emissions 

reduction estimated for each year by the 

SC–CO2 value for that year in each of 

the four cases. To calculate a present 

value of the stream of monetary values, 

DOE discounted the values in each of 

the four cases using the specific 

discount rate that had been used to 

obtain the SC–CO2 values in each case. 

Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous 

Oxide 

The SC–CH4 and SC–N2O values used 

for this final rule were generated using 

the values presented in the February 

2021 TSD. Table IV.20 shows the 

updated sets of SC–CH4 and SC–N2O 

estimates from the latest interagency 

update in 5-year increments from 2020 

to 2050. The full set of annual values 

used is presented in Appendix 14–A of 

the final rule TSD. To capture the 

uncertainties involved in regulatory 

impact analysis, DOE has determined it 

is appropriate to include all four sets of 

SC–CH4 and SC–N2O values, as 

recommended by the IWG. DOE derived 

values after 2050 using the approach 

described above for the SC–CO2. 

TABLE IV.20—ANNUAL SC–CH4 AND SC–N2O VALUES FROM 2021 INTERAGENCY UPDATE, 2020–2050 

[2020$ per metric ton] 

Year 

SC–CH4 SC–N2O 

Discount rate and statistic Discount rate and statistic 

5% 3% 2.5% 3% 5% 3% 2.5% 3% 

Average Average Average 

95th 

percentile Average Average Average 

95th 

percentile 

2020 .................................. 670 1500 2000 3900 5800 18000 27000 48000 

2025 .................................. 800 1700 2200 4500 6800 21000 30000 54000 

2030 .................................. 940 2000 2500 5200 7800 23000 33000 60000 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
32806 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

85See Energy Information Administration, 

Annual Energy Outlook 2020 with Projections to 

2050 (2021). 86For further information, see the Assumptions to 

AEO2021 report that sets forth the major 

assumptions used to generate the projections in the 

Annual Energy Outlook. Available at www.eia.gov/ 

outlooks/aeo/assumptions/ (last accessed July 6, 

2020). 

87CSAPR requires states to address annual 

emissions of SO2 and NOX, precursors to the 

formation of fine particulate matter (‘‘PM2.5’’) 

pollution, in order to address the interstate 

transport of pollution with respect to the 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(‘‘NAAQS’’). CSAPR also requires certain states to 

address the ozone season (May–September) 

emissions of NOX, a precursor to the formation of 

ozone pollution, in order to address the interstate 

transport of ozone pollution with respect to the 

1997 ozone NAAQS. 76 FR 48208 (Aug. 8, 2011). 

EPA subsequently issued a supplemental rule that 

included an additional five states in the CSAPR 

ozone season program; 76 FR 80760 (Dec. 27, 2011) 

(Supplemental Rule), and EPA issued the CSAPR 

Update for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 81 FR 74504 

(Oct. 26, 2016). 

88 In Sept. 2019, the DC Court of Appeals 

remanded the 2016 CSAPR Update to EPA. In April 

2021, EPA finalized the 2021 CSAPR Update which 

resolved the interstate transport obligations of 21 

states for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 86 FR 23054 

(April 30, 2021); see also, 86 FR 29948 (June 4, 

2021) (correction to preamble). The 2021 CSAPR 

Update became effective on June 29, 2021. The 

release of AEO2021 in February 2021 predated the 

2021 CSAPR Update. 

TABLE IV.20—ANNUAL SC–CH4 AND SC–N2O VALUES FROM 2021 INTERAGENCY UPDATE, 2020–2050—Continued 

[2020$ per metric ton] 

Year 

SC–CH4 SC–N2O 

Discount rate and statistic Discount rate and statistic 

5% 3% 2.5% 3% 5% 3% 2.5% 3% 

Average Average Average 

95th 

percentile Average Average Average 

95th 

percentile 

2035 .................................. 1100 2200 2800 6000 9000 25000 36000 67000 

2040 .................................. 1300 2500 3100 6700 10000 28000 39000 74000 

2045 .................................. 1500 2800 3500 7500 12000 30000 42000 81000 

2050 .................................. 1700 3100 3800 8200 13000 33000 45000 88000 

DOE multiplied the CH4 and N2O 

emissions reduction estimated for each 

year by the SC–CH4 and SC–N2O 

estimates for that year in each of the 

cases. To calculate a present value of the 

stream of monetary values, DOE 

discounted the values in each of the 

cases using the specific discount rate 

that had been used to obtain the SC–CH4

and SC–N2O estimates in each case. 

b. Monetization of Other Air Pollutants 

For this final rule, DOE also estimated 

the monetized value of NOX and SO2

emissions reductions from electricity 

generation using benefit per ton 

estimates based on air quality modeling 

and concentration-response functions 

conducted for the Clean Power Plan 

final rule. EPA values for PM2.5-related 

benefits associated with NOX and SO2

and for ozone-related benefits for 2025, 

2030, 2035 and 2040, calculated with 

discount rates of 3 percent and 7 

percent. For this analysis DOE used 

linear interpolation to define values for 

the years not given in the 2025 to 2040 

range; for years beyond 2040 the value 

is held constant. 

DOE estimated the monetized value of 

NOX and SO2 emissions reductions from 

site use of gas in manufactured homes 

using benefit per ton estimates from the 

EPA’s ‘‘Technical Support Document 

Estimating the Benefit per Ton of 

Reducing PM2.5 Precursors from 17 

Sectors’’ (‘‘EPA TSD’’). Although none 

of the sectors refers specifically to 

residential and commercial buildings, 

the sector called ‘‘area sources’’ would 

be a reasonable proxy for residential and 

commercial buildings. ‘‘Area sources’’ 

represents all emission sources for 

which states do not have exact (point) 

locations in their emissions inventories. 

Because exact locations would tend to 

be associated with larger sources, ‘‘area 

sources’’ would be fairly representative 

of small dispersed sources like homes 

and businesses. The EPA TSD provides 

high and low estimates for 2016, 2020, 

2025, and 2030 at 3- and 7-percent 

discount rates. DOE primarily relied on 

the low estimates to be conservative. 

DOE multiplied the emissions reduction 

(in tons) in each year by the associated 

$/ton values, and then discounted each 

series using discount rates of 3 percent 

and 7 percent as appropriate. 

3. Results 

a. Emissions Analysis 

In this final rule, DOE utilized 

emission factors derived from data in 

the AEO 2021.85 The AEO incorporates 

the projected impacts of existing air 

quality regulations on emissions. AEO 

2021 generally represents current 

legislation and environmental 

regulations, including recent 

government actions, for which 

implementing regulations were 

available at the time of preparation of 

AEO 2021, including the emissions 

control programs discussed in the 

following paragraphs.86

SO2 emissions from affected electric 

generating units (‘‘EGUs’’) are subject to 

nationwide and regional emissions capand-trade programs. Title IV of the 

Clean Air Act sets an annual emissions 

cap on SO2 for affected EGUs in the 48 

contiguous States and the District of 

Columbia (DC). (42 U.S.C. 7651 et seq.) 

SO2 emissions from numerous eastern 

States and DC are also limited under the 

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule 

(‘‘CSAPR’’), which created an 

allowance-based trading program that 

operates along with the Title IV program 

in those States and DC. 76 FR 48208 

(Aug. 8, 2011). CSAPR requires these 

States to reduce certain emissions, 

including annual SO2 emissions, and 

went into effect as of January 1, 

2015.87 AEO 2021 incorporates 

implementation of CSAPR, including 

the update to the CSAPR ozone season 

program emission budgets and target 

dates issued in 2016, 81 FR 74504 (Oct. 

26, 2016).88 Compliance with CSAPR is 

flexible among EGUs and is enforced 

through the use of tradable emissions 

allowances. Under existing EPA 

regulations, for states subject to SO2

emissions limits under CSAPR, any 

excess SO2 emissions allowances 

resulting from the lower electricity 

demand caused by the adoption of 

efficiency standards could be used to 

permit offsetting increases in SO2

emissions by another regulated EGU. 

However, beginning in 2016, SO2

emissions began to fall as a result of 

implementation of the Mercury and Air 

Toxics Standards (‘‘MATS’’) for power 

plants. 77 FR 9304 (Feb. 16, 2012). In 

the MATS final rule, EPA established a 

standard for hydrogen chloride as a 

surrogate for acid gas hazardous air 

pollutants (‘‘HAP’’), and also 

established a standard for SO2 (a nonHAP acid gas) as an alternative 

equivalent surrogate standard for acid 

gas HAP. The same controls are used to 

reduce HAP and non-HAP acid gas; 

thus, SO2 emissions are being reduced 

as a result of the control technologies 

installed on coal-fired power plants to 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 32807 

89 DOE has not included the monetary impacts of 

the reduction of Hg for this rule. DOE is evaluating 

the appropriate monetization of these emissions for 

energy conservation standards rulemakings. 

90Available at www2.epa.gov/climateleadership/ 

centeR-corporate-climate-leadership-ghg-emissionfactors-hub. 

comply with the MATS requirements 

for acid gas. To continue operating, coal 

plants must have either flue gas 

desulfurization or dry sorbent injection 

systems installed. Both technologies, 

which are used to reduce acid gas 

emissions, also reduce SO2 emissions. 

Because of the emissions reductions 

under the MATS, it is unlikely that 

excess SO2 emissions allowances 

resulting from the lower electricity 

demand would be needed or used to 

permit offsetting increases in SO2

emissions by another regulated EGU. 

Therefore, energy conservation 

standards that decrease electricity 

generation will generally reduce SO2

emissions. 

CSAPR also established limits on NOX

emissions for numerous States in the 

eastern half of the United States. Energy 

conservation standards would have 

little effect on NOX emissions in those 

States covered by CSAPR emissions 

limits if excess NOX emissions 

allowances resulting from the lower 

electricity demand could be used to 

permit offsetting increases in NOX

emissions from other EGUs. In such a 

case, NOX emissions would remain near 

the limit even if electricity generation 

goes down. A different case could 

possibly result, depending on the 

configuration of the power sector in the 

different regions and the need for 

allowances, such that NOX emissions 

might not remain at the limit in the case 

of lower electricity demand. In this case, 

energy conservation standards might 

reduce NOx emissions in covered 

States. Despite this possibility, DOE has 

chosen to be conservative in its analysis 

and has maintained the assumption that 

energy conservation standards will not 

reduce NOX emissions in States covered 

by CSAPR. Energy conservation 

standards would be expected to reduce 

NOX emissions in the States not covered 

by CSAPR. DOE used AEO 2021 data to 

derive NOX emissions factors for the 

group of States not covered by CSAPR. 

The MATS limit mercury emissions 

from power plants, but they do not 

include emissions caps and as such, 

DOE’s energy conservation standards 

would be expected to slightly reduce Hg 

emissions. DOE estimated mercury 

emissions reduction using emissions 

factors based on AEO 2021, which 

incorporates the MATS.89

Combustion emissions of CH4 and 

N2O are estimated using emissions 

intensity factors published by the 

EPA.90 The FFC upstream emissions are 

estimated based on the methodology 

described in chapter 13 of the final rule 

TSD. The upstream emissions include 

both emissions from fuel combustion 

during extraction, processing, and 

transportation of fuel, and ‘‘fugitive’’ 

emissions (direct leakage to the 

atmosphere) of CH4 and CO2. 

Table IV.21 reflects the emissions 

reductions for both single-section and 

multi-section manufactured homes. 

