Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

24 CFR Parts 3280, 3282, 3285, and 3286

[Docket No. FR-6233-F-02]

RIN 2502-AJ58

Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards

AGENCY:

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This final rule amends the Federal Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards (MHCSS or the Construction and Safety Standards) by adopting most of the fourth and fifth groups of recommendations made to HUD by the Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee (MHCC). This rule also amends the Manufactured Home Procedural and Enforcement Regulations, the Model Manufactured Home Installation Standards, and the Manufactured Home Installation Program regulations. The MHCC prepared and submitted to HUD its fourth and fifth groups of recommendations to improve various aspects of the MHCSS. HUD reviewed those proposals and drafted a number of proposed revisions to the MHCSS and associated regulations. On July 19, 2022, HUD published a proposed rule detailing these revisions to provide the public an opportunity to comment. The comment period closed on September 19, 2022. This final rule adopts HUD's proposed revisions based upon the MHCC's fourth and fifth groups of recommendations with some minor revisions made in response to the public comments.

DATES:

Effective:

March 17, 2025. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register beginning March 17, 2025. The incorporation by reference of certain other publications listed in the rule was approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of July 3, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Teresa B. Payne, Administrator, Office of Manufactured Housing Programs, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410; telephone 202-402-5365 (this is not a toll-free number). HUD welcomes and is prepared to receive calls from individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing, as well as individuals with speech or communication disabilities. To learn more about how to make an accessible telephone call, please visit:

https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/telecommunications-relay-service-trs.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On August 22, 1974, the President signed the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-383, 88 Stat. 633-2), which contained the National Mobile Home Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-383, 88 Stat. 700; tit. VI; 42 U.S.C. 5401

et seq.

) (the Act). The Act, which was later renamed the National Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974, authorizes HUD to establish and amend the Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards (MHCSS) codified in title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 3280. The Act was amended by the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-569, December 27, 2000), which expanded the Act and created the MHCC, a consensus committee responsible for providing HUD recommendations to adopt, revise, and interpret the MHCSS.

1

The MHCSS only applies to the design, construction, and installation of new manufactured homes.

1

The MHCC is composed of twenty-one voting members as provided under section 604(a)(3)(B) of the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000. The twenty-one members are comprised of seven producers or retailers of manufactured housing, seven persons representing consumer interests, and seven general interest or public officials, which rotate. The current group of seven producers or retailers of manufactured homes can be broken down into two small businesses that manufacture homes, four large businesses that manufacture homes, and one retailer.

The MHCC held its first meeting in August 2002. The MHCC began considering revisions to the MHCSS afterwards. The MHCC developed its own priorities for preparing proposed revisions for HUD to consider. As the MHCC's efforts proceeded, proposed revisions to the MHCSS were divided into groups of recommendations and provided to HUD in sets.

This rule is based on the fourth and fifth sets of MHCC recommendations to HUD. HUD reviewed the recommendations submitted by the MHCC and made editorial revisions and additions prior to publishing the proposed changes in the

Federal Register

on July 19, 2022 (87 FR 43114). HUD received 49 comments on the proposed rule and made further revisions in response to the public comments. The following is a discussion of the specific revisions to the MHCSS that were included in the proposed rule and are enacted by this final rule.

II. Changes Made at the Final Rule Stage

In response to public comments and in further consideration of issues addressed at the proposed rule stage, this final rule adopts the proposed rule, published at 87 FR 43114 (July 19, 2022), with the revisions discussed in detail below.

A. Clarification of Fire Sprinkler Requirements for Manufactured Homes

HUD received numerous public comments on the proposed sprinkler standard. The comments addressed topics including whether HUD has statutory authority to impose any fire sprinkler standard, whether the voluntary sprinkler standard would be the first step to HUD imposing a mandatory standard, and whether the HUD regulations would be duplicative of existing local or State regulations. While HUD discusses these comments and its legal authority in greater detail in the public comment section of this preamble, the comments demonstrate that clarification on certain topics would be beneficial. With respect to the fire sprinkler standard itself, the Secretary has not received a recommendation from the MHCC on the imposition of a mandatory fire sprinkler standard and cannot consider or act until that time. In addition, HUD defers to consumer choices, as well as State and local jurisdictions that have the appropriate expertise, to determine the necessity for installing fire sprinkler systems provided the requirements apply to all single family homes, including manufactured homes.

The comments also raised a question of whether the proposed language of § 3280.214 is sufficiently clear for parties with equity in the rule to understand the requirements related to installation of a fire sprinkler system. One commenter suggested a revision to the language by adding “when a manufacturer installs a fire sprinkler system as an optional feature or to meet state or local laws and regulations” after the phrase “Fire sprinkler systems are not required by this subpart; however,” in § 3280.214(a)(1). HUD accepted this language and added “as selected by the consumer” after “optional feature” because it provides necessary clarity on commenters' concerns about their obligations under the final rule and was adopted by HUD.

HUD made minor changes in the final rule to clarify and streamline the

language of § 3280.214(e). In § 3280.214(e)(1), HUD moved the phrase “separated from heat sources as required by the sprinkler manufacturer's installation instructions” from the end of the paragraph and placed it after the first usage of “sprinklers.” This placement clarifies that the standards apply when a fire sprinkler system is selected by the consumer as an optional feature of the home or when required to meet State or local law. In § 3280.214(e)(2), the phrase “located within the distance to a heat source as specified in table 7.5.5.3 of NFPA 13D (incorporated by reference, see § 3280.4)” has been moved and placed immediately after the first usage of “sprinklers.” This new language specifies that the optional sprinklers must be located near the heat source in the described manner.

B. Testing and Certification for Fire Sprinkler Systems

HUD proposed language that initially placed the responsibility of testing and certifying the water supply pressure available for fire sprinklers, if installed as a voluntarily add-on feature, on the installers of manufactured homes. HUD received several comments stating that installers of manufactured homes do not have control over the design and production process and they may lack relevant expertise to meet this obligation. The commenters offered three remedies: (1) HUD could set requirements for factory production to place the obligations on manufacturers; (2) the water supply pressure testing and certification could be completed by a fire protection technician during the installation of the home; or (3) HUD could withdraw the rule.

HUD has revised § 3280.214(q), (r), and (t) to require that this water supply pressure testing and certification be completed by a fire protection technician during the installation of the home upon consideration of the commenter's suggestions. HUD selected this option because it addresses the concerns raised by the commenters and fire protection technicians have the most relevant and specialized experience needed for testing and certifying the adequacy of water supply pressure for fire sprinkler systems compared to manufactured home installers.

C. Exterior Door Requirements

HUD proposed removing language from § 3280.105 providing that “[d]oor seals are permitted to reduce the opening, either vertically or horizontally, a maximum of one inch” in the proposed rule. HUD received two comments explaining that door seals on exterior doors were important because they prevent the infiltration of sound, light, drafts, or moisture, among other things, in manufactured homes. The commenters noted that manufacturers would no longer be allowed to account for the reduction that door seals may have on door size and opening measurements because the reference had been removed, which would impact the required sizes of exterior doors. These concerns led the commenters to recommend that the final rule add back the allowance for door seals to § 3280.105(b)(2). The explanations on the necessity of the door seals are compelling and HUD adopts the recommendation, with the exception for at least one exterior door to meet full measured opening requirements for egress and safety purposes.

Commenters also encouraged HUD to consider the related issue of whether the phrase “doorstops” should be included in the current text of § 3280.105(b)(2). Doorstops, similar to door seals, can narrow the opening of exterior doors in some situations. Commenters noted that narrower door openings can interfere with the ability of first responders to transport emergency items such as standard width gurneys through exterior doors and into the home. To address commenters' concerns about the width of exterior doors, HUD will add the phrase “and-/or doorstops” after the term “[d]oor seals” in the final sentence of § 3280.105(b)(2). The language of the revised phrase is “Door seals and/or door stops are permitted to reduce the opening, either vertically or horizontally, by a maximum of one inch.” This language resolves commenters' concerns and promotes safety in manufactured homes.

D. Definition of Room

HUD received a public comment noting that manufactured homes can burn more quickly than other types of homes because of their open floor plans. HUD has considered how to address the commenter's concerns and added a definition of “room” to § 3280.105(a)(2)(i). This language clarifies that compliance with the exterior door placement requirements must account for situations like open floor plans where a floor plan may be unclear about the placement of exterior doors in the home. This amendment requires homes with open floor plans to have the required exterior doors in separate rooms.

E. Loose Fill Materials

The proposed change to § 3280.215 provides that membrane penetrations of fire-resistant-rated walls or ceilings must not lead to reductions of fire-resistance-ratings and that the annular spaces between membrane penetrations and steel electrical boxes must use “cellulose loose-fill or other loose-fill insulation.” A commenter noted that the proposed language could lead manufacturers to understand the rule as requiring or being limited only to cellulose-only insulation even though manufactured homes often use different materials for loose-fill insulation apart from cellulose. HUD considered the concerns and revised § 3280.215(d)(2)(i)(B) to state “where the wall cavity is filled with loose-fill insulation.” This language was provided by the commenter to resolve their concern and clarifies the requirements of the rule.

F. Provision of Operating Instructions

HUD proposed removing the language of § 3280.709(a) requiring that manufacturers leave appliance manufacturer instructions attached to the appliances because HUD had examined the regulatory text and concluded that the language caused confusion when read alongside § 3280.711, which currently states that “[o]perating instructions must be provided with each appliance. The operating and installation instructions for each appliance must be provided with the homeowner's manual.” In addition, HUD proposed to revise § 3280.711 to allow for the requirements for operating instructions to be met through the provision of permanent Quick Response (QR) codes that would streamline documentation for manufacturers.

HUD received a comment expressing concern that the proposed revision of § 3280.709(a) would conflict with fuel gas installation code requirements and safety standards by allowing the provision of a single set of instructions. HUD has revised the language of the final rule to clarify that § 3280.711 still requires that one copy of the operating instructions for each appliance be provided with the homeowners' manual and a second copy shall be provided with the appliance unless the appliance has a QR code. Under the rule, a QR code can only replace the copy of the operating instructions that comes with the appliance itself. It may not replace the copy that must be provided with the homeowners' manual.

G. ASCE/SEI 7-05 Standard

HUD proposed updating ASCE 7-88 to ASCE 7-05, which would require amending the wind speed references used to design manufactured homes in

Wind Zones II and III from “fastest mile” to “three-second gust” parameters. HUD supported the proposed wind speed references by completing a general comparison of ASCE 7-88 and ASCE 7-05, followed by an in-depth analysis to determine comparable and equivalent wind speeds for Wind Zones II and III that align with the “three-second gust” wind speed methodology and terminology employed in ASCE 7-05, instead of the “fastest mile” approach utilized in ASCE 7-88. HUD performed two different methods of analysis to determine revised windspeeds. The first analysis reviewed the HUD wind speed/zone map with the wind speed map in ASCE 7-05, to verify that a manufactured home would be subject to comparable wind speeds if designed using ASCE 7-05. The second used the prescriptive wind pressures shown in the Table of Design Wind Pressures under § 3280.305 as a baseline to perform a series of iterative calculations to determine wind speeds that would produce similar wind pressures for Wind Zones II and III.

HUD received numerous comments on the potential impact of implementing ASCE 7-05 as the appropriate standard, which HUD fully discusses in the public comment section. These concerns ranged from the ASCE 7-05 imposing more onerous requirements than the current standards, the ASCE 7-05 examining non-existent or obsolete wind speeds, the costs of compliance with the ASCE 7-05, and the lack of consideration of high wind prone regions in the Exposure D definition. These concerns led HUD to return this recommendation to the MHCC for reconsideration in light of the identified issues. Updating the ASCE reference standard is not appropriate without updating several sections in the MHCSS, including the values in the Table of Design Wind Pressures in § 3280.305(c)(1)(ii)(B), the Wind Speed Map and geographic boundaries identified in § 3280.305(c)(2) and (4), and references to Exposure D, which require further analysis and consideration by the MHCC before HUD can update the ASCE 7 reference standard. These concerns have led HUD to return this recommendation to the MHCC for reconsideration in light of the identified issues.

H. Number of Dwelling Units

HUD proposed amending the definition of dwelling in § 3280.2 to include “any structure that contains one to a maximum of three dwelling units, designed to be permanently occupied for residential living purposes.” HUD sought public comment on this provision, specifically requesting feedback on the benefits and challenges if a four-unit maximum were considered and how any conflict with differing State maximums would be handled. HUD received numerous comments, which are discussed in detail in the comment section, but consideration of the comments led HUD to increase the limit to four units for the definition of multi-dwelling unit manufactured homes in § 3280.2 as requested by the commenters.

I. Required Branch Circuits

HUD made several revisions to § 3280.805(a)(1) in the final rule. HUD added the phrase “each story of” to the final rule language to accommodate dwelling units that may have more than one story. HUD moved the phrase “number of 15 or 20 ampere lighting circuits” from the end of § 3280.805(a)(1) to the beginning of the sentence to clarify the method of calculation. HUD also provided an illustrative example to demonstrate how the formula would be used to calculate the number of lighting circuits, but notes this example does not change the underlying method of calculation provided in the proposed rule.

J. Multi-Dwelling Unit Home Addition To Reporting Requirements

When reviewing instances where regulatory text had to be updated to incorporate the change to the number of dwelling units from three to four, HUD identified § 3282.552 as an instance where additional clarity would be beneficial. Specifically, the second sentence of § 3282.552 was amended to require that the relevant manufacturer report include the number of dwelling units. This information is collected at this stage because the manufacturers are in the best situation to collect and report this information.

K. Change to Gas Piping Requirements

As explained earlier, HUD amended the definition of dwelling to include any structure that contains one to a maximum of four dwelling units. This change required HUD to review the remainder of its regulations to ensure the requirements were clear and uniform. Upon review, HUD revised § 3280.705(l)(3) by replacing the phrase “manufactured home structure, upstream of the union” with “dwelling unit structure.” HUD enacted this change to accommodate and reconcile this language with the provisions of multi-dwelling unit manufactured homes.

L. New Fire Resistance Rating Language

HUD proposed that each dwelling unit be separated by wall and floor assemblies having not less than a 1-hour fire resistance except in certain circumstances listed in § 3280.215(a). HUD further proposed that the fire-resistance-rated floor/ceiling and wall assemblies must extend in certain manner unless an exception listed under § 3280.215(b) was applicable. Public commenters noted that the proposed rule mirrored portions of the 2021 International Residential Code (IRC) R302.3 but was missing the exception for homes with installed fire sprinklers. A commenter recommended HUD incorporate the 2021 IRC R302.3 exception 1 into § 3280.215(b)(3).

After reviewing the relevant materials, HUD accepts the commenter's suggestion and incorporates the recommended language. HUD accepted the proposal because it promotes uniformity between the MHCSS and 2021 IRC R302.3. It also provides an avenue for potential cost reduction where automatic fire sprinklers are installed in each dwelling unit. The exception, found at § 3280.215(b)(3), provides an allowance for multi-dwelling unit manufactured homes equipped with automatic fire sprinklers in each dwelling unit to reduce a fire resistance rating of walls and floors from a 1 hour fire resistance rating to a

1/2

hour fire resistance rating.

M. AAMA/WDMA/CSA 101/I.S.2/A440-17

HUD proposed amending the testing standards in §§ 3280.403, 3280.404, and 3280.405. Specifically, HUD proposed revising the AAMA 1701.2 from the 1995 version to the 2012 version, the ANSI Z97.1 from the 2004 version to the 2009 version, the AAMA 1702.2 from the 1995 version to the 2012 version, and the AAMA/WDMA/CSA 101/I.S.2/A440-08 North American Fenestration Standard (NAFS) to the AAMA/WDMA/CSA 101/I.S.2/A440-17. HUD further proposed using the AAMA/WDMA/CSA 101/I.S.2/A440-17 as an alternative compliance method for the sections of the MHCSS that govern windows, sliding glass doors, skylights, egress windows, and swinging exterior passage doors.

