[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 10 (Friday, January 14, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-825]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: January 14, 1994]


_______________________________________________________________________

Part II





Department of Housing and Urban Development





_______________________________________________________________________



Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing 
Commissioner



_______________________________________________________________________



24 CFR Parts 3280 and 3282




Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards on Wind Standards; 
Final Rule
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing 
Commissioner

24 CFR Parts 3280 and 3282

[Docket No. R-93-1632; FR-3380-F-02]
RIN 2502-AF91

 
Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards on Wind 
Standards

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing 
Commissioner, HUD.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: HUD is amending the Federal Manufactured Home Construction and 
Safety Standards (FMHCSS) to improve the resistance of manufactured 
homes to wind forces in areas prone to hurricanes. Under this rule, 
manufactured homes will have to be designed to withstand wind speeds of 
up to 110 miles an hour in hurricane-prone areas, in accordance with 
design provisions of the American Society of Civil Engineers Standard 
ANSI/ASCE 7-88. Also, the Department is making certain other changes to 
the standards to ensure that structural assemblies, components, 
windows, connectors, and fasteners will be adequate for the area in 
which the home is to be placed. The revised standard also requires 
exterior roof and wall coverings to be fastened adequately to sheathing 
and framing members, to resist higher design wind pressures.
    The purpose of this rule is to increase the safety of manufactured 
homes, thereby reducing deaths and injuries and extensive property 
damage losses in areas where wind-induced damage is a particular hazard 
and risk.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 13, 1994, except that Secs. 3280.403(b) and (e) 
and 3280.404(b) and (e) will become effective January 17, 1995. The 
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the 
regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of 
July 13, 1994, except that the incorporation by reference of 
publications listed in Secs. 3280.403(b) and (e) and 3280.404(b) and 
(e) will become effective January 17, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: G. Robert Fuller, Director, 
Manufactured Housing and Construction Standards Division, Department of 
Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., ATTN: Mailroom 
B-133, Washington, DC 20410-8000. Telephones: (voice) (202) 755-7430; 
(TDD) (202) 708-4594. (These are not toll-free numbers.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Developmental History

    The purpose of the National Manufactured Housing Construction and 
Safety Standards Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5401-5426, at 5401) (the Act) 
is to reduce the number of personal injuries and deaths and the amount 
of insurance costs and property damage resulting from manufactured home 
accidents, and to improve the quality and durability of manufactured 
homes. Section 604 of the Act confers authority on the Secretary of HUD 
to issue, amend, or revoke any Federal manufactured home construction 
or safety standard.
    Following Hurricane Andrew, the Department conducted field 
investigations of the damage experienced in the hurricane by 
manufactured housing units, as part of a full-scale review of the 
Federal manufactured home standards. The goal of these investigations 
and the review of materials and recommendations was to ensure that the 
Federal standards provide adequate protection to manufactured home 
occupants during high wind conditions. On April 14, 1993, the 
Department published a proposed rule (58 FR 19536) that reported the 
preliminary conclusions of the Department's efforts, and sought public 
comment on changes that the Department was considering for the Federal 
standards. The Department also contacted each of the members of the 
National Manufactured Home Advisory Council (Advisory Council), 
individually, in order to solicit their individual comments on the 
proposed wind standards rule, because the proposed timetable for final 
publication did not permit convening the Advisory Council. The 
individual responses of the Advisory Council members have been 
considered as public comments and included in the docket file for this 
rule.
    On June 9, 1993, the Department announced (58 FR 32316) that the 
comment period would be extended to July 9, 1993. The Department has 
continued to receive and consider comments well after that date, while 
this final rule was being developed. Because the timeframe originally 
proposed for the implementation of standard changes was postponed as a 
result of public comments and the extension of the comment deadline, 
the Department consulted with the National Manufactured Home Commission 
and convened the Advisory Council for consultation and to seek 
recommendations from the Advisory Council as a whole (see the notice 
published at 58 FR 34586 (June 28, 1993)). The Advisory Council met in 
Washington, DC, on July 13 and 14, 1993, to discuss wind standards and 
other proposals for changes to the standards for manufactured housing.
    The recommendations of the Advisory Council as a whole were 
included in a resolution. The resolution questioned the sufficiency of 
the evidence to support adoption of the proposed rule and recommended 
that: (1) The Department undertake negotiated rulemaking or other 
comparable process for this standard; (2) the costs of any rule be 
considered, both cumulatively and by zones; (3) the Department examine 
its legal and regulatory authority with respect to installation, if it 
finds that an installation standard would be an appropriate means of 
increasing wind safety; (4) the Department consider all nationally 
recognized model codes; (5) the Department make available documents 
relating to the development of new wind standards; (6) the Advisory 
Council be reconvened to review public comments and the Department's 
analysis; (7) the Department should promptly complete the process of 
updating the wind standards, considering the issues and questions 
raised by the Advisory Council and in public comments; and (8) the 
Department should prepare an adequate regulatory impact analysis upon 
which it can support the decisions to be made on implementation of new 
standards.
    The Department has considered the conclusions and recommendations 
of the Advisory Council in developing this final rule and the final 
regulatory impact analysis. The regulatory impact analysis is 
responsive to several of the Advisory Council's concerns, while this 
preamble addresses other points raised by the Advisory Council.
    With respect to the other points raised by the Advisory Council, 
many commenters also suggested that installation is a crucial factor in 
the safety of manufactured homes. The Department agrees that the 
installation of manufactured housing units may be an important factor 
in the safety of such housing and is initiating a review of the 
Department's authority and ability to influence tiedown requirements.
    However, the Department does not believe there is any significant 
advantage in, or that the public interest would be served by, 
reconvening the Advisory Council for the purpose of reviewing the 
public comments or the Department's compliance with its statutory 
responsibilities in the development of these standards. Nor does the 
Department believe there is any advantage to the public interest in 
undertaking negotiated rulemaking for these standards because they have 
been subject to an extensive notice and comment period and have been 
discussed with the Advisory Council, a body representative of the 
manufactured housing industry, government, and consumers.

Major Differences From Proposed Rule

    As a result of the Department's review of public comments and 
consultation with the Advisory Council, at this time the Department has 
decided not to pursue substantial changes to the standards in areas of 
the country not generally subject to hurricanes (Wind Zone I). However, 
the Department recognizes that in many areas of the country the Federal 
standards applicable to the design and construction of manufactured 
housing are far below standards specified for site-built and modular 
housing by State and local codes. Thus, the Department shall initiate a 
new review of the standards for the rest of the country, and it expects 
to publish proposals for these areas next year.
    The Department has also decided not to include in the final rule 
the following items that were in the proposed rule:
    (1) Maximum dimension of 12'' for roof overhangs;
    (2) Lower load duration factor than provided in the 1991 National 
Design Specification for Wood Construction (NDS);
    (3) Requirement for a 1.5 safety factor to calculate resistance of 
anchoring and foundation systems to higher design forces in Wind Zones 
II and III;
    (4) Manufacturer's design and details for a permanent foundation 
system (certified by a registered professional engineer or architect) 
applicable to each manufactured home design; and
    (5) Shortened period for implementation of the standards after 
publication.

Relationship to Energy Rule

    On October 25, 1993, the Department published a final rule amending 
the Federal Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards 
(FMHCSS) to include preemptive standards significantly upgrading the 
existing energy conservation requirements (58 FR 54975) (Energy Rule). 
The effective date of that rule is October 25, 1994.
    Several of the provisions to be affected by the Energy Rule are 
also affected by the rule published today. Because of the earlier 
effective date for those provisions in today's rule, the Department 
will publish technical amendments to the Energy Rule, before the 
effective date of that rule, that also will reflect the new 
requirements imposed under today's rule. In some minor instances, the 
changes adopted in today's rule already include requirements that 
otherwise would have been imposed upon the effective date of the Energy 
Rule. Those changes are identified further in the section-by- section 
analysis later in this preamble.

Problem To Be Addressed

    Each year significant damage to manufactured housing is produced by 
straight winds, hurricanes, and tornadoes. Damage is primarily in the 
form of roof failure, loss of roof diaphragm material, connection 
failures, and tiedown/foundation failures. The most predictable areas 
for wind damage to manufactured housing are those subject most directly 
to hurricanes. Last year Hurricanes Andrew and Iniki provided dramatic 
examples of the destruction faced by housing in hurricane-prone areas.
    The damage to manufactured homes by Hurricane Andrew was so 
extensive that many were rendered unrecognizable. Ninety-seven percent 
of all manufactured homes in Dade County were totally destroyed, while 
only eleven percent of single-family homes were destroyed. The American 
Red Cross reported that of the 1,176 licensed and registered 
manufactured homes in Homestead, Florida, 1,167 were completely 
destroyed. The American Red Cross and FEMA have also reported a total 
of 11,213 manufactured homes destroyed in Florida and Louisiana in 
Hurricane Andrew, and an additional 3,016 manufactured homes 
experienced major damage. Almost 36% of all housing units destroyed 
during Hurricane Andrew were manufactured homes.
    The loss of these units had implications extending beyond the loss 
of the homes and possessions of their owners. These homes, shredded by 
the winds, also became dangerous flying missiles, inflicting more 
property damage on neighboring structures.
    In its October 1992 report on Hurricane Andrew, the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) stated that, ``in all areas, mobile 
homes (manufactured housing) were most susceptible to damage or 
destruction. Many mobile homes imploded from the wind loads of 
Hurricane Andrew. In coastal areas, where mobile homes were properly 
`cradled' and elevated, the cradled foundations remained intact, but 
the mobile homes mounted to these foundations were often heavily 
damaged or destroyed.''
    Concerns for potential losses during high winds in coastal and 
other areas were identified previously in a May 1991 report by the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which predicted that the 
United States can expect more hurricanes of greater intensity during 
the 1990s and early 2000s than it has experienced in recent years. 
Furthermore, estimates suggest that by the year 2010 the population 
density on Florida's coasts will have increased about 130 percent from 
the 1988 level. Moreover, as the national population ages, an 
increasing percentage of coastal inhabitants will probably be older 
individuals, a group more likely to occupy manufactured houses. The 
American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) reports that 40 percent 
of the purchasers of new manufactured homes are at least 50 years old. 
The elderly can be more difficult to evacuate and may be more prone to 
be injured during periods of extreme high winds.
    The technology for achieving economical wind resistant designs in 
housing is available. It involves calculations of risk for extreme 
wind-prone coastal areas and the establishment of construction 
standards based upon these risk calculations. Through use and 
implementation of this approach, risks of injury and death can be 
minimized and economic loss limited to acceptable levels in coastal 
areas subject to high winds.
    In determining a course of action to address these issues, the 
Department had to balance two competing concerns: (1) The need to raise 
manufactured housing standards, to protect individuals, their homes, 
and their neighbors from future high winds; and (2) the need to 
preserve the affordability of a key source of low-cost housing. This 
rule is the result of the Department's decision to improve protection 
of homeowners in hurricane- prone areas as soon as possible, but to 
delay making changes to the standards in lower wind-risk areas, in 
order to give adequate consideration to cost factors. Although the 
changes are expected to increase costs to consumers in the high-wind 
areas, the Department has concluded that the increases are justified, 
because the improved standards will significantly reduce future losses 
to occupants and the public by strengthening the features that make 
manufactured homes vulnerable to damage and destruction in high winds. 
Perhaps more importantly, the improved standards may help avoid the 
inestimable costs of devastation to people's lives and emotional health 
and to the communities, in the likelihood that another powerful 
hurricane hits a community of manufactured homes in the hurricane-prone 
regions of the country.