TABLE IV.21—EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS AS A RESULT OF THE FINAL RULE

Pollutant Single-section Multi-section Total 

Site Emissions Reductions 

CO2 (million metric tons) ............................................................................................................. 19.5 53.8 73.3 

Hg (metric tons) ........................................................................................................................... 2.92E–02 9.60E–02 1.25E–01 

NOX (thousand metric tons) ........................................................................................................ 10.9 26.6 37.5 

SO2 (thousand metric tons) ......................................................................................................... 7.2 20.4 27.6 

CH4 (thousand metric tons) ......................................................................................................... 1.03 3.11 4.14 

N2O (thousand metric tons) ......................................................................................................... 0.21 0.57 0.78 

Upstream Emissions Reductions 

CO2 (million metric tons) ............................................................................................................. 2.01 5.05 7.06 

Hg (metric tons) ........................................................................................................................... 1.48E–04 4.45E–04 5.93E–04 

NOX (thousand metric tons) ........................................................................................................ 25.4 64.8 90.2 

SO2 (thousand metric tons) ......................................................................................................... 0.21 0.47 0.67 

CH4 (thousand metric tons) ......................................................................................................... 127 354 481 

N2O (thousand metric tons) ......................................................................................................... 0.011 0.026 0.037 

Total Emissions Reductions 

CO2 (million metric tons) ............................................................................................................. 21.5 58.9 80.4 

Hg (metric tons) ........................................................................................................................... 2.93E–02 9.64E–02 0.13 

NOX (thousand metric tons) ........................................................................................................ 36.3 91.4 127.7 

SO2 (thousand metric tons) ......................................................................................................... 7.44 20.9 28.3 

CH4 (thousand metric tons) ......................................................................................................... 128 357 485 

N2O (thousand metric tons) ......................................................................................................... 0.23 0.59 0.82 

b. Monetization of Emissions 

DOE estimated the global social 

benefits of GHG emission reductions 

expected from this final rule using the 

SC–GHG estimates presented in the 

Technical Support Document: Social 

Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous 

Oxide Interim Estimates under 

Executive Order 13990 (IWG 2021) that 

would be expected to result from the 

final rule as discussed in IV.D.2. DOE 

has determined that the estimates from 

the February 2021 TSD are based upon 

sound analysis and provide wellfounded estimates for DOE’s analysis of 

the impacts of GHG related to the 

reductions of emissions resulting from 

this final rule. Table IV.22 presents the 

global values of the CO2 emissions 

reduction. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
32808 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE IV.22—PRESENT MONETIZED VALUE OF CO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR MANUFACTURED HOMES PURCHASED

2023–2052 WITH A 30-YEAR LIFETIME

SC–CO2 case 

5% discount 

rate, average 

3% discount 

rate, average 

2.5% discount 

rate, average 

3% discount 

rate, 95th 

percentile 

million 2020$ 

Single Section .................................................................................................. 160.1 723.4 1,211.5 2,228.5 

Multi Section .................................................................................................... 439.8 1,985.3 3,323.0 6,115.3 

Total .......................................................................................................... 599.9 2,708.7 4,534.4 8,343.7 

Similarly, DOE has updated the 

quantified total climate benefits to 

estimate monetary benefits likely to 

result from the reduced emissions of 

CH4 and N2O, consistent with the 

interim estimates in the February 2021 

TSD. DOE multiplied the CH4 and N2O 

emissions reduction estimated for each 

year by the SC–CH4 and SC–N2O 

estimates for that year in each of the two 

cases. 

Table IV.23 presents the value of the 

CH4 emissions reduction, and Table 

IV.24 presents the value of the N2O 

emissions reduction. 

TABLE IV.23—PRESENT MONETIZED VALUE OF METHANE EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR MANUFACTURED HOMES

PURCHASED 2023–2052 WITH A 30-YEAR LIFETIME

SC–CH4 case 

5% discount 

rate, average 

3% discount 

rate, average 

2.5% discount 

rate, average 

3% discount 

rate, 95th 

percentile 

million 2020$ 

Single Section .................................................................................................. 47.7 154.9 230.1 412.5 

Multi Section .................................................................................................... 133.3 432.8 643.0 1,152.6 

Total .......................................................................................................... 181.0 587.6 873.2 1,565.1 

TABLE IV.24—PRESENT MONETIZED VALUE OF NITROUS OXIDE EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR MANUFACTURED HOMES

PURCHASED 2023–2052 WITH A 30-YEAR LIFETIME

SC–N2O case 

5% discount 

rate, average 

3% discount 

rate, average 

2.5% discount 

rate, average 

3% discount 

rate, 95th 

percentile 

million 2020$ 

Single Section .................................................................................................. 0.68 3.00 4.95 7.99 

Multi Section .................................................................................................... 1.80 7.89 13.01 21.03 

Total .......................................................................................................... 2.48 10.89 17.97 29.02 

DOE updated the monetization of 

NOX and SO2 emissions reductions from 

both electricity generation and direct 

use from manufactured homes. For this 

analysis, DOE used linear interpolation 

to define values for the years not given 

in the 2025 to 2040 range; for years 

beyond 2040 the value is held constant. 

Full details of this methodology are 

described in chapter 14 of the final rule 

TSD. DOE multiplied the NOX and SO2

emissions reduction (in tons) in each 

year by the associated $/ton values, and 

then discounted each series using 

discount rates of 3 percent and 7 

percent as appropriate. Table IV.25 and 

Table IV.26 presents the results. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 32809 

91 DOE used a two-step calculation process to 

convert the time-series of costs and benefits into 

annualized values. First, DOE calculated a present 

value in 2016, the year used for discounting the net 

present value of total consumer costs and savings, 

for the time-series of costs and benefits using 

discount rates of three and seven percent for all 

costs and benefits except for the value of CO2

reductions. From the present value, DOE then 

calculated the fixed annual payment over a 30-year 

period, starting in 2020 that yields the same present 

value. The fixed annual payment is the annualized 

value. Although DOE calculated annualized values, 

this does not imply that the time-series of cost and 

benefits from which the annualized values were 

determined would be a steady stream of payments. 

TABLE IV.25—PRESENT MONETIZED VALUE OF NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR MANUFACTURED HOMES PURCHASED

2023–2052 WITH A 30-YEAR LIFETIME

3% discount 

rate 

(high) 

7% discount 

rate 

(high) 

3% discount 

rate 

(low) 

7% discount 

rate 

(low) 

million 2020$ 

Single Section .................................................................................................. 1,220.1 410.2 1,170.8 393.5 

Multi Section .................................................................................................... 3,208.7 1,082.0 3,110.6 1,048.9 

Total .......................................................................................................... 4,428.8 1,492.2 4,281.4 1,442.4 

TABLE IV.26—PRESENT MONETIZED VALUE OF SO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR MANUFACTURED HOMES PURCHASED

2023–2052 WITH A 30-YEAR LIFETIME

3% discount 

rate 

(high) 

7% discount 

rate 

(high) 

3% discount 

rate 

(low) 

7% discount 

rate 

(low) 

million 2020$ 

Single Section .................................................................................................. 452.9 152.4 332.7 114.6 

Multi Section .................................................................................................... 1,227.2 416.0 977.6 337.4 

Total .......................................................................................................... 1,680.1 568.3 1,310.3 452.0 

DOE has not considered the monetary 

benefits of the reduction of Hg for this 

final rule. Not all the public health and 

environmental benefits from the 

reduction of greenhouse gases, NOx, 

and SO2 are captured in the values 

above, and additional unquantified 

benefits from the reductions of those 

pollutants as well as from the reduction 

of Hg, direct PM, and other copollutants may be significant. 

DOE emphasizes that the emissions 

analysis, including the SC–GHG 

analysis, presented in this final rule and 

TSD was performed in support of the 

cost-benefit analyses required by 

Executive Order 12866, and is provided 

to inform the public of the impacts of 

emissions reductions resulting from this 

final rule. The emissions estimates were 

not factored into DOE’s determination of 

whether the final rule is cost-effective 

under section 413 of EISA 2007. 

E. Total Benefits and Costs 

DOE has determined that under the 

standards the benefits to the Nation of 

the standards (energy savings, consumer 

LCC savings, positive NPV of consumer 

benefit, energy security benefits, and 

emission reductions) outweigh the 

burdens (loss of INPV, and LCC 

increases for some homeowners of 

manufactured housing). The projected 

total benefits and costs (from the 

manufactured homeowner’s 

perspective) associated with the 

standard, expressed in terms of 

annualized values, is presented in Table 

I.10 (See section I.E of this document).91

V. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 

12866 and 13563 

Executive Order (‘‘E.O.’’) 12866, 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review,’’ as 

supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O. 

13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review, 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 

2011), requires agencies, to the extent 

permitted by law, to (1) propose or 

adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that its benefits justify its 

costs (recognizing that some benefits 

and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) 

tailor regulations to impose the least 

burden on society, consistent with 

obtaining regulatory objectives, taking 

into account, among other things, and to 

the extent practicable, the costs of 

cumulative regulations; (3) select, in 

choosing among alternative regulatory 

approaches, those approaches that 

maximize net benefits (including 

potential economic, environmental, 

public health and safety, and other 

advantages; distributive impacts; and 

equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than 

specifying the behavior or manner of 

compliance that regulated entities must 

adopt; and (5) identify and assess 

available alternatives to direct 

regulation, including providing 

economic incentives to encourage the 

desired behavior, such as user fees or 

marketable permits, or providing 

information upon which choices can be 

made by the public. DOE emphasizes as 

well that E.O. 13563 requires agencies to 

use the best available techniques to 

quantify anticipated present and future 

benefits and costs as accurately as 

possible. In its guidance, the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(‘‘OIRA’’) in the Office of Management 

and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) has emphasized 

that such techniques may include 

identifying changing future compliance 

costs that might result from 

technological innovation or anticipated 

behavioral changes. For the reasons 

stated in the preamble, this proposed/ 

final regulatory action is consistent with 

these principles. 

Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also 

requires agencies to submit ‘‘significant 

regulatory actions’’ to OIRA for review. 

OIRA has determined that this final 

regulatory action constitutes an 

economically significant regulatory 

action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. 

Accordingly, pursuant to section 

6(a)(3)(C) of E.O. 12866, DOE has 

provided to OIRA an assessment, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
32810 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

including the underlying analysis, of 

benefits and costs anticipated from the 

proposed/final regulatory action, 

together with, to the extent feasible, a 

quantification of those costs; and an 

assessment, including the underlying 

analysis, of costs and benefits of 

potentially effective and reasonably 

feasible alternatives to the planned 

regulation, and an explanation why the 

planned regulatory action is preferable 

to the identified potential alternatives. 

These assessments are summarized in 

the tables below, as well as elsewhere in 

this preamble. Further detail on 

alternatives can be found in chapter 15 

of the final rule TSD for this 

rulemaking. 

TABLE V.1—SUMMARY OF TOTAL MONETIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS TO MANUFACTURED HOME HOMEOWNERS UNDER

THE ADOPTED STANDARDS

Net present 

value 

(billion $2020) 

3% Discount Rate 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings ..................................................................................................................................................... 10.2 

Climate Benefits * ................................................................................................................................................................................. 3.3 

Health Benefits ** ................................................................................................................................................................................. 5.6 

Total Benefits ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 19.1 

Consumer Incremental Product Costs † .............................................................................................................................................. 5.1 

Net Benefits ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 14.0 

7% Discount Rate 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings ..................................................................................................................................................... 3.9 

Climate Benefits * ................................................................................................................................................................................. 3.3 

Health Benefits ** ................................................................................................................................................................................. 1.9 

Total Benefits † .................................................................................................................................................................................... 9.1 

Consumer Incremental Product Costs †† ............................................................................................................................................ 2.4 

Net Benefits ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 6.7 

Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with manufactured housing shipped in 2023–2052. These results include benefits 

to consumers which accrue after 2052 from the products shipped in 2023–2052. 

* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the social cost of carbon (SC–CO2), methane (SC–CH4), and nitrous oxide 

(SC–N2O) (model average at 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rates; 95th percentile at 3 percent discount rate), as shown in Table 

IV.22 through Table IV.24. Together these represent the global SC–GHG. For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC–GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but the Department does not have a single central SC–GHG point estimate. See section. IV.D of this document for more details. On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22–30087) granted the 

federal government’s emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued in Louisiana v. Biden, 

No. 21–cv–1074–JDC–KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit’s order, the preliminary injunction is no longer in effect, pending resolution of 

the federal government’s appeal of that injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants 

in that case from ‘‘adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon’’ the interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases—which 

were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021—to monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In the absence of further intervening court orders, DOE will revert to its approach prior to the injunction and 

presents monetized benefits where appropriate and permissible under law. 

** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing (for NOX and SO2) PM2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as 

health benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5 emissions. See section IV.D.2 of this document for more details. 

† Total and net benefits include those consumer, climate, and health benefits that can be quantified and monetized. For presentation purposes, 

total and net benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC–GHG with 3-percent discount rate, but the 

Department does not have a single central SC–GHG point estimate. DOE emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four SC–GHG estimates. 

†† The incremental costs include incremental costs associated with principal and interest, mortgage and property tax for the analyzed loan 

types. Further discussion can be found in chapter 8 of the TSD. 

TABLE V.2—ANNUALIZED MONETIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS TO MANUFACTURED HOME HOMEOWNERS UNDER THE

STANDARDS

Million $2020 

3% Discount Rate 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings ..................................................................................................................................................... 551 

Climate Benefits * ................................................................................................................................................................................. 169 

Health Benefits ** ................................................................................................................................................................................. 285 

Total Benefits ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 1005 

Consumer Incremental Product Costs † .............................................................................................................................................. 277 

Net Benefits ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 728 

7% Discount Rate 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings ..................................................................................................................................................... 361 

Climate Benefits * ................................................................................................................................................................................. 169 

Health Benefits ** ................................................................................................................................................................................. 153 

Total Benefits ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 682 

Consumer Incremental Product Costs † .............................................................................................................................................. 221 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 32811 

TABLE V.2—ANNUALIZED MONETIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS TO MANUFACTURED HOME HOMEOWNERS UNDER THE

STANDARDS—Continued 

Million $2020 

Net Benefits ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 461 

* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the social cost of carbon (SC–CO2), methane (SC–CH4), and nitrous oxide 

(SC–N2O) (model average at 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rates; 95th percentile at 3 percent discount rate). Together these 

represent the global social cost of greenhouse gases (SC–GHG). For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with 

the average SC–GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but the Department does not have a single central SC–GHG point estimate, and it 

emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four SC–GHG estimates. On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22–30087) granted the federal government’s emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, 

preliminary injunction issued in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21–cv–1074–JDC–KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit’s order, the preliminary 

injunction is no longer in effect, pending resolution of the federal government’s appeal of that injunction or a further court order. Among other 

things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that case from ‘‘adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon’’ the interim 

estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases—which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse 

Gases on February 26, 2021—to monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In the absence of further intervening court orders, DOE will revert to its approach prior to the injunction and presents monetized benefits where appropriate and permissible under law. 

** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing (for NOX and SO2) PM2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as 

health benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5 emissions. The health benefits are presented at real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. 

B. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation 

of an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis (‘‘IRFA’’) and a final regulatory 

flexibility analysis (‘‘FRFA’’) for any 

rule that by law must be proposed for 

public comment, unless the agency 

certifies that the rule, if promulgated, 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. As required by E.O. 13272, 

‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities 

in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461 

(Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published 

procedures and policies on February 19, 

2003, to ensure that the potential 

impacts of its rules on small entities are 

properly considered during the 

rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990 (Feb. 9, 

2003) DOE has made its procedures and 

policies available on the Office of the 

General Counsel’s website 

(www.energy.gov/gc/office-generalcounsel). 

DOE prepared an IRFA as part of the 

August 2021 supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking (‘‘SNOPR’’). 86 FR 

47825. In the IRFA, DOE identified 29 

domestic small businesses impacted by 

the energy conservation standards for 

manufactured housing. DOE determined 

that the costs imposed on domestic 

small businesses as a result of this 

rulemaking would be small relative to 

the size of the average small 

manufacturer. DOE sought comment 

from stakeholders on the cost and 

number of model plans manufacturers 

must update as a result of the rule, the 

types of capital expenditures 

necessitated by the proposal, and the 

total cost of updating product offerings 

and manufacturing facilities. DOE also 

sought comment on how these values 

would differ for small manufacturers, 

and DOE’s estimate of average annual 

revenues for small manufacturers of 

manufactured housing. In light of DOE’s 

analysis in the IRFA and input from 

stakeholders, DOE has prepared the 

following FRFA as part of this final rule. 

1. Need for, and Objectives of, the Rule 

EISA requires DOE to regulate energy 

conservation in manufactured housing, 

an area of the building construction 

industry traditionally regulated by HUD. 

HUD has regulated the manufactured 

housing industry since 1976, when it 

first promulgated the HUD Code. 

Among other provisions, EISA directs 

DOE to consult with the Secretary of 

HUD, who may seek further counsel 

from the Manufactured Housing 

Consensus Committee (‘‘MHCC’’); and 

to base the energy conservation 

standards on the most recent version of 

the International Energy Conservation 

Code (‘‘IECC’’), except 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. (42 U.S.C. 17071) 

2. Significant Issues Raised 

DOE received comments from the 

Manufactured Housing Association for 

Regulatory Reform (‘‘MHARR’’), the 

Manufactured Housing Institute 

(‘‘MHI’’), and the MHCC related to small 

businesses and the regulatory flexibility 

analysis presented in the manufactured 

housing August 2021 SNOPR. These 

comments are addressed in this section. 

In written comments, MHARR cited a 

U.S. Small Business Administration 

(‘‘SBA’’) study to conclude that the cost 

burdens of Federal regulation fall 

disproportionately on smaller 

businesses. MHARR made a general 

request that DOE evaluate potential 

impacts on smaller manufactured 

housing producers, retailers and 

communities and on the future viability 

and market share of those smaller, 

independent manufactured housing 

manufacturers. 

DOE notes that its Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis is scoped to the 

parties that have a direct compliance 

burden resulting from the rule, 

specifically the manufacturers that are 

subject to the energy conservation 

standard. DOE’s rule requires only 

manufacturers of manufactured housing 

to comply with the rule’s requirements. 

Analysis of retailers and communities is 

therefore outside the scope of DOE’s 

FRFAs. For this final rule, DOE has 

further revised its analysis of small 

manufacturer impacts based on 

additional data submitted in written 

comments from industry stakeholders. 

In response to the August 2021 

SNOPR’s IRFA, MHI raised concerns 

about the retail list price threshold used 

in the tiered proposal. MHI noted that 

the cost to update model plans would be 

a recurring annual cost rather than a 

one-time cost due to recurring retail 

price changes. (MHI, No. 1592 at p. 30) 

For the final rule, DOE is adopting a 

tiered approach wherein the standard 

levels are dependent on a size-based 

threshold instead of retail list prices. As 

such, the cost of updating the industry’s 

current model plans to comply with the 

standards is expected to be a one-time 

conversion cost and not a recurring cost. 

MHCC provided comments on DOE’s 

August 2021 SNOPR and stated that 

smaller manufacturers may not always 

have the ability to make model plan 

changes in-house and must rely on 

external experts, which results in higher 

costs. The MHCC noted that the 

estimated engineering and third-party 

review time of 3 hours estimated in 

DOE’s August 2021 SNOPR analysis is 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
32812 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

92Manufactured Housing Institute. MHI Company 

Members. (2019). www.manufacturedhousing.org/ 

wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Current-Member-ListUSE-7-18-19-3.pdf (Last accessed March 10, 2022). 

93 Dun & Bradstreet Hoovers. Subscription login 

accessible at: app.dnbhoovers.com/ (Last accessed 

March 10, 2022). 

94 Glassdoor, Inc. Available at: 

www.glassdoor.com/index.htm (Last accessed 

March 10, 2022). 

95LinkedIn. Available at: www.linkedin.com/ 

(Last accessed March 10, 2022). 

96Manufactured Housing Institute. 2021 

Manufactured Housing Facts. Available at: 

www.manufacturedhousing.org/wp-content/ 

uploads/2021/05/2021-MHI-Quick-Facts-updated05-2021.pdf (Last accessed March 10, 2022). 

97U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational 

Employment and Wage Statistics. Available at: 

www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes172141.htm (Last 

accessed March 10, 2022). 

too conservative. MHCC estimated the 

actual time required would be 10–12 

hours. As an example of changes 

needed, MHCC noted model plans must 

be revised for physical space impacts, 

evaluated through calculation for 

compliance to new thermal envelope 

requirements, analyzed for structural 

load path impacts, evaluated for 

procurement and material changes, and 

a third-party plan review and approval. 

MHCC gave the example that one large 

manufacturer on the MHCC has 

upwards of 3,000 model plans while 

data received from a single facility 

manufacturer estimates 300 model 

plans. 

For the final rule analysis, DOE 

revised its estimates of conversion costs 

based on feedback from stakeholders. 

Specifically, DOE revised upward its 

estimates of the number of model plans 

and the cost to update model plans, in 

line with MHCC’s comments. 

Additional detail is in section 4 

‘‘Description and Estimate of 

Compliance Requirements’’ of the 

Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act. 

3. Description and Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities Affected 

The SBA has set a size threshold for 

manufacturers of manufactured homes, 

which defines those entities classified 

as ‘‘small businesses’’ for the purposes 

of the statute. DOE used the SBA’s small 

business size standards to determine 

whether any small entities would be 

subject to the requirements of the rule. 

(13 CFR part 121) The size standards are 

listed by North American Industry 

Classification System (‘‘NAICS’’) code 

and industry description and are 

available at www.sba.gov/document/ 

support--table-size-standards. 

Manufacturing of manufactured housing 

is classified under NAICS code 321991: 

‘‘Manufactured Home (Mobile Home) 

Manufacturing.’’ The SBA sets a 

threshold of 1,250 employees or fewer 

for an entity to be considered as a small 

business for this category. DOE notes 

that the IRFA in the June 2016 NOPR 

was based on an employee threshold of 

500 employees. 81 FR 42576. The 

updated threshold of 1,250 employees 

in the IRFA in the August 2021 SNOPR 

and today’s FRFA reflects the SBA’s 

most recent guidance on the employee 

threshold for small businesses. 

To estimate the number of companies 

that manufacture manufactured housing 

covered by this rulemaking, DOE 

conducted a market survey using 

publicly available information. DOE 

first attempted to identify all 

manufactured housing manufacturers by 

researching industry trade associations 

(e.g., MHI 92) and individual company 

websites. DOE used market research 

tools such as Dun & Bradstreet reports,93

Glassdoor,94 and LinkedIn 95 to gather 

information about the number of 

employees and manufacturing locations. 

DOE also asked stakeholders and 

industry representatives if they were 

aware of any other small manufacturers. 

After a comprehensive list of businesses 

was created, DOE screened out 

companies that do not offer 

manufactured homes affected by this 

final rule, do not meet the definition of 

a ‘‘small business,’’ are foreign-owned 

and operated, or do not manufacture 

manufactured homes in the United 

States. 

DOE identified 31 manufacturers of 

manufactured housing affected by this 

rulemaking. Of these, DOE identified 27 

manufacturers that qualify as domestic 

small businesses. 

4. Description and Estimate of 

Compliance Requirements 

To evaluate impacts facing 

manufacturers of manufactured housing, 

DOE estimated both the product 

conversion costs (e.g., expenditures on 

R&D, testing, marketing, and other nondepreciable expenses) and capital 

conversion costs (e.g., investments in 

property, plant, and equipment) 

manufacturers would incur to bring 

their product designs and 

manufacturing facilities into compliance 

with the standards. 

To calculate product conversion costs, 

DOE estimated the number of modelplans manufacturers would need to 

redesign. MHI reports there are 136 

production plants for manufactured 

housing in the United States.96 Three 

large manufacturers in the industry 

account for 100 of those production 

plants, based on production plant 

counts in the companies’ annual 

reports. The remaining 36 plants are 

associated with small manufacturers. 

MHCC’s comments indicate that 

individual production plants have 

approximately 300 model plans. 

(MHCC, No. 1600 at pp. 14) DOE 

estimated there are 10,800 model plans 

associated with the small 

manufacturers. Based on stakeholder 

input from written comments, DOE 

estimated that each plan would require 

10 hours of engineering time to update. 