HUD received numerous comments about the proposed amendment to adopt the 2017 version of AAMA/WDMA/CSA 101/I.S.2/A440 at § 3280.4(s)(6). The comments stated that HUD adopting the AAMA/WDMA/CSA 101/I.S.2/A440-17 would make certification of compliance more difficult and would increase costs to consumers without providing value

in exchange. They recommended that AAMA/WDMA/CSA 101/I.S.2/A440-08 or AAMA/WDMA/CSA 101/I.S.2/A440-11 be adopted rather than the proposed change.

After reviewing the comments and the MHCC's recommendations, HUD has decided to reject the commenters' recommendations. In March 2016 (Log 140), the MHCC recommended that HUD adopt the 2011 version. In December 2017 (Log 201), the MHCC recommended that HUD adopt the 2017 version of the AAMA/WDMA/CSA 101/I.S.2/A440. The MHCC explained that the AAMA/WDMA/CSA 101/I.S.2/A440-08 reference standard was significantly outdated and should be updated to the 2017 version. This recommendation, when considered alongside the absence of major differences between the 2011 and 2017 standards, has led HUD to conclude the AAMA/WDMA/CSA 101/I.S.2/A440-17 standard would not make certification more difficult or impose increased costs on consumers. HUD incorporated the 2017 version of the AAMA/WDMA/CSA 101/I.S.2/A440 in this final rule to ensure manufactured homes are constructed using more modern, relevant, and effective technologies and materials.

N. Change to Water Heater Language

HUD proposed amending § 3280.709(a) and (g). HUD received public comments suggesting that related language in § 3280.709(h) be amended to account for technology changes around water heaters. Specifically, the commenters recommended that the requirement for drain pans should be revised to facilitate the use of tankless water heaters. The technological advances described by the commenters, as well as the fact that manufactured homes often do not have a storage-type water heater, have led HUD to conclude that amending § 3280.709(h) is appropriate. HUD has wholly accepted the proposed language provided by the commenters, which adds the phrase “storage tank” to the current language of § 3280.709(h).

O. Use of Treated Wood in Exterior Applications Only

HUD proposed revising § 3280.304(a) to state that “[d]imension and board lumber must not exceed 19 percent moisture content at the time of installation, except that treated lumber used for exterior purposes only may have a moisture content exceeding 19 percent.” In the public comment stage, a commenter explained that the proposed language could be improved by adding the phrase “and does not extend into the main home construction” after the word “only” in § 3280.304(a). HUD accepted this recommendation in the final rule without change because the language allows flexibility with respect to porch designs with treated lumber that extend into the main roof cavity and does not undermine the remainder of the language when engaging in this change. The added language prevents the use of treated lumber in areas that are not exposed to the elements addressing durability concerns and consistent with the intended use of the treated lumber in exterior areas only.

P. Non-Update of UL 1995-11 Standard

HUD is not updating the UL 1995 standard in the final rule because the standard was withdrawn and replaced by UL 60335-2-40 on January 1, 2024. UL 60335-2-40 has been incorporated into the final rule in §§ 3280.4 and 3280.703. As a result, UL 1995 has been removed from this rule and the regulations because the standard is no longer relevant.

Q. Changes To Ensure Uniformity in Regulatory Text

HUD made several non-substantive cross-cutting changes to the regulatory text to ensure the language of the final rule was uniform and not confusing. In § 3280.103(c)(3), HUD changed the phrase “mechanical ventilation” to “a local exhaust system” to ensure consistency between paragraphs (c)(2) and (3). HUD changed § 3280.214(o)(3) by revising the single mention of “Allowable Pressure” to “Available Pressure,” which promotes consistency between paragraphs (o)(2) and (3). These changes do not change the substance of the regulations, instead merely clarifying certain language.

R. Restructuring of IBR Standards

The final rule restructures a portion of the incorporation by reference (IBR) section by relisting fifteen standards from their ANSI identifier to their CSA Group identifier. Although the standards are now listed under the CSA Group's header in 24 CFR 3280.4(r), manufacturers must still comply with the listed ANSI-specific standard that is jointly accredited with the CSA Group standard. Next to each CSA Group listing is the relevant ANSI standard to which compliance is required.

S. Six Month Implementation Window

A number of commenters requested that HUD extend the deadline for enforcement because the rule updates 74 standards, implements 16 new standards, and has several regulatory text changes. Commenters provided various solutions from a year extension to bifurcated effective and enforcement dates. HUD has established a six-month delayed effective date for the rule consistent with section 604(c) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-383, 88 Stat. 701, tit. VI, sec. 601-628; 42 U.S.C. 5401

et seq.

), which is sufficient time to allow manufacturers to comply with the changes and new standards in the final rule. HUD does not want to further delay implementation as these updates are overdue in many cases and should reap cost-saving benefits to manufacturers and consumers. HUD declines to implement a bifurcated effective versus enforcement date timeline because bifurcation could lead to confusion about deadlines and difficulties with enforcement.

T. Severability

It is HUD's intention that the provisions of the proposed rule operate independently of each other. This intention is demonstrated by the structure of this rule, which is comprised of numerous distinct and discrete changes to standards that function independently of each other. As one example, the changes to insulation, room dimensions, exterior doors, and fire safety ratings are independent from one another and can be independently enacted if any one or more of the aforementioned changes are invalidated. In the event that any provision of this rule is declared invalid or stayed, it is HUD's intent that those provisions be severable and that those unaffected remain valid. Additionally, it is HUD's intention that any provision(s) of the rule not affected by a declaration of invalidity or stayed shall be severable and remain valid. HUD concludes it would separately adopt all of the provisions contained in this rule through separate rulemaking if provisions were declared invalid or stayed.

III. Public Comment Summary

The public comment period for this notice closed on September 19, 2022, and HUD received 49 comments. Several comments were identical in substance and two commenters submitted duplicative comments. The comments came from non-profits, independent consultants, private citizens, State and city housing administrations, national trade associations, and product certification organizations.

General Support

Numerous commenters supported updates to the standards, noting that such efforts enable the industry to use the latest innovations to provide high-quality, affordable manufactured homes. Many commenters specifically supported the changes related to accessible shower compartments and tankless water heaters. Other commenters applauded the express authorization of multi-dwelling unit manufactured homes. Commenters supported the revised exterior door requirements to facilitate open floor plans, moisture barriers, and higher moisture content of treated lumber in exterior additions.

One commenter expressed support for revising § 3280.403 to add the ISO/IEC 17065:2012 accrediting requirement for product certification of fenestration products and the requirement that windows and doors display their certification from an independent ISO/IEC 17065:2012 accredited product certification. Another commenter expressed support for the changes related to steeper roof pitch designs.

HUD Response:

HUD thanks the public commenters for their support of these provisions. HUD agrees that by incorporating by reference updated construction standards, the rule will encourage the industry's use of the latest innovations and continue to support the construction of high-quality, affordable, manufactured homes.

Obligations Placed on Installers of Manufactured Homes

One commenter expressed concern about obligations the proposed rule would place on installers of manufactured homes. The commenter recommended that HUD set these requirements as part of factory production procedures, rather than installation procedures, because the rule places more obligations on manufacturers. The commenter offered this recommendation because manufacturers have more relevant expertise and greater control over the design and production process, as well as installers' inability to do a comprehensive evaluation of the construction.

Other commenters raised similar concerns related to the fire sprinkler system standards. These commenters noted that the installation and testing of fire sprinkler systems are typically done by licensed professionals specializing in such systems, not manufactured home installers. The commenters disagreed with HUD's decision to place responsibility on manufactured home installers to test and certify the sprinkler system on site to ensure availability of adequate water supply. One commenter recommended that any proposed regulations regarding the installation of the fire sprinkler system be withdrawn from the rule, while the other commenter provided no suggested remedy.

HUD Response:

HUD appreciates these comments. The testing and certification requirements imposed under § 3280.214(q) serve to verify that the minimum water supply pressure requirements needed to properly operate the fire sprinkler systems are met after the home is installed. Upon reconsideration, HUD has revised the final rule to require that this water supply pressure testing and certification be completed by a fire protection technician during the installation of the home. HUD selected this option to address the concerns raised by the commenters, as fire protection technicians will have the most relevant and specialized experience needed for testing and certifying the adequacy of water supply for fire sprinkler systems, compared to manufactured home installers. However, nothing in this rulemaking should be interpreted to change the requirement that home installation is the responsibility of the installer and, as applicable, home installations must meet HUD Model Manufactured Home Installation Standards (24 CFR part 3285) at a minimum and may also be required to satisfy State and local installation requirements with permits as may be required consistent with § 3286.409(c).

Fire sprinkler systems are not required by § 3280.214, but when a manufacturer incorporates a fire sprinkler system into the design and construction of a manufactured home, as an optional feature selected by the consumer, design approval agencies must review and approve plans to ensure that the system meets the technical requirements established by the MHCSS. In-plant inspection agencies must ensure that manufacturers follow designs and quality assurance procedures that result in compliance with the approved designs and to the standards when the standard is specific. Manufacturers are responsible for providing installation instructions for the fire sprinkler systems, including specific instructions for the inspection and testing of the system during or after the installation of the home. As the connection of the home to utilities is a matter of installation and in accordance with existing regulations at § 3285.904(b), only qualified personnel familiar with local requirements are permitted to make utility site connections and conduct tests. Therefore, in this final rule, HUD is only requiring that the installer ensure that the water supply to a fire sprinkler system is verified by a fire protection technician to meet the minimum requirements described on the Fire Sprinkler System Certificate in the home (located next to the data plate).

Exterior Door Requirements

Several comments expressed concern that the entry and corridor width requirements in the proposed rule would be insufficient to facilitate entry by emergency medical services with a gurney stretcher. The commenters recommended that HUD require manufactured homes to have one 36-inch-wide entry door and 36-inch-wide corridors. They indicated that such a requirement would better comport with the International Building Code and the International Residential Code, as well as California State requirements.

One commenter noted that a requirement in the proposed rule that the doorway be 28 inches wide could leave a net clear opening width of only 26 inches after accounting for door stops, hinges, and door thickness. The commenter noted that this could be a problem because ambulance gurneys are generally 24 inches wide.

HUD Response:

HUD's proposed rule included a requirement, which continues in this final rule, that one of the two exterior doors of a manufactured home provide a minimum of 32 inch wide by 74 inch high clear opening, which is an increase from the previously codified 28 inch wide requirement. Maintaining the minimum width of 32 inches for one external door addresses the concerns regarding effective emergency response raised by commenters by providing an increased width standard that more easily accommodates the ingress and egress of a standard 24 inch wide gurney while balancing HUD's statutory requirement to consider affordability when establishing Federal minimum standards for manufactured housing. These considerations of cost can, as it does now, result in requirements that may not follow other established building codes.

Door Seal Requirements

Commenters noted that HUD proposed the removal of the reference to door seals in § 3280.105(b)(2). Commenters noted the importance of door seals and that, because the reference had been removed, manufacturers would no longer be

allowed to account for the reduction of the opening that door seals make up. The commenters recommended that door seals be allowed to encroach on opening space and the addition of following sentence: “However, the door stops are permitted to reduce the opening, either vertically or horizontally, by a maximum of one inch.”

HUD Response:

HUD proposed removing the mention of door seals in § 3280.105(b)(2). Commenters provided feedback on the proposal, explaining that door seals play a vital role in reducing the infiltration of sound, light, drafts, and moisture in manufactured homes. The final rule added language in § 3280.105(b)(2) to specify that at least one of the exterior egress doors of a manufactured home must provide a minimum of 32 inch wide by 74 inch high clear opening. However, this language allows manufactures to add door stops and door seals to exterior egress doors as long as one exterior egress door does not fall below the minimum of 32 inch wide by 74 inch high clear opening.

HUD is making this change for two reasons. First, the MHCC recommended that at least one egress door have a minimum 32-inch clear width opening for the purpose of improving accessibility. Second, many manufactured housing units subject to the MHCSS may be provided to entities that administer programs or activities that receive Federal financial assistance from HUD. When this is the case, those entities would be subject to section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 794), and HUD's implementing regulations at 24 CFR part 8, including the requirements at 24 CFR 8.22 that address accessibility in new construction. Similarly, if manufactured housing units are provided to a State or local government for a program or activity of a State or local government, the housing would be covered by Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. 12131-12134) and its implementing regulations at 28 CFR part 35, including the requirements at 28 CFR 35.151(c)(3) that address accessibility in new construction. To facilitate compliance by these entities with these requirements, HUD is requiring that manufacturers produce manufactured housing units that meet the accessibility standards provided in 24 CFR part 8 and/or 28 CFR 35.151, as applicable. The Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS) (see 24 CFR 8.32) or the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design with the Deeming Notice, 79 FR 29671 (May 23, 2014), are currently used for compliance with section 504. The 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design are used for compliance with the ADA. Both standards prohibit doorways below 32 inches clear width. See UFAS 3.13.5 and 2010 ADA Standards 404.2.3. HUD notes that the section 504 and ADA requirements are not applicable to any individual or buyer that obtains Federal Housing Administration financing when purchasing a manufactured housing unit, if the unit is not otherwise covered by section 504 or the ADA.

Clarity on Fire Sprinkler Requirements

One commenter found § 3280.214 of the proposed rule unclear about the circumstances in which fire sprinklers are required and read the proposed rule as omitting fire sprinkler requirements for what it referred to as multi-family manufactured homes. The commenter urged HUD to mandate fire sprinklers.

HUD Response:

The final rule does not require the installation of fire sprinkler systems in manufactured homes. Multi-dwelling unit manufactured homes are single family structures and should not be referred to as multifamily dwellings. The final rule only establishes minimum requirements for the design and installation of a fire sprinkler system if a manufacturer chooses to install one as an optional feature selected by the consumer, or to meet State or local mandates for fire sprinkler systems in new single family homes. These minimum requirements are intended to create uniformity in manufactured home construction. HUD has no present reason to consider a mandatory fire sprinkler standard unless it is recommended by the MHCC to the Secretary.

Necessity of Fire Sprinkler Standard

Several commenters raised concerns about the necessity of the fire sprinkler standard in the proposed rule. These commenters stated that the NFPA 13D is an adequate private-sector voluntary sprinkler standard for manufactured homes and rejected the need for HUD standards. They also raised several unique reasons for their disagreement with the proposed rule.

One commenter stated that manufactured housing units have additional fire protective features beyond what is provided in industrialized or site-built housing. As examples, the commenter referred to requirements related to limited combustible material around the cooking range, which it noted was the number one source of home fires, as well as the better flame-spread limitations in manufactured homes, which reduce the need for fire sprinkler requirements. For example, the compartments for the water heater and furnace must have a flame-spread rating no greater than 25 and manufactured housing requires two exterior doors. The commenter also noted that ceiling finishes in manufactured homes must have a flame-spread rating equal to or less than 75, as compared to 200 or less in conventional homes.