Field Investigations--Hurricane Andrew

    Among the major deficiencies contributing to manufactured housing 
damage in Hurricane Andrew were inadequate connections between exterior 
roof or wall coverings and supporting sheathing or framing and between 
walls, roofs and floors. In particular, losses of roof coverings were 
widespread, and were considered by some to be the first mode of failure 
for manufactured homes damaged in Hurricane Andrew. Other roof-related 
damage was due to loss of sheathing, failure of connections, or a 
combination of these problems. Numerous failures of uplift straps also 
occurred, when the staples pulled out through the metal straps, 
permitting the straps to tear away from the members to which they had 
been fastened. In some cases, entire sections of roofs were blown away.
    Another common area of failure was loss of exterior wall siding. 
Metal or plastic siding used in manufactured housing was readily 
damaged or penetrated by flying debris during the high winds in 
Hurricane Andrew. Loss of roof or wall cladding allows the building to 
be penetrated by the weather and has far-reaching consequences beyond 
the area of envelope integrity.
    As a result of these losses, and damage to windows and doors, there 
was significant water damage and deterioration to many manufactured 
homes. In addition, failure of coverings or attachments to the 
manufactured home structure also caused missile-type damage to other 
homes.
    Other losses were precipitated by prior deterioration around 
windows and doors that had allowed moisture to enter, thereby weakening 
the resistance of surrounding wood framing and floor decking. 
Apparently this deterioration was a result of inadequate design or 
enforcement practices, or a combination of both. In some manufactured 
homes the loss of opening protection resulted in increased internal 
pressures within the buildings, which contributed to the failure of 
interior components including ceilings. In other cases, entire sections 
of sliding glass doors on leeward walls were literally sucked out of 
their frames because of inadequate resistance of the combined assembly 
to the wind forces imposed during Hurricane Andrew.
    Edges and corners of roofs and endwalls of manufactured homes 
appeared to have been particularly vulnerable to the high wind forces, 
according to the damage typically reported in these areas. Structural 
failures of endwalls also occurred, but the presence of nearby interior 
shearwalls prevented further losses (though not all designs are 
provided with interior shearwalls in the vicinity of the endwall). 
However, in many other cases, the entire superstructure was completely 
removed from the floor system.
    Numerous anchor system failures were reported in the areas 
subjected to the highest wind speeds. Many of the systems failed due to 
improper installation or the type of anchor used. In addition, anchor 
capacity appeared to have been reduced further because of the saturated 
condition of the soil.

Summary of NIST Report

    As part of its review of the adequacy of the Federal Manufactured 
Housing Construction and Safety Standards (FMHCSS), the Department 
contracted for a study by Dr. Richard D. Marshall of the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) [Report NISTIR 5189, May 
1993]. According to Dr. Marshall and several other investigative 
reports, damage to manufactured homes in Hurricane Andrew ranged from 
loss of roofing to total destruction. In general, HUD-labeled units 
suffered less damage than did pre-HUD units. However, conventional 
residential construction adjacent to manufactured home parks performed 
better, in some instances significantly better, than did manufactured 
homes. Based on wind speed assessments and damage surveys, it appears 
that HUD-labeled manufactured homes began to experience damage to roof 
and wall coverings at fastest-mile wind speeds of up to 95 mph (43 m/
s), and significant structural damage at wind speeds of from 100 to 120 
mph (45 to 54 m/s).
    Commonly observed failures included loss of roof membranes and 
blow-off of roof sheathing, failure of uplift straps at truss-to-wall 
connections where staple crowns pulled through the strap, loss of 
cladding on endwalls and near corners where large negative (suction) 
pressures developed, loss of appurtenances with resultant missile 
damage and damage to the primary house unit at connection points, 
complete separation of the superstructure from the floor and chassis 
frame, and loss of the complete unit because of the failure of tiedown 
straps or the withdrawal of soil anchors. The NIST report also pointed 
out that the capacity of the anchors appeared to have exceeded the 
marginal resistance of the superstructure, and that if the 
superstructure separation failures had not occurred, the number of 
anchor systems failures could have been much more widespread.
    In almost every case in Florida, some form of anchoring had been 
installed. Outside the area of strongest winds, there were relatively 
few anchor failures. Within the radius of strongest winds, anchor 
failures that were observed involved 2 ft. (610 mm) helical ground 
anchors (some embedded in about 3 cu.ft. (0.8 cu.m) of concrete) or 
rock anchors into coral. No failures of 4 ft. (1.2 m) helical anchors 
were noted. However, it is not clear that any anchors of that length 
were actually installed in the area subjected to the highest winds.
    Dr. Marshall of NIST compared wind load provisions of the current 
FMHCSS with the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Standard 
ANSI/ASCE 7-88, the South Florida Building Code, the Standard Building 
Code, and wind design provisions proposed by the Manufactured Housing 
Institute. Based on these comparisons of design loads for manufactured 
housing units of typical dimension and geometry, considering the 
rationale for using importance factors and unreduced pressure 
coefficients, and in view of the fact that it is a true consensus 
standard, Dr. Marshall concluded that ANSI/ASCEP 7-88 should be the 
basis for updating the wind load requirements for manufactured housing. 
In addition, since the NIST study only addressed design loads, in the 
interest of safety and economy, it was also recommended that 
prescriptive requirements of the proposed standard be consistent with 
the specified design loads and that testing and analysis to assure this 
consistency be conducted.

ASCE 7-88: Consensus Procedures for Development and Adoption

    The ASCE, founded in 1852, is the oldest civil engineering 
organization in the United States and has a membership of more than 
110,000. The ANSI/ASCE Standard 7-88, Minimum Design Loads for 
Buildings and Other Structures (November 1990) (ASCE 7-88, in this 
preamble), was developed by ASCE based on studies conducted at academic 
and research institutions in the United States and other parts of the 
world.
    ASCE 7-88 is the only truly consensus minimum design load standard 
currently available in the United States. The ASCE rules, approved by 
the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), require all standards 
committees to have a membership balanced between producers, consumers, 
building officials, and general interest groups. Each of these groups 
represents between 20% to 40% of the committee membership. At the time 
ASCE 7-88 was adopted, 89 members were on the standards committee.
    The approval or revision of an ASCE standard is an elaborate 
process, which involves extensive balloting and resolution of all 
negative votes. When a standard is to be adopted, the standards 
committee is broken down by expertise into task committees. Those task 
committees draft the standard and present it to the full standards 
committee for balloting. All objections within the standards committee 
are satisfied by one of three ways: (1) the objector agrees to withdraw 
the objection; (2) by a vote of 75%, the full committee accepts the 
objection and changes the standard; or (3) by a vote of 75%, the full 
committee rejects the objection. The full committee then votes on the 
standard.
    In order for the standard to pass the full standards committee, at 
least 65% of the committee membership must vote and 75% of those votes 
must be in the affirmative. Moreover, the affirmative votes cannot be 
less than 55% of the approved voting membership. After the standard 
passes the standards committee, it is issued to the public for further 
comment. As in the standards committee, all objections are individually 
considered and processed in the same manner (i.e., withdrawn or 
accepted or rejected by a vote of 75% of the standards committee). 
After a certain cutoff date and after all objections are addressed, the 
standard is published as an ASCE consensus standard.

ASCE 7-88: Wind Load Provisions in Model Codes

    Building codes in each State or local jurisdiction control the 
design and construction of buildings and structures in that 
jurisdiction. Most communities in the United States adopt, in large 
part, one of the three model building codes: the National Building Code 
of the Building Officials and Code Administrators International (BOCA); 
the Standard Building Code (SBC) of the Southern Building Code Congress 
International, Inc. (SBCCI); or the Uniform Building Code (UBC) of 
International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO). Wind load 
provisions in these model building codes are based on the ASCE 7-88 
standard, but with some modifications.
    The ASCE 7-88 standard considers all of the factors that influence 
the magnitude of wind loads on a building. In addition to wind speed, 
those factors include: (1) Terrain surrounding the building, (2) shape 
of the building, and (3) desired safety of the building frame and 
components. The model building codes use most of these factors from 
ASCE 7-88, but modify some of the factors based on experience; because 
of tradition, other factors are not considered.
    Some provisions of model building codes are adopted from industry 
manuals. The use, adoption, and modification of wind-load factors by 
the model building codes result from an attempt to simplify the wind-
load provisions and react to the concerns of affected industries and 
special interest groups. In general, these modifications by model code 
agencies result in lower design requirements for wind forces than would 
be required under ASCE 7-88.
    Even with these modifications, final wind loads for most buildings 
are fairly consistent in all model building codes. All three of the 
major model building codes incorporate the basic wind speed map of ASCE 
7-88, and reference the ASCE standard in whole or in part, but either 
modify the standard or require additional prescriptive design and 
construction provisions. In addition, all three provide the use of ASCE 
7-88 as an alternative to be applied at the discretion of the designer.
    However, the model building codes do not cover the design or 
construction of manufactured housing. The only control local 
governments have over manufactured housing and mobile (manufactured) 
home parks is through certain zoning regulations, or anchoring, set-up, 
or installation requirements. As noted by one commenter (150) and 
discussed in the next section of this preamble, incorporation of the 
ASCE 7-88 standard will be critical to ensuring continued acceptance of 
manufactured housing by local jurisdictions in high wind areas.

Building Codes in Southern Florida

    Generally, the local jurisdictions in Florida have adopted 
modifications of the SBC or South Florida Building Code (SFBC). As one 
of its primary recommendations in the aftermath of Hurricane Andrew, 
the 18-member Dade County, Florida, Grand Jury stated that the 35-year-
old South Florida Building Code must be rewritten to duplicate the 
tougher, national wind standard of ASCE 7-88. The Grand Jury recognized 
ASCE 7-88 as a standard that more adequately reflects the design 
strength necessary for windows and doors. In acknowledgment of the 
Grand Jury's recommendations, the Dade County Building Code Committee 
adopted (effective January 1, 1994) the Wind Loads section of ASCE 7-
88, using Exposures C and D, only. The Grand Jury further recommended 
that Dade County officials issue a moratorium on the permanent 
replacement of manufactured homes until officials could be assured that 
the replacement homes meet the ASCE 7-88 standards. Further, noting 
that lower standards are applied to manufactured housing than to 
conventional housing, the 1992 Fall Term Grand Jury asserted that ``the 
low standard amounted to discrimination against those persons unable to 
afford the costs of conventional housing.''
    In its Final Report, filed August 4, 1993, the Dade County Grand 
Jury referenced the initial Grand Jury findings regarding the 
engineering advantages of the ASCE 7-88 standard and commended its 
adoption into the SFBC. The Grand Jury reported that:

    [T]his additional and essential modification of the SFBC should 
provoke a wide-ranging improvement of most of our building designs, 
methods and products. It should also result in the building of 
structures that will provide greater safety and security during a 
hurricane.

In order to protect those living in and near manufactured homes, the 
Grand Jury has reiterated the recommendation that a moratorium be 
instituted on the installation in the County of any new mobile homes 
that do not meet the wind-loading standards of ASCE 7-88.
    In addition, the SBCCI, after assessing the damage caused by 
Hurricane Andrew, concluded that standards applicable to manufactured 
housing need to be reviewed to bring them up to the level of other 
construction types, unless society is willing to consider manufactured 
homes to be expendable. The SBCCI said that even if manufactured homes 
are considered expendable, the issue of the hazard they present to 
neighboring buildings and structures needs to be addressed. 
Accordingly, they further concluded that steps need to be taken to 
strengthen the structural frame, enforce tiedown provisions, and assure 
that the installation of homes is done by those who are knowledgeable 
in the requirements of the code. Unless these issues are addressed, the 
SBCCI believes there will continue to be great costs associated with 
hurricane damage.