DOE chose to use the lower end of 

MHCC’s 10–12 hour estimate because of 

revisions to the adopted standards, 

specifically removal of R–5 continuous 

insulation from the prescriptive 

requirements, addresses some of the 

more complex design concerns of 

manufacturers raised in response to the 

August 2021 SNOPR. Using data from 

the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, DOE 

calculated a fully burdened mean 

hourly wage for a mechanical engineer 

at $65.53/hour in 2020.97 Based on these 

inputs, DOE estimated total small 

business product conversion costs of 

approximately $7.1 million. For this 

FRFA, DOE assumed the $7.1 million in 

product conversion costs were evenly 

spread across the 27 small businesses 

identified. DOE believes that 

particularly small, low-volume 

manufacturers would offer fewer model 

plans, however there was insufficient 

information to determine the exact 

number of plans each small business 

offered. Furthermore, DOE believes this 

even allocation avoids underestimating 

the investment needed for particularly 

small, low-volume manufacturers. Using 

these assumptions, DOE estimates 

product conversion costs of 

approximately $262,000 per small 

manufacturer. 

While DOE understands most 

manufacturers have the necessary 

equipment to produce manufactured 

homes that are compliant with the 

standards as proposed in this document, 

DOE incorporated capital conversion 

costs of $20,000 per production plant to 

cover tooling and work station 

adjustments that may be needed to 

support compliance with the standard. 

Accounting for 36 production plants, 

DOE estimates capital conversion costs 

of approximately $27,000 per small 

manufacturer. 

DOE estimated the average small 

manufacturer would incur $289,000 in 

conversion costs. Based on data from 

business databases (i.e., Dun & 

Bradstreet and Manta), DOE estimated 

that small manufacturers of 

manufactured housing have an average 

annual revenue of $52.3 million. Per 

manufacturer conversion costs are less 

than one percent of average small 

business annual revenue. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 32813 

98Selected member of the MH working group 

were: Bert Kessler, Palm Harbor Homes, Inc.; David 

Tompos, NTA, Inc.; Emanuel Levy, Systems 

Building Research Alliance; Eric Lacey, Responsible 

Energy Codes Alliance; Ishbel Dickens, National 

Manufactured Home Owners Association 

(NMHOA); Keith Dennis, National Rural Electric 

Cooperative Association; Lois Starkey, 

Manufactured Housing Institute; Lowell Ungar, 

American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy; 

Manuel Santana, Cavco Industries; Mark Ezzo, 

Clayton Homes, Inc.; Mark Weiss, Manufactured 

Housing Association for Regulatory Reform; 

Michael Lubliner, Washington State University 

Extension Energy Program; Michael Wade, Cavalier 

Home Builders; Peter Schneider, Efficiency 

Vermont; Richard Hanger, Housing Technology and 

Standards; Richard Potts, Virginia Department of 

Housing and Community Development; Rob Luter, 

Lippert Components, Inc.; Robin Roy, Natural 

Resources Defense Council; Scott Drake, East 

Kentucky Power Cooperative; Stacey Epperson, 

Next Step Network. DOE and ASRAC members 

were: Joseph Hagerman (DOE); and John Caskey 

(ASRAC, National Electrical Manufacturers 

Association). 

While DOE’s analysis indicated that 

conversion costs are small relative to the 

annual revenue of most small 

manufacturers, DOE recognized that 

there is a range of company sizes within 

the set of 27 small manufacturers. DOE 

evaluated the impacts of the standard of 

different groupings of small 

manufacturers based on revenue. See 

Table V.3 for the grouping of small 

manufacturers by revenue. 

TABLE V.3—ANNUAL REVENUE DISTRIBUTION OF MANUFACTURED HOUSING SMALL BUSINESSES

Annual company revenue 

(millions) 

Number 

of small 

manufacturers 

Conversion 

cost/annual 

revenue 

(%) 

Less than $10 .......................................................................................................................................................... 4 5 

$10 to $20 ................................................................................................................................................................ 6 2 

$20 to $30 ................................................................................................................................................................ 5 1 

$30 to $40 ................................................................................................................................................................ 2 1 

$40 to $50 ................................................................................................................................................................ 4 1 

$50 or more ............................................................................................................................................................. 6 0 

Total .................................................................................................................................................................. 27 

For the small manufacturer groupings 

with revenue over $10 million, DOE 

finds the conversion costs to be small 

relative to company revenue. However, 

the impacts could be more severe for the 

grouping with annual revenue less than 

$10 million. For this grouping of 

manufacturers, which accounts for less 

than 0.5 percent of industry shipments, 

the estimated conversion costs could 

reach 5 percent of annual revenue over 

the conversion period. 

DOE expects the four manufacturers 

with less than $10 million in annual 

revenue to have one production location 

each. If these small manufacturers 

maintain fewer than 300 model plans or 

if these manufacturers have existing 

high efficiency models that meet the 

standard today, then the conversion 

costs would be lower. However, there is 

insufficient publicly available 

information to allow DOE to determine 

the exact number of model plans 

requiring redesign for just these four 

specific companies. 

5. Significant Alternatives Considered 

and Steps Taken To Minimize 

Significant Economic Impacts on Small 

Entities 

In reviewing alternatives to the 

proposed standards, DOE examined 

energy conservation standards proposals 

in the June 2016 NOPR, proposals the 

August 2021 SNOPR, and sensitivities 

in the October 2021 NODA. The June 

2016 NOPR was adopted by the MH 

working group, which consisted of 22 

representatives of stakeholders,98

including representatives of 

manufacturer trade groups that included 

small manufacturers. However, in 

response to concerns related to potential 

adverse impacts on price-sensitive, lowincome purchasers of manufactured 

homes from the imposition of energy 

conservation standards on 

manufactured housing, DOE considered 

multiple alternatives. 

DOE evaluated the alternative of 

adopting tiered standards with tiers 

based on retail pricing. In the August 

2021 SNOPR, Tier 1 applied to 

manufactured home with a 

manufacturer’s retail list price of 

$55,000 or less, and would incorporate 

building thermal envelope measures 

based on certain thermal envelope 

components subject to the 2021 IECC 

but would limit the incremental 

purchase price increase to $750 or less. 

The August 2021 SNOPR also set up a 

Tier 2 that would apply to 

manufactured homes with a 

manufacturer’s retail list price greater 

than $55,000. The Tier 2 standards 

would be set to stringencies based on 

the 2021 IECC and would increase 

purchase prices by more than $750. 

DOE is adopting energy conservation 

standards based on the tiered approach 

presented in the August 2021 SNOPR 

and October 2021 NODA with some 

revisions. Tier 1 will apply to singlesection manufactured homes and Tier 2 

will apply to multi-section 

manufactured homes. The removal of 

tiers based on retail price eliminates the 

possibility that manufacturers would 

need to revise models plans frequently 

due to fluctuations in production costs 

or changes in retail pricing strategy. 

Additionally, DOE is adopting alternate 

exterior wall insulation prescriptive 

requirements to reduce burden on 

manufacturers, including small 

manufacturers. Specifically, for 

manufacturers choosing to follow the 

prescriptive requirements, eliminating 

the continuous insulation requirement 

in exterior wall insulation reduces 

product conversion costs by reducing 

the complexity and the extent of plan 

redesign. Without this change, DOE 

would expect product conversion costs 

for manufacturers, including small 

manufacturers, to be at least 20 percent 

higher. 

The adopted energy conservation 

standards incorporate building thermal 

envelope measures based on 

specifications of the 2021 IECC, with 

consideration of the design and factory 

construction techniques of 

manufactured homes. Further, the 

energy conservation standards also 

include duct and air sealing, insulation 

installation, HVAC specifications, 

service hot water systems, mechanical 

ventilation fan efficacy, and heating and 

cooling equipment sizing provisions, 

based on the 2021 IECC. Additionally, 

the energy conservation standard 

incorporates feedback from 

manufacturers and takes steps to 

mitigate the burdens on small 

manufacturers, such as removing 

prescriptive requirements requiring 

continuous insulation. The tiered 

energy conservation standards provide 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
32814 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

positive national average lifecycle cost 

savings over the life of the 

manufactured home (i.e., 30-years). 

Additionally, this adopted standard is 

expected to save 1.88 quads of FFC 

savings over the 30-year analysis period. 

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act 

This rulemaking does not include any 

information collection requirements 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

On January 14, 2022, DOE published 

the draft environmental impact 

statement for proposed energy 

conservation standards for 

manufactured housing (DOE/EIS– 

0550D). (‘‘January 2022 DEIS’’). The 

January 2022 DEIS was published 

pursuant to the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the Council 

on Environmental Quality’s Regulations 

for implementing the procedural 

provisions of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR parts 

1500–1508), and DOE’s NEPA 

Implementing Procedures (10 CFR part 

1021). In response to the August 2021 

SNOPR and October 2021 NODA, DOE 

received a number of comments 

regarding the January 2022 DEIS, as 

follows. 

Schulte commented that there may be 

difficulty in establishing national 

standards because evaluating the impact 

of tightening the air envelope of the 

home on indoor air quality would be 

influenced by regional differences in 

ambient climate. (Schulte, No. 1028 at 

p. 23) UCB commented that they were 

concerned that there is not an EIS 

available, and that they cannot make an 

informed comment without the EIS, 

especially when looking at alternatives 

to this rule. (UCB, No. 1405 at p. 1) UC 

Law School stated that by failing to 

publish a Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement, the DOE has compromised 

the ability of the public to offer 

meaningful comments. Under NEPA, 

‘‘NEPA procedures must ensure that 

environmental information is available 

to public officials and citizens before 

decisions are made and before actions 

are taken.’’ 40 CFR 1500.1(b). They 

stated that this provision indicates that 

a DEIS should have been prepared 

before the DOE decided on this 

proposed rule and certainly should be 

available for public comment before the 

proposed rule is promulgated. (UC Law 

School, No. 1634 at p. 2, 3, 5, 6) They 

also stated that DOE must incorporate 

the cost-benefit analysis into the EIS. 

The CEQ rules do not require a formal 

CBA, but if the agency prepares one, it 

must be presented in the EIS, according 

to 40 CFR 1502.22. (UC Law School, No. 

1634 at p. 10) Further, UC Law School 

commented that the CBA does not 

comply with the directives of Executive 

Order 12866. Executive Order 12866 

directs agencies, in the rulemaking 

process, to ‘‘assess all costs and benefits 

of available regulatory 

alternatives. . . .’’. The Executive order 

mandates that agencies shall: Identify 

the problem to be addressed and its 

significance; consider the need to fix 

existing regulations; assess alternatives 

to direct regulation; design regulations 

to maximize cost-efficiency; confirm 

that the benefits of new rules justify the 

costs, use the best reasonably obtainable 

information; tailor regulations to 

minimize burdens; and write rules 

clearly to minimize uncertainty and 

litigation. UC Law School stated that the 

alternatives were not entirely assessed, 

a third approach was not examined, the 

regulation was not designed to 

maximize cost-efficiency, and the 

proposed rule was not written to 

minimize uncertainty and litigation 

since the EIS has not been published. 