HUD Response:

HUD appreciates these comments and agrees that fire safety and prevention considerations are crucial in the design and construction of manufactured homes. The existing fire safety standards in the MHCSS have contributed significantly to manufactured homes being safer and more fire-resistant than the mobile homes built prior to the MHCSS. When examining this issue, HUD must also consider the balance between safety and affordability when establishing Federal standards and at this time defers to consumer choices to determine the necessity for installing fire sprinkler systems in residential homes. HUD believes that currently consumers have the right to choose fire sprinklers for their protection of life and property, but also recognizes the need to balance considerations of cost and effectiveness when preserving affordability for manufactured housing consumers. The final rule does not require fire sprinkler systems in manufactured homes but establishes standards when a design incorporates them. The standards under § 3280.214 are based on the NFPA 13D for the design and construction, and in-plant water pressure testing. The provisions for testing the water supply at the site and any other installation-related requirements for fire sprinkler systems are minimum requirements that must be addressed in manufacturer installation instructions. However, the installation will be inspected under requirements of 24 CFR parts 3285 and 3286, and the water supply sufficiency shall be certified by a fire protection technician. The Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards, often referred to as MHCSS, provides a minimum requirement that can support manufacturers, promote uniformity in manufactured housing construction, and preserve affordability, particularly when manufactured homes are constructed for States or jurisdictions that require fire sprinkler systems.

Authority To Impose a Fire Sprinkler Standard

One commenter questioned the necessity of the standard and whether HUD exceeds the statutory authority for the proposed rule's standards related to the installation of fire sprinkler systems.

The commenter cited the “manufactured home safety” definition and stated HUD must determine, prior to the adoption of standards, there is the existence of “any unreasonable risk of death or injury to the occupant(s) of a manufactured home.” The commenter asserts that the absence of fire sprinklers has never been determined to be an unreasonable risk within the HUD fire safety standards. The commenter explained that HUD could not now purport to view fire sprinkler standards as necessary to “protect against any unreasonable risk of death or injury” given that the proposed rule declines to mandate fire sprinkler systems, but rather sets forth standards with which a sprinkler system, if installed, must comply.

The commenter also stated that a National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) report and associated update stated fire sprinklers are not necessary to prevent against “unreasonable risk of death or injury” and that manufactured homes built in compliance with HUD's existing fire safety standards have lower incidence of fire and fire injuries, comparable fire death rates, and better contained fires than other comparable dwellings.

Given that fire sprinkler systems are not necessary to prevent “unreasonable risk of death or injury,” the commenter concluded, specific standards for optional fire sprinkler systems cannot be necessary either. It recommended that HUD remove the proposed standard from the final rule.

HUD Response:

HUD appreciates the commenter's thoughts and comment but does not agree with its conclusion or analysis. Congress directed HUD to develop and promulgate standards that reduce the number of personal injuries and deaths in manufactured homes, as well as improve the quality and durability of manufactured homes, by enacting the highest standards of protection. These standards must also be appropriate and reasonable, as explained by section 604(a)(1)(A)(i) through (iii) of the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000. Neither the assertion that this rule does not require the installation of fire sprinkler systems in all manufactured homes or a report that manufactured homes built in compliance with HUD's existing fire safety standards have lower incidence of fire and fire injuries, comparable fire death rates, and better contained fires than other comparable dwellings, addresses the authority HUD has to establish standards in accordance with the consensus standards development process. Based upon MHCC recommendations, HUD has determined the fire sprinkler system standards are essential for uniformity and enforcement, as well as reasonable specifications that are consistent with approved home designs for the installation of a manufactured home to ensure proper siting and the joining of all sections of the home.

The Proposed Regulation Is Duplicative Because Existing Regulations Preempt State and Local Requirements for Sprinkler Systems

One commenter claimed that the proposed fire sprinkler standard recommendation by the MHCC was substantially based on the idea it was necessary to ensure the preemption of State and local fire sprinkler standards under 42 U.S.C. 5403(d). The commenter believed that State and local standards were already preempted without the need for the proposed standard.

The commenter called attention to the text of 42 U.S.C. 5403(d), which provides, in part, that Federal preemption “shall be broadly and liberally construed.” Prior HUD analysis, including a 1995 legal opinion, relied on a narrow construction of the “same aspect of performance test” to conclude that the Federal standards fail to preempt State and local sprinkler mandates because they lack specific requirements relating to sprinkler systems. The commenter claimed that the statutory text as modified by the “2000 reform law” invalidated HUD's prior legal analyses and substantially enhanced the scope of Federal preemption under the Act. The commenter also attached a 1989 letter from a former Director of HUD Manufactured Housing and Construction Standards Division to the fire chief of Oklahoma City, which it cited for the proposition that HUD had previously and correctly determined that local standards were preempted under the less rigorous preemption language of the original 1974 Act.

The commenter went on to state that under a “broad and liberal” construction of Federal preemption in the Act of the “same aspect of performance” test, preemption analysis should focus on the Federal objective to be achieved and the Federal purposes of the Act. The commenter explained the result of this test is that existing HUD standards preempt State and local laws and do not allow additional or different equipment or measures required by “a state or locality.” The commenter goes on to conclude that existing regulations already meet the purpose of preventing “unreasonable risk of death or injury” and so there is already no room for State and localities to require additional measures. Rather, such measures would only unnecessarily increase the cost of manufactured homes.

HUD Response:

HUD acknowledges and appreciates the commenters concerns. HUD's existing regulations regarding fire safety standards do not address the requirement or the standards of fire sprinklers. The current regulations do not prohibit State and local jurisdictions from promulgating their own fire sprinkler standards. Although fire sprinklers are voluntary, should they be incorporated into the manufacturer's design of a manufactured home, HUD's Construction and Safety Standards as promulgated through this Final Rule, will preempt State and local requirements applicable to the same aspects of construction pursuant to section 604(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended by the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000, and 24 CFR 3282.11(a), just as any other standard.

Potential Imposition of Mandatory Fire Sprinkler Standards

One commenter suggested that the fire sprinkler standards in the proposed rule will likely increase the probability that a high-cost sprinkler system will be required in all manufactured homes. The commenter asserts that the proposed standards are characterized as regulatory “requirements” and that, when triggered, would subject the performance of any sprinkler system to Subpart I procedures and enforcement for the life of the home, which would impose all the corresponding investigation, documentation, and notice and recall requirements. The commenter concluded that the fire sprinkler standards should be eliminated from the final rule.

HUD Response:

As noted earlier, the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 established the MHCC and requires the establishment of construction and safety standards in accordance with the consensus standards development process. Under this Act, all proposed changes to the MHCSS must go through an MHCC-led consensus process to allow for thorough review and evaluation of proposed changes. Generally, proposed changes to HUD standards must be submitted and reviewed for recommendation to the Secretary before HUD can consider or implement changes to the MHCSS by notice and comment rulemaking. HUD has no present basis and has not received a recommendation from the MHCC to mandate fire sprinkler systems

in all manufactured homes. Therefore no mandate by HUD is being proposed.

Under the final rule, HUD fire sprinkler design and construction standards preempt State and local regulations when manufacturers construct a home designed with a fire sprinkler system. When a manufacturer produces a unit with a fire sprinkler system, Subpart I enforcement of the MHCSS will be implemented as applicable.

Federal Fire Sprinkler Standards Could Lead to State Imposed Mandates

Several commenters stated that the provisions addressing fire sprinkler systems in the proposed rule would encourage State and local government to step in and require sprinkler systems in manufactured homes or otherwise increase regulation. A commenter noted that this would reverse the current trend in which jurisdictions focus on the model International Residential Code.

One commenter articulated concern that the voluntary language of the fire sprinkler requirements, which provides standards only when a manufacturer installs a system but does not require a manufacturer to do so, would weaken the rule of preemption and lead other entities to believe they may enforce this voluntary requirement in manufactured homes. The commenter explained that, currently, a fire suppression systems requirement by a local authority applies to all residential dwellings and is non-discriminatory. The commenter further explained that, under current Pennsylvania law, fire suppression systems are not required in one or two-family dwellings but are required in multi-family dwellings.

Another commenter asserted that HUD holds the position that State and localities can require fire sprinkler systems although it did not believe that the MHCSS lacked preemptive effect. While the commenter disagreed with the need for a requirement for fire sprinkler systems, the commenter explained that, given the proposed standard, HUD should now take the position that its fire sprinkler standards preempt State and local requirements so that manufacturers do not have to adhere to a patchwork of State and local requirements.

Several commenters echoed the recommendation that HUD explicitly adopt the position that its fire sprinkler standard, as laid out in the proposed rule, will preempt current or future States or local design, testing, or installment mandates. One commenter specifically advised that HUD add a statement to § 3280.214 to reflect preemption of State and local requirements as stated in § 3282.11. Another commenter recommended that HUD adopt a stance that would permit State and local regulations, but only insofar as they would require the implementation of HUD's otherwise-voluntary fire sprinkler system. The commenter explained that this would allow for localized fire sprinkler requirements without creating disparate jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction sprinkler design requirements. Other commenters concerned about the standard's preemptive effect instead recommended that HUD remove the proposed voluntary fire sprinkler standard and any other regulations regarding the installation of fire sprinkler systems.

HUD Response:

HUD thanks the public for these comments. The amendments to MHCSS in this final rule would preempt State and local requirements to the extent that State and local fire sprinkler requirements conflict with Federal standards pursuant to 24 CFR 3282.11(a).

HUD also notes that it must consider the balance between safety and affordability when establishing Federal standards and defers to consumer choices to determine the necessity for installing fire sprinkler systems in residential homes. Fire sprinkler systems are not federally mandated for site-built residential homes, as even the national life safety code, NFPA 101, is only enforceable if a municipality has implemented it. HUD asserts that consumers have the right to choose fire sprinklers for the protection of their life and property, but also recognizes the need to balance considerations of cost and effectiveness when preserving affordability.

HUD understands the commenters' concern. However, there is no indication to HUD that the rule would encourage State and local government to step in and require sprinkler systems in manufactured homes or otherwise increase regulation. Consequently, this issue is too speculative for HUD to meaningfully consider in the final rule.

A Voluntary Fire Sprinkler System Insufficiently Protects Residents

One commenter expressed concerns that the proposed fire sprinkler system would fail to protect residents of manufactured homes from personal injuries and protect the public from unreasonable risk, as is required by statute and recommended that HUD require fire sprinkler systems in all new manufactured homes. The commenter believed that home fires present an unreasonable risk of death or injury in manufactured homes and that fire sprinklers are the most effective means to control such risk, especially in multiunit manufactured housing. The commenter cited the prevalence of fire deaths and injuries in the home and explained that most such casualties occurred in one-and-two family dwellings, including manufactured homes. It stated that, although injury rates from home fires were lower in manufactured homes, death rates were higher. The commenter expressed particular concern for elderly individuals, who have higher injury and death rates from home fires, in part because of factors like decreased mobility and other impairments. The commenter noted that demographic trends suggest that more older individuals will occupy manufactured homes in the United States over time. The commenter referenced the growing elderly population combined with the growing percentage of the population living in manufactured homes. The commenter also noted that manufactured housing is more prevalent in rural areas and in the South, areas with higher fire fatality rates.

The commenter believed these factors to create an unreasonable risk of death or injury and stated that automatic fire sprinklers would be an effective means of controlling that risk. The commenter cited an analysis of home fire data which found that in fires where automatic fire sprinklers were present, civilian deaths were 89 percent lower and injuries were 27 percent lower. It further suggested, based on the 53 percent reduction in medical-related costs of civilian injuries in fires where automatic fire sprinklers were present, that perhaps injuries were also less severe.

The commenter also noted that automatic fire sprinklers are a requirement for one-and-two family occupancies in the 2006 edition of NFPA 5000 Building and Construction Code, as well as the 2009 International Residential Code (IRC). The commenter noted that modern homes burn hotter and faster, due to lightweight construction practices, open floor plans, and synthetic furnishings, which leave occupants with as little as two minutes to escape. Fire sprinklers can control the fire until firefighters arrive and give occupants more time to escape.

Based on this, the commenter recommended that HUD require automatic fire sprinklers in all manufactured homes to provide them with the equivalent level of safety as site-built homes. The commenter also recommended that HUD to take the opportunity to ensure manufactured homes provide a higher level of safety than site-built homes and noted that 42

U.S.C. 5401

et seq.

contains no requirement of parity between the two kinds of housing.

To provide an adequate level of fire safety for multi-unit manufactured homes, the commenter referred HUD to section R302.2 of the 2021 edition IRC. The commenter advised that, to maintain the applicability of NFPA 13D, which is limited in scope to one-and-two family dwellings, the separation requirements of section R302.2 of the 2021 edition IRC must be applied between every two units in multi-unit manufactured homes. It explained that this would result in multi-unit manufactured homes being divided into two-family dwellings and it would then further be advisable to apply the requirements of R302.3 of the IRC for separation between individual units.

In the alternative to requiring automatic fire sprinklers in all new manufactured housing, the commenter supported the incorporation of NFPA 13D by reference for those homes in which sprinklers are installed. The commenter explained the history of NFPA 13D and stated that it believed NFPA provides the appropriate balance between safety and affordability. The commenter believed consumers should have the right to choose fire sprinklers and be confident that they were installed in accordance with the most up-to-date standards.

HUD Response:

HUD acknowledges the comments but disagrees that the proposed fire sprinkler system standards would fail to protect residents from personal injuries and protect the public from unreasonable risk. While the final rule does not require the installation of fire sprinkler systems in all manufactured homes, the final rule does establish minimum requirements for the design and installation of a fire sprinkler system if a manufacturer produces a design that contains the optional feature. These minimum requirements are intended to create uniformity.

HUD agrees that fire sprinkler systems can be a very effective means for controlling risk of fire-related injuries and providing additional protection for occupants. HUD agrees that the NFPA also considers the balance between safety and affordability, and that consumers have the right to choose fire sprinklers for their protection of life and property, and to be confident in its installation and integrity. HUD also recognizes the need to balance considerations of cost and effectiveness when preserving affordability for manufactured housing consumers. HUD also acknowledges that manufactured homes built in compliance with HUD's existing fire safety standards are significantly safer and more fire-resistant than the mobile homes built prior to the MHCSS. The final rule incorporates NFPA 13D by reference for § 3280.214(b), (e) and (o), including the exception for multi-dwelling unit manufactured home construction (24 CFR 3280.215(b)(3)), based on the 2021 edition IRC section R302.3 that allows for a fire resistance rating of

1/2

hour to be permitted in buildings equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with § 3280.214.

Furthermore, HUD is required by the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 to use a consensus process for thorough review and evaluation of proposed changes. Generally, proposed changes to HUD standards must be submitted and reviewed for recommendation to the Secretary before HUD can consider or implement changes to the MHCSS by notice and comment rulemaking. Absent an authority to act or emergency, HUD may not consider or impose a mandatory fire sprinkler standard at this time because the MHCC has not provided a recommendation to change the standards.

Clarifying the Language of § 3280.214

One commenter suggested a revision to the language of § 3280.214, which it believed would support State and local jurisdictions in its safety efforts. Specifically, in § 3280.214, the commenter recommended that paragraph (a)(1) read “. . . when a manufacturer installs a fire sprinkler system as an optional feature or to meet state or local laws and regulations, this section . . .” The commenter stated that this change was advisable to broadly preempt State or local requirements for manufactured homes.

HUD Response:

HUD agrees with the commenter and has amended § 3280.214(a)(1).

Standards for Fire Sprinkler System Piping in § 3280.214(p)

Two commenters expressed concern about the proposed rule at § 3280.214(p) which subjects the fire sprinkler system piping to the same test as the water distribution systems in § 3280.612(a). The commenters explained that the proposed rule requires the test to be conducted with air or water at 100 PSI for 15 minutes, whereas the NFPA 13D, which is identified as a reference standard, requires a hydrostatic (water) test in order to pressurize the system at 200 PSI for two hours. One commenter recommended that all proposed regulations regarding the installation of the fire sprinkler systems be withdrawn from the docket. The other commenter recommended that § 3280.214(p) be aligned with the reference standard to avoid confusion.