Improved Anchoring and Foundation Systems

    Enforcement of anchoring and tie-down systems for manufactured 
housing construction has generally been considered a State or local 
government and their building officials' responsibility. Section 
3282.303 of the Manufactured Home Procedural and Enforcement 
Regulations (24 CFR part 3282) urges, but does not require, State 
Administrative Agencies to monitor installation of manufactured homes. 
Thus, standards for foundations and anchorings and enforcement of those 
standards are not uniform among the States, and in some States are 
nonexistent. For example, the State of Florida has statewide laws 
related to installation, but enforcement of those laws is left to local 
building officials, while Louisiana is one of 23 States that does not 
regulate installation of manufactured homes at all.
    The National Conference of Building Codes and Standards (NCSBCS), 
under contract with the Department, sent a team to inspect manufactured 
homes damaged or destroyed by Hurricane Andrew. Their report, dated 
September 25, 1992 (Rev. October 1, 1992), evaluated anchoring systems 
used in Florida and Louisiana. The team found that virtually all 
manufactured homes they saw in Florida had been anchored, but anchors 
had failed in most destroyed homes.
    Some of the systems that failed were anchors embedded only two feet 
into the soil, which were pulled out of the ground by the force of the 
storm. Other systems that failed included short anchors embedded in 
concrete or driven into the coral. In Louisiana, most manufactured 
homes the team saw had no anchoring systems at all, or only had two or 
three anchors on each side; less than one-half the number generally 
specified by manufacturers' instructions for hurricane zones. Also, 
where anchors were installed, most had been installed incorrectly; 
often embedded only partially in the ground with 12'' or more 
protruding above finished grade.
    While the majority of anchoring system failures appeared to result 
from improper installation, the NCSBCS Team observed several cases 
where the holding capacity of anchors appeared to have been reduced 
because of water saturated soil. In order to determine the adequacy of 
anchoring systems installed in soil that might be exposed to heavy 
rainfall and hurricane force winds, further investigating and testing 
of anchors will be conducted by the Department.
    Numerous failures reported after Hurricanes Andrew and Hugo and 
other previous wind storms support the Department's concerns over 
anchoring systems for manufactured housing that are inadequate to 
resist probable high wind forces. In addition, as the NIST Report 
indicated: ``[i]f superstructure failures had not occurred [in 
Hurricane Andrew], the number of anchor system failures might well have 
been greater  * * *.''
    Some field and laboratory testing of commercially available ground 
anchor and steel strapping systems has been conducted under a HUD 
contract with Wiss, Janney, & Elstner, Inc. (See WJE Report No. 901798, 
July 26, 1991, HUD USER--HUD-0005823). The initial test results 
indicate that anchors have a significantly lower load resistance 
capacity than even the levels required by the current standard. 
Resistance or capacity would be even lower if anchors are not installed 
in accordance with anchor manufacturer's and home manufacturer's 
installation instructions or under saturated soil conditions.
    The Department has also been conducting laboratory tests to 
evaluate the resistance of manufactured home support and anchoring 
systems to lateral wind and seismic forces. After the results of the 
laboratory data have been evaluated and compared to the field data, the 
Department may propose changes to lower allowable anchor system 
resistance values.
    In the interim, the Department cautions home and anchor 
manufacturers, installers, retailers, insurance companies, lenders, and 
State and local government agencies that anchoring should be rated for 
specific soil, loading, and installation conditions for which the 
anchor is acceptable. Failure to do so may result in anchoring and 
tiedown systems which have inadequate ultimate capacity to resist 
probable design wind forces.

II. Analysis of Public Comments

Characterization of Commenters

    The Department received 1,116 comments in response to the proposed 
rule and the notice extending the comment period. Although 
approximately 235 of these comments are included in file of the Rules 
Docket Clerk as being received under the extended deadline, many of 
these were delayed in receipt in the Rules Docket Clerk office because 
they were sent first to other offices within the Department.
    The great majority of the comments were duplicative or identical 
form letters (of the 1,116 total comments, only 75 to 100 included 
distinctive comments). The commenters generally can be characterized as 
follows:

-- Businesses (including retailers, manufacturers, suppliers, finance 
companies, park owners, etc.)--704
--Industry groups (including State and national associations)--24
--Members of Congress (including original correspondence and 
transmittals of constituent letters)--245
--Other governmental agencies and representatives (Federal, State, and 
local agencies or representatives)--27
--Members of the National Manufactured Home Advisory Council 
(individually)--15
--Individuals (including consumers, engineers and other experts, 
salespersons, etc., in individual capacities)--80
--Private standards groups--6
--Consumer groups--2
--Tenants groups--1
--Insurance industry--3
--National Commission on Manufactured Housing--1
--DAPIA (Design Approval Primary Inspection Agency)--2
--Correspondence forwarded from White House--2
--Law firms--3
--Other national associations--1

    Many of the comments received by the Department and addressed in 
the following discussion were common to numerous commenters. Other less 
universal comments addressed in the discussion may be referenced by 
number in parentheses following a statement. These numbers correspond 
to the number given the comment in the file maintained by the Rules 
Docket Clerk. Comments filed as received in response to the original 
comment period are referenced as numbers 1-882 (#817 was inadvertently 
skipped in the numbering sequence), while those in response to the 
extended comment period are referenced as numbers 
1(2)-235(2).

Comments, Generally

    A number of commenters acknowledged the need to update the 
Department's standards for manufactured housing. One commenter (77) 
welcomed the better publicity and reputation the industry would enjoy 
as a result of updated standards. However, many of these commenters 
also stated opposition to the specific standards proposed by the 
Department.
    About two dozen commenters, including consumer and insurance 
industry groups, standards organizations, government agencies, and 
engineers, generally supported the basic standard proposed (e.g., 17, 
55, 76, 137, 145, 150, 197, 633, 12(2), 204(2), 207(2)), 
although several of these commenters also expressed concern about 
specific cost items. Supporting comments emphasized the importance of 
affordable, safe housing, rather than merely affordable housing (17), 
and characterized ASCE 7-88 as the only consensus wind standard in the 
Country (76, and others).

Procedural Comments

    Comment: The 30-day comment period allowed in the proposed rule did 
not permit sufficient consideration of the rule and development of 
public comments. In addition, the justification for the shortened 
effective date that the proposed rule had indicated would apply to the 
final rule was not justified by the need to implement regulatory 
changes before the 1993 hurricane season.
    Response: Because of the numerous requests for longer response 
periods from both the public and members of Congress, and because it 
was apparent that a rule could not be in place in time for the 1993 
hurricane season, the Department has allowed additional time for public 
comments and implementation of the final rule. The proposed rule was 
published on April 14, 1993, and the comment period was extended to 
July 9, 1993.
    Because of the Department's desire to consider the full extent of 
public response on this rule, the Department has continued to receive 
comments regularly while the final rule and regulatory impact analysis 
were being prepared and has continued to log and review those comments. 
Therefore, in effect, the comment period for this rule has been 
approximately 5 months.
    To alleviate the concerns relating to the industry's need for ample 
time to redesign homes and retool manufacturing facilities, the 
Department has decided to extend the effective date originally proposed 
for this rule. Accordingly, the rule provides for an effective date of, 
at least, 180 days from today's date of publication. Thus, the concerns 
of the commenters in these regards have been addressed by the 
Department.
    Comment: The National Manufactured Housing Advisory Council should 
be convened, as required by law, to consider the standards proposed by 
the Department.
    Response: Despite the infeasibility of convening the Advisory 
Council within the timeframe originally proposed for the implementation 
of improved standards, the Department made an extraordinary effort to 
consult with the individual members of the Advisory Council. The 
responses of a number of the individual members of the Advisory Council 
have been considered and included in the docket file for this 
rulemaking.
    Later, because of the Department's extension of the comment period 
and recognition that a final rule could not be in place in time for the 
1993 hurricane season, the Department immediately convened the Advisory 
Council so that it could discuss the proposal as a panel. The resulting 
recommendations of the Advisory Council, as a panel, also have been 
considered carefully in determining both the scope and the specific 
requirements of this final rule. Additional discussion of the 
proceedings of the Advisory Council can be found elsewhere in this 
preamble.
    Comment: Several commenters questioned the impact of the rule on 
families, in the context of Executive Order 12606, which requires 
consideration of the impact of a regulation on family formation, 
maintenance, and general well-being.
    Response: In the proposed rule, the Department indicated that the 
rule was not subject to review under the Executive Order. The 
commenters questioned this position based on information that some 
potential consumers would be unable to purchase manufactured homes if 
the prices of those homes were raised to cover the costs of the new 
standards. To the extent that production cost increases resulting from 
this rule will be passed on to consumers, one effect of the rule is 
expected to be the loss of marginal consumers from the market. Some of 
these marginal consumers will have to find less expensive, rental 
housing; some will opt for comparably priced site-built housing. 
However, the significance of this result is not a loss of housing, but 
a redistribution of the kinds of housing available. Although as a 
result some families may lose an ownership option, the general well-
being of families, and society, is served better by ensuring adequate 
quality standards for such housing.
    Although the Department does not believe this final rule implicates 
family concerns within the spirit of the Executive Order, the 
Department has analyzed the rule as required under the Order. 
Therefore, in the paragraph on Executive Order 12606 under the ``Other 
Matters'' section of this preamble, the Department certifies that the 
requirements of the Order have been met in the issuance of this rule.
    Comment: The proposed rule indicated that manufacturers should 
anticipate the contents of the final rule and should prepare to comply 
with the more stringent standards soon after publication of the final 
rule. This schedule for implementation of the new standards fails to 
recognize the need for lead time to design, test, and seek approval of 
changes necessitated by the standard changes. In addition, while 
personnel resources are concentrated on the redesign requirement, 
production personnel may have to be laid off. This problem is 
compounded by the possibility that another redesign will be necessary 
as a result of the new Federal energy standards.
    Response: To a large extent, the Department already has been 
responsive to the concerns expressed in this comment by conceding that 
the rule will not become effective for 180 days. The Department is 
sensitive to the procedural requirements that a manufacturer faces when 
undertaking design changes. However, there is no doubt that by the time 
this rule becomes effective, all aspects of the industry should have 
had sufficient advance notice of the necessary product improvements to 
prepare for implementation of the new standards.
    Innovative solutions and safer products generally depend on some 
commercial incentive. The Department believes, based on the knowledge 
of its technical staff, the reports they have reviewed, and some of the 
comments received, that those parties involved in the production, 
sales, and siting of manufactured housing will be able to comply with 
these standards reasonably quickly, when continued sales depend on such 
compliance.

Cost Considerations

    Comment: The cost impact of the standard changes should be 
analyzed, as required by Executive Order 12291 and 42 U.S.C. 5403(f), 
and a regulatory impact analysis should be prepared.
    Response: As stated in the ``Other Matters'' section of the 
preamble of the proposed rule (57 FR 19539), the Department agreed that 
it would prepare and submit a regulatory impact analysis before 
publication of the final rule, in accordance with established Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) guidance. Although many of the benefits, 
and some costs, of increased standards are difficult to quantify for 
purposes of such an economic analysis (e.g., loss of life, uninsured 
costs, insurance deductibles, and injuries), the Department has 
complied with the requirements of Executive Order 12866 (September 30, 
1993) and OMB. As noted under ``Significant Regulatory Action'' in the 
``Other Matters'' section of this preamble, a final regulatory analysis 
based on the provisions in this final rule is available to the public.
    However, while economic concerns have always been an important 
component of the Department's decisionmaking process and, in this case, 
resulted in modification of the rule, the Department stresses that its 
statutory mandate to reduce the number of personal injuries and deaths 
and the amount of insurance costs and property damage resulting from 
manufactured home accidents, and to improve the quality and durability 
of manufactured homes, requires that the Department look beyond 
affordability issues. In promoting homeownership opportunities for 
lower-income persons, the Department strongly believes that such 
housing must also be safe. The concern with safety extends beyond the 
occupants of the housing, to all those who may be affected by the 
failure of such housing to meet minimum performance standards under 
reasonably foreseeable conditions. For example, in a Federal Emergency 
Management Agency (FEMA) report on ``Building Performance: Hurricane 
Andrew in Florida'' (FIA-22, 2/93), cited by commenter 76,

    It was observed that the breakup of corrugated metal siding and 
roofed buildings such as manufactured homes and pre-engineered metal 
frame buildings contributed significantly to the generation of 
airborne debris. This was evident from debris damage to nearby 
downwind structures.

