Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2

HUD reviewed public comment and specific comments that included textual changes to 3280.904b9iii regarding electrical brake wiring. HUD
accepted these changes.
Subpart K, Attached Manufactured Homes and Special Construction Several commenters supported adding two-family, or twoand three-family, dwelling units to Subpart K. These commenters supported duplexes and triplexes as more practical and affordable solutions in urban and suburban applications because of, for example, zoning restrictions. One commenter suggested less restrictive fire separation requirements and amending 3280.1002 and .1004 and adding a new 3280.1003a. Another commenter also suggested less restrictive fire separation requirements and offered several recommended changes to regulatory text. These proposed changes to regulatory text included separating 3280.1003 into two paragraphsparagraph a for two attached manufactured homes and paragraph b for three or more attached manufactured homes. Some commenters supported reevaluating Subpart K for a single structure with two dwellings but did not propose alternative regulatory text. One commenter stated that duplexes have simpler requirements than town homes, and the demand for duplexes will far outpace any other type of attached manufactured home.
Another commenter, while expressing general support for HUDs proposed changes, questioned HUDs focus on adopting standards for multi-story manufactured homes and attached manufactured homes, while MHCC
recommended standards for multifamily manufactured homes are not included in the proposed rule and have yet to be proposed for adoption. The commenter noted the absence of an explanation in the proposed rule for HUDs prioritization of the included standards for multi-story and zero-lotline attached manufactured homes, as contrasted with broader and potentially much more economically-significant and beneficial proposed standards for multi-unit/multi-family manufactured homes. The commenter stated that instead of promoting affordable manufactured housing for all Americans as required by law, HUD appears to be abusing its regulatory authority to support Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in order to benefit a narrow industry segment, while smaller manufacturers are kept waiting endlessly for proposed multi-unit/multi-family standard. The commenter stated that HUD gave no
VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:18 Jan 11, 2021

Jkt 253001

indication in the proposed rule of when or even if multi-unit/multi-family manufactured homes will be addressed by promulgating new standards that are clearly and uncontrovertibly within the scope of present federal law. The commenter concluded that HUD should include MHCC recommended standards for multi-unit/multi-family manufactured homes in any final rule under the present docket.
Another commenter stated that much of the proposed language in the new Subpart K duplicates nearly verbatim the language contained in IRC sections R302.2 and R302.4 without observing and protecting the rights of the ICC as its copyright holder. The commenter stated that if HUD wishes to publish any part of the IRC in its rules or future rulemaking proceeding, HUD must seek to comply with OMB Circular A119
and Incorporation by Reference procedures.
HUD Response: HUD reviewed comments that include specific text changes and has integrated those comments to the maximum extent deemed necessary to effect the appropriate changes where those changes have not significantly altered the intent as proposed.
HUD decided not to eliminate structural independence for attached homes, as each home shall be designed to be structurally independent and each home must perform on its own. HUD
accepted changes to wording regarding fire separation walls but has not accepted the use of exceptions. The exceptions should be submitted as proposed changes to the MHCC, and any exceptions shall be handled through the Alternative Construction process. It is not appropriate for HUD to integrate these changes at the final rule stage.
Further, this standards change was not intended to address multi-dwelling unit manufactured homes multiple single-family residences in one manufactured home structure. The MHCC recommendations for multi-unit manufactured homes are contained in the fourth set of its recommendations for changes to the Standards. The attached manufactured homes are each designed as individual single-family residential structures by the home manufacturers and each such attached home is to comply with the requirements set forth in 24 CFR 3280
and as such meet all such requirements to be labeled as manufactured homes to be installed in accordance with accompanying installation instructions that also meet HUDs Model Manufactured Home Installation Standards.

PO 00000

Frm 00015

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

2509

HUD has reviewed the public comment regarding integration of requirements that are generally consistent with provisions of the International Residential Code IRC.
HUD has acted on proposed standards received from the public and as reviewed, modified and recommended by the MHCC. While some language may be consistent between the IRC, state and local codes, and the requirements published in this rule, there are differences that remain and justify establishment of unique provisions rather than incorporating the IRC or any given state or local code in their entirety. HUD believes the standards will allow use of some of the latest building technologies and materials, creating more consistency with multiple State-adopted residential building codes for site-built housing some of which may incorporate or amend standards including, but not limited to, the International Residential Code, and expand consumer choice.
Comments: Preemption and Opportunity Zones.
A commenter asserted that in the preamble HUD overtly intends to preempt the authority of state and local jurisdictions through Subpart K. The commenter cited reasons as to why such requirements are within the domain of state and local authorities. Adjacent and attached manufactured homes may be manufactured by different companies and installed at different times resulting in potential interactions that have not been addressed within either manufactured home, but which could be within the proposed rules requirements. The proposed rule provides no requirements that attached manufactured homes be manufactured by the same manufacturer or installed at the same time.
A commenter stated that HUD should have provided more detail and justification for the following statement made in the Proposed Rule, which was used as a blanket justification for the new subpart K: Subpart K would enable manufacturers to design and construct homes similar to townhomes, which may be useful to address affordable housing needs in Opportunity Zones and urban or other areas.
According to the commenter, HUD
makes no attempt to quantify the benefit against potential costs even though the qualifier may is used to describe the policy changes potential benefit. For instance, HUD did not consider how many fewer code inspectors might there be in the country if this policy change were to allow the manufactured housing industry to become a dominant force in
E:FRFM12JAR2.SGM

12JAR2