(UC Law School, No. 1634 at p. 11) 

ACEEE stated that the analysis 

presented in the EIS supports a strong 

untiered standard to provide the greatest 

environmental, socioeconomic, and 

health benefits. ACEEE says that air 

sealing requirements have mixed but 

acceptable impacts on IAQ. ACEEE 

stated that its analysis shows that the air 

sealing requirements of the proposed 

standards may increase concentrations 

of certain indoor air pollutants but that 

does not change the overall hazard 

status of these pollutants. ACEEE also 

stated that analysis also shows that the 

proposed air sealing requirements 

reduce indoor exposure to pollutants 

from outdoor sources (by reducing 

uncontrolled air flow). Thus, the 

proposed efficiency standards should 

not be rejected based on the potential 

impacts to IAQ. ACEEE stated that it is 

worth noting that all options considered 

in the SNOPR and in the EIS have the 

same air sealing requirements and thus 

the same IAQ impacts. ACEEE stated 

that requiring effective mechanical 

ventilation and reducing use of offgassing materials in manufactured 

homes, regardless of the efficiency 

standard, is the best way to ensure 

healthy indoor air quality by reducing 

exposure to air pollutants from indoor 

sources, and referred to ASHRAE 

Standard 62.2, Ventilation and 

Acceptable Indoor Air Quality in 

Residential Buildings, as an option for 

meeting the HUD Code. ACEEE 

concluded that the EIS confirms that the 

untiered standard delivers the highest 

30-year LCC savings to residents, and 

delivers strong climate and 

environmental justice benefits. ACEEE 

said the untiered standard delivers the 

largest reduction in ongoing energy 

costs, which is an essential part of 

preserving the affordability of MH and 

lowering high energy burdens for its 

residents. (ACEEE, No. 1988 at p. 1–2) 

Earthjustice and Prosperity Now 

stated that there is no need to view 

energy-saving requirements that reduce 

air infiltration in MH as establishing a 

zero sum game between different groups 

or air pollutants, and that DOE should 

follow through on the draft EIS 

recommendations that to promote 

installation of energy efficient fans for 

ventilation. Earthjustice and Prosperity 

Now stated that, at the absolute 

minimum, DOE needs to fulfill its 

statutory obligation to evaluate the 

requirements for improved ventilation 

contained in the IECC, and concluded 

that the substantial economic, 

environmental, and health benefits of 

improving air sealing practices in MH 

construction should not come at the cost 

of creating environments where air 

pollutants generated indoors linger until 

concentrations reach potentially 

harmful levels, and that it is essential 

that these risks be mitigated, and DOE 

must not pass up any opportunities to 

use its legal authority to ensure the 

safety of the MH residents. 

As previously mentioned, DOE has 

published the January 2022 DEIS and 

the Final EIS in April of 2022 which 

informs this final rule. Although DOE 

was unable to issue the DEIS 

simultaneously with the August 2021 

SNOPR, the agency reopened the energy 

conservation standards rule docket for 

public comment in January 2022, when 

it issued the January 2022 DEIS, to 

ensure an opportunity to comment on 

how the January 2022 DEIS should 

inform the standards final rule. 

Comments received in the rulemaking 

docket during the January 2022 

comment period have been considered 

in the previous sections, though some 

are discussed more below; comments 

received on the DEIS specifically are 

considered in the FEIS. 

The January 2022 DEIS analyzed a 

range of alternatives and impacts for the 

standards considered in the August 

2021 SNOPR and October 2021 NODA 

(i.e., tiered—using manufacturer’s list 

price or home size; untiered; alternate 

exterior wall insulation for certain 

climate zones), as well as the no action 

alternative. The final EIS further 

analyzed these alternatives, and 

incorporated and addressed feedback 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 32815 

from stakeholder comments on the 

DEIS. DOE utilized the analyses in the 

DEIS, the comments received on the 

DEIS, and the analyses in the final EIS 

to inform this final rule, particularly in 

regards to the issues of indoor air 

quality and socioeconomics. 

With respect to indoor air quality, the 

final EIS provides a discussion of 

potential environmental impacts to 

indoor air quality related to the 

alternatives analyzed, as well as 

potential mitigation measures, which 

informed this rulemaking. See sections 

4.2.3 and 4.3 of the Final EIS. As noted 

in the EIS, all the action alternatives 

analyzed would result in more airtight 

homes, which would have higher indoor 

air concentrations of pollutants emitted 

indoors, increasing the existing 

potential for health effects, particularly 

when ventilation is not routinely used. 

Conversely, all the action alternatives 

would result in better indoor protection 

from outdoor air pollutants, including 

wildfire smoke. Additionally, DOE 

expects a lower risk of moisture 

problems (e.g., mold) in the belly and 

attic of manufactured homes. As noted 

in section 4.11 of the final EIS, DOE 

identified potential mitigation measures 

to address increased indoor air 

pollutants resulting from better sealing 

of homes, such as promotion of 

installation of energy-efficient 

ventilation systems, advanced research 

and stakeholder engagement to increase 

implementation of efficient ventilation 

in manufactured housing, and 

promoting indoor air quality and 

environmental justice through 

informational resources and labeling. 

DOE considered all of this information 

in constructing this final rule. 

With respect to socioeconomics, the 

final EIS provides a discussion of 

impacts to indoor socioeconomics, 

which informed this rulemaking of the 

reasonable alternatives that could avoid 

or minimize adverse impacts. See 

section 4.4 of the Final EIS. DOE 

received numerous comments from a 

variety of stakeholders about the 

impacts of the alternatives analyzed in 

the DEIS on socioeconomics, 

particularly on low-income consumers. 

Accordingly, DOE has finalized the 

tiered standard based on home size in 

this final rule. 

With respect to the comments at the 

beginning of this section, as discussed 

in section III.B of this document, DOE 

is adopting a tiered standard in this 

final rule to mitigate the affordability 

and cost-effectiveness concerns raised 

by HUD during and consultation, and in 

other stakeholder comments. DOE 

acknowledges that the untiered standard 

provided greater long-term energy 

savings benefits. However, for the 

reasons stated in section III.B of this 

document, DOE has determined to 

adopt the tiered standard in today’s 

final rule. As ACEEE noted, DOE 

considered similar sealing requirements 

across the analyzed action alternatives, 

and they had similar indoor air quality 

impacts. Therefore, these impacts would 

be similar regardless of the alternative 

chosen. With respect to Earthjustice and 

Prosperity Now’s comments, as 

discussed in section III.A.3 of this 

document, DOE disagrees with the 

commenter that a provision-byprovision analysis of the IECC is 

necessary for this final rule. Moreover, 

HUD is the Federal authority that 

regulates safety standards, including 

ventilation, in manufactured homes. 

Additional ventilation requirements to 

improve indoor air quality are better 

addressed by HUD. DOE notes that the 

standards adopted in this final rule are 

similar to those already required by the 

HUD Code. Additionally, as discussed 

in section 4.11 of the final EIS, DOE 

identified potential mitigation measures 

to address increased indoor air 

pollutants resulting from better sealing 

of homes, such as promotion of 

installation of energy-efficient 

ventilation systems, advanced research 

and stakeholder engagement to increase 

implementation of efficient ventilation 

in manufactured housing, and through 

informational resources and labeling. 

DOE intends to pursue these potential 

mitigation measures to promote indoor 

air quality and environmental justice in 

manufactured homes. 

Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal 

Register, DOE is publishing its record of 

decision (‘‘ROD’’) pursuant to its 

obligations under NEPA. The ROD 

finalizes DOE’s considerations of the 

environmental impacts under the NEPA 

process and memorializes DOE’s 

determinations and approach chosen 

consistent with this final rule. In 

addition, to remain compliant with 

Executive Order 12866, DOE is 

submitting this final rule for review to 

the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs to ensure that the final rule, 

including the assessments of costeffectiveness and benefits, meet the 

requirements of Executive Order 12866. 

DOE is statutorily required by EISA to 

base these energy conservation 

standards on the most recent version of 

the IECC except where it is not costeffective, and as such, DOE followed 

that statutory direction for this final 

rule. DOE strived to incorporate 

feedback from stakeholders to maximize 

clarity and minimize the burden placed 

on manufacturers, while also following 

its statutory obligations and ensuring 

energy and cost savings for consumers 

of manufactured housing. With regards 

to difficulties establishing national 

standards based on regional differences 

in ambient climate, DOE has based the 

adopted standards on the established 

HUD zones to account for differences in 

regional climates consistent with 

section 413 of EISA (42 U.S.C. 

17071(b)(2)(B)). 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 

64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999) imposes 

certain requirements on Federal 

agencies formulating and implementing 

policies or regulations that preempt 

State law or that have federalism 

implications. The Executive order 

requires agencies to examine the 

constitutional and statutory authority 

supporting any action that would limit 

the policymaking discretion of the 

States and to carefully assess the 

necessity for such actions. The 

Executive order also requires agencies to 

have an accountable process to ensure 

meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE 

published a statement of policy 

describing the intergovernmental 

consultation process it will follow in the 

development of such regulations. 65 FR 

13735. DOE has examined this final 

rulemaking and has determined that it 

would not have a substantial direct 

effect on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government. 

DOE has examined this action and has 

determined that it will not pre-empt 

State law. This action impacts energy 

efficiency requirements for 

manufacturers of manufactured homes. 

Therefore, no further action is required 

by E.O. 13132. 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

With respect to the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 

12988, ‘‘Civil Justice Reform,’’ imposes 

on Federal agencies the general duty to 

adhere to the following requirements: 

(1) Eliminate drafting errors and 

ambiguity; (2) write regulations to 

minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct 

rather than a general standard; and (4) 

promote simplification and burden 

reduction. 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). 

Regarding the review required by 

section 3(a), section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 

specifically requires that executive 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
32816 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

agencies make every reasonable effort to 

ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly 

specifies the preemptive effect, if any; 

(2) clearly specifies any effect on 

existing Federal law or regulation; (3) 

provides a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct while promoting 

simplification and burden reduction; (4) 

specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) 

adequately defines key terms; and (6) 

addresses other important issues 

affecting clarity and general 

draftsmanship under any guidelines 

issued by the Attorney General. Section 

3(c) of E.O. 12988 requires Executive 

agencies to review regulations in light of 

applicable standards in section 3(a) and 

section 3(b) to determine whether they 

are met, or it is unreasonable to meet 

one or more of them. DOE has 

completed the required review and 

determined that, to the extent permitted 

by law, this proposed rule meets the 

relevant standards of E.O. 12988. 

G. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (‘‘UMRA’’) requires 

each Federal agency to assess the effects 

of Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and Tribal governments and the 

private sector. Public Law 104–4, 

section 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). 

For a regulatory action likely to result in 

a rule that may cause the expenditure by 

State, local, and Tribal governments, in 

the aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100 million or more in any one year 

(adjusted annually for inflation), section 

202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency 

to publish a written statement that 

estimates the resulting costs, benefits, 

and other effects on the national 

economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The 

UMRA also requires a Federal agency to 

develop an effective process to permit 

timely input by elected officers of State, 

local, and Tribal governments on a 

‘‘significant intergovernmental 

mandate,’’ and requires an agency plan 

for giving notice and opportunity for 

timely input to potentially affected 

small governments before establishing 

any requirements that might 

significantly or uniquely affect them. On 

March 18, 1997, DOE published a 

statement of policy on its process for 

intergovernmental consultation under 

UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE’s policy 

statement is also available at https://

energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/ 

documents/umra_97.pdf. 

DOE has concluded that this rule may 

require expenditures of $100 million or 

more in one year by the private sector. 

Such expenditures may include: (1) 

Updates to product plans and 

investment in capital expenditures by 

manufactured home manufacturers in 

the years between the final rule and the 

compliance date of the new standards, 

and (2) incremental additional 

expenditures by consumers to purchase 

higher-efficiency manufactured homes, 

starting at the compliance date for the 

standards. 

Section 202 of UMRA authorizes a 

Federal agency to respond to the content 

requirements of UMRA in any other 

statement or analysis that accompanies 

the rule. (2 U.S.C. 1532(c)) The content 

requirements of section 202(b) of UMRA 

relevant to a private sector mandate 

substantially overlap the economic 

analysis requirements that apply under 

E.O. 12866. This SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section and chapter 15 of 

the TSD for this final rule respond to 

those requirements. 

Under section 205 of UMRA, the 

Department is obligated to identify and 

consider a reasonable number of 

regulatory alternatives before 

promulgating a rule for which a written 

statement under section 202 is required. 

(2 U.S.C. 1535(a)) DOE is required to 

select from those alternatives the most 

cost-effective and least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule unless DOE publishes an 

explanation for doing otherwise, or the 

selection of such an alternative is 

inconsistent with law. 