As stated by another commenter (205(2)): ``The prospect of 
reducing the loss of life and property and reducing the cost of 
disaster relief efforts from such losses as Hurricane Andrew would 
certainly be to the benefit of the entire housing industry and the 
individual and corporate citizen taxpayers of the United States.'' In 
addition, the upgrades required under this rule also would increase the 
ability of the homes to withstand damage during transportation and 
installation of the units, and the improved windows would be more 
energy efficient (see comment 150).
    The Department recognizes the viability of manufactured housing as 
a source of affordable housing for many people and will continue to 
work with the industry to ensure a quality product at a reasonable 
cost. However, the Department will also continue to exercise all of its 
statutory responsibilities relating to housing and its occupants in a 
manner that serves the optimal societal interests. This final rule is 
evidence that the Department agrees with those commenters that said the 
savings in storm damage repair, loss of personal property, and 
potential personal injury or loss of life, in addition to other 
expected benefits, exceeds the cost differential for these new 
standards. The Department has also reviewed cost impact figures 
provided by numerous commenters during the development of the final 
regulatory impact analysis.
    Comment: The increased cost of manufactured housing that will be 
the result of the more stringent standards may price many consumers out 
of the market for unsubsidized housing. A home manufactured to the new 
standards will require a higher downpayment, and potential consumers 
will find it more difficult to qualify for financing. The level of 
regulation proposed would limit consumer choice and would deny 
consumers the right to match housing to their budgets (1).
    Response: The Department is concerned about the effect of these 
standards on the ability of consumers to afford and purchase 
manufactured housing. However, because the standards are, for the most 
part, performance standards and do not prescribe methods of 
construction, the manufactured housing industry can, and the Department 
expects will, approach this problem by developing innovative designs, 
components, and construction techniques that meet the standards but 
maintain the affordability of manufactured homes. The Department has 
also removed some of the proposed prescriptive requirements. These 
changes from the proposed rule should help maintain the affordability 
of manufactured housing while still assuring safety.
    As stated by one commenter (215(2)), sacrificing a minimum 
reasonable wind standard for manufactured housing so that it can be 
more affordable makes as much sense as allowing a car to be sold 
without brakes for the same reason. A similar opinion was expressed by 
a consumer, who commented (117(2)):

    If tougher standards increase the cost of a mobile home by a 
fair percentage I believe people will be willing to pay a little 
more for better protection. Most of these homes are not second homes 
but the principal residence of retirees.

Earlier in the preamble the Department acknowledges the legitimate 
concern with affordability, but also notes the importance of safe 
housing that protects other societal interests.
    Conversely, as noted by commenter 145 (FEMA), ``[t]he disruption of 
lives and families resulting from the damage to manufactured housing 
often happens to those least able to fully recover.'' Therefore, the 
financial impact of insufficient standards also may fall most heavily 
on those least able to absorb that impact. The Department agrees with 
commenter 215(2) that the poor should not have to accept a lower 
safety factor against catastrophic failure of housing than the rest of 
society.
    Finally, a commenter representing a number of insurance carriers 
(17) noted that builder/developer estimates of cost increases for 
building code improvements for site-built structures have far exceeded 
documented incremental cost increases in the past. The commenter 
observed that cost estimates with respect to manufactured housing and 
the higher standards proposed by the Department may contain similar 
exaggerations. This possibility is discussed by the Department in the 
regulatory impact analysis prepared in connection with this final rule.
    Comment: In looking at storm damage estimates for purposes of a 
cost-benefit analysis, the Department should distinguish damage to 
manufactured homes that complied with existing HUD standards from 
damage to pre-HUD homes.
    Response: As previously discussed, both manufactured homes built 
before the imposition of HUD standards and those built after the 
standards became effective experienced significant damage during 
Hurricane Andrew. Therefore, the numerical breakdown between pre- and 
post-HUD standards is not a determinative factor in the Department's 
process with respect to the final content of this rule.
    However, in its comments on this rule, the AARP (commenter #150) 
noted that ``[w]hile more than half of the manufactured homes destroyed 
were built prior to implementation of the HUD standards, many of these 
older homes were constructed in accordance with American National 
Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard A119.1, which had the same wind 
load resistance requirements as the current HUD standards.''
    Comment: As a practical matter, manufacturers will build their 
homes to the most stringent standards that would apply to their sales 
areas. Therefore, those manufacturers that would build homes for more 
than one zone will build all their homes to accommodate the highest 
wind load requirements, and the cost of compliance with the new 
standards will actually be higher than the estimates that are based on 
numbers of units per Zone (12).
    Response: The Department does not discourage voluntary compliance 
with standards that are higher than those required. However, the 
Department believes that the decision to comply voluntarily with higher 
standards will be controlled by the cost of such compliance and the 
manufacturer's market demands. Accordingly, such compliance is 
questionable and cannot be considered in the regulatory impact 
analysis.
    Comment: The implementation of new standards will adversely affect 
the marketability of existing homes not built to those standards (87), 
leading to increased defaults and credit losses (139).
    Response: The standards implemented by this rule will not affect 
manufactured homes already occupied by consumers. Thus, the resale 
market for these existing units generally should not be affected, 
except to the extent that prospective purchasers have the financial 
resources, realize the construction limitations of the existing units, 
and choose to purchase units meeting the new standard or other housing 
options. Because prospective purchasers of used manufactured housing 
are likely to be in lower income brackets, however, the Department 
expects little or no impact on the resale market for manufactured homes 
already occupied by consumers.
    Comment: The additional cost attributable to increased costs for 
lumber is of particular concern (639).
    Response: As noted above, the Department is concerned about all 
additional costs and the affordability of homes constructed to the new 
standards. Any specific concern with lumber costs has been alleviated 
because of recent changes in market conditions, which have shown that 
high prices being charged for lumber earlier this year were an 
aberration. Lumber costs have significantly reduced since original cost 
estimates were prepared. In addition, the final rule will permit the 
use of the 1991 NDS without exception, which lowers earlier 
manufactured housing industry projections of the lumber changes and 
estimated costs for complying with the new standards.

Scope of Requirements

    Comment: The prescriptive standards in the proposed rule would 
eliminate the ability of manufacturers to be innovative in developing 
safer and more attractive homes.
    Response: A number of the prescriptive standards in the proposed 
rule have been removed in the final rule. For those that remain, 
manufacturers can utilize 24 CFR 3282.14, to take advantage of the 
Department's policy encouraging innovation through alternative 
construction.
    Comment: Because the proposed rule was largely justified as a 
response to damages incurred in hurricane-prone areas, the standards 
and time frames contained in the proposed rule should not be applied to 
other zones subject to lower wind speeds.
    Response: At this time the Department has deleted the proposed 
changes to Zone I from the final rule. Therefore, homes designated to 
be sited in Zone I must comply with the previous wind standard for 
those areas. However, many commenters and the Advisory Council 
indicated that the Department should strive to bring the Federal 
standards to a level of comparability with conventional housing 
standards. The Department will review existing wind standards in the 
remaining areas of the country for possible future action.

Choice of Standard

    Comment: The Department has not demonstrated that ASCE 7-88 is the 
appropriate standard to be adopted for the higher wind loading 
requirements. For example, the Standard Building Code may be a more 
appropriate standard for the purposes of this rule.
    Response: A number of engineers have written in support of the ASCE 
7-88 standard, noting that the standard was developed based on 
scientific studies performed in wind tunnels, which were subsequently 
verified by tests on full-scale structures. By adopting the Southern 
Florida Building Code (SFBC), which incorporates the Standard Building 
Code, the people of south Florida thought they were protected by one of 
the toughest building codes, with respect to wind. However, the wind 
load requirements of the SFBC now have been surpassed by other codes 
that are based on recent research. For example, the SFBC does not 
reflect peak gusts or use pressure coefficients as high as are now 
considered suitable. As a result, the SFBC design wind speed of 120 mph 
would only correspond to a design wind speed of less than 100 mph for 
many elements of the construction. As previously noted in this 
preamble, Dade County has adopted (effective January 1, 1994) the wind 
loads section of ASCE 7-88, using Exposures C and D, only.
    Comment: No model code has adopted the ASCE 7-88 standard. The 
Department does not justify its attempt to impose more stringent 
standards for manufactured housing than are applied to site-built 
homes. It is an abuse of Federal authority to impose standards that go 
well beyond any State building code currently in existence (87).
    Response: The relationship between the model codes and ASCE 7-88 is 
discussed earlier in the preamble in the section on Development and 
Adoption of ASCE 7-88. In addition, the Department notes that the ASCE 
7-88 standard already is incorporated into its Minimum Property 
Standards (24 CFR part 200, subpart S), which apply to certain site-
built housing within the Department's jurisdiction.
    The current wind load requirements for manufactured housing for 
high wind zones correspond to a wind speed of 80 mph; other types of 
housing are subject to much higher design wind speed requirements in 
the same high wind areas. Therefore, as noted by the AARP in its 
comments (150), adoption of ASCE 7-88 actually will ensure substantial 
equivalence of wind design requirements between manufactured and site-
built housing.
    Furthermore, Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties in Florida have 
adopted ASCE 7-88 (with the 110 mph wind load) for site-built homes, 
and the Department believes other coastal jurisdictions will follow. 
Model codes also have adopted or are moving toward the adoption of the 
ASCE 7-88 standard. In fact, by not including the higher standards for 
the remainder of the country (Zone I), a majority of manufactured homes 
produced in this country will comply to a standard well below the 
building codes currently in existence for site-built housing.
    Comment: The Department should recognize ``deemed-to-comply'' 
standards.
    Response: The Department considered the deemed-to-comply standards, 
but determined that a performance standard would allow manufacturers 
flexibility to be innovative in their approach to compliance with the 
standards. Such innovation will reduce the cost associated with strict 
adherence to the deemed-to-comply standards.
    Comment: The rule expands the ASCE 7-88 definition of ``components 
and cladding'' to include exterior coverings and fastenings, and the 
limited availability of these materials may make compliance difficult 
(221).
    Response: The Department has made alternative provisions in the 
standard for adequate resistance of exterior coverings to specified 
design wind pressure requirements.

Enforcement

    Comment: The proposed rule did not address testing issues. The 
Department does not specify whether the proposed structural design 
changes have been subjected to destruction testing. (144) Although 
there is no agreement on a testing protocol, truss suppliers will need 
time to retest their many truss designs. (8, 16, and incorporated by 
reference in others) The need to test many types of siding, siding 
gauges (thicknesses), and accessories, fasteners, and fastener patterns 
also may lead to tooling changes, which will require more time. (9)
    Response: Testing will continue to be evaluated under the DAPIA 
review process, which is not revised by this rule. However, the 
Department has extended, to 180 days (or, for some provisions, one 
year) from today's publication of the rule, the implementation schedule 
for the new requirements, in order to give producers sufficient time to 
comply with the standards.
    Comment: The existence of multiple wind zones and corresponding 
requirements within a single State creates difficulties with respect to 
enforcement, as well as with production. It is not clear who bears the 
responsibility for monitoring the placement of homes within a wind zone 
for which they are intended (87, 91, 92, 610).
    Response: The Department appreciates the difficulties of enforcing 
the standards when multiple zones exist in a single State. Accordingly, 
the Department has specifically listed those local governments in the 
higher wind zones in each State. Depending on the facts surrounding the 
sale of a manufactured home, both the manufacturer and the dealer will 
be responsible for assuring that the home will be in compliance with 
the standards by siting the home in the proper zone. The State 
Administrative Agencies (SAAs) will be informed of the changes 
resulting from this rule and will assist the Department in discovering 
homes that are sited in noncompliance with these standards.