HUD Response:

HUD acknowledges these comments. The water supply testing provisions proposed by HUD were determined to accommodate more types of piping materials, such as nonmetallic pipe and tubing, such as CPVC and PEX. Some materials used for home sprinkler systems are not suitable for the 100 PSI or higher testing requirements cited by NFPA for metallic pipes, and HUD must consider both safety and affordability considerations for the design and construction of manufactured homes. Sprinkler piping must comply with all requirements for cold-water distribution piping.

Reduced Fire-Resistance Rating for Buildings With Automatic Sprinkler Systems

Some commenters noted that the proposed language regarding fire separation requirements between two dwelling units was based on language from the IRC but was missing an important exception. The commenters stated that the rule was missing the 2021 IRC R302.3 exception 1 for homes that have fire sprinklers installed.

A commenter specifically recommended that HUD incorporate 2021 IRC R302.3 exception 1 as the third exception of § 3280.215(b). The language proposed by the commenter would read as follows: “A fire resistance rating of

1/2

hour shall be permitted in buildings equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 3280.14”.

HUD Response:

HUD agrees with the comment's suggested change and has added this exception to § 3280.215(b) in the final rule. The exception provides an allowance for multi-dwelling unit manufactured homes equipped with automatic fire sprinklers in each dwelling unit, the fire resistance rating of walls and floors may be reduced from 1 hour fire resistance rating to

1/2

hour fire resistance rating.

Roof Resistance to Fire

One commenter recommended that HUD adopt a minimum requirement for the fire resistance of roofing materials to provide a Class A fire rating as determined by either ASTM E108 or UL 790.

HUD Response:

HUD acknowledges this comment and recommends that the commenter propose a standard to be reviewed by the MHCC. The public may submit proposed standards via the internet at

mhcc.homeinnovation.com.

Generally, absent authority to act or address an emergency, HUD addresses or incorporates changes after proposed changes are reviewed by the MHCC.

The Proposed Rule's Three-Unit Limitation on Multi-Dwelling Unit Manufactured Homes

While noting that they supported the regulation's express authorization of multi-dwelling unit manufactured homes, some commenters disagreed with the three-unit limitation proposed by HUD. These commenters provide several bases for their position.

Initially, one commenter stated that the limitation exceeded HUD's statutory authority under 42 U.S.C. 5402(6), since 42 U.S.C. 5402, which defines “manufactured home,” does not contain a limitation to the number of single-family homes that can be joined into a multi-dwelling unit. The commenter also stated that HUD and MHCC appear to recognize that the restriction has no basis in statutory authority by pointing to the text of the proposed rule which states that “MHCC based its determination on ensuring consistency with a similar state code” and to contemporaneous MHCC documents which, the commenter claimed, show that MHCC based its determination on the subcommittee members' belief that the limitation would keep HUD standards consistent with the IRC, while a higher limit or no limit would require compliance with the International Building Code (IBC). The commenter stated that reliance on or reference to State building codes or non-manufactured housing model codes as the basis for the limitation lack any legitimate basis for the limit since (1) manufactured housing is not subject to or regulated by any State code or model code unless incorporated by the MHCSS by reference, which is true for neither IRC nor IBC and (2) neither the IBC nor the IRC is specific to manufactured housing or its associated statutory purposes, such as affordability.

The commenter also raised constitutional equal protection concerns related to narrow definitions of “family” or “single family,” noting that manufacturers and retailers could be subject to discrimination claims and potential liability for refusing to sale or lease a home based on the status of the consumer or its expected use. Finally, the commenter stated that the unit restriction exceeded Federal authority because once a manufactured home is sold and installed, its use becomes a matter for State and local authority through mechanisms like zoning and use permits.

A second commenter similarly expressed concern that the “size requirements” were necessary because localities already set standards in this area and that HUD's standards would only serve to limit availability of products to consumers. This commenter also recommended that HUD support “multi-level, multi-unit dwellings,” in light of land-use limitations faced in many communities. The commenter explained that this support would enable increased housing availability, affordability, and healthy community growth. A third commenter recommended that HUD raise or eliminate the 3-unit multifamily cap noting that any unit cap must have a valid policy basis and suggested that the current proposed rule lacked such a basis as to the three-unit restriction.

HUD Response:

HUD appreciates the comments but disagrees that HUD lacks the authority to limit the number of units that can be joined to form a multi-dwelling unit manufactured home. Under section 604(b) of the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000, HUD has broad authority to establish, after recommendation from the MHCC, construction and safety standards and model installation standards for manufactured homes. Limiting the number of single-family units that may be installed together and still be considered a manufactured home for Federal purposes is an exercise of those various authorities. Consistent with the requirements of the Act, HUD, in consultation with the MHCC, determined that the limit on the number of units is reasonable and practical and can reduce potential safety or unforeseen logistical challenges. 42 U.S.C. 5403(a)(1)(A)(i). HUD's statutory obligation is to protect residents of manufactured homes from personal injuries, insurance costs, and property damages. HUD agrees that zoning regulations and the land use planning of local jurisdictions could also impact the installation of multi-dwelling unit manufactured home but does not agree that HUD's standards will have an adverse impact on product availability.

In response to these comments along with other considerations detailed below, HUD has increased the limit to four (4) units for the definition of multi-dwelling unit manufactured homes. HUD considered the criteria established by the Federal Housing Administration, which insures multi-dwelling unit manufactured homes of one to a maximum of four units under HUD's single family program. Further, the maximum number of four is commensurate with maximum limits established for attached units in international code requirements. These considerations, as well as ensuring uniformity between HUD programs, led HUD to conclude that four units was appropriate, at this time, for the definition of multi-dwelling unit manufactured homes.

HUD acknowledges certain commenters suggested eliminating the limit on units entirely. However, such a proposal was neither recommended by the MHCC nor presented in the proposed rule for public review and comment. The absence of these actions prevents HUD from considering the recommendation until the MHCC completes a consensus driven review and provides a recommendation to the Secretary. HUD requests that the commenters propose this code change to the MHCC and provide supporting rationale and justifications with the proposal. The public may submit proposed revisions to the MHCSS via the internet at

mhcc.homeinnovation.com.

HUD would like to clearly state the distinct terminology and nomenclature that multi-dwelling unit manufactured homes are single family structures and are not properly or technically classified as “multifamily” dwellings which are traditionally five or more dwelling units and are considered commercial property.

Use of the ASCE 7-05 To Recalculate Wind Speed References

Numerous comments stated that ASCE 7-05 was not an appropriate standard for use in the proposed wind design standard and recommended that HUD use ASCE 7-10. Many of these commenters stated that the proposed wind speeds used by ASCE 7-05 result in more onerous requirements for a wind zone (WZ) II house than would exist for a WZ III house designed under current standards. As examples, commenters noted that a WZ II house on the Gulf Coast of Alabama would, under the proposed standard, have the same design wind speed as a house located in the Florida Keys using the newer editions of ASCE. Another commenter gave the example that a WZ II house in Magnolia Springs, Alabama would need to be constructed in the same way as one in Marathon, Florida. Further, commenters noted the proposed rule uses wind speeds that exceed the highest mapped wind speeds under the more current editions of ASCE. Similarly, one commenter noted that for WZ II, no location in the contiguous United States utilizing ASCE 7-10 or other newer version has a wind speed equaling 194 miles per hour. The commenter also noted that use of

ASCE-7-05 would require design to Vult=181mph mph for WZ II and Vult=194mph for WZ III.

A number of commenters expressed concern about the increased costs that would be imposed on the industry as a result of the new wind standards. Several commenters noted that the proposed rule would increase costs in other areas including ESR-1539 “increased/stronger metal strapping, calculated staples,” NDS 2015 “longer lags to account for tip, more SYP lumber due to reduced design properties,” and AISC 360-10 “increased/stronger uplift straps.” These commenters contrasted these costs, which they referred to as “acceptable and understandable,” to the use of the ASCE 7-05 standard which they suggested were both unacceptable and incomprehensible.

Several commenters stated that ASCE 7-05 is a flawed measure because it excludes hurricane prone regions from the Exposure D definition, a decision that some commenters note has been found to be inappropriate. Commenters noted that if ASCE 7-05 is adopted, other portions of the 24 CFR part 3280 will need to be revised in light of the change in the Exposure D definition.

One commenter noted that the language in the proposed rule stating that “conversions could not be used alone as they do not factor in changes ASCE 7 made throughout the years to determine the wind pressures for building design that are now based on wind speed” as lacking reason. The commenter stated the ASCE 7-10 introduced a factor of 0.6 in the load combination for wind, thereby reducing the wind pressure from ASCE 7-05, and criticized HUD's decision to apply its own factor without clear basis to arrive at the figures for WZ II and WZ III.

Another commenter questioned HUD's comparison of ASCE 7-88 and ASCE 7-05 and noted that if velocities of 120 miles per hour (mph) and 130 mph are used, the result is an 18 percent increase in ASCE 7-05 over ASCE 7-88. It contrasted this to velocities of 140 mph and 150 mph, which would lead to a 61 percent increase. The commenter recommended HUD revise the proposed 140 and 150 wind speeds to 120 and 130 miles per hour as it had done initially.

Another commenter also expressed concern surrounding HUD's wind pressure standards. The commenter noted that when comparing the pressures in ASCE 7-88 to the table pressures, many of the ASCE 7-88 table pressures are lower but some are higher. The commenter encouraged new regulations to continue “this principle” given that the “intent of engineered design is to be comparable but designed in a more precise manner.” While not entirely clear, this commenter appeared to recommend that lower wind pressures be used in the NPR.

Some commenters stated that the revised standard would make construction of roof pitches over 20 degrees more expensive, or would even be impossible, and would make manufactured homes uncompetitive. One commenter explained that the standard was flawed because it applied the loads without regard to exposure and that use of the ASCE 7-10 standard would enable roof pitches over 20 degrees to be built.

Other commenters considered ASCE 7-05 flawed because it relied on wind speed criteria that are obsolete such as ASCE 7-05's use of “stress-level” wind speeds as opposed to “strength-level” wind speeds. The commenters stated that this standard could cause confusion among consumers regarding the wind safety of manufactured homes and may dissuade them from purchasing such homes. These commenters instead recommended use of a newer version of ASCE 7 and revisions to the methodology underlying the adopted wind speeds. Some commenters specifically recommended use of the ASCE 7-10. One commenter recommended use of ASCE 7-22 and advised that the methodology for the adopted wind speeds, as well as the WZ II and WZ II wind speeds, be revised accordingly.

HUD Response:

HUD appreciates the comments received. HUD is not updating the reference standard for wind load design from ASCE 7-88 to ASCE 7-05 after considering the public comments. Instead, HUD is returning this item to the MHCC for reconsideration. It is HUD's conclusion that updating the ASCE reference standard is not appropriate without updating several sections in the MHCSS, including the values in the Table of Design Wind Pressures in § 3280.305(c)(ii)(B), the Wind Speed Map and geographic boundaries identified in § 3280.305(c)(2) and (4), and references to Exposure D in § 3280.5(g). HUD recommends that the MHCC reconsider updating both the table and the impacted reference to ensure correlation for same edition of ASCE 7.

In making this recommendation, it is vitally important to provide the background and origin of HUD's current standard regarding wind provisions. In the months following Hurricane Andrew, HUD proposed the rule to replace the wind load provisions of the MHCSS. That proposed rule, which was based on a refined version of ASCE 7-88, formed the basis of the current HUD standard. In the proposed rule, the design wind pressures were based on the formation of three wind zones: Zone I with wind speeds of 80mph or less, Zone II with wind speed from 81 to 100 mph, and Zone III with wind speed of 101 to 110 mph. These three wind zones are separated by zone boundaries corresponding approximately to the 80 mph and 100 mph isotaches along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts. The States of Hawaii and coastal portions of Alaska are designated as Zone III.

Because ASCE 7-88 was used as the basis to develop HUD's current standards regarding wind provisions in § 3280.305, referencing ASCE 7-88 for determining design wind loads in §§ 3280.5(f), 3280.304(b), and 3280.305(c) result in approximately identical or close results as those shown in HUD's Table of Design Wind Pressures for manufactured homes in almost all U.S. locations. This consistency supports the option of using either ASCE 7-88 or HUD's Table of Design Wind Pressures specified in § 3280.305 for wind loads in high wind areas (Zones II and Zone III). This consistency, however, does not exist for ASCE 7-05 or ASCE 7-10.

Although in general the equation for obtaining design wind pressure in ASCE 7-88 and all later editions can be expressed as the square of basic wind speed, multiplied by a couple of coefficients that represent different factors contributing to design wind pressure yet independent from basic wind speed, the design philosophy and methodology underlying those factors and how they interact with one another and the basic wind speed and the wind maps, have evolved dramatically since ASCE 7-88. First, the definition of basic wind speed has changed from being based on “fastest mile” wind speed measurements in ASCE 7-88 to being based on the “3-second gust” wind speed measurements in ASCE 7-05 and later editions. Second, the exposure velocity pressure coefficient, which reflects change in wind speed with height and terrain roughness, the topographic factor, which accounts for wind speed-up over hills and escarpments, and the directionality factor were added in ASCE 7-05.

Most importantly, the wind maps have changed dramatically since the original 1993 rulemaking and have been completely redrawn in more recent editions of ASCE 7. More recent maps in ASCE 7-05 show high-wind zones extending much farther inland than those shown on the 1988 map and contour lines also have changed, which

would significantly affect basic wind speeds used for calculations. The basic wind speed determined by using ASCE 7-05 can produce a very different result than the calculation based upon HUD's standard for the same location. In addition, in response to the public comments recommending ASCE 7-10 instead of ASCE 7-05, HUD notes that ASCE 7-10 included another major revision to ASCE 7-05 that needs to be considered by the MHCC. ASCE 7-10 no longer includes an importance factor and introduces risk categories. Instead of having one map as in ASCE 7-05, ASCE 7-10 introduces three new wind speed maps that correspond to each risk category. The ASCE 7-10 maps were transitioned to reflect the use of the different risk categories and alternate load and resistance design methodologies (allowable stress design instead vs. load and resistance factor design). Furthermore, ASCE 7-10 reintroduced Exposure D for water surfaces in hurricane-prone regions, including a new wind-borne debris region, along with a new simplified procedures for buildings up to 160 feet in height, and new minimum wind loads for walls. These changes are very important and must be thoroughly considered by the MHCC before updating the HUD standards.

HUD recognizes that updating the basic wind speeds and certain isotach references for Wind Zone III in the State of Alaska and Guam, as originally proposed, will certainly lead to a mismatch of design wind pressures for many locations. These mismatches have been reported in several public comments. For HUD to update the reference standard to ASCE 7-05, or ASCE 7-10, or any other edition of ASCE 7 that has undergone major change(s) of wind map contour lines, revisions that are far too substantial to be incorporated between proposed to final rulemaking would need to be implemented. In addition, these changes, which include, but are not limited to, updating the zone maps in § 3280.305 must be reviewed through the consensus committee process for development and revision of HUD standards.

HUD agrees with the comment that the intent of engineered design is to be comparable but designed in a more precise manner. From an engineering design perspective, every revision of the ASCE 7 wind load provisions over time has been made to improve building design and address safety considerations. For instance, design wind loads have increased for locations where the probability of hurricanes have risen, yet decreased in circumstances where scientific and engineering advancements, such as new technologies simulating and testing wind speeds, updated design methodologies, or breakthrough research findings, have improved the design of homes. HUD's purpose for updating design standards is to revise standards to be more accurate and consider public safety. As such, updating the reference standard for design wind pressures for Exposure C from ASCE 7-88 to a more recent version without revising the Table of Design Wind Pressures would be in conflict with the general purpose of updating HUD's standards.