In accordance with the statutory 

provisions discussed in this document, 

this rule would establish energy 

conservation standards for 

manufactured homes based on the most 

recent IECC, except in cases in which 

DOE finds that the IECC is not costeffective, or a more stringent standard 

would be more cost-effective, based on 

the impact of the code on the purchase 

price of manufactured housing and on 

total life-cycle construction and 

operating costs, and taking into 

consideration the design and factory 

construction techniques of 

manufactured homes. (42 U.S.C. 

17071(b)(1) and 42 U.S.C. 

17071(b)(2)(A)) As discussed 

previously, DOE found the 2021 IECCbased adopted final rule cost-effective 

consistent with section 413 of EISA. A 

discussion of the alternatives 

considered by DOE is presented in 

chapter 15 of the TSD for this final rule. 

H. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires 

Federal agencies to issue a Family 

Policymaking Assessment for any rule 

that may affect family well-being. These 

standards would not have any impact 

on the autonomy or integrity of the 

family as an institution. Accordingly, 

DOE has concluded that it is not 

necessary to prepare a Family 

Policymaking Assessment. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

Pursuant to E.O. 12630, 

‘‘Governmental Actions and Interference 

with Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859 (Mar. 18, 1988), 

DOE has determined that these 

standards would not result in any 

takings that might require compensation 

under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution. 

J. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 

Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) 

provides for Federal agencies to review 

most disseminations of information to 

the public under information quality 

guidelines established by each agency 

pursuant to general guidelines issued by 

OMB. OMB’s guidelines were published 

at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and 

DOE’s guidelines were published at 67 

FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant to 

OMB Memorandum M–19–15, 

Improving Implementation of the 

Information Quality Act (April 24, 

2019), DOE published updated 

guidelines which are available at 

https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/ 

2019/12/f70/DOE%20Final%20

Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines%20

Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has reviewed 

this rule under the OMB and DOE 

guidelines and has concluded that it is 

consistent with applicable policies in 

those guidelines. 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 FR 28355 (May 

22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to 

prepare and submit to OIRA at OMB, a 

Statement of Energy Effects for any 

significant energy action. A ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ is defined as any action 

by an agency that promulgates or is 

expected to lead to promulgation of a 

final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant 

regulatory action under E.O. 12866, or 

any successor order; and (2) is likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy; or 

(3) is designated by the Administrator of 

OIRA as a significant energy action. For 

any significant energy action, the agency 

must give a detailed statement of any 

adverse effects on energy supply, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 32817 

99The 2007 ‘‘Energy Conservation Standards 

Rulemaking Peer Review Report’’ is available at the 

following website: http://energy.gov/eere/buildings/ 

downloads/energy-conservation-standardsrulemaking-peeR-review-report-0. 

100The report is available at 

www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/review-ofmethods-for-setting-building-and-equipmentperformance-standards. 

distribution, or use, and of reasonable 

alternatives to the action and their 

expected benefits on energy supply, 

distribution, and use. 

DOE has concluded that this 

regulatory action, which establishes 

new energy conservation standards for 

manufactured housing, is not a 

significant energy action because the 

standards are not likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy, nor has it 

been designated as such by the 

Administrator at OIRA. Accordingly, 

DOE has not prepared a Statement of 

Energy Effects on this final rule. 

L. Information Quality 

On December 16, 2004, OMB, in 

consultation with the Office of Science 

and Technology Policy (OSTP), issued 

its Final Information Quality Bulletin 

for Peer Review (the Bulletin). 70 FR 

2664 (Jan. 14, 2005). The Bulletin 

establishes that certain scientific 

information shall be peer-reviewed by 

qualified specialists before it is 

disseminated by the Federal 

Government, including influential 

scientific information related to agency 

regulatory actions. The purpose of the 

Bulletin is to enhance the quality and 

credibility of the Government’s 

scientific information. Under the 

Bulletin, the energy conservation 

standards rulemaking analyses are 

‘‘influential scientific information,’’ 

which the Bulletin defines as ‘‘scientific 

information the agency reasonably can 

determine will have, or does have, a 

clear and substantial impact on 

important public policies or private 

sector decisions.’’ 70 FR 2664, 2667. 

In response to OMB’s Bulletin, DOE 

conducted formal peer reviews of the 

energy conservation standards 

development process for consumer 

products and industrial equipment 

under EPCA and the analyses that are 

typically used and prepared a report 

describing that peer review.99

Generation of this report involved a 

rigorous, formal, and documented 

evaluation using objective criteria and 

qualified and independent reviewers to 

make a judgment as to the technical, 

scientific, and business merit; the actual 

or anticipated results; and the 

productivity and management 

effectiveness of programs and/or 

projects. Because available data, models, 

and technological understanding have 

changed since 2007, DOE has engaged 

with the National Academy of Sciences 

to review DOE’s analytical 

methodologies to ascertain whether 

modifications are needed to improve the 

Department’s analyses. DOE is in the 

process of evaluating the resulting 

report.100

M. Materials Incorporated by Reference 

Under section 301 of the Department 

of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95– 

91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply 

with section 32 of the Federal Energy 

Administration Act of 1974, as amended 

by the Federal Energy Administration 

Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 

788; FEAA) Section 32 essentially 

provides in relevant part that, where a 

proposed rule authorizes or requires use 

of commercial standards, the notice of 

proposed rulemaking must inform the 

public of the use and background of 

such standards. In addition, section 

32(c) requires DOE to consult with the 

Attorney General and the FTC Chairman 

concerning the impact of the 

commercial or industry standards on 

competition. 

DOE is incorporating by reference the 

industry standard published by ACCA, 

titled Manual J–2016 (ver 2.50), Manual 

J—Residential Load Calculations, Eight 

Edition, Version 2.50.. ACCA Manual J 

is an industry accepted standard for 

calculating the heating and cooling load 

associated with a building. DOE is 

requiring building heating and cooling 

loads to be calculated (for purposes of 

equipment sizing) in accordance with 

ACCA Manual J. ACCA Manual J is 

readily available on ACCA’s website at 

www.acca.org/. 

DOE is incorporating by reference the 

industry standard published by ACCA, 

titled Manual S–2014, Manual S— 

Residential Equipment Selection, 

Second Edition, Version 1.00. ACCA 

Manual S is an industry accepted 

standard for calculating the appropriate 

heating and cooling equipment size for 

a building. DOE is requiring building 

heating and cooling equipment to be 

sized in accordance with ACCA Manual 

S. ACCA Manual S is readily available 

on ACCA’s website at www.acca.org/. 

DOE is incorporating by reference the 

industry standard written by C.C Conner 

and Z.T. Taylor of Pacific Northwest 

Laboratory, titled Overall U-Values and 

Heating/Cooling Loads—Manufactured 

Homes. This industry standard (referred 

to as the ‘‘Battelle Method’’) is an 

industry accepted method for 

calculating the overall thermal 

transmittance of a manufactured home. 

In instances in which manufacturers 

demonstrate compliance with the 

overall thermal transmittance 

requirement, DOE is requiring 

manufactured housing manufacturers to 

calculate the overall thermal 

transmittance of a manufactured home 

in accordance with this industry 

standard. This standard is readily 

available on the U.S. Department of 

Housing and Urban Development’s 

website at www.huduser.org/portal/ 

publications/manufhsg/uvalue.html. 

DOE has evaluated these standards 

and was unable to conclude whether 

they fully comply with the requirements 

of section 32(b) of the FEAA (i.e., 

whether they were developed in a 

manner that fully provides for public 

participation, comment, and review.) 

DOE has consulted with both the 

Attorney General and the Chairman of 

the FTC about the impact on 

competition of using the methods 

contained in these standards and has 

received no comments objecting to their 

use. 

N. Congressional Notification 

As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will 

report to Congress on the promulgation 

of this rule prior to its effective date. 

The report will state that it has been 

determined that the rule is a ‘‘major 

rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

VI. 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, Incorporation by reference, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Department of 

Energy was signed on May 16, 2022, by 

Kelly J. Speakes-Backman, Principal 

Deputy 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
32818 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

the legal effect of this document upon 

publication in the Federal Register. 

Signed in Washington, DC, on May 17, 

2022. 

Treena V. Garrett, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. 

Department of Energy. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, DOE adds part 460 of chapter 

II of title 10, Code of Federal 

Regulations as set forth below: 

PART 460—ENERGY CONSERVATION 

STANDARDS FOR MANUFACTURED 

HOMES 

Subpart A—General 

Sec. 

460.1 Scope. 

460.2 Definitions. 

460.3 Materials incorporated by reference. 

460.4 Energy conservation standards. 

Subpart B—Building Thermal Envelope 

460.101 Climate zones. 

460.102 Building thermal envelope 

requirements. 

460.103 Installation of insulation. 

460.104 Building thermal envelope air 

leakage. 

Subpart C—HVAC, Service Hot Water, and 

Equipment Sizing 

460.201 Duct systems. 

460.202 Thermostats and controls. 

460.203 Service hot water. 

460.204 Mechanical ventilation fan 

efficacy. 

460.205 Equipment sizing. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 17071; 42 U.S.C. 

7101 et seq. 

Subpart A—General 

§ 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. A manufactured home that is 

manufactured on or after the May 31, 

2023 must comply with all applicable 

requirements of this part. 

§ 460.2 Definitions. 

Adapted from section R202 of the 

2021 IECC and as used in this part— 

2021 IECC means the 2021 version of 

the International Energy Conservation 

Code, issued by the International Code 

Council. 

Access (to) means that which enables 

a device, appliance or equipment to be 

reached by ready access or by a means 

that first requires the removal or 

movement of a panel or similar 

obstruction. 

Air barrier means one or more 

materials joined together in a 

continuous manner to restrict or prevent 

the passage of air through the building 

thermal envelope and its assemblies. 

Automatic means self-acting or 

operating by its own mechanism when 

actuated by some impersonal influence. 

Building thermal envelope means 

exterior walls, exterior floors, exterior 

ceiling, or roofs, and any other building 

element assemblies that enclose 

conditioned space or provide a 

boundary between conditioned space 

and unconditioned space. 

Ceiling means an assembly that 

supports and forms the overhead 

interior surface of a building or room 

that covers its upper limit and is 

horizontal or tilted at an angle less than 

60 degrees (1.05 rad) from horizontal. 

Climate zone means a geographical 

region identified in § 460.101. 

Conditioned space means an area, 

room, or space that is enclosed within 

the building thermal envelope and that 

is directly or indirectly heated or 

cooled. Spaces are indirectly heated or 

cooled where they communicate 

through openings with conditioned 

space, where they are separated from 

conditioned spaces by uninsulated 

walls, floors or ceilings, or where they 

contain uninsulated ducts, piping, or 

other sources of heating or cooling. 

Continuous air barrier means a 

combination of materials and assemblies 

that restrict or prevent the passage of air 

from conditioned space to 

unconditioned space. 

Door means an operable barrier used 

to block or allow access to an entrance 

of a manufactured home. 

Dropped ceiling means a secondary 

nonstructural ceiling, hung below the 

exterior ceiling. 

Dropped soffit means a secondary 

nonstructural ceiling that is hung below 

the exterior ceiling and that covers only 

a portion of the ceiling. 

Duct means a tube or conduit, except 

an air passage within a self-contained 

system, utilized for conveying air to or 

from heating, cooling, or ventilating 

equipment. 

Duct system means a continuous 

passageway for the transmission of air 

that, in addition to ducts, includes duct 

fittings, dampers, plenums, fans, and 

accessory air-handling equipment and 

appliances. 

Eave means the edge of the roof that 

overhangs the face of an exterior wall 

and normally projects beyond the side 

of the manufactured home. 

Equipment includes material, devices, 

fixtures, fittings, or accessories both in 

the construction of, and in the 

plumbing, heating, cooling, and 

electrical systems of a manufactured 

home. 

Exterior ceiling means a ceiling that 

separates conditioned space from 

unconditioned space. 

Exterior floor means a floor that 

separates conditioned space from 

unconditioned space. 