Anchoring and Tie-Downs

    Comment: The change in lease communities could be revolutionary, as 
homes become more permanent in nature (122) and homes are taxed more as 
real, rather than personal, property. Generally, lessors are required 
to restore the site to its original condition when they move. This 
requirement, and the relocation of utility connections, would be made 
more difficult with more permanent foundations. In addition, the FHA 
Title II allowance for installation would not be sufficient for the 
additional costs of permanent foundations (146, and others).
    Response: The Department has evaluated these comments and has 
removed the design requirement for a permanent foundation. However, the 
Department remains concerned that some form of strengthened tiedown 
system may be necessary to protect homes adequately in high wind areas. 
Thus, the Department will be reviewing the issue of permanent 
foundations and other strengthened anchoring systems in conjunction 
with regulatory action on wind resistant design and construction 
requirements for the remainder of the country.
    Comment: The impact of the new Wind Standards can be adversely 
effected if there is inadequate enforcement and monitoring of the 
placement of homes to assure that only homes that have been designed 
for the wind load requirements of the Zone are permitted to be sited. 
There is a need for better local inspection; the home is only as good 
as its anchoring system (149). There is compelling evidence that much 
of the damage from Hurricane Andrew was attributable to the lax 
enforcement of State and local building codes, including anchoring 
requirements, rather than to inadequate standards (80, 122). Similarly, 
the main problem with manufactured homes is the proper installation of 
anchoring equipment, which the Department cannot regulate (100).
    Response: Although the use of tiedowns was widespread in the areas 
affected by Hurricane Andrew, indicating some attempt to comply with 
codes, the tiedowns generally performed very poorly. None of the 
tiedowns observed was certified in accordance with code requirements. 
The Department is reviewing the authority to regulate installation of 
manufactured homes and is exploring ways to encourage States and 
localities to adopt and enforce more stringent anchoring requirements. 
The Department also is reviewing appropriate methods, including a 
disclosure requirement, to inform consumers about the installation of 
the home in a manner that achieves the highest wind protection 
performance for the home's design.
    Meanwhile, the Department will be contacting the Governors of all 
States, and in particular States where the wind risk is the greatest, 
to advise the Governors of the changes in the wind standards and the 
need for each State to establish installation standards and a system of 
enforcement and monitoring.
    Comment: Typical ground anchors performed adequately in Hurricane 
Andrew (14(2)-17(2), 73(2), 88(2), and others). If 
given enough time, ground anchor manufacturers can develop an anchoring 
system that is comparable to a permanent foundation system (29).
    Response: With very few exceptions, manufactured homes in the path 
of Hurricane Andrew were destroyed by the resulting wind forces. The 
lack of adequate attachment of single or double-wide units to ground 
anchors was a major factor in loss of units. The chassis of some units 
could be found some distance away from their original site. However, in 
some cases the anchors did hold the floor of the unit down while the 
``box'' of the structure was torn away by the high winds. For this 
reason, there is justification for increasing the strength of the 
structure by this final rule.
    The effective date of these new requirements will now be at least 
180 days from today. The Department agrees that innovative anchoring 
systems comparable to permanent foundations systems can be developed; 
however, anchor manufacturers are cautioned regarding the resistance 
capacity of auger-type anchors presently used for installing 
manufactured homes, when those anchors are subject to high winds and 
ensuing saturated soil conditions. The Department's tests show 
substantially less resistance than required by 24 CFR 3280.306(f), even 
when tested under dry soil conditions.
    Comment: Substantially increased siting requirements would be a 
problem especially for retirees in land-lease communities and for 
minority owners who reside on ``heir property'' and cannot secure clear 
title to their site (672).
    Response: Alternative anchoring systems that are expected to 
provide the required resistance to high wind forces are already 
available in the market. The Department believes that if siting 
requirements are increased by State and local governments, the 
manufactured housing industry will likely develop ways to accommodate 
siting in land-lease communities.

Technical Comments

    Comment: The Department has not justified its proposal to require a 
lower load duration factor for designing wood members and fastenings to 
resist wind forces than is specified in the 1991 edition of the 
National Design Specification for Wood Construction (NDS) published by 
the American Forest and Paper Association (AFPA).
    Response: The Department agrees that the higher factor of 1.6 in 
the NDS has been justified by research completed by AFPA for wood 
members subjected to short duration loads of 10 minutes or less. This 
is generally recognized as the maximum period for exposure of 
structures to wind forces. In addition, the 1991 NDS has already been 
adopted without exception by certain model code agencies. However, 
cyclic testing to evaluate fasteners and connectors has not yet been 
completed. Preliminary results suggest that a higher load duration 
factor may be appropriate. Therefore, the Department will accept the 
higher load duration factor of 1.6 on an interim basis and will 
recognize the 1991 NDS without exception in this final rule. The 
Department intends to monitor this research and may propose a different 
load duration factor for fasteners and connectors in the future, 
subject to the research and test results.
    Comment: There is no basis for the 12'' limitation and prescriptive 
requirements for eave and cornice projections; their implementation 
would inhibit design innovations.
    Response: While longer eave and overhang projections will subject 
trusses, fasteners, and connectors to significant increases in design 
loads, and thereby increase their likelihood of failure under extreme 
wind conditions, the Department agrees that the provision should be 
removed because it does restrict innovation, and truss and home 
manufacturers are capable of designing roof systems and connections to 
resist the higher wind forces. However, manufacturers that use larger 
projections than 12 inches are cautioned to review their designs 
carefully to assure that all components and fastenings are adequate to 
resist the design pressures specified in ASCE 7-88 or the table in 
Sec. 3280.304.
    Comment: The prescriptive requirements for sidewall-to-roof and 
floor connections using steel strapping or brackets should be replaced 
with performance criteria that permit the use of alternative methods of 
connection, such as structural sheathing that overlaps the roof and 
floor.
    Response: In general, the Department agrees that the use of 
performance-based standards is preferred. However, on-site 
investigations of the damage from Hurricane Andrew revealed that 
current designs using 30 gage straps failed. Based on the above 
information, the Department has retained the prescriptive requirement 
for strapping in high wind areas, but will permit to be used a 
combination of strapping and structural sheathing that overlaps the 
roof or floor, instead of only steel straps or brackets, provided the 
sheathing and its fastenings are demonstrated by calculations or tests 
to have equivalent strength and resistance to the design wind uplift 
forces.
    Comment: The use of the 1.5 factor of safety for design of 
anchoring systems is not consistent with ASCE 7-88.
    Response: The Department concurs that there is no provision in the 
ASCE 7-88 standard for increasing the wind pressures for the design of 
anchoring systems to resist overturning and sliding forces. Therefore, 
the anchoring design provisions for Wind Zones II and III, which are 
based on the ASCE 7-88 requirements, will not require the application 
of the 1.5 factor of safety to be applied to the design wind drag and 
uplift pressures. However, the 1.5 factor of safety will continue to be 
required for calculating the required resistance of anchoring systems 
for Wind Zone I, since the design lateral and uplift wind forces remain 
based on the current standard, which is lower than all model building 
codes.
    Comment: The Department should clarify whether new wind uplift 
design loads in the Table (in Sec. 3280.305) are gross or net uplift 
loads.
    Response: The uplift wind loads in the table are the full or 
``gross'' loads. Gravity or dead loads may be deducted from these loads 
when calculations are prepared using the design pressures in the table.
    Comment: Existing truss testing procedures in Sec. 3280.402(c)(2) 
should be clarified as to: (1) The acceptability of existing inverted 
truss testing procedures for evaluating new wind uplift design loads; 
(2) whether vertical live and gravity roof load testing must still be 
conducted with trusses in the upright position when uplift forces are 
higher than downward loads; and (3) whether eave loads are to be 
applied simultaneously with roof uplift loads.
    Response: (1) The inverted test method may continue to be used on 
an interim basis while the Department evaluates results of an industry 
study to compare results of the existing test method, which applies 
load to the bottom chord of the truss, to results obtained from 
applying the load to the top chord of the truss. (2) Testing must 
continue to be conducted in the upright position, because the loads are 
applied to different members (chords) of the truss. (3) Uplift loads 
are to be applied to truss eave projections when uplift loads are 
applied to the truss bottom chords during each loading phase required 
by Sec. 3280.402(c)(2).
    Comment: A new provision should be added requiring a professional 
engineer to prepare and certify wind load designs and calculations.
    Response: The Department will consider this suggestion for future 
rulemaking on wind load requirements.
    Comment: Special standards should be required for asphalt shingle 
performance in high wind areas, because of the large number of failures 
that occurred in Hurricane Andrew and ensuing structural and water 
damage caused by these failures.
    Response: The asphalt shingle industry research is not yet 
completed in this area. As an interim step, this final rule requires 
each shingle to be secured with two additional fasteners and 
underlayment to be cemented to the roof decking.
    Comment: Testing requirements should be specified for windows and 
doors to avoid missile damage in high winds. Safety standards can be 
enhanced without affecting affordability, by requiring operating 
shutters and proper anchoring (88(2)).
    Response: The Department encourages manufacturers to provide 
shutters or protective devices for homes in Wind Zones II and III. 
Under this rule manufacturers will be required, at a minimum, to 
provide instructions for an appropriate method of shutter or cover 
installation to protect the home, and to include shutter information on 
the data plate. The instructions must provide a method for protecting 
the windows and doors that is capable of withstanding design wind 
pressures without taking the home out of conformance with the 
standards. The application of shutters does not do away with the need 
for testing the doors or windows they protect.
    Comment: A requirement should be added for the use of perforated 
metal straps at the marriage line of the roof, between sections of 
doublewides, to transfer wind forces from the windward to the leeward 
side of the roof.
    Response: As part of its continuing evaluation of wind design 
requirements, the Department will assess the merits of this proposal.
    Comment: The Department needs to establish standards to regulate 
the addition of appurtenances to manufactured homes, such as porches, 
carports, and canopies, which experienced a large number of failures in 
Hurricane Andrew. The danger to occupants is further increased because 
the rule does not address the effect of dangerous appurtenances (52, 
65, 122).
    Response: Under 24 CFR 3282.8(j) the standards currently do not 
govern add-ons, as long as the add-on doesn't affect the ability of the 
home to comply with the standards. However, as noted in that section, 
the Secretary has authority to promulgate standards for some add-ons. 
Accordingly, the Department is examining its authority in this area and 
may establish requirements in the future. In the interim, HUD 
encourages all States to establish standards covering the construction 
and attachment of these kinds of appurtenances to manufactured homes.
    Comment: Exposure D in ASCE 7-88 should be used for coastal 
shoreline areas.
    Response: Under this rule manufacturers are required to include on 
the data plate a statement that units designed to meet the minimum 
standards in this rule should not be located within 1500 feet of the 
coastline in Zones II and III. By this statement, the consumer is 
alerted that only units designed and anchored according to the higher 
design standards specified for coastal areas in ASCE 7-88 should be 
placed along the coastline.
    Comment: ``Wind safety'' is a misnomer; the science of weather 
forecasting allows ample notice of dangerous storms to permit 
evacuation (296-314). Homeowner safety is better served by evacuation 
in high winds than from protection afforded by the manufactured home 
structure. If a manufactured home is purported to be designed and 
constructed to withstand higher wind speeds, occupants may be less 
likely to evacuate the homes at the approach of a dangerous storm.
    Response: The Department agrees that if it is safe to do so, 
homeowners should attempt to reach a shelter capable of resisting high 
winds. However, without the imposition of these enhanced Wind Safety 
Standards, the numbers of deaths and injuries attributable to the 
inadequate performance of manufactured homes in high winds will 
continue unabated. In addition to reducing deaths and injuries, the 
Department's statutory responsibilities require the implementation of 
higher wind standards to reduce the insurance cost and amount of 
property damage resulting from manufactured home accidents and 
improvement of the quality and durability of manufactured homes. The 
Department believes that these higher wind standards will fulfill those 
responsibilities.
    Comment: The NIST study cited by the Department does not fault the 
performance of trusses; increasing the uplift requirements would not 
improve the quality of assembly. The problems associated with 
manufactured housing are related more to fasteners and tiedowns 
(13(2)).
    Response: The field studies referenced in the NIST Report 
identified numerous roof system failures that were generally due to 
failure of the end connections between the trusses and the sidewalls. 
However, even if the trusses had been properly connected to the 
manufactured home structure, the Department believes that trusses not 
designed to resist the uplift pressures referenced in this rule still 
may have failed. Therefore, in this final rule the Department has 
retained the proposed increased design requirements for roof trusses.