Based on this assessment, HUD has determined that the proposed methodology, if applied to the wind zone map codified under § 3280.305, will result in significant cost impacts that have not yet been fully considered nor recommended by the MHCC. HUD is returning this recommendation to the consensus committee for further review and analysis and has removed the proposed changes from the final rule. ASCE 7-88 remains the codified reference standard and basis for design wind pressures and wind zones established for high wind areas.

Statutory Authority for the Increase in Wind Resistance Standards

One commenter opposed the proposed rule's use of the ASCE 7-05 standard and “three-second gust” parameter to recalculate the wind speed references for manufactured homes in Wind Zones II and III on the grounds that HUD had exceeded their statutory authority in making the change. Specifically, the commenter stated that HUD had impermissibly relied on consistency with the design of other single-family structures in modifying its parameters. The commenter referenced the proposed rule's statement that the three-second gust parameter “would keep manufactured housing on par with design of other single-family structures.” The commenter stated that HUD does not have authority that would allow HUD to base new or amended MHCSS standards on identity with or similarity to standards for other types of housing. The commenter also stated that HUD and MHCC had neglected their statutory duty by failing to, in recommending and proposing MHCSS standards, consider the cost of such standards. It cited to 42 U.S.C. 5403(e) for the proposition that MHCC and HUD must consider “the probable effect of such standard on the cost of the manufactured home to the public.”

Finally, the commenter suggested that, if an increase in design wind speed would result from updating to the ASCE 7-05 standard, then HUD should specify which aspect of manufactured housing safety is unsatisfactory under the current standards and provide evidence to support that determination and show the cost impact of such changes on home purchase price.

HUD Response:

HUD has a statutory obligation to establish construction and safety standards under section 604(a)(1)(A) of the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000. However, the current ASCE 7 standard will not be changed in the final rule and the recommendation is being returned to the MHCC for reconsideration. This is based upon HUD's engineering assessment and public comments identifying issues with the proposed standard.

Resistance to Seismic Lateral Loads

One commenter noted that although the proposed rule went into detail of the provisions for wind load, it had left other lateral loads such as seismic loads largely unaddressed. The commenter recommended that provisions for seismic loads be incorporated into the document. It specifically suggested that such provisions be incorporated where the incorporation of seismic loads may control or otherwise modify the designs of the structure or component. As an example, the commenter pointed to § 3280.305 Windstorm and recommended that provisions for support and anchoring systems to resist other lateral loads be incorporated. The commenter provided further examples of § 3285.103 site suitability with design zone maps and recommended that it be updated to address seismic zone suitability check along with incorporation of seismic loading into part 3280. The commenter also recommended that the rule address anchorage for seismic loads.

HUD Response:

HUD acknowledges this comment and recommends that the commenter submit a proposed code change supported by technical analysis and corresponding design zone maps, to be reviewed by the MHCC. The MHCC is a Federal advisory committee established and required by statute. All proposed changes to the MHCSS must follow the MHCC consensus process to comply with Federal regulations. Generally, proposed changes to HUD standards must be submitted and reviewed for recommendation to the Secretary before HUD can consider or implement changes to the MHCSS by notice and comment rulemaking. The public may submit proposed standards at

mhcc.homeinnovation.com.

Snow Load Standards

One commenter noted that the basis of design snow loads has changed from average ground snow to maximum event snow in the 2022 IBC. The commenter also expressed concern about obsolete load standards in HUD regulations generally and recommended that HUD regulations be revised to be based on the latest versions of the load standards.

HUD Response:

HUD acknowledges this comment and recommends that the commenter propose a code change to be reviewed by the MHCC. As mentioned in the previous response, generally, proposed changes to the MHCSS must be submitted and reviewed by the MHCC through the statutory consensus process for recommendation to the Secretary before HUD can consider changes for rulemaking. The public may submit proposed standards via the internet at

mhcc.homeinnovation.com.

HUD Reference No. 8, Water Resistive Barrier

One commenter stated that the HUD Reference No. 8, Water Resistive Barrier, would increase the acquisition cost of manufactured homes without remedying the identified safety or construction deficiencies. The commenter recommended that the requirement be eliminated from the final rule. The commenter cited HUD's statement that a requirement would “align [the] manufactured housing code with site-built construction standards,” and stated that HUD did not have the authority to mandate changes for this reason. Rather, the commenter saw HUD as having authority to propose and adopt standards only for the purposes of addressing specific, identified life, health, and safety and construction matters with the goal of protecting against unreasonable risk of accidents or any unreasonable risk of death or injury if such accidents occur.

HUD Response:

HUD acknowledges these comments. HUD has a statutory obligation under section 604(a) of the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 to establish and enforce construction and safety standards for manufactured homes. This includes authority to revise the MHCSS for consistency and improve efforts to protect the quality, durability, safety, and affordability of manufactured homes. Water resistive barriers play a critical role in protecting homes from moisture damage, improving energy efficiency, enhancing durability, and reducing the impacts of climate change by adding an additional layer of protection against water intrusion and rain and reducing air leakage. Furthermore, insurance companies recognize the importance of water resistive barriers in mitigating water damage risks, which can result in potential insurance discounts or lower premiums that lead to cost savings for homeowners.

Recommended Revisions to Data Plate Disclosure Language of 24 CFR 3280.5(g)

Several commenters recommended that HUD update the data plate disclosure definition to accord with the definition of Exposure D as described in ASCE/SEI 7-05. They noted that ASCE/SEI 7-88 defines “Exposure D” differently than ASCE/SEI 7-05. Two of these commenters recommended that § 3280.5(g) be revised to provide: “This home has not been designed for the higher wind pressures and anchoring provisions required for locations with 600' of flat, unobstructed areas and water surfaces in Wind Zone I which extend out 5,000 feet or more unless the home and its anchoring foundation system have been designed for the increased requirements specified for Exposure D in ANSI/ASCE 7-05.”

HUD Response:

HUD appreciates the comments. HUD conducted an engineering assessment in response to public comments on the ASCE-7-05 wind standard. The assessment raised additional cost and efficacy concerns that must be examined by the MHCC. The return of the standard to the MHCC was necessary because, unlike the recommendations about the AAMA standard, where the MHCC provided HUD with recommendations for both the 2011 and 2017 standards, the MHCC's recommendation did not provide HUD an alternative reference standard. This absence deprives HUD of authority to enact a new standard, which must first be reviewed by the MHCC's further engineering assessment. The final rule will not update the ASCE standard to a version other than what is currently codified. If HUD revisits the matter in future rulemaking, commenters are encouraged to submit this feedback again.

HUD Reference No. 25, National Design Specification for Wood Construction

One comment stated that the HUD Reference No. 25, National Design Specification for Wood Construction, would increase the acquisition cost of manufactured homes without remedying identified safety or construction deficiencies. The commenter recommended that the requirement be eliminated from the final rule. The commenter cited HUD's statement that the requirement would “increase home resiliency for consumers,” and questioned whether HUD had the authority to mandate changes for this purpose under the 1974 Act. The commenter said that HUD especially lacked the authority for this change given that the standard would increase the purchase costs of homes and exclude potential purchasers without delivering specific identified and quantified benefits.

HUD Response:

HUD acknowledges these comments. HUD has a statutory obligation to establish construction and safety standards under section 604(a)(1)(A) of the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000. This Act authorizes HUD to revise the MHCSS to protect the quality, durability, safety, and affordability of manufactured homes. The NDS is widely used by engineers, architects, builders, and other professionals involved in the design and construction of wood-framed buildings and structures. HUD is incorporating this reference standard to reflect the advancements in wood technology, industry best practices, and guidelines for wood construction that impact manufactured housing.

Purchase Price Impact Analyses

One commenter commented on the lack of purchase price impact analysis in the proposed rule. The commenter stated that, under section 604(3) of the 1974 Act, each reference standard change, addition, or modification must be accompanied by an analysis calculating the purchase price impact and weighing it against the alleged benefits of the proposed change. The commenter noted that HUD had provided no such analysis in table 2 or the preamble of the proposed rule.

The commenter stated HUD was obligated to consider the cost impact of any proposed changes or additions to the MHCSS standards within the context of the DOE “energy conservation” standards. The commenter stated that unnecessary HUD standards would compound with DOE standards to increase the cost of manufactured housing to the exclusion of lower and moderate-income potential purchasers. The commenter expressed concern that this decrease in affordability would be contrary to the 1974 Act and the priority of providing affordable housing. The commenter recommended that any standard in the proposed rule that lacked absent sufficient need and cost-benefit justification should be eliminated.

HUD Response:

HUD acknowledges these comments. HUD considered the cost impacts from changes that stem

from this proposed rule in the regulatory impact analysis, which was published with the proposed rule. Specifically, the analysis states, “based on the overall weighted average per-unit cost increase, the average sales price of $111,900 (Census of Manufactured Housing, August 2021), and the annual average production of 105,400, the decrease in homes purchased annually ranges from 77 to 130.” HUD sufficiently considered the purchase price impact and weighed it against the alleged benefits of the proposed change, as required by statute, when it drafted the proposed rule.

With respect to the rule issued by the United States Department of Energy, the standards are not under the purview of HUD and are not related to this rule. The information available to HUD, either through the adopted energy standards rule or provided by the commenter, does not suggest the energy rule will interact with the requirements of this rule. As such, including a cost impact analysis pertaining to DOE's rulemaking would exceed the scope of this rule.

Lifecycle Cost Analyses

One commenter recommended that lifecycle cost analyses justifying any quality rules should include in their sensitivity analysis, a scenario with a discount rate equal to an index average MHCSS home chattel loan rate. The commenter noted that chattel loan rates can exceed OMB's standard 3 percent and 7 percent real discount rates for cost-benefit analysis. The commenter explained that actual financing costs must be considered in the lifecycle cost analysis to guarantee real, all-in consumer savings are achieved.

HUD Response:

HUD acknowledges these comments. Although the discount rate can be chosen based on the mortgage rate, the appropriate value would need to be the real interest rate,

i.e.

, the nominal rate minus inflation. OMB's preferred 3% and 7% real discount rates provide a range that includes the commenter's cited median nominal chattel loan rate of 7.8% minus inflation. Further, as discussed in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's May 2021 report, “Manufactured Housing Finance: New Insights from the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Data”, only 42 percent of manufactured housing loans in 2021 were chattel loans. Thus, using a discount rate based solely on chattel loan interest rates would be inappropriate.

Standard Test Methods for Direct Moisture Content Measurement of Wood and Wood-Based Material (3280.4(l)(23))

Two commenters recommended that HUD incorporate the 2016 version of ASTM D4442 by reference because of the unspecified minor, non-technical changes and three unspecified semi-technical changes that were made from the 2007 to the 2016 version of the ASTM D4442. The commenter stated that the changes in the 2016 version will not have an impact on the manufactured housing industry but did not provide basis for this statement.

HUD Response:

HUD acknowledges these comments. Incorporation of 2016 version of ASTM D4442 was neither recommended by the MHCC nor presented in the proposed rule for public review and comment. The absence of these actions prevents HUD from considering the recommendation until the MHCC completes a consensus driven review and provides a recommendation to the Secretary. HUD requests that the commenters propose this code change to the MHCC and provide a copy of the version proposed for incorporation with the proposal. The public may submit proposed standards via the internet at

mhcc.homeinnovation.com.

Standard Test Methods for Use and Calibration of Hand-Held Moisture Meters, 2013 (3280.4(l)(24))

Several commenters recommended that HUD incorporate the ASTM D73438-08 or ASTM D7438-13 Standard Practice for Field Calibration and Application of Hand-Held Moisture Meters into HUD regulations in place of the ASTM D4444. The commenters stated that the change would enable greater accuracy in calibration and would better align with current industry practices.

HUD Response:

HUD acknowledges these comments and requests that the commenters propose a MHCSS change that would incorporate an alternate standard so that it can be reviewed by the MHCC as part of the consensus process. As discussed earlier, the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 requires that the MHCC consider changes to the MHCSS, issue recommendations to the Secretary, and that the Secretary implement, modify, or reject the standards. Under sections 604(b)(3) and (4) of the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000, the Secretary must make the proposed regulations or interpretative bulletins available for public comment upon receipt of a recommendation and prior to enactment. In light of these requirements, HUD requests that copies of the exact version proposed for incorporation be included with the proposal. The public may submit proposed standards via the internet at

mhcc.homeinnovation.com.

AAMA/WDMA/CSA 101/I.S.2/A440-17

Several commenters questioned the decision to adopt the 2017 version of AAMA/WDMA/CSA 101/I.S.2/A440 at § 3280.4(d)(6). The commenters noted that AAMA/WDMA/CSA 101/I.S.2/A440-08 and -11 are the most common standard certifications used today and there are no material differences between the 2011 and 2017 versions. They believed that AAMA/WDMA/CSA 101/I.S.2/A440-17 would make certification more difficult and would increase costs. They recommended that AAMA/WDMA/CSA 101/I.S.2/A440-11 be adopted at 3280.4(d)(6) instead of AAMA/WDMA/CSA 101/I.S.2/A440-17.

HUD Response:

HUD appreciates the comments and has revisited the original recommendations made by the MHCC to HUD. In March 2016 (Log 140), the MHCC recommended that HUD adopt the 2011 version of AAMA/WDMA/CSA 101/I.S.2/A440 at § 3280.4(s)(6). However, in December 2017 (Log 201), the MHCC recommended HUD adopt the 2017 version, citing that the current reference standard was significantly outdated and should be referencing the latest edition. As mentioned by the public comments, there are no major differences between the 2011 and 2017 versions. Updated standards typically address necessary edits or weaknesses found in previous versions, leading to improved building performance and compliance in areas of quality, safety, and durability. Adopting the more recent standard into the MHCSS will not make certification more difficult or significantly increase costs. Most windows produced for construction purposes today are likely to already be built to meet current industry standards because of enforcement of window certifications by jurisdictions across the United States. HUD has incorporated the 2017 version in this final rule, which is not the most recent version as of 2024, to ensure that manufactured homes are constructed using more modern, relevant, and effective technologies and materials.

Reference to APA PSI-2009

One commenter recommended that HUD replace references to APA PSI-2009 with the most current version, which is NIST Voluntary Product Standard PS 1-19. The commenter

further recommended that, in place of listing a year or version, that the rule contain references to “the current version”.

HUD Response:

HUD cannot enact these suggested changes unless the MHCC first considers the commenter's suggestion in a consensus process and provides the Secretary with a recommendation. The Administrative Procedure Act also requires HUD to place the public on notice regarding standards upon which it may take future enforcement action and provide an opportunity for public review and comment. Considering these statutory limitations, HUD acknowledges these comments and requests that the commenters propose a code change to incorporate more recent versions to be reviewed by the MHCC. HUD requests that copies of the exact version proposed for incorporation be included with the proposal. The public may submit proposed standards via the internet at

mhcc.homeinnovation.com.

Please note that HUD is unable to broadly incorporate standards into Federal regulation without specificity.

Updates to Reference Standards Regarding Gas-Fired Appliances and Accessories

One commenter recommended that HUD update the reference standards for appliances and components used in the construction of manufactured homes to the most current editions. The commenter stated that mandating that appliances and components comply with outdated standards would burden manufacturers by mandating and would limit homeowners' ability to have the most current products. The commenter recommended that HUD review the standards and update references to the most recent editions. Specifically, the commenter suggested incorporating following standards and codes for gas-fired appliances and accessories, including controls and tubing:

—CSA/ANSI LC 1-2019 • CSA 6.26-2019 as the standard for Fuel Gas Piping Systems Using Corrugated Stainless Steel Tubing in 3280.705(b) in order to update ANSI/IAS LC 1-1997.

—CSA/ANSI Z21.1-2019 • CSA 1.1-2019 as the standard for Household Cooking Gas Appliances in order to update ANSI Z21.1-2000.