Exterior wall means a wall, including 

a skylight well, that separates 

conditioned space from unconditioned 

space. 

Fenestration means vertical 

fenestration and skylights. 

Floor means a horizontal assembly 

that supports and forms the lower 

interior surface of a building or room 

upon which occupants can walk. 

Glazed or glazing means an infill 

material, including glass, plastic, or 

other transparent or translucent material 

used in fenestration. 

Heated water circulation system 

means a water distribution system in 

which one or more pumps are operated 

in the service hot water piping to 

circulate heated water from the water 

heating equipment to fixtures and back 

to the water heating equipment. 

Insulation means material deemed to 

be insulation under 16 CFR 460.2. 

Manual means capable of being 

operated by personal intervention. 

Manufactured home means 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 onsite 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 in the 

structure. This term includes all 

structures that meet the above 

requirements except the size 

requirements and with respect to which 

the manufacturer voluntarily files a 

certification pursuant to 24 CFR 3282.13 

and complies with the construction and 

safety standards set forth in 24 CFR part 

3280. The term does not include any 

self-propelled recreational vehicle. 

Calculations used to determine the 

number of square feet in a structure will 

be based on the structure’s exterior 

dimensions, measured at the largest 

horizontal projections when erected on 

site. These dimensions will include all 

expandable rooms, cabinets, and other 

projections containing interior space, 

but do not include bay windows. 

Nothing in this definition should be 

interpreted to mean that a manufactured 

home necessarily meets the 

requirements of the U.S. Department of 

Housing and Urban Development 

Minimum Property Standards (HUD 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 32819 

Handbook 4900.1) or that it is 

automatically eligible for financing 

under 12 U.S.C. 1709(b). 

Manufacturer means any person 

engaged in the factory construction or 

assembly of a manufactured home, 

including any person engaged in 

importing manufactured homes for 

resale. 

Opaque door means a door that is not 

less than 50 percent opaque in surface 

area. 

R-value (thermal resistance) means 

the inverse of the time rate of heat flow 

through a body from one of its bounding 

surfaces to the other surface for a unit 

temperature difference between the two 

surfaces, under steady state conditions, 

per unit area (h × ft2 × °F/Btu). 

Rough opening means an opening in 

the exterior wall or roof, sized for 

installation of fenestration. 

Service hot water means supply of hot 

water for purposes other than comfort 

heating. 

Skylight means glass or other 

transparent or translucent glazing 

material, including framing materials, 

installed at an angle less than 60 degrees 

(1.05 rad) from horizontal, including 

unit skylights, tubular daylighting 

devices, and glazing materials in 

solariums, sunrooms, roofs and sloped 

walls. 

Skylight well means the exterior walls 

underneath a skylight that extend from 

the interior finished surface of the 

exterior ceiling to the exterior surface of 

the location to which the skylight is 

attached. 

Solar heat gain coefficient (SHGC) 

means the ratio of the solar heat gain 

entering a space through a fenestration 

assembly to the incident solar radiation. 

Solar heat gain includes directly 

transmitted solar heat and absorbed 

solar radiation that is then reradiated, 

conducted, or convected into the space. 

State means each of the 50 states, the 

District of Columbia, the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, 

the U.S. Virgin Islands, and American 

Samoa. 

Thermostat means an automatic 

control device used to maintain 

temperature at a fixed or adjustable set 

point. 

U-factor (thermal transmittance) 

means the coefficient of heat 

transmission (air to air) through a 

building component or assembly, equal 

to the time rate of heat flow per unit 

area and unit temperature difference 

between the warm side and cold side air 

films (Btu/h × ft2 × °F). 

Uo (overall thermal transmittance) 

means the coefficient of heat 

transmission (air to air) through the 

building thermal envelope, equal to the 

time rate of heat flow per unit area and 

unit temperature difference between the 

warm side and cold side air films (Btu/ 

h × ft2 × °F). 

Ventilation means the natural or 

mechanical process of supplying 

conditioned or unconditioned air to, or 

removing such air from, any space. 

Vertical fenestration means windows 

(fixed or moveable), opaque doors, 

glazed doors, glazed block and 

combination opaque and glazed doors 

composed of glass or other transparent 

or translucent glazing materials and 

installed at a slope of greater than or 

equal to 60 degrees (1.05 rad) from 

horizontal. 

Wall means an assembly that is 

vertical or tilted at an angle equal to 

greater than 60 degrees (1.05 rad) from 

horizontal that encloses or divides an 

area of a building or room. 

Whole-house mechanical ventilation 

system means an exhaust system, 

supply system, or combination thereof 

that is designed to mechanically 

exchange indoor air with outdoor air 

when operating continuously or through 

a programmed intermittent schedule to 

satisfy the whole house ventilation 

rates. 

Window means glass or other 

transparent or translucent glazing 

material, including framing materials, 

installed at an angle greater than 60 

degrees (1.05 rad) from horizontal. 

Zone means a space or group of 

spaces within a manufactured home 

with heating or cooling requirements 

that are sufficiently similar so that 

desired conditions can be maintained 

using a single controlling device. 

§ 460.3 Materials incorporated by 

reference. 

Certain material is incorporated by 

reference into this part with the 

approval of the Director of the Federal 

Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 

552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce 

any edition other than that specified in 

this section, the U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) must publish a document 

in the Federal Register and the material 

must be available to the public. All 

approved material is available for 

inspection at DOE and at the National 

Archives and Records Administration 

(NARA). Contact DOE at: The U.S. 

Department of Energy, Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 

Building Technologies Program, Sixth 

Floor, 950 L’Enfant Plaza SW, 

Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586–9127, 

Buildings@ee.doe.gov, https://

www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/ 

building-technologies-office. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, email: fr.inspection@

nara.gov, or go to: www.archives.gov/ 

federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html. 

The material may be obtained from the 

following sources: 

(a) ACCA. Air Conditioning 

Contractors of America, Inc., 2800 S. 

Shirlington Road, Suite 300, Arlington, 

VA 22206, 703–575–4477; 

www.acca.org/. 

(1) ANSI/ACCA 2 Manual J–2016 (ver 

2.50) (‘‘ACCA Manual J’’), Manual J– 

Residential Load Calculations, Eight 

Edition, Version 2.50, Copyright 2016; 

IBR approved for § 460.205. 

(2) ANSI/ACCA 3 Manual S–2014 

(‘‘ACCA Manual S’’), Manual S– 

Residential Equipment Selection, 

Second Edition, Version 1.00, Copyright 

2014; IBR approved for § 460.205. 

(b) HUD User, 11491 Sunset Hills 

Road, Reston, VA 20190–5254; 

www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/ 

pdrpubli.html. 

(1) HUD User No. 0005945, Overall 

U-Values and Heating/Cooling Loads— 

Manufactured Homes, February 1, 1992 

(available from www.huduser.org/ 

portal/publications/manufhsg/ 

uvalue.html); IBR approved for 

§ 460.102(e). 

(2) [Reserved]. 

§ 460.4 Energy conservation standards. 

(a) General. A manufactured home 

must comply with the energy 

conservation standards specified for the 

applicable tier as presented in 

paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section. 

(b) Tier 1. A single-section 

manufactured home (i.e., a Tier 1 

manufactured home) must comply with 

all applicable requirements in subparts 

B and C of this part. 

(c) Tier 2. A multi-section 

manufactured home (i.e., a Tier 2 

manufactured home) must comply with 

all applicable requirements in subparts 

B and C of this part. 

Subpart B—Building Thermal Envelope 

§ 460.101 Climate zones. 

Manufactured homes subject to the 

requirements of this subpart must 

comply with the requirements 

applicable to one or more of the climate 

zones set forth in figure 1 to § 460.101 

and table 1 to § 460.101. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
32820 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1 TO § 460.101—U.S. STATES AND TERRITORIES PER CLIMATE ZONE

Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 

Alabama Arkansas Alaska 

American Samoa Arizona Colorado 

Florida California Connecticut 

Georgia Kansas Delaware 

Guam Kentucky District of Columbia 

Hawaii Missouri Idaho 

Louisiana New Mexico Illinois 

Mississippi North Carolina Indiana 

South Carolina Oklahoma Iowa 

Texas Tennessee Maine 

The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Maryland 

U.S. Virgin Islands Massachusetts 

Michigan 

Minnesota 

Montana 

Nebraska 

Nevada 

New Hampshire 

New Jersey 

New York 

North Dakota 

Ohio 

Oregon 

Pennsylvania 

Rhode Island 

South Dakota 

Utah 

Vermont 

Virginia 

Washington 

West Virginia 

Wisconsin 

Wyoming 

§ 460.102 Building thermal envelope 

requirements. 

(a) Compliance options. The building 

thermal envelope must meet either the 

prescriptive requirements of paragraph 

(b) of this section or the performance 

requirements of paragraph (c) of this 

section. 

(b) Prescriptive requirements. (1) The 

building thermal envelope must meet 

the applicable minimum R-value 

(nominal value of insulation), and the 

glazing maximum U-factor and SHGC, 

requirements set forth in table 1 to 

§ 460.102(b)(1) and table 2 to 

§ 460.102(b)(2) or component U-values 

set forth in table 3 to § 460.102(b)(5) and 

table 4 to § 460.102(b)(5). 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER31MY22.216</GPH>

Figure 1 to § 460.101 Climate Zones 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 32821 

TABLE 1 TO § 460.102(b)(1)—TIER 1 BUILDING THERMAL ENVELOPE PRESCRIPTIVE REQUIREMENTS

Climate zone 

Exterior wall 

insulation 

R-value 

Exterior ceiling 

insulation 

R-value 

Exterior floor 

insulation 

R-value 

Window 

U-factor 

Skylight 

U-factor 

Door 

U-factor 

Glazed 

fenestration 

SHGC 

1 ................................... 13 22 22 1.08 0.75 0.40 0.7 

2 ................................... 13 22 19 0.5 0.55 0.40 0.6 

3 ................................... 19 22 22 0.35 0.55 0.40 Not applicable. 

TABLE 2 TO § 460.102(b)(1)—TIER 2 BUILDING THERMAL ENVELOPE PRESCRIPTIVE REQUIREMENTS

Climate zone 

Exterior wall 

insulation 

R-value 

Exterior ceiling 

insulation 

R-value 

Exterior floor 

insulation 

R-value 

Window 

U-factor 

Skylight 

U-factor 

Door 

U-factor 

Glazed 

fenestration 

SHGC 

1 ................................... 13 30 13 0.32 0.75 0.40 0.33 

2 ................................... 21 30 19 0.30 0.55 0.40 0.25 

3 ................................... 21 38 30 0.30 0.55 0.40 Not applicable. 

(2) For the purpose of compliance 

with the exterior ceiling insulation Rvalue requirement of paragraph (b)(1) of 

this section, the truss heel height must 

be a minimum of 5.5 inches at the 

outside face of each exterior wall. 

(3) A combination of R-21 batt 

insulation and R-14 blanket insulation 

may be used for the purpose of 

compliance with the floor insulation Rvalue requirement of table 2 to 

§ 460.102(b)(1), Climate Zone 3. 

(4) An individual skylight that has an 

SHGC that is less than or equal to 0.30 

is not subject to the glazed fenestration 

SHGC requirements established in 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section. Adapted 

from section R402 of the 2021 IECC. 

(5) U-factor alternatives to R-value 

requirements. Compliance with the 

applicable requirements in paragraph 

(b)(1) of this section may be determined 

using the applicable maximum U-factor 

values set forth in table 3 to 

§ 460.102(b)(5) and table 4 to 

§ 460.102(b)(5), which reflect the 

thermal transmittance of the 

component, excluding fenestration, and 

not just the insulation of that 

component, as an alternative to the 

minimum nominal R-value 

requirements set forth in table 1 to 

§ 460.102(b)(1) and table 2 to 

§ 460.102(b)(1), respectively. 