Other Specific Comments

    Comment: The Department is encouraged to coordinate this rule with 
a review of seismic and flood loads, especially with respect to 
foundation and attachment designs (25).
    Response: The requirements in the proposed rule for a permanent 
foundation design have been eliminated in this final rule. However, as 
the Department continues to review the issue of adequate anchoring/
foundation systems for manufactured homes, it will also review these 
other considerations.
    Comment: There are not enough DAPIA personnel in the HUD system to 
review and approve design changes within the time provided for the 
effectiveness of this rule (83, 124, 136, 179).
    Response: The Department has agreed to delay the effectiveness of 
the new requirements for 180 days, which should allow sufficient time 
for the DAPIA process, as well.
    Comment: The Department should consider requiring the DAPIA 
approval stamp on all pages of a manufacturer's installation 
instructions (48).
    Response: The final rule continues to require that the manufacturer 
provide installation instructions certified by a registered 
professional engineer indicating at least one acceptable system of 
anchoring (24 CFR 3280.306(b)). However, the Department will consider 
the suggestion to require a DAPIA approval stamp on each page of the 
manufacturers' installation instructions when developing future 
revisions to the Manufactured Home Procedural and Enforcement 
Regulations (24 CFR part 3282).
    Comment: Some explanation is needed about the effect of the new 
standards on ``B'' letters, interpretative bulletins, and compliance 
determinations (122).
    Response: This new standard supersedes any portions of ``B'' 
letters, interpretative bulletins, and compliance determinations that 
are in conflict with this standard.
    Comment: If the higher standards are adopted, manufacturers will 
prefer to build modular homes that meet the necessary State standards.
    Response: Manufacturers are free to channel their activities in any 
way that best responds to market forces. In the development of the 
regulatory impact analysis, the Department has accounted for the cost 
of potential lost business. To the extent that manufacturers could 
redirect their production to alternative housing, the costs of the 
higher standards would be lessened. However, as noted above, the 
Department believes that the trend in State standards also will be to 
stricter wind standards. Therefore, while manufactured homes may 
experience a price increase because of these standards, they will be 
affordable relative to site-built homes meeting the higher State-
imposed standards.
    Comment: The Department should prepare a brochure on hurricane 
awareness and windstorm protection.
    Response: As noted in the discussion on Improved Anchoring and 
Foundation Systems earlier in the preamble, the Department is reviewing 
what would be an appropriate consumer information disclosure 
requirement on installation. As part of that review, the Department may 
consider requirements on the disclosure of general information relating 
to high winds and hurricanes, and may coordinate with FEMA on the 
development of a brochure on hurricane awareness and protection for 
occupants of manufactured homes.

    (Note: Other specific comments that have become moot as a result 
of the decision not to proceed with changes in Wind Zone I and 
requirements relating to a permanent foundation system are not 
addressed in this preamble.)

III. Description of Changes to the Standards

    Because of the risk of loss of life to building occupants and the 
extraordinary loss of property due to Hurricane Andrew, the Department 
has determined that it is necessary to amend the Federal Manufactured 
Home Construction and Safety Standards (FMHCSS) to raise the level of 
wind resistance standards, especially in areas subject to high winds. 
Specifically, the Department is amending the FMHCSS to include a Basic 
Wind Zone Map that is based on the map contained in the incorporated 
standard ASCE 7-88, ``Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other 
Structures.''
    The revised map contains a more concentrated area for the 100 mph 
wind zone than was specified in the current standard or the proposed 
rule. The boundary between Wind Zones I and II follows the 90 mph 
isotach on the ASCE 7-88 basic wind speed map, while the boundary 
between Wind Zones II and III remains the 100 mph isotach indicated in 
the proposed rule. The design wind speeds for high wind areas are 
designated as 100 mph for Wind Zone II and 110 mph for Wind Zone III. 
This rule does not change the current design wind speed for Wind Zone 
I.
    Based on the revised map, this final rule enumerates the States, 
Territories, and local governments in which the more stringent 
standards will be applicable. The enumerated areas are those that the 
Department has determined to be at least partially within the higher 
wind zones demarcated on the revised map. The Department also will 
monitor local building code requirements and will consider adoption 
through rulemaking of requirements for manufactured homes that are 
comparable to any more stringent requirements established for site-
built homes by a State or local building authority.
    The current wind standard for manufactured housing is considered 
inadequate because it addresses only positive (external) design wind 
pressures for walls, components, windows, and cladding, without 
specifying that designs must take into account the effect of negative 
pressure (suction) on these building elements, as well as internal 
pressures on walls and roof/ceiling systems. The formulae used in ASCE 
7-88 also include other factors, which account for higher uplift forces 
on roof eaves, ridges, overhangs, and corners. These and other issues 
are now addressed in high wind areas by requiring the manufactured home 
structure, components, and cladding to be designed to resist design 
wind forces for Exposure C, as specified in ASCE 7-88.
    Requirements for structural assemblies, components, connectors, 
fasteners, and a number of other areas will be strengthened so that 
parts and portions of the home will be able to resist the same wind 
forces as required for site-built and modular housing. In addition, the 
increased wind loads required by this rule are applicable whether 
structural systems, components, or other aspects of the design are 
substantiated by engineering analysis or by suitable load tests (see 
subpart E of part 3280). The revised standards also require that the 
ground anchoring and foundation support systems continue to be designed 
by a registered engineer or architect in a manner adequate to withstand 
the higher wind forces specified.

III. Section-by-Section Analysis

    The Secretary has determined that the following changes should be 
made to the standards:
    (1) Section 3280.4--The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 
is added to the list of organizations issuing standards that are 
incorporated by reference. The street addresses are corrected for two 
other organizations listed.
    (2) Section 3280.5--Technical and conforming corrections are made 
to standardize paragraph designations to Federal Register format and 
clarify the information to be included on data plates. The new 
requirements also incorporate changes to the data plate adopted in the 
Energy Rule (58 FR 54975, 55003) for effect in October 1994, in order 
to avoid having inconsistent requirements become effective within a 
short time.
    The data plate is also being expanded to indicate that manufactured 
homes should not be located within 1500' of the coastline in Wind Zones 
II and III unless the home and its anchoring or foundation system are 
designed for the increased requirements of Exposure D in ASCE 7-88. The 
data plate will now also indicate whether the home has been equipped 
with storm shutters and, if shutters are not provided, will strongly 
recommend that the home be made ready for these devices in accordance 
with the method described in the installation instructions.
    (3) Sections 3280.302(a)(8), 3280.303(d), 3280.305(c)--The 
definition and references to ``hurricane resistive design'' in these 
sections are deleted, in favor of the Wind Zone II and III designations 
in the revised Basic Wind Zone Map. These changes will result in the 
identification of design wind forces and wind speeds for which the home 
has been designed, rather than the designation of homes as ``hurricane 
resistive.''
    (4) Section 3280.304--The incorporated standards are amended to 
require that the minimum design loads be based on ASCE 7-88, which 
replaces the obsolete ANSI A58.1-1982 standard currently referenced in 
this section.
    In addition, the National Design Specification for Wood Members 
(NDS), incorporated by reference, is updated to the most current 
specification issued by the American Forest and Paper Association 
(AFPA). Because manufacturers will need to redesign the structure's 
resistance to wind forces, the redesign should be accomplished with the 
most current design values for wood. Accordingly, the 1991 NDS is 
incorporated in its entirety into the standards.
    (5) Section 3280.305(c)--The standards are amended to require that 
for manufactured homes in high wind areas, the home and each wind 
resisting part, including components and cladding, be completely 
designed to resist the design wind pressures specified for a 50-year 
recurrence level by ASCE 7-88 or the pressures specified in a table of 
equivalent design wind load provisions. The Department has designated 
three wind zones: Zone I (current wind design requirements for Zone I); 
Zone II (design wind speed of 100 mph); and Zone III (design wind speed 
of 110 mph).
    The Table of Design Pressures in the proposed rule is clarified and 
expanded. Editorial revisions to clarify the application of the uplift 
pressure requirements for exterior roof coverings, eaves and gables. In 
addition, footnotes are included to indicate:
     Distributional pressure effects between windward and 
leeward walls;
     The application of the Table is limited to roof slopes 
between 10 and 30 degrees and that horizontal drag pressures need not 
be considered for roof slopes under 20 degrees;
     The design uplift pressures are the same regardless of 
whether they are applied normal to the roof surface or to the 
horizontal projection of the roof; and
     Exterior roof and wall coverings (excluding glazing), 
sheathing, and fastenings need not be evaluated for the design 
pressures specified by the Table, when fastened to a 3/8'' structural 
rated sheathing and the sheathing is oriented and secured to framing 
members in accordance with the fastening schedule specified in the 
Table.
    The Basic Wind Zone Map is revised by delineating the boundary 
between Wind Zones I and II as the 90 mph isotach, and the boundary 
between Wind Zones II and III as the 100 mph isotach, on the ASCE 7-88 
basic wind speed map. This change will result in certain areas of 
existing Wind Zone II being located in the modified Wind Zone I. The 
boundary between Wind Zones I and III in Alaska is now designated as 
the 90 mph isotach on the ASCE 7-88 map.
    (6) Section 3280.305(d)--Interpretative Bulletin D-5-76, under 
which the Department has been operating since the late 1970s, is 
paraphrased as a new paragraph (2). It clarifies that the deflection 
limit for a cantilevered roof is 2 times the length divided by 180. 
Eaves and cornices shall be designed for a net uplift pressure of 2.5 
times the design uplift wind pressure cited in Sec. 3280.305(c)(1)(i) 
for Wind Zone I, and for the design pressures cited in 
Sec. 3280.305(c)(1)(ii) for Wind Zones II and III. This change has 
already been issued in the Energy Rule (58 FR 54975, 55006), but is 
modified in this rule to reflect the standards established for the new 
Wind Zones.
    (7) Section 3280.305(e)--The standards for fastening of roof 
framing to wall framing and wall to floor framing are changed to 
require the use of 26 gage minimum steel strapping, or those elements 
shall be connected by a combination of strapping and structural rated 
wall sheathing that overlaps the roof and floor. Investigations after 
Hurricane Andrew revealed that current designs allowed 30 gage straps 
with staples for connections of roofs to walls, and walls to floors; 
such straps were inadequate to resist even moderate wind forces.
    (7) Section 3280.306(a)--The wind design loads used for calculating 
resistance of support and anchoring systems to overturning and lateral 
movements are revised to include the simultaneous application of the 
horizontal drag and uplift forces determined in Sec. 3280.305(c).
    (8) Section 3280.306(g)(2)--The standards are amended to require 
that the manufacturer's instructions for anchoring equipment be 
certified in accordance with the testing procedures found in ASTM 
D3953-91, Standard Specification for Strapping, Flat Steel and Seals. 
The certification must be made by a registered engineer, architect, or 
independent third party testing agency. This is an updated standard for 
steel strapping that supersedes the standard originally referenced in 
the Federal standard.
    (9) Sections 3280.403 and 3280.404--These sections are amended to 
require all primary windows, including egress windows and sliding glass 
doors, to resist the design exterior and interior wind pressures 
specified in Sec. 3280.305(c)(1) for components and cladding. These 
requirements are effective one year from today's date of publication of 
this rule, as provided in the ``DATES'' section of this preamble. In 
addition, manufacturers are required to provide instructions for the 
installation of shutters or protective covers, to protect the windows 
and doors.
    (10) Section 3282.362--Minor conforming changes regarding the data 
plate are made in paragraph (c)(3)(i). These changes are explained 
under Sec. 3280.5.