—ANSI Z21.5.1-2017 • CSA 7.12-2017 as the standard for the Gas Clothes Dryers Volume 1, Type 1 Clothes Dryers in order to update ANSI Z21.51.1-1999, Gas Clothes Dryers Volume 1, Type 1 Clothes Dryers, with Addendum z21.5.1a-1999.

—CSA/ANSI Z21.10.1-2019 • CSA 4.1-2019, Gas Water Heaters Volume 1, Storage Water Heaters with Input Ratings of 75,000 BTU per Hour or Less in order to update ANSI Z21.10.1-1998, Gas Water Heaters—Volume 1, Storage Water Heaters with Input Ratings of 75,000 BTU per hour or Less, with Addendum Z21.10.1a-2000.

—CSA/ANSI Z21.10.3-2019 • CSA 4.3-2019 Gas-fired Water Heaters Volume 3, Storage Water Heaters with Input Ratings Above 75,000 BTU per Hour, Circulating and Instantaneous.

—ANSI Z21.15-2009(R2019) • CSA 9.1-2009(R2019), Manually Operated Gas Valves for Appliances, Appliance Connector Valves and Hose End Valves in order to update ANSI Z21.15-1997.

—CSA/ANSI Z21.19-2019 • CSA 1.4-2019, Refrigerators Using Gas Fuel. The proposed rule would update ANSI Z21.19-1990, with Addendum ANSI Z21 19a-1992 and ANSI Z21 19b-1995.

—ANSI Z21.20-2014, Automatic Gas Ignitions Systems and Components in order to update ANSI Z21.20 with Addendum Z21.20a-2000.

—CSA/ANSI Z21.21-2019 • CSA 6.5-2019, Automatic Valves for Gas Appliances in order to update ANZI Z21.21-2000.

—CSA/ANSI Z21.23-2022 • CSA 6.6-2022 in order to update ANSI Z21.23-1993.

—CSA/ANSI Z21.24-2022 • CSA 6.10-2022, Connectors for Gas Appliances in order to update ANSI Z21.24-1997/CGA 6.10-M97, Connectors for Gas Appliances, and remove the reference to the Compressed Gas Association.

—ANSI Z21.40.1-1996(R2022) • CSA 2.91-1996(R2022), Gas Fired, Heat Activated Air Conditioning and Heat Pump Appliances in order to correct the title of this standard from ANSI Z21.40.1-1996/CGA 2.91-M96, Gas-Fired, Heat Activated Air Conditioning and Heat Pump Appliances, to remove the reference to the Compressed Gas Association.

—CSA/ANSI Z21.47-2021 • CSA 2.3-2021-2012, Gas Fired Central Furnaces in order to update ANSI Z21.47-1990 with Addendum Z21.4a-1990 and Z21.47b-1992, Gas-Fired Central Furnaces (Except Direct Vent System Central Furnaces).

—ANSI Z21.75-2016 • CSA 6.27-2016, Connectors for Outdoor Gas Appliances and Manufactured Homes.

—NFPA 54/ANSI Z223.1-2021, National Fuel Gas Code in order to update NFPA 54-2002, National Fuel Gas Code.

—NFPA 58-2020, Standard for the Storage and Handling of Liquefied Petroleum Gases in order to update NFPA 58, Liquefied Petroleum Gas Code, 2001 Edition.

The commenter recommended that CSA Group, which it referred to as the accredited standards development organization for many of the standards, be included in the resources. The commenter also recommended that HUD include the following address where copies of the standards could be obtained: CSA Group/8501 East Pleasant Valley Road/Independence, OH 44131/

csagroup.org

.

HUD Response:

HUD acknowledges these comments and requests that the commenters propose a code change to incorporate more recent versions to be reviewed by the MHCC, for the same reasons described previously addressing need for consensus review and public notification. HUD requests that copies of the exact version proposed for incorporation be included with the proposal. The public may submit proposed standards at

mhcc.homeinnovation.com.

HUD understands that many standards are accredited jointly by more than one rating agency, such as CSA Group, but this is commonly understood and the contact information for additional resources is readily available and accessible online. For purposes of organization of 3280.4 in the final rule, jointly issued ANSI/CSA standards are categorized under ANSI.

Updated Reference Standards Related to Plumbing

Several commenters requested revisions to the plumbing standards. One commenter advised HUD to consider updates to certain standards incorporated by reference in §§ 3280.4 and 3280.604. The commenter premised its recommendations on the importance of having plumbing product standards reflect technological advancements, product innovations, drinking water exposure to indirect additives in products and materials, and updates to testing methodologies. The comment included line edits to §§ 3280.4(j), 3280.4(dd), 3280.604(b), and 3280.604(c) that it advised HUD to revise the rule to better align it with current building codes, product standards, and building practices.

Another commenter requested removal of polybutylene pipe and fittings standards, which it stated had already been removed from model plumbing codes. The commenter noted that, to its knowledge, polybutylene pipe and fittings are not certified to ASTM standards and are not generally available for hot and cold-water distributions in the United States. The commenter proposed pages of line edits incorporating these recommendations into §§ 3280.604(b)(2) and 3280.4(dd).

The commenter also recommended changes to reflect current titles and editions of NSF, ASTM, and CISPI standards and current legal name of NSF International. It requested removal of the NSF/ANSI 24 Plumbing System Components for Recreation Vehicles given that it had been revised to remove manufactured homes and was thus no longer applicable.

Another commenter recommended line edits to §§ 3280.4(g), 3280.4(k), 3280.4(v), 3280.604(c), and 3280.604. Specifically, the commenter recommended that HUD remove from

the rule the following standards: ASSE/ANSI-1986, ASSE 1007-1986, ASSE 1025, IAPMO PS 2-89, IAPMO PS 4-90, IAPMO PS 5-84, IAPMO PS 9-84, IAPMO PS 14-89, and IAPMO PS 31-91. The commenter also recommended that HUD use the following updated standards: IAPMO Z124.5-2013e1 (R2018) instead of ANSI Z124.5-1997; and IAPMO Z124.7-2013 (R2018) instead of ANSI Z124.7-1997. The commenter also recommended that HUD use ASSE 1001-2021; ASME A112.1002-2020/ASSE 1002-2020/CSA B125.12-2020; ASSE 1008-2020; ASSE 1011-2017; ASSE 1014-2020; ASME A112.1016-2017/ASSE 1016-2017/CSA B125.16-17; ASSE 1017-2009 (R2014); ANSI/ASSE 1019-2011 (R2016); ASSE 1023-2020; ASSE 1051-2021; IAPMO PS 23-21; IAPMO TS 03 (R2022); and IAPMO TS 22-97e1 (R2020). In addition to the safety considerations and desire for most up-to-date testing methodologies and products noted by many of the commenters, this commenter explained that use of the most current versions of the standards would allow for incorporation of the results of efforts by the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials to harmonize product standards used for plumbing products in the US and Canada.

Another commenter specifically referenced parts 3280, 3282, 3285, and 3286, noting that they contained references to outdated standards. The commenter also noted that there were a number of missing newer standards from ASSE, ASTM and others for modern products, pipes, and fittings, specifically for new PEX fittings and modern piping materials like PERT and Polypropylene. The commenter attached a list of current standards with active versions years to which it directed HUD's attention.

HUD Response:

HUD appreciates these comments and requests that the commenters submit these code changes to be reviewed by the MHCC, for the same reasons described previously. For reference standard version changes, HUD requests that copies of the exact version proposed for incorporation be included with the proposal. The public may submit proposed standards via the internet at

mhcc.homeinnovation.com.

Updated NFPA Reference Standards

A commenter proposed the following additional updated reference standards related to NFPA. It noted the importance of updated standards to ensure that the requirements accommodate advancements in technology and practices and the most-up-to-date safety knowledge. Accordingly, it recommended that HUD incorporate by reference the most recent version of various NFPA standards. Specifically, the commenter recommended incorporation by reference of the following NFPA standards:

• The 2022 edition of NFPA 13D in § 3280.214(b). Specifically, the commenter recommended use of table 7.5.6.3 instead of 7.5.5.3 in (e)(2), the use of tables 10.4.9.2(b) through (h) and table 10.4.9.2(c) in (o)(3)(i) and table 10.4.9.2(b) in (o)(3)(ii). The commenter believed that these changes would allow HUD to incorporate the most up-to-date standards related to freeze protection, sprinkler positioning, sprinklers in vacant structures, and use of well pumps as a water supply.

• The 2020 edition of NFPA 31 in §§ 3280.703(d) and 3280.707(f). It noted that changes from the 2011 to the 2020 version include listing criteria and fuel types for fuel burning appliances, acceptable piping and fitting materials, and updates to reference standards.

• The 2021 edition of the NFPA 54 in § 3280.703(d). It noted that changes between the two versions include pipe grounding and bonding, pipe fittings, venting requirements for chimneys, and appliance listing criteria.

• The 2023 edition of the NFPA 70 National Electrical Code which includes updates related to exterior emergency power disconnects for fire responders, network-connected life safety equipment, wireless power transfers of electric vehicles, and Class 4 fault-managed power. Relatedly, it noted that § 3280.807(c) refers users to Article 410.4 but should refer to Article 410.10(D).

• The 2020 edition of NFPA 58 in § 3280.703(d). It noted that the more recent version includes changes related to snow load maps, fire extinguisher requirements, fire resistance ratings, noncombustible materials, and other changes.

• The 2021 edition of NFPA 90B in § 3280.703(d) in order to incorporate updated reference standards and editorial changes.

• The 2021 edition of the NFPA 253 Standard on Types of Building Construction in § 3280.202 to stay consistent with the most current terminology for the definition of “limited combustible” and “noncombustible”.

• The 2023 edition of NFPA 253 in § 3280.207(c). The commenter recommended the change to create uniformity with other fire test standards and provide more up-to-date referenced standards.

• The most current versions of ASTM E84 and UL 273. The commenter noted that the proposed rule references the 1995 version of the NFPA 255 on Standard Method of Test of Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials in §§ 3280.203(a) and 3280.207(a). It explained that the standard was withdrawn in 2009 and recommended removing the reference and using the most current versions of ASTM E84 and UL 273 instead.

• The 2022 edition of NFPA 72 in lieu of NFPA 720 in § 3280.211(b). The commenter noted that NFPA 720 was withdrawn in 2018 and its requirements were incorporated into the 2019 edition of NFPA 72.

HUD Response:

HUD appreciates these comments and requests that the commenters submit these code changes to be reviewed by the MHCC, for the same reasons described previously. For reference standard version changes, HUD requests that copies of the exact version proposed for incorporation be included with the proposal. The public may submit proposed standards via the internet at

mhcc.homeinnovation.com.

Use of Most Up-to-Date ASCE Reference Standards

One commenter made specific recommendations regarding use of the most current ASCE standards. Specifically, the commenter recommended that HUD incorporate the proposed rule's reference the 2022 edition of Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Older Structures (ASCE/SEI 7-22). The comment explained that the standard provides the most up-to-date and coordinating loading provisions for general structural design, prescribes design loads for many types of hazards, and coordinates with other current structural material standards. In particular, the ASCE/SEI 7-22 standard updates wind, snow, seismic, rain, ice, and flood hazards to reflect the current state of practice and understanding of environmental hazards. The commenter further explained that the ASCE/SEI 7-22 standard refines wind loads to make use of the current knowledge of wind hazards and recent changes in wind speeds and also make use of new understandings of snowfall and wind effects on drift. The commenter concluded by stating that requiring new manufactured housing to comply with the state of practice, as defined by the latest standards of practice, will facilitate equitable, sustainable, and resilient infrastructure, will result in an improved standard of living and lower life-cycle costs and reinforce the Administration's goals and better

protect public health, safety, welfare, and environmental resilience.

HUD Response:

HUD appreciates these comments and requests that the commenter submit proposed code changes to be reviewed by the MHCC, for the same reasons described previously. For reference standard version changes, HUD requests that copies of the specific version proposed for incorporation be included with the proposal. The public may submit proposed standards via the internet at

mhcc.homeinnovation.com.

Updating to FEMA P-85

One commenter recommended that HUD incorporate FEMA P-85 as a reference standard and generally advised that HUD use the current versions of each standard.

HUD Response:

HUD appreciates this comment and requests that the commenter submit this proposed code change to be reviewed by the MHCC with a specific version, referenced by date and year, that is to be considered for incorporation. As described in this preamble, the HUD has a statutory responsibility to place the public on notice regarding standards upon which it may take future enforcement action. Additionally, the specific standard incorporated into the MHCSS must first be reviewed and recommended to HUD by the MHCSS. Standards cannot be broadly incorporated into regulations to reference a “current version” and must be defined by name and date. HUD requests that copies of the specific version proposed for incorporation be included with the proposal. The public may submit proposed standards via the internet at

mhcc.homeinnovation.com.

Testing of Energy Efficiency Compliance for Gas-Fired Water Heaters in § 3280.707(d)(2)

A commenter recommended that HUD incorporate applicable regulatory requirements established by the Department of Energy, rather than ANSI Standard Z21.10.1, in relation to the testing of energy efficiency compliance for gas-fired water heaters. The commenter explained that the relevant requirements had been removed from the ANSI Z21.10.1 standard.

HUD Response:

HUD appreciates this comment and requests that the commenter submit this proposed code change to be reviewed by the MHCC, for the same reasons described previously. The public may submit proposed standards via the internet at

mhcc.homeinnovation.com.

While the MHCC considers the recommendation mentioned above for gas-fired water heaters, HUD wishes to remind manufacturers that they must comply with all applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, including the Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered products and equipment such as residential water heaters, central air conditioners, and central heat pumps, even if they are not otherwise stated in the rule or impose obligations distinct from or additional to any obligations imposed by this rule.

Requirements for Windows, Sliding Glass Doors, and Skylights

One commenter recommended that HUD add the following language to § 3280.403, requirements for windows, sliding glass doors, and skylights. “All such windows and doors must show evidence of certification by affixing a quality certification label to the product from a product certification body accredited to ISO/IEC 17065 by an accreditation body that is internationally recognized to ISO/IEC17011 and are signatories to international mutual recognition arrangements such as the Asia Pacific Accreditation Cooperation (APAC).” Another commenter recommended that HUD use updated ANSI Z97.1 (R2020).

HUD Response:

HUD appreciates this comment and requests that the commenter submit this proposed code change to be reviewed by the MHCC, for the same reasons described previously. The public may submit proposed standards via the internet at

mhcc.homeinnovation.com.

Laboratory Testing Requirements

One commenter recommended that HUD require testing laboratories to be accredited to ISO/IEC 17025 by an accreditation body that is internationally recognized to ISO/IEC 17011 and are signatories to international mutual recognition arrangements like the Asia Pacific Accreditation Cooperation.

HUD Response:

HUD appreciates this comment and requests that the commenter submit this proposed code change to be reviewed by the MHCC, for the same reasons described previously addressing need for consensus review and public notification. The public may submit proposed standards via the internet at

mhcc.homeinnovation.com.

Standard for Vinyl Siding and Polypropylene Siding Used in Manufactured Homes

One commenter requested clarification regarding how to proceed when the vinyl siding manufacturer's installation instructions and the Vinyl Siding Institute Installation Manual (VSIIM) contradict one another. Specifically, the commenter requested clarity on which set of instructions should take priority.

HUD Response:

HUD does not reference the VSIIM. The final rule states under § 3280.309(c): “Vinyl siding and soffit installation must be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's installation instructions. Vinyl siding and soffit installation must be based on ASTM D4756.” It is the manufacturer's responsibility to ensure that its installation instructions are in accordance with ASTM D4756.