TABLE 3 TO § 460.102(b)(5)—U-FACTOR ALTERNATIVES TO TIER 1 R-VALUE REQUIREMENTS

Climate zone Exterior ceiling 

U-factor 

Exterior wall 

U-factor 

Exterior floor 

U-factor 

1 ....................................................................................................................................... 0.061 0.094 0.049 

2 ....................................................................................................................................... 0.061 0.094 0.056 

3 ....................................................................................................................................... 0.061 0.068 0.049 

TABLE 4 TO § 460.102(b)(5)—U-FACTOR ALTERNATIVES TO TIER 2 R-VALUE REQUIREMENTS

Climate zone Exterior ceiling 

U-factor 

Exterior wall 

U-factor 

Exterior floor 

U-factor 

1 ....................................................................................................................................... 0.043 0.094 0.078 

2 ....................................................................................................................................... 0.043 0.063 0.056 

3 ....................................................................................................................................... 0.037 0.063 0.032 

(c) Performance requirements. (1) The 

building thermal envelope must have a 

Uo that is less than or equal to the 

applicable value specified in table 5 to 

§ 460.102(c)(1) and table 6 to 

§ 460.102(c)(1). 

TABLE 5 TO § 460.102(c)(1)—TIER 1 BUILDING THERMAL ENVELOPE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS

Climate zone Single-section 

Uo

1 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.110 

2 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.091 

3 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.074 

TABLE 6 TO § 460.102(c)(1)—TIER 2 BUILDING THERMAL ENVELOPE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS

Climate zone Multi-section 

Uo

1 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.082 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
32822 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 6 TO § 460.102(c)(1)—TIER 2 BUILDING THERMAL ENVELOPE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS—Continued 

Climate zone Multi-section 

Uo

2 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.066 

3 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.055 

(2) Area-weighted average vertical 

fenestration U-factor must not exceed 

0.48 in Climate Zone 2 or 0.40 in 

Climate Zone 3. Adapted from section 

R402 of the 2021 IECC. 

(3) Area-weighted average skylight Ufactor must not exceed 0.75 in Climate 

Zone 2 and Climate Zone 3. Adapted 

from section R402 of the 2021 IECC. 

(4) Windows, skylights and doors 

containing more than 50 percent glazing 

by area must satisfy the SHGC 

requirements established in paragraph 

(b)(1) of this section on the basis of an 

area-weighted average. Adapted from 

section R402 of the 2021 IECC. 

(d) [Reserved]. 

(e) Determination of compliance with 

paragraph (c) of this section. (1) Uo must 

be determined in accordance with 

Overall U-Values and Heating/Cooling 

Loads—Manufactured Homes 

(incorporated by reference; see § 460.3) 

(2) [Reserved] 

§ 460.103 Installation of insulation. 

Insulating materials must be installed 

according to the insulation 

manufacturer’s installation instructions 

and the requirements set forth in table 

1 to 460.103, which is adapted from 

section R402 of the 2021 IECC. 

TABLE 1 TO § 460.103—INSTALLATION OF INSULATION

Component Installation requirements 

General ............................................................... Air-permeable insulation must not be used as a material to establish the air barrier. 

Access hatches, panels, and doors ................... Access hatches, panels, and doors between conditioned space and unconditioned space, such 

as attics and crawlspaces, must be insulated to a level equivalent to the insulation of the 

surrounding surface, must provide access to all equipment that prevents damaging or compressing the insulation, and must provide a wood-framed or equivalent baffle or retainer 

when loose fill insulation is installed within an exterior ceiling assembly to retain the insulation both on the access hatch, panel, or door and within the building thermal envelope. 

Baffles ................................................................. For air-permeable insulations in vented attics, a baffle must be installed adjacent to soffit and 

eave vents. Baffles, when used in conjunction with eave venting, must be constructed using 

a solid material, maintain an opening equal or greater than the size of the vents, and extend 

over the top of the attic insulation. 

Ceiling or attic ..................................................... The insulation in any dropped ceiling or dropped soffit must be aligned with the air barrier. 

Narrow cavities ................................................... Batts to be installed in narrow cavities must be cut to fit or narrow cavities must be filled with 

insulation that upon installation readily conforms to the available cavity space. 

Rim joists ............................................................ Rim joists must be insulated such that the insulation maintain permanent contact with the exterior rim board. 

Shower or tub adjacent to exterior wall .............. Exterior walls adjacent to showers and tubs must be insulated. 

Walls ................................................................... Air permeable exterior building thermal envelope insulation for framed exterior walls must completely fill the cavity, including within stud bays caused by blocking lay flats or headers. 

§ 460.104 Building thermal envelope air 

leakage. 

Manufactured homes must be sealed 

against air leakage at all joints, seams, 

and penetrations associated with the 

building thermal envelope in 

accordance with the component 

manufacturer’s installation instructions 

and the requirements set forth in table 

1 to 460.104. Sealing methods between 

dissimilar materials must allow for 

differential expansion, contraction and 

mechanical vibration, and must 

establish a continuous air barrier upon 

installation of all opaque components of 

the building thermal envelope. All gaps 

and penetrations in the exterior ceiling, 

exterior floor, and exterior walls, 

including ducts, flue shafts, plumbing, 

piping, electrical wiring, utility 

penetrations, bathroom and kitchen 

exhaust fans, recessed lighting fixtures 

adjacent to unconditioned space, and 

light tubes adjacent to unconditioned 

space, must be sealed with caulk, foam, 

gasket or other suitable material. The air 

barrier installation criteria are adapted 

from section R402 of the 2021 IECC. 

TABLE 1 TO § 460.104—AIR BARRIER INSTALLATION CRITERIA

Component Air barrier criteria 

Ceiling or attic ..................................................... The air barrier in any dropped ceiling or dropped soffit must be aligned with the insulation and 

any gaps in the air barrier must be sealed with caulk, foam, gasket, or other suitable material. Access hatches, panels, and doors, drop-down stairs, or knee wall doors to 

unconditioned attic spaces must be weather-stripped or equipped with a gasket to produce a 

continuous air barrier. 

Duct system register boots ................................. Duct system register boots that penetrate the building thermal envelope or the air barrier must 

be sealed to the subfloor, wall covering or ceiling penetrated by the boot, air barrier, or the 

interior finish materials with caulk, foam, gasket, or other suitable material. 

Electrical box or phone box on exterior walls .... The air barrier must be installed behind electrical and communication boxes or the air barrier 

must be sealed around the box penetration with caulk, foam, gasket, or other suitable material. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 32823 

TABLE 1 TO § 460.104—AIR BARRIER INSTALLATION CRITERIA—Continued 

Component Air barrier criteria 

Floors .................................................................. The air barrier must be installed at any exposed edge of insulation. The bottom board may 

serve as the air barrier. 

Mating line surfaces ............................................ Mating line surfaces must be equipped with a continuous and durable gasket. 

Recessed lighting ............................................... Recessed light fixtures installed in the building thermal envelope must be sealed to the drywall 

with caulk, foam, gasket, or other suitable material. 

Rim joists ............................................................ The air barrier must enclose the rim joists. The junctions of the rim board and the subfloor 

must be air sealed. 

Shower or tub adjacent to exterior wall .............. The air barrier must separate showers and tubs from exterior walls. 

Walls ................................................................... The junction of the top plate and the exterior ceiling, and the junction of the bottom plate and 

the exterior floor, along exterior walls must be sealed with caulk, foam, gasket, or other suitable material. 

Windows, skylights, and exterior doors .............. The rough openings around windows, exterior doors, and skylights must be sealed with caulk 

or foam. 

Subpart C—HVAC, Service Hot Water, 

and Equipment Sizing 

§ 460.201 Duct system. 

Each manufactured home equipped 

with a duct system, which may include 

air handlers and filter boxes, must be 

sealed to limit total air leakage to less 

than or equal to four (4) cubic feet per 

minute per 100 square feet of 

conditioned floor area at a pressure 

differential of 0.1 inch w.g. (25 Pascals) 

across the system. Building framing 

cavities must not be used as ducts or 

plenums when directly connected to 

mechanical systems. The duct total air 

leakage requirements are adapted from 

section R403 of the 2021 IECC. 

§ 460.202 Thermostats and controls. 

(a) At least one thermostat must be 

provided for each separate heating and 

cooling system installed by the 

manufacturer. The thermostat and 

controls requirements are adapted from 

section R403 of the 2021 IECC. 

(b) Any programmable thermostat 

installed by the manufacturer that 

controls the heating or cooling system 

must— 

(1) Be capable of controlling the 

heating and cooling system on a daily 

schedule to maintain different 

temperature set points at different times 

of the day and different days of the 

week; 

(2) Include the capability to set back 

or temporarily operate the system to 

maintain zone temperatures down to 

55 °F (13 °C) or up to 85 °F (29 °C); and 

(3) Initially be programmed with a 

heating temperature set point no higher 

than 70 °F (21 °C) and a cooling 

temperature set point no lower than 

78 °F (26 °C). 

(c) Heat pumps with supplementary 

electric-resistance heat must be 

provided with controls that, except 

during defrost, prevent supplemental 

heat operation when the heat pump 

compressor can meet the heating load. 

§ 460.203 Service hot water. 

(a) Service hot water systems installed 

by the manufacturer must be installed 

according to the service hot water 

manufacturer’s installation instructions. 

Where service hot water systems are 

installed by the manufacturer, the 

manufacturer must ensure that any 

maintenance instructions received from 

the service hot water system 

manufacturer are provided with the 

manufactured home. The service hot 

water requirements are adapted from 

section R403 of the 2021 IECC. 

(b) Any automatic and manual 

controls, temperature sensors, pumps 

associated with service hot water 

systems must provide access. 

(c) Heated water circulation systems 

must— 

(1) Be provided with a circulation 

pump; 

(2) Ensure that the system return pipe 

is a dedicated return pipe or a cold 

water supply pipe; 

(3) Not include any gravity or 

thermosyphon circulation systems; 

(4) Ensure that controls for circulating 

heated water circulation pumps start the 

pump based on the identification of a 

demand for hot water within the 

occupancy; and 

(5) Ensure that the controls 

automatically turn off the pump when 

the water in the circulation loop is at 

the desired temperature and when there 

is no demand for hot water. 

(d) All hot water pipes— 

(1) Outside conditioned space must be 

insulated to a minimum R-value of R-3; 

and 

(2) From a service hot water system to 

a distribution manifold must be 

insulated to a minimum R-value of R-3. 

§ 460.204 Mechanical ventilation fan 

efficacy. 

(a) Whole-house mechanical 

ventilation system fans must meet the 

minimum efficacy requirements set 

forth in table 1 to 460.204(a), except as 

provided in paragraph (b) of this 

section. The mechanical ventilation fan 

efficacy requirements are adapted from 

section R403 of the 2021 IECC. 

TABLE 1 TO § 460.204(a)—MECHANICAL VENTILATION SYSTEM FAN EFFICACY

Fan type description 

Airflow rate 

minimum 

(cfm) 

Minimum 

efficacy 

(cfm/watt) 

Heat recovery ventilator or energy recovery ventilator ................................................................................... Any ..................... 1.2 

In-line supply or exhaust fans ......................................................................................................................... Any ..................... 3.8 

Other exhaust fan ............................................................................................................................................ <90 ..................... 2.8 

Other exhaust fan ............................................................................................................................................ ≥90 ..................... 3.5 

(b) Mechanical ventilation fans that 

are integral to heating, ventilating, and 

air conditioning equipment, including 

furnace fans as defined in § 430.2 of this 

subchapter, are not subject to the 

efficiency requirements in paragraph (a) 

of this section. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
32824 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 460.205 Equipment sizing. 

Sizing of heating and cooling 

equipment installed by the 

manufacturer must be determined in 

accordance with ACCA Manual S 

(incorporated by reference; see § 460.3) 

based on building loads calculated in 

accordance with ACCA Manual J 

(incorporated by reference; see § 460.3). 

The equipment sizing criteria are 

adapted from section R403 of the 2021 

IECC. 

[FR Doc. 2022–10926 Filed 5–27–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2