V. Other Matters

Significant Regulatory Action

    The Director of the Office of Management and Budget has indicated 
that this rule could constitute a ``significant regulatory action'' as 
that term is defined in section 3(f) of the Executive Order on 
Regulatory Planning and Review issued by the President on September 30, 
1993. Because an estimation of the new requirements as proposed 
indicated that they might have an annual effect on the economy of $100 
million or more, a regulatory impact analysis has been prepared for 
this final rule. This analysis concludes that the requirements that 
will be imposed by this final rule will have an effect on the economy 
of less than $100 million, and will have benefits that outweigh the 
costs of the additional requirements. This analysis is available for 
public inspection during regular business hours in room 10276, Rules 
Docket Clerk, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and 
Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Secretary, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 
U.S.C. 605(b)), has reviewed this rule before publication and by 
approving it certifies that this rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. However, the 
regulatory impact analysis referenced in the preceding paragraph also 
provides relevant analysis and discussion of possible economic impact 
on businesses, including small businesses, that must comply with the 
provisions of this rule. The rule will establish additional safety 
standards for manufactured housing, and therefore would affect the 
design and construction requirements in specified areas of the country. 
The nature of the rule and its purpose do not present an opportunity 
for the Department to vary the rule's requirements so as to reduce 
burdens on small entities.

Environmental Impact

    At the time of publication of the proposed rule, a finding of no 
significant impact with respect to the environment was made in 
accordance with HUD regulations in 24 CFR part 50 that implement 
section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 
U.S.C. 4332). The proposed rule is adopted by this final rule without 
any change that would be significant for purposes of additional 
environmental impact. Accordingly, the initial finding of no 
significant impact remains applicable, and is available for public 
inspection between 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. weekdays in the office of 
the Rules Docket Clerk at the above address.

Executive Order 12612, Federalism

    The General Counsel, as the Designated Official under section 6(a) 
of Executive Order 12612, Federalism, has determined that the policies 
contained in this rule have federalism implications, and are subject to 
review under the Order. Specifically, the rule provides for mandatory 
specifications for the construction of manufactured homes that exceed 
the standards currently permitted in certain areas of the country. 
States and local governments would no longer have the option of 
imposing separate requirements that exceed current standards, but are 
less stringent than these new standards. However, because the Federal 
standards already preempt local discretion in the construction of 
manufactured homes, this marginal degree of preemption is not believed 
to be significant for purposes of identifying federalism concerns.
    Therefore, for these reasons and because of the health and safety 
aspects of this rule, the General Counsel has determined that the 
federalism implications are not sufficient to warrant the preparation 
of a federalism assessment under the Order.

Executive Order 12606, the Family

    In the proposed rule, the Department indicated that the rule was 
not subject to review under Executive Order 12606, The Family. As 
addressed earlier in this preamble, some of the commenters were 
concerned about this position. Although the Department does not believe 
this final rule implicates family concerns within the spirit of the 
Executive Order, the Department has analyzed the rule as required under 
the Order.
    The General Counsel, as the Designated Official under the Executive 
Order, has evaluated the potential of this rule to have a significant 
impact on family formation, maintenance, and general well-being. 
Although as a result of the more stringent construction requirements 
implemented by this rule, some families may lose an ownership option 
for housing, the general well-being of families, and society, is served 
better by ensuring minimal quality standards for such housing. The 
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development has certified that, to the 
extent permitted by law, the rule has undergone a Family Impact 
Assessment under the Executive Order.

Regulatory Agenda

    This rule was listed as Item 1551 in the Department's Semiannual 
Agenda of Regulations published on October 25, 1993 (58 FR 56402, 
56433) in accordance with Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act.
    The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance program number is 
14.171.

List of Subjects

24 CFR Part 3280

    Fire prevention, Housing standards, Incorporation by reference, 
Manufactured homes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

24 CFR Part 3282

    Administrative practice and procedure, Consumer protection, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, 
Investigations, Manufactured homes, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, parts 3280 and 3282 of 
title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as follows.

PART 3280--MANUFACTURED HOME CONSTRUCTION AND SAFETY STANDARDS

    1. The authority citation for part 3280 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 5403 and 5424; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).

    2. Section 3280.4(b) is amended by adding an additional 
organization in the listing of organizations issuing referenced 
standards immediately following the listing for the Air Conditioning 
and Refrigeration Institute (ARI), and revising the addresses for two 
previously listed organizations, to read as follows:


Sec. 3280.4   Incorporation by reference.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    AFPA [previously (N)FPA]--American Forest and Paper Association, 
1250 Connecticut Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20036 [previously named 
(N)FPA-National Forest Products Association].
* * * * *
    ASCE--American Society of Civil Engineers, 345 East 47th Street, 
New York, NY 10017-2398
* * * * *
    SJI--Steel Joist Institute, 1205 48th Avenue North, Suite A, Myrtle 
Beach, SC 29577
* * * * *
    3. Section 3280.5 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 3280.5   Data plate.

    Each manufactured home shall bear a data plate affixed in a 
permanent manner near the main electrical panel or other readily 
accessible and visible location. Each data plate shall be made of 
material what will receive typed information as well as preprinted 
information, and which can be cleaned of ordinary smudges or household 
dirt without removing information contained on the data plate; or the 
data plate shall be covered in a permanent manner with materials that 
will make it possible to clean the data plate of ordinary dirt and 
smudges without obscuring the information. Each data plate shall 
contain not less than the following information:
    (a) The name and address of the manufacturing plant in which the 
manufactured home was manufactured.
    (b) The serial number and model designation of the unit, and the 
date the unit was manufactured.
    (c) The statement:

    This manufactured home is designed to comply with the Federal 
Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards in force at the 
time of manufacture.

    (d) A list of the certification label(s) number(s) that are affixed 
to each transportable manufactured section under Sec. 3280.8.
    (e) A list of major factory-installed equipment, including the 
manufacturer's name and the model designation of each appliance.
    (f) Reference to the roof load zone and wind load zone for which 
the home is designed and duplicates of the maps as set forth in 
Sec. 3280.305(c). This information may be combined with the heating/
cooling certificate and insulation zone map required by Secs. 3280.510 
and 3280.511. The Wind Zone Map on the Data Plate shall also contain 
the statement:

    This home has not been designed for the higher wind pressures 
and anchoring provisions required for ocean/coastal areas and should 
not be located within 1500' of the coastline in Wind Zones II and 
III, unless the home and its anchoring and foundation system have 
been designed for the increased requirements specified for Exposure 
D in ANSI/ASCE 7-88.

    (g) The statement:

    This home has--has not--(appropriate blank to be checked by 
manufacturer) been equipped with storm shutters or other protective 
coverings for windows and exterior door openings. For homes designed 
to be located in Wind Zones II and III, which have not been provided 
with shutters or equivalent covering devices, it is strongly 
recommended that the home be made ready to be equipped with these 
devices in accordance with the method recommended in the 
manufacturers printed instructions.

    (h) The statement: ``Design Approval by'', followed by the name of 
the agency that approved the design.


Sec. 3280.302   [Amended]

    4. Section 3280.302 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph 
(a)(8).


Sec. 3280.303  [Amended]

    5. Section 3280.303 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph 
(d).
    6. Section 3280.304 is amended by revising the last item listed 
under the heading ``Steel:''; by revising the entry ``National Design 
Specifications for Wood Construction'' listed under the heading ``Wood 
and Wood Products:''; and revising the entry under the heading 
``Unclassified:'' in paragraph (b)(1), to read as follows:


Sec. 3280.304  Materials.

* * * * *
    (b)(1) * * *

Steel:
* * * * *
    Standard Specification for Strapping, Flat Steel and Seals--ASTM 
D3953-91.

Wood and Wood Products:
* * * * *
    National Design Specifications for Wood Construction, 1991 Edition, 
With Supplement, Design Values for Wood Construction, AFPA.
* * * * *
Unclassified: American Society of Civil Engineers Minimum Design Loads 
for Buildings and Other Structures--ANSI/ASCE 7-88.
* * * * *
    7. Section 3280.305 is amended by adding a new paragraph (b)(4) and 
by revising paragraphs (a), (b)(3), (c)(1) and (2); adding a heading 
for (c)(3) introductory text; and revising (c)(3) (iii), (c)(4), (d), 
and (e), to read as follows:


Sec. 3280.305  Structural design requirements.

    (a) General. Each manufactured home shall be designed and 
constructed as a completely integrated structure capable of sustaining 
the design load requirements of this standard, and shall be capable of 
transmitting these loads to stabilizing devices without exceeding the 
allowable stresses or deflections. Roof framing shall be securely 
fastened to wall framing, walls to floor structure, and floor structure 
to chassis to secure and maintain continuity between the floor and 
chassis, so as to resist wind overturning, uplift, and sliding as 
imposed by design loads in this part. Uncompressed finished flooring 
greater than 1/8 inch in thickness shall not extend beneath load-
bearing walls that are fastened to the floor structure.
    (b) Design loads-- * * *
    (3) When engineering calculations are performed, allowable unit 
stresses may be increased as provided in the documents referenced in 
Sec. 3280.304 except as otherwise indicated in Secs. 3280.304(b)(1) and 
3280.306(a).
    (4) Whenever the roof slope does not exceed 20 degrees, the design 
horizontal wind loads required by Sec. 3280.305(c)(1) may be determined 
without including the vertical roof projection of the manufactured 
home. However, regardless of the roof slope of the manufactured home, 
the vertical roof projection shall be included when determining the 
wind loading for split level or clerestory-type roof systems.
    (c) Wind, snow, and roof loads--(1) Wind loads--design 
requirements. (i) Standard wind Loads (Zone I). When a manufactured 
home is not designed to resist the wind loads for high wind areas (Zone 
II or Zone III) specified in paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section, the 
manufactured home and each of its wind resisting parts and portions 
shall be designed for horizontal wind loads of not less than 15 psf and 
net uplift load of not less than 9 psf.
    (ii) Wind loads for high wind areas (Zone II and Zone III). When 
designed for high wind areas (Zone II and Zone III), the manufactured 
home, each of its wind resisting parts (including, but not limited to, 
shear walls, diaphragms, ridge beams, and their fastening and anchoring 
systems), and its components and cladding materials (including, but not 
limited to, roof trusses, wall studs, exterior sheathing, roofing and 
siding materials, exterior glazing, and their connections and 
fasteners) shall be designed by a Professional Engineer or Architect to 
resist:
    (A) The design wind loads for Exposure C specified in ANSI/ASCE 7-
88, ``Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures,'' for a 
fifty-year recurrence interval, and a design wind speed of 100 mph, as 
specified for Wind Zone II, or 110 mph, as specified for Wind Zone III 
(Basic Wind Zone Map); or
    (B) The wind pressures specified in the following Table:

                     Table of Design Wind Pressures                     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Wind zone II    Wind zone III
                Element                     design wind     design wind 
                                           speed 100 MPH   speed 110 MPH
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anchorage for lateral and vertical                                      
 stability (See Sec. 3280.306(a)):                                      
    Net Horizontal Drag1, 2:............  \3\39 PSF  \3\47 PSF
    Uplift\4\:..........................      \5\-27 PSF         -32 PSF
Main wind force resisting system:                                       
    Shearwalls, Diaphragms and their                                    
     Fastening and Anchorage Systems1, 2  39                
                                                     PSF  47
                                                                     PSF
    Ridge beams and other Main Roof                                     
     Support Beams (Beams supporting                                    
     expanding room sections, etc.).....         -30 PSF         -36 PSF
Components and cladding:                                                
    Roof trusses\4\ in all areas;                                       
     trusses shall be doubled within 3'-                                
     0'' from each end of the roof......      \5\-39 PSF      \5\-47 PSF
    Exterior roof coverings, sheathing                                  
     and fastenings\4\,\6\,\7\ in all                                   
     areas except the following.........      \5\-39 PSF      \5\-47 PSF
        Within 3'-0'' from each gable                                   
         end (overhang at end wall) of                                  
         the roof or endwall if no                                      
         overhang is provided...........      \5\-73 PSF      \5\-89 PSF
        Within 3'-0'' from the ridge and                                
         eave (overhang at sidewall) or                                 
         sidewall if no eave is provided      \5\-51 PSF      \5\-62 PSF
    Eaves (Overhangs at Sidewalls)......      \5\-51 PSF      \5\-62 PSF
    Gables (Overhangs at Endwalls)......      \5\-73 PSF      \5\-89 PSF
    Wall studs in sidewalls and                                         
     endwalls, exterior windows and                                     
     sliding glass doors (glazing and                                   
     framing), exterior coverings,                                      
     sheathing and fastenings\8\:.......  48                
                                                     PSF  58
                                                                     PSF
        Within 3'-0'' from each corner                                  
         of the sidewall and endwall....  ..............  ..............
        All other areas.................  38                
                                                     PSF  46
                                                                    PSF 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTES:                                                                  
                                                                        