Reference to ASTM D4756 in § 3280.309(c)

One commenter expressed concerns about the reference to ASTM D4756 in the section on installation of vinyl siding and soffit installation in § 3280.309(c). The commenter recommended removal of the sentence which referenced ASTM D4756. The commenter explained that D4756 is an outdated standard that will be balloted for withdrawal as an ASTM standard under ASTM D20/D20.24. Furthermore, the commenter believed that manufacturer installation instructions and specifications should provide sufficient guidance. The commenter expressed concern about regulatory obligations to follow both manufacturer installation instructions and ASTM D4756, given that the two could differ. Another commenter stated that ASTM D4756-06 references ASTM E2112-07, and an 88-page standard for flashing installation. The commenter requested clarification on the standards that should be followed when there are contradictions between ASTM D4756-06 and ASTM E2112-07.

HUD Response:

HUD acknowledges this comment and suggests that the commenter submit this proposed code change to be reviewed by the MHCC, for the same reasons described previously. The public may submit proposed standards via the internet at

mhcc.homeinnovation.com.

The MHCSS does not reference ASTM E2112-07. Although ASTM D4756 has been withdrawn, the standard is still available for public access and use and is included in the final rule until it can be revised by future rulemaking after consideration and recommendation by the MHCC.

Omission of § 3280.504(b)

One commenter noted that § 3280.504(b) references § 3280.504(b)(1) but that the proposed rule does not contain § 3280.504(b)(1). It suggests that following language be added: “§ 3280.504(b)(1) Exterior walls must have a vapor retarder with a permeance

no greater than 1 perm (dry cup method) installed on the living space side of the wall; OR”.

HUD Response:

The language offered by the commenter can be found in the proposed rule at 3280.504(b)(1). The language states: “(1) Exterior walls shall have a vapor barrier no greater than 1 perm (dry cup method) installed on the living space side of the wall, or.” The final rule maintains the language found in the proposed rule without change.

Floor Area Requirements

Some commenters recommended that HUD re-evaluate the 150 square footage requirements in light of the allowance of three dwellings within a single manufactured home. The commenters noted that the 2015 IRC had reduced the size requirement for a habitable room to 70 square feet. Some commenters noted that the 150 number had not been based on scientific analysis or on identified safety hazards. The commenters recommended the following language in § 3280.109: “Each dwelling unit of a manufactured home shall have at least one living area with not less than 70 square feet of gross floor area”.

HUD Response:

HUD acknowledges this comment and suggests that the commenter submit this proposed code change to be reviewed by the MHCC, for the same reasons described previously addressing need for consensus review and public notification. The public may submit proposed standards via the internet at

mhcc.homeinnovation.com.

Clarity on the Meaning of “Exposed” (§ 3280.203(c)(1)(ii))

One commenter recommended the following language to clarify what surfaces are not considered “exposed”: “Exposed bottoms and sides of kitchen cabinets as required by § 3280.204; vertical surfaces above the horizontal plane formed by the bottom of the range hood are not considered exposed.”.

HUD Response:

HUD acknowledges this comment but is of the opinion that the existing language which states, “Exposed bottoms and sides of kitchen cabinets as required by § 3280.204 except that non-horizontal surfaces above the horizontal plane formed by the bottom of the range hood are not considered exposed,” is sufficiently clear. HUD's view is that “non-horizontal surfaces” is a more inclusive terminology than the alternate language proposed in the comment and more clearly describes which surfaces do not need to be considered as exposed. In the final rule, § 3280.203(c)(1)(ii) reads as follows: “Exposed bottoms and sides of kitchen cabinets as required by § 3280.204 except that non-horizontal surfaces above the horizontal plane formed by the bottom of the range hood are not considered exposed.”

Moisture Content of Treated Lumber Used for Porch Designs

One commenter recommended that § 3280.304(a) add following language regarding porch designs with treated lumber extending into the main roof cavity: “Dimension and board lumber must not exceed 19 percent moisture content at time of installation. Treated lumber used for exterior purposes only

and does not extend into the main home construction

may have a moisture content exceeding 19 percent.”.

HUD Response:

HUD accepts this comment and has added the language as suggested to provide additional clarity that the moisture content for treated lumber applies to porches and exterior applications only.

Requirements for Fireplace and Wood Stoves

One commenter expressed concern about HUD's proposed revision to allow any fireplace or wood stove to be installed regardless of the testing and certification requirements specified by the Standard for Vented Gas Fireplace Heaters, CSA/ANSI Z21.88-2109 * CSA 2.33-2019. The commenter worried that using an appliance not tested and certified for manufactured homes might violate the listing and certification of the product.

HUD Response:

HUD acknowledges this comment but reassures the commenter that if an installed product violates its listing and certification when installed in a manufactured home, then it would not be permissible under § 3280.709(a).

Drain Pan Requirements

Some commenters recommended that the § 3280.709(h) requirement for drain pan should be revised to facilitate the use of tankless water heaters. They recommended the following language in § 3280.709 to better align with the IRC P2801.6: “A corrosion-resistant water drip collection and drain pan must be installed under each

storage tank-type

water

heater or a hot water storage tank

that will allow water leaking from the water heater to drain to the exterior of the manufactured home, or to a drain.”

HUD Response:

HUD accepts this comment and has added the language as suggested to support clarity for the allowed use of tankless water heaters included in this final rule.

Clarity on Appliance Installation Instruction Requirements

Some commenters expressed support for HUD's attempt to reduce redundant appliance manuals but suggested that there might be need for further clarity in the language used in the proposed rule. They suggested the following language: “Operating instructions must be provided for each appliance. The operating instructions for each appliance must be provided with the homeowner's manual unless the appliance is affixed with a permanent Quick Response (QR) Code.”

HUD Response:

HUD acknowledges this comment, but the suggested language is not in line with the change implemented in the final rule. HUD requires one copy of the operating instructions for each application to be provided with the homeowners' manual. A second copy shall be provided with the appliance only if the appliance does not have a QR code. The final rule text has been slightly adjusted to clarify HUD's requirement.

Appliance Manufacturer Instructions

One commenter expressed concern that revision of § 3280.709(a) to remove a requirement that manufacturers leave appliance manufacturer instructions attached to appliances would conflict with the safety standards and fuel gas installation code requirements.

HUD Response:

HUD acknowledges this comment but this change implemented in the final rule does not conflict with the safety standards and fuel gas installation code requirements. HUD still requires one copy of the operating instructions for each application to be provided with the homeowners' manual and a second copy shall be provided with the appliance only if the appliance does not have a QR code. In response to this comment, HUD has slightly revised the text under § 3280.711 to clarify this.

Reference to Loose-Fill Insulation

A commenter expressed concern about the portion of the proposed rule referencing “[a] horizontal distance of not less than the depth of the wall cavity, where the call [sic] cavity is filled with cellulose loose-fill or other loose-fill insulation.” The commenter recommended that the language be changed to read, “where the wall cavity is filled with loose-fill insulation” to reduce the possibility that the rule would be understood to relate to cellulose insulation only. The commenter noted that the insulation market contains many loose-fill insulation types apart from cellulose and the change would reduce confusion.

HUD Response:

HUD accepts this comment and has revised the language as suggested to provide additional clarity. The amended language can be found at § 3280.215(d)(2)(i)(B).

Windows and Doors Protections

One commenter recommended adding an exception to § 3280.403 that provisions for protection of openings of manufactured homes be required in construction for homes installed in wind-borne debris regions (reference definition in the IRC). The commenter stated that provision of protection can be defined by the IBC.

HUD Response:

HUD acknowledges this comment and suggests that the commenter submit this proposed code change to be reviewed by the MHCC, for the same reasons described previously addressing need for consensus review and public notification. The public may submit proposed standards via the internet at

mhcc.homeinnovation.com.

Implementation Period

Several commenters requested a minimum one-year implementation period because of the quantity of changes that the proposed rule would create to relevant regulatory requirements. They noted that the proposed rule included 69 updates to reference standards, 16 new standards, and three regulatory text changes. Other commenters specifically requested that HUD provide both an effective date,

i.e.,

when the rule will be effective, and a mandatory effective date,

i.e.,

when compliance would become mandatory; the commenters suggested a 90-day period between the two dates to permit product inventory and materials to be used to meet the standards. Two commenters noted the challenges associated with the reference standards in § 3280.4, which would require manufacturers to analyze and apply the numerous standards and codes to a wide range of components. These commenters also noted that compliance will necessitate consultation with production suppliers, DAPIAs, and IPIAs.

One commenter noted that a longer implementation period was necessary because of the burdens associated with the May 2022 Final Rule to Establish Energy Conservation Standards for Manufactured Housing requiring manufactured homes to comply with the 2021 International Energy Conservation Code by May 2023. Another commenter pointed out that the United States Department of Energy (DOE) had released a Final Rule requiring compliance with 10 CFR part 460 Energy Conservation Standards for Manufactured Homes (May 31, 2022, 87 FR 32728; May 30, 2023, 88 FR 34411), which had allowed for a one-year implementation period, suggesting that HUD use this lengthy implementation period as a model.

Another commenter noted that the U.S. Department of Energy published a proposed rule entitled Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Furnaces, (July 7, 2022, 87 FR 40590), which proposed a five-year implementation period for changes that the commenter suggested were much less significant. Commenters also referenced, in support of their request for a longer implementation period, previous extensions on implementation of HUD rules.

HUD Response:

HUD understands these comments and has provided a six-month delayed effective date to allow manufacturers to implement the regulations effectively. This effective date will allow for smoother implementation and improved alignment between regulatory requirements and stakeholders' capabilities. HUD did not provide the full year implementation because many of the changes in this final rule support construction practices already in place by manufacturers, and will eliminate the need for alternative construction letters, improving efficiencies, and costs. HUD is not implementing bifurcated deadlines because such deadlines would likely create confusion among manufacturers regarding the effective dates, much to the detriment of consumers and manufacturers alike.

Cost Considerations

One commenter recommended that HUD accommodate the entry level of the market even as it permits new, high-end construction methods. The commenter urged that when HUD assesses the costs and benefits of minimum quality and safety standards that raise the legal quality floor of MHCSS construction, that HUD consider that the housing alternatives for the marginal consumer priced out of an entry-level MHCSS home that are not built to the updated codes. The commenter stated that increased up-front purchase prices that produce later savings to ultimately reduce the total cost of ownership is an appropriate consideration. The commenter recommended that lifecycle cost analyses justifying those changes should include, in their sensitivity analysis, a scenario with a discount rate equal to an index average MHCSS home chattel loan rate. Chattel loan rates, according to the commenter, can exceed OMB's standard 3 percent and 7 percent real discount rates for cost-benefit analysis. Consumers must finance higher up-front costs that deliver future benefits with the current financing options. Actual financing costs must be considered in the lifecycle cost analysis to guarantee real, all-in consumer savings are achieved.

HUD Response:

HUD acknowledges these comments. Manufactured housing plays a vital role in meeting the housing needs in the U.S. today and provides a significant resource for affordable homeownership and rental housing accessible to all Americans. HUD recognizes the need to protect the affordability of manufactured homes to facilitate the availability of housing particularly for economically constrained consumers and recognizes the need for improved financing options supporting manufactured housing. While these issues extend beyond the scope of this regulation, several offices within the Federal Government in addition to the Department are actively working to address financing issues for manufactured housing, such as the Federal Housing Finance Agency and U.S. Department of Agriculture's Rural Development agency.

Other Issues

Issue 1:

One commenter recommended that HUD mandate floating homes and require that homes be made of `indestructible' material such as stone or an ice chest. This comment was submitted alongside a screenshot of text describing “Surface Roughness D” and a graphic unrelated to the proposed rule.

HUD Response:

HUD acknowledges this comment and as previously discussed in these responses, encourages members of the public to submit proposals and suggestions to the MHCC for consideration at

mhcc.homeinnovation.com.

Issue 2:

One commenter recommended that regular updates be made to the MHCSS at least every 10 years. Another commenter echoed this concern and advised HUD to adopt a regular cadence of updating regulations so that the MHCSS can keep pace with evolving technologies and best practices.

HUD Response:

HUD acknowledges this comment and fully agrees with the need for regular code updates to keep pace with evolving technologies and best practices. In recent years, HUD has made significant progress in updating its regulations, but continues to face hurdles that slow down the cadence of updates. For example, the regulatory process mandating consensus committee review and recommendation is a vital component to ensure that

HUD's manufactured housing standards and regulations consider and align the interests of manufactured housing consumers, industry stakeholders, and the government, particularly in respect to affordability, home quality, and consumer protection. This statutory process, however, adds in a layer of complexity and duration that most other Federal rulemaking is not subjected to.

Issue 3:

Without specifying any particular aspects of the proposed rule, two commenters expressed general concerns that the rule would undermine the affordability of MHCSS homes. One commenter explained that he viewed the requirements as so strict as to exceed the requirements for IRC homes and site-built homes in the same location.

HUD Response:

HUD acknowledges but disagrees with this comment. Furthermore, as previously described, HUD is not updating the reference standard for wind load design in this final rule that may have been a cause of concern for some members of the public.

Issue 4:

One commenter laid out several general standards that it believed should guide HUD's rulemaking in this area. First, the commenter stated that Federal modular standards ought to align with State modular codes in order to mitigate conflict and allow for increased product availability. Second, the commenter recommended that HUD permit alternative building methods and materials without third-party testing, so long as the engineer signed off, in order to encourage innovation. Third, the commenter advised that structural requirements are preferable to specification of building materials and structures, such as steel I-beams or chassis requirements. The former reduce costs and unnecessary design elements, while still advancing building design and integrity, according to the commenter. Fourth, the commenter believed that quality control measures at assembly line factories were sufficient and that unnecessary factory inspections should be reduced. And, fifth, the commenter believed that the MHCSS should be made the national standard and it should cover every building type and situation covered in the regular building code.

HUD Response:

HUD acknowledges this comment and as previously discussed in these responses, encourages members of the public to submit proposals and suggestions to the MHCC for consideration at

mhcc.homeinnovation.com.

Issue 5:

One commenter recommended that HUD incorporate “universal design and Visitability.” The Commenter also recommended that HUD provide safety standards for homes built on partial foundations.

HUD Response:

HUD acknowledges this comment and supports the concept of accessible and inclusive housing for all individuals. As previously discussed in these responses, HUD encourages members of the public to submit proposals and suggestions to the MHCC for consideration at

mhcc.homeinnovation.com.

Issue 6:

One commenter flagged what it believed to be a typographical error in § 3280.607 in which “with sides and back extending” repeated twice. The commenter recommended deleting the second set of words to remedy the duplicative language.

HUD Response:

HUD did not find this duplicative language in the proposed rule and has verified that this also does not exist in the final rule.

Issue 7:

One commenter asked HUD what she could do to make her home more fire resistant. She said that she had been told her manufactured home wasn't as safe as a site-built home and that she was having difficulty getting homeowners insurance as a result.

HUD Response:

HUD acknowledges this comment and while it is not related to the final rule, would like to respond that the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) provides a Manufactured Home Fire Safety Guide that offers tips and recommendations for homeowners to reduce fire risks in their homes. This guide covers topics such as smoke alarms, cooking safety, heating safety, electrical safety, and escape planning. In addition, homeowners may have additional resources available to make their homes more fire-resistant including programs offered by local fire departments or State and local government programs that can help manufactured homeowners make improvements and upgrades for fire safety. Some programs may provide financial assistance, grants, or low-interest loans to support the installation of fire-resistant materials, such as fire-rated siding, roofing, and windows, that may assist in qualifying for some insurance programs. HUD encourages the commenter to start by contacting their local government to inquire about available resources for fire safety improvements.