1The net horizontal drag of 39 PSF to be used in calculating
  Anchorage for Lateral and Vertical Stability and for the design of    
  Main Wind Force Resisting Systems is based on a distribution of wind  
  pressures of +0.8 or +24 PSF to the windward wall and -0.5 or -15 PSF 
  to the leeward wall.                                                  
2Horizontal drag pressures need not be applied to roof projections when 
  the roof slope does not exceed 20 degrees.                            
3+ sign would mean pressures are acting towards or on the structure; -  
  sign means pressures are acting away from the structure;  
  sign means forces can act in either direction, towards or away from   
  the structure.                                                        
44. Design values in this ``Table'' are only applicable to roof slopes  
  between 10 degrees (nominal 2/12 slope) and 30 degrees.               
5The design uplift pressures are the same whether they are applied      
  normal to the surface of the roof or to the horizontal projection of  
  the roof.                                                             
6Shingle roof coverings that are secured with 6 fasteners per shingle   
  through an underlayment which is cemented to a 3/8'' structural rated 
  roof sheathing need not be evaluated for these design wind pressures. 
77. Structural rated roof sheathing that is at least 3/8'' in thickness,
  installed with the long dimension perpendicular to roof framing       
  supports, and secured with fasteners at 4'' on center within 3'-0'' of
  each gable end or endwall if no overhang is provided and 6'' on center
  in all other areas, need not be evaluated for these design wind       
  pressures.                                                            
8Exterior coverings that are secured at 6'' o.c. to a 3/8'' structural  
  rated sheathing that is fastened to wall framing members at 6'' on    
  center need not be evaluated for these design wind pressures.         

    (2) Wind loads--zone designations. The Wind Zone and specific wind 
design load requirements are determined by the fastest basic wind speed 
(mph) within each Zone and the intended location, based on the Basic 
Wind Zone Map, as follows:
    (i) Wind Zone I. Wind Zone I consists of those areas on the Basic 
Wind Zone Map that are not identified in paragraphs (c)(2)(ii) or (iii) 
of this section as being within Wind Zone II or III, respectively.
    (ii) Wind Zone II.....100 mph. The following areas are deemed to be 
within Wind Zone II of the Basic Wind Zone Map:
    Local governments: The following local governments listed by State 
(counties, unless specified otherwise):
    Alabama: Baldwin and Mobile.
    Florida: All counties except those identified in paragraph 
(c)(1)(i)(C) of this section as within Wind Zone III.
    Georgia: Bryan, Camden, Chatham, Glynn, Liberty, McIntosh.
    Louisiana: Parishes of Acadia, Allen, Ascension, Assumption, 
Calcasieu, Cameron, East Baton Rouge, East Feliciana, Evangeline, 
Iberia, Iberville, Jefferson, Jefferson Davis, LaFayette, La Fourche, 
Livingston, Orleans, Plaquemines, Pointe Coupee, St. Bernard, St. 
Charles, St. Helena, St. James, St. John the Baptist, St. Landry, St. 
Martin, St. Mary, St. Tammany, Tangipahoa, Terrabonne, Vermillion, 
Washington, West Baton Rouge, and West Feliciana.
    Maine: Hancock and Washington.
    Massachusetts: Barnstable, Bristol, Dukes, Nantucket, and Plymouth.
    Mississippi: George, Hancock, Harrison, Jackson, Pearl River, and 
Stone.
    North Carolina: Beaufort, Brunswick, Camden, Carteret, Chowan, 
Columbus, Craven, Currituck, Dare, Hyde, Jones, New Hanover, Onslow, 
Pamlico, Pasquotank, Pender, Perquimans, Tyrrell, and Washington.
    South Carolina: Beaufort, Berkeley, Charleston, Colleton, 
Dorchester, Georgetown, Horry, Jasper, and Williamsburg.
    Texas: Aransas, Brazoria, Calhoun, Cameron, Chambers, Galveston, 
Jefferson, Kenedy, Kleberg, Matagorda, Nueces, Orange, Refugio, San 
Patricio, and Willacy.
    Virginia: Cities of Chesapeake, Norfolk, Portsmouth, Princess Anne, 
and Virginia Beach.
    (iii) Wind Zone III.....110 mph. The following areas are considered 
to be within Wind Zone III of the Basic Wind Zone Map:
    (A) States and Territories: The entire State of Hawaii, the coastal 
regions of Alaska (as determined by the 90 mph isotach on the ANSI/ASCE 
7-88 map), and all of the U.S. Territories of American Samoa, Guam, 
Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, Trust Territory of the Pacific 
Islands, and the United States Virgin Islands.
    (B) Local governments: The following local governments listed by 
State (counties, unless specified otherwise):
    Florida: Broward, Charlotte, Collier, Dade, Franklin, Gulf, Hendry, 
Lee, Martin, Manatee, Monroe, Palm Beach, Pinellas, and Sarasota.
    Louisiana: Parishes of Jefferson, La Fourche, Orleans, Plaquemines, 
St. Bernard, St. Charles, St. Mary, and Terrabonne.
    North Carolina: Carteret, Dare, and Hyde.
    (iv) Consideration of local requirements. For areas where local 
building code requirements exceed the design wind speed requirements of 
these standards, the Department will consider the adoption through 
rulemaking of the more stringent requirements of the State or local 
building authority.
    (3) Snow and roof loads. * * *
    (iii) Eaves and cornices shall be designed for a net uplift 
pressure of 2.5 times the design uplift wind pressure cited in 
Sec. 3280.305(c)(1)(i) for Wind Zone I, and for the design pressures 
cited in Sec. 3280.305(c)(1)(ii) for Wind Zones II and III.
    (4) Data plate requirements. The Data Plate posted in the 
manufactured home (see Sec. 3280.5) shall designate the wind and roof 
load zones or, if designed for higher loads, the actual design external 
snow and wind loads for which the home has been designed. The Data 
Plate shall include reproductions of the Load Zone Maps shown in this 
section, with any related information. The Load Zone Maps shall be not 
less than either 3\1/2\ in. by 2\1/4\ in., or one-half the size 
illustrated in the Code of Federal Regulations.

BILLING CODE 4210-27-P

TR14JA94.000


BILLING CODE 4210-27-C
    (d) Design load deflection. (1) When a structural assembly is 
subjected to total design live loads, the deflection for structural 
framing members shall not exceed the following (where L equals the 
clear span between supports or two times the length of a cantilever):

Floor--L/240
Roof and ceiling--L/180
Headers, beams, and girders (vertical load)--L/180
Walls and partitions--L/180
    (2) The allowable eave or cornice deflection for uplift is to be 
measured at the design uplift load of 9 psf for Wind Zone I, and at the 
design uplift pressure cited in paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section 
for Wind Zones II and III. The allowable deflection shall be (2 x Lc)/
180, where Lc is the measured horizontal eave projection from the wall.
    (e) Fastening of structural systems. (1) Roof framing shall be 
securely fastened to wall framing, walls to floor structure, and floor 
structure to chassis to secure and maintain continuity between the 
floor and chassis, so as to resist wind overturning, uplift, and 
sliding as specified in this part.
    (2) For Wind Zones II and III, roof trusses shall be secured to 
exterior wall framing members (studs), and exterior wall framing 
members (studs) shall be secured to floor framing members, with 26 gage 
minimum steel strapping or brackets or by a combination of 26 gage 
minimum steel strapping or brackets and structural rated wall sheathing 
that overlaps the roof and floor. Steel strapping or brackets shall be 
installed at a maximum spacing of 24'' on center in Wind Zone II and at 
a maximum of 16'' on center in Wind Zone III. The number and type of 
fasteners used to secure the steel straps or brackets or structural 
sheathing shall be capable of transferring all uplift forces between 
elements being joined.
* * * * *
    8. Section 3280.306 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) 
introductory text and (b); adding a heading for paragraph (c) 
introductory text; revising paragraphs (c) (1) through (3) and (d) 
through (g) to read as follows:


Sec. 3280.306  Windstorm protection--support and anchoring systems.

    (a) Provisions for support and anchoring systems. Each manufactured 
home shall have provisions for support/anchoring or foundation systems 
that, when properly designed and installed, will resist overturning and 
lateral movement (sliding) of the manufactured home as imposed by the 
respective design loads. For Wind Zone I, the design wind loads to be 
used for calculating resistance to overturning and lateral movement 
shall be the simultaneous application of the wind loads indicated in 
Sec. 3280.305(c)(1)(i), increased by a factor of 1.5. The 1.5 factor of 
safety for Wind Zone I is also to be applied simultaneously to both the 
vertical building projection, as horizontal wind load, and across the 
surface of the full roof structure, as uplift loading. For Wind Zones 
II and III, the resistance shall be determined by the simultaneous 
application of the horizontal drag and uplift wind loads, in accordance 
with Sec. 3280.305(c)(1)(ii). The basic allowable stresses of materials 
required to resist overturning and lateral movement shall not be 
increased in the design and proportioning of these members. No 
additional shape or location factors need to be applied in the design 
of the tiedown system. The dead load of the structure may be used to 
resist these wind loading effects in all Wind Zones.
    (1) * * *
    (b) Contents of instructions. (1) The manufacturer shall provide 
printed instructions with each manufactured home specifying the 
location and required capacity of stabilizing devices on which the 
design is based. The manufacturer shall provide drawings and 
specifications certified by a registered professional engineer or 
architect indicating at least one acceptable system of anchoring, 
including the details of required straps or cables, their end 
connections, and all other devices needed to transfer the wind loads 
from the manufactured home to an anchoring or foundation system.
    (2) For anchoring systems, the instructions shall indicate:
    (i) The minimum anchor capacity required;
    (ii) That anchors should be certified by a professional engineer, 
architect, or a nationally recognized testing laboratory as to their 
resistance, based on the maximum angle of diagonal tie and/or vertical 
tie loading (see paragraph (c)(3) of this section) and angle of anchor 
installation, and type of soil in which the anchor is to be installed;
    (iii) That ground anchors should be embedded below the frost line 
and be at least 12 inches above the water table; and
    (iv) That ground anchors should be installed to their full depth, 
and stabilizer plates should be installed to provide added resistance 
to overturning or sliding forces.
    (v) That anchoring equipment should be certified by a registered 
professional engineer or architect to resist these specified forces in 
accordance with testing procedures in ASTM Standard Specification 
D3953-91, Standard Specification for Strapping, Flat Steel and Seals.
    (c) Design criteria. * * *
    (1) The minimum number of ties provided per side of each home shall 
resist design wind loads required in Sec. 3280.305(c)(1).
    (2) Ties shall be as evenly spaced as practicable along the length 
of the manufactured home, with not more than two (2) feet open-end 
spacing on each end.
    (3) Vertical ties or straps shall be positioned at studs. Where a 
vertical tie and a diagonal tie are located at the same place, both 
ties may be connected to a single anchor, provided that the anchor used 
is capable of carrying both loadings, simultaneously.
    (4) * * * * *
    (d) Requirements for ties. Manufactured homes in Wind Zone I 
require only diagonal ties. These ties shall be placed along the main 
frame and below the outer side walls. All manufactured homes designed 
to be located in Wind Zones II and III shall have a vertical tie 
installed at each diagonal tie location.
    (e) Protection requirements. Protection shall be provided at sharp 
corners where the anchoring system requires the use of external straps 
or cables. Protection shall also be provided to minimize damage to 
siding by the cable or strap.
    (f) Anchoring equipment--load resistance. Anchoring equipment shall 