Issue 8:

One commenter recommended that HUD take several measures to improve the effectiveness of the rule outside of changing the drafting of the rule. Specifically, it recommended that HUD experts in manufactured housing participate in the development of HUD's Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) rulemaking to ensure that the AFFH standards support increased access to manufactured homes. It advised that such experts be vigilant for exclusionary zoning and building practices targeting manufactured homes. It also recommended that HUD's intergovernmental relations staff should coordinate with HUD's manufactured housing staff to promote state-level reforms allowing easy conversion of MHCSS homes from personal chattel property into real property and to inform Congress of the barriers to the success of manufactured housing that require legislative efforts. Finally, it recommended that HUD updated grant scoring and prioritization to reward jurisdictions that permit multifamily housing of all construction efforts.

HUD Response:

HUD acknowledges these comments and while these comments do not directly impact HUD's final rule, appreciates the public's interest in HUD's programs. HUD is actively working to increase cross-collaboration within the Department to improve knowledge sharing and leverage shared resources.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

A. Introduction

The incorporated reference standards are approved by the Director of the Federal Register for incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. These standards are available for inspection at HUD's Office of Manufactured Housing Programs. Copies of the incorporated reference standards may also be obtained from the following organizations that developed the standard:

AISC—American Institute of Steel Construction, One East Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL 60601, (312) 670-5403,

www.aisc.org.

AISI—American Iron and Steel Institute, 25 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20001, (202) 452-7100,

www.steel.org.

ANSI—American National Standards Institute, 25 West 43rd Street, New York, NY 10036, (212) 642-4900, fax (212) 398-0023,

www.ansi.org.

APA—The Engineered Wood Association (formerly the American Plywood Association), 7011 South 19th Street, Tacoma, WA 98411, (253) 565-6600, fax (253) 565-7265,

www.apawood.org.

ASHRAE—American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers, 180 Technology Parkway NW, Peachtree Corners, Atlanta, GA 30092, (404) 636-8400, fax (404) 321-5478,

www.ashrae.org.

ASME—American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 22 Law Drive, P.O. Box 2900,

Fairfield, NJ 07007, 1-800 843-2763, fax: 973882-8113,

www.asme.org.

ASTM—ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428, (610) 832-9500, fax (610) 832-9555,

www.astm.org.

AWC—American Wood Council (formerly American Forest & Paper Association), 1101 K Street NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20005, (202) 463-2766,

www.awc.org.

FGIA—Fenestration and Glazing Industry Alliance (formerly known as American Architectural Manufacturers Association (AAMA)), 1900 East Golf Road, Schaumburg, Illinois 60173, (847) 303-5664,

www.fgiaonline.org.

CSA Group—CSA Group (formerly known as the Canadian Standards Association (CSA)), 178 Rexdale Boulevard, Toronto, ON, M9W 1R3, Canada; (216) 524-4990;

www.csagroup.org.

HPVA—Hardwood Plywood and Veneer Association, 1825 Michael Faraday Drive, P.O. Box 2789, Reston, VA 22090, (703) 435-2900, fax (703) 435-2537,

www.hpva.org.

IAPMO—International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials, 20001 Walnut Drive South, Walnut, CA 91789, (909) 595-8449, fax (909) 594-1537,

www.iapmo.org.

ICC-ES—International Code Council Evaluation Service, 3060 Saturn Street, Suite 100, Brea, CA 92821, (800) 423-6587, fax (562) 695-4694,

www.icc-es.org.

ISO—The International Organization for Standardization, Chemin de Blandonnet 8, CP 401, 1214 Vernier, Geneva, Switzerland, 41-22-749-0111,

www.iso.org.

NFPA—National Fire Protection Association, Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02269, (617) 770-3000, fax (617) 770-0700,

www.nfpa.org.

SAE—Society of Automotive Engineers, 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096, (724) 776-0790,

www.sae.org.

TPI—Truss Plate Institute, 583 D'Onofrio Drive, Suite 200, Madison, WI 53719, (608) 833-5900, fax (608) 833-4360,

www.tpinst.org.

JUL—Underwriters Laboratories, 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL 60062, (847) 272-8800, fax (847) 509-6257,

www.ul.com.

WDMA—Window and Door Manufacturers Association (formerly the National Wood Window and Door Association), 1400 East Touhy Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60018, (847) 299-5200, fax (847) 299-1286,

www.wdma.com.

Any standard that appears in §§ 3280.304, 3280.604, or 3280.703, but that is not included in the list of new or updated consensus standards, was previously approved for incorporation by reference into that section. In addition, the following standards were previously approved for incorporation by reference in the sections where they appear in this final rule: ASSE 106, ASSE 1070, SEI/ASCE 8, UL, 181B, UL 217.

B. List of New Consensus Standards

This final rule incorporates by reference 16 new consensus standards for Manufactured Housing, which are listed below:

1.

ANSI Z21.10.3-2014/CSA 4.3-2014.

Gas-fired water heaters, volume III, storage water heaters with input ratings above 75,000 Btu per hour, circulating and instantaneous. The rule adds this new standard for incorporation by reference. This new standard specifies guidelines for newly produced, large automatic storage water heaters having input ratings above 75,000 Btu/hr (21 980 W), instantaneous water heaters, and circulating water heaters including booster water heaters, constructed entirely of new, unused parts and materials. This standard is available online for review via read-only, electronic access at

https://ibr.ansi.org/Standards.

2.

ANSI Z21.75-2007/CSA 6.27-2007 (reaffirmed 2012).

Connectors for Outdoor Gas Appliances And Manufactured Homes. This rule adds a standard for incorporation by reference that specifies guidelines for newly produced assembled connectors constructed entirely of new, unused parts and materials. This standard is available online for review via read-only, electronic access at

https://ibr.ansi.org/Standards.

3.

APA Y510-1997.

Plywood Design Specification. The rule adds this standard for incorporation by reference. The standard is a specification that presents section properties, recommended design stresses, and design methods for plywood when used in building construction and related structures. This standard is available online for review via read-only, electronic access at

https://ibr.ansi.org/Standards.

4.

ASTM D3679-09a.

Standard Specification for Rigid Poly(Vinyl Chloride) (PVC) Siding. This rule adds this standard for incorporation by reference. This specification establishes requirements and test methods for the materials, dimensions, warp, shrinkage, impact strength, expansion, appearance, and wind load resistance of extruded single-wall siding manufactured from rigid (unplasticized) PVC compound. This standard is available online for review via read-only, electronic access at

https://www.ASTM.org/READINGLIBRARY.

5.

ASTM D4756-06.

Standard Practice for Installation of Rigid Poly(Vinyl Chloride) (PVC) Siding and Soffit. This rule adds this standard for incorporation by reference. This standard covers the minimum requirements for and the methods of installation of rigid vinyl siding, soffits, and accessories on the exterior wall and soffit areas of buildings. This standard also covers aspects of installation relating to effectiveness and durability in service. This standard is available online for review via read-only, electronic access at

https://www.ASTM.org/READINGLIBRARY.

6.

ASTM D7254-07.

Standard Specification for Polypropylene (PP) Siding. The rule adds this standard for incorporation by reference. This new specification establishes requirements and test methods for materials, impact strength, appearance, surface flame spread, and wind load resistance of siding products manufactured from polypropylene material. This standard is available online for review via read-only, electronic access at

https://www.ASTM.org/READINGLIBRARY.

7.

ASTM E90-09.

Standard Test Method for Laboratory Measurement of Airborne Sound Transmission Loss of Building Partitions and Elements. This rule adds this standard for incorporation by reference. This test method covers the laboratory measurement of airborne sound transmission loss of building partitions such as walls of all kinds, operable partitions, floor-ceiling assemblies, doors, windows, roofs, panels, and other space-dividing elements. This standard is available online for review via read-only, electronic access at

https://www.ASTM.org/READINGLIBRARY.

8.

ASTM E492-09.

Standard Test Method for Laboratory Measurement of Impact Sound Transmission Through Floor-Ceiling Assemblies Using the Tapping Machine. This rule adds this standard for incorporation by reference. This test method covers the laboratory measurement of impact sound transmission of floor-ceiling assemblies using a standardized tapping machine. This standard is available online for review via read-only, electronic access at

https://www.ASTM.org/READINGLIBRARY.

9.

ASTM E814-13.

Standard Test Method for Fire Tests of Penetration Firestop Systems. This rule adds this standard for incorporation by reference. This standard is used to measure and describe the response of materials, products, or assemblies to heat and flame under controlled conditions. This standard contemplates fire testing that evaluates a firestop under fire conditions to determine if it will gain firestop status. It addresses areas of building construction where firestop systems are necessary to contain fire from spreading from one area to another around penetrating items. This standard

is available online for review via read-only, electronic access at

https://www.ASTM.org/READINGLIBRARY.

10.

ISO

/

IEC 170065:2012(E).

Conformity Assessment—Requirements for bodies certifying products, processes, and services. The rule adds this standard for incorporation by reference. This International Standard contains requirements for the competence, consistent operation and impartiality of product, process and service certification bodies. This standard is available online for review via read-only, electronic access at

https://ibr.ansi.org/Standards.

11.

NFPA 13D.

Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems in One-and Two-Family Dwellings and Manufactured Homes. The rule adds this standard for incorporation by reference. This standard covers the design, installation, and maintenance of automatic sprinkler systems for protection against the fire hazards in one- and two-family dwellings and manufactured homes. This standard is available online for review via read-only, electronic access at

https://ibr.ansi.org/Standards.

12.

TT-P-1536A.

Plumbing Fixture Setting Compound. The rule adds this standard for incorporation by reference. This standard covers materials that combine watertight, gastight, odor proof, and vermin proof properties for plumbing fixtures which are connected to drainage systems. This standard is available online for review via read-only, electronic access at

http://www.everyspec.com.

The Federal Specification may also be obtained from the General Services Administration, which serves as Superintended of Documents.

13.

UL 263.

Standard for Safety Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials. The rule adds this standard for incorporation by reference. These fire tests are applicable to assemblies of masonry units and composite assemblies of structural materials for buildings, including bearing and other walls and partitions, columns, girders, beams, slabs, and composite slab and beam assemblies for floors and roofs. They are also applicable to other assemblies and structural units that constitute permanent integral parts of a finishing building. This standard is available online for review via read-only, electronic access at

https://ibr.ansi.org/Standards.

14.

UL 499.

Standard for Safety Electric Heating Appliances. The rule adds this standard for incorporation by reference. These requirements cover heating appliances rated at 600 V or less for use in unclassified locations in accordance with the National Electrical Code (NEC), NFPA 70-2014. This standard is available online for review via read-only, electronic access at

https://ibr.ansi.org/Standards.

15.

UL 1479.

Standard for Fire Tests of Penetration Firestops. This rule adds this standard for incorporation by reference. This standard provides testing requirements of penetration firestops of various materials and construction that are intended for use in openings in fire resistive wall, floor, or floor-ceiling assemblies, and membrane type penetration firestops of various materials and construction that are intended for use in openings in fire resistive wall assemblies. This standard is available online for review via read-only, electronic access at

https://ibr.ansi.org/Standards.

16.

UL 60335-2-40-2012.

Standard for Safety: Household and Similar Electrical Appliances—Part 2-40: Particular Requirements for Electrical Heat Pumps, Air-Conditioners and Dehumidifiers. The rule adds this standard for incorporation by reference. This standard deals with the safety of sealed (hermetic and semi-hermetic type) motor-compressors, their protection and control systems, if any, which are intended for use in equipment for household and similar purposes and which conform with the standards applicable to such equipment. This standard is available online for review via read-only, electronic access at

https://ibr.ansi.org/Standards.

C. List of Updated Consensus Standards

This final rule incorporates by reference updates to 74 consensus standards for manufactured housing:

1.

AAMA 1701.2-12.

Voluntary Standard for Utilization in Manufactured Housing for Primary Windows and Sliding Glass Doors. The rule updates AAMA 1701.2 to the 2012 version. This updated standard sets the requirements for primary windows and sliding glass doors used in manufactured housing. Window mounted as components in entry doors are beyond the scope of this standard. Since building methods and materials are expected to undergo continued design innovation, the purpose of this standard is to establish reasonable performance standards for all present and future methods and materials of construction.

2.

AAMA 1702.2-12.

Voluntary Standard for Utilization in Manufactured Housing for Swinging Exterior Passage Doors. The rule updates AAMA 1702.2, Voluntary Standard Swinging Exterior Passage Door for Utilization in Manufactured Housing. This updated standard sets requirements for swinging exterior passage doors and combination doors used in manufactured housing. Windows used in swinging exterior passage doors are components of the door and are thus included in this standard. Since building methods and materials are expected to undergo continued design innovation, the purpose of this standard is to establish reasonable performance standards for all present and future methods and materials of construction.

3.

AAMA 1704-12.

Voluntary Standard Egress Window Systems for Utilization in Manufactured Housing. The rule updates the AAMA Standard 1704, which sets the requirements for the design, construction, and installation of egress window systems.

4.

AAMA/WDMA/CSA 101/I.S.2/A440-17.

North American Fenestration Standard/Specification for windows, doors, and skylights. The rule updates AAMA/WDMA/CSA 101/I.S.2/A440. The updated standard establishes material-neutral, minimum, and optional performance requirements for windows, doors, secondary storm products, tubular daylighting devices, roof windows, and unit skylights. The specification concerns itself with the determination of performance grade, design pressure, and related performance ratings.

5.

AISC 360-10.

Specification for Structural Steel Buildings. The rule updates AISC-S335, 1989. This updated specification provides the generally applicable requirements for the design and construction of structural steel buildings and other structures.

6.

AISI S100-12.

North American Specification for the Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structural Members. The rule updates AISI, Specification for the Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structural Members, 1996. This updated specification provides the general applicable requirements for the design of cold-formed steel structural members used in North America.

7.

ANSI/AHRI Standard 210/240-2008 with Addenda 1 and 2.

2008 Standard for Performance Rating of Unitary Air-Conditioning and Air-Source Heat Pump Equipment. The rule updates ANSI/ARI 210/240, Unitary Air-Conditioning and Air Source Heat Pump Equipment. This updated standard establishes definitions, classifications, test requirements, rating requirements, minimum data requirements for published ratings, operating requirements, marking and nameplate data, and conformance conditions for Unitary Air-Conditioners and Air-Source Unitary Heat Pumps.

8.

ANSI A135.4-2012.

Basic Hardboard. The rule updates ANSI/AHA A135.4-1995. This updated standard covers requirements and test methods for water resistance, thickness swelling, modulus of rupture, tensile strength, surface finish, dimensions, squareness, edge straightness, and moisture content of five classes of basic hardboard. This standard requires test methods determined by the ASTM, International where appropriate and provides methods of identifying hardboard that is compliant.

9.

ANSI/A135.5-2012.

Prefinished Hardboard Paneling. The rule updates ANSI/AHA A135.5-1995. This updated standard covers requirements and methods of testing for the dimensions, squareness, edge straightness, and moisture content of prefinished hardboard paneling and for the finish of the paneling. Methods of identifying products which conform to ANSI A135.5 are included in the standard.

10.

ANSI A135.6-2012.

Engineered Wood Siding. The rule updates ANSI/AHA A135.6-1998. The updated standard sets requirements and methods of testing for the dimensions, straightness, squareness, physical properties, and surface characteristics of engineered wood siding at the time of manufacture.

11.

ANSI A208.1-2009.

Particleboard. The rule updates ANSI A208.1-1999. The updated standard sets forth requirements and test methods for dimensional tolerances, physical and mechanical properties, and formaldehyde emissions for particleboard. Methods of identifying products conforming to the standard are specified.

12.

ANSI LC 1-2014/CSA 6.26-2014.

Fuel gas piping systems using corrugated st

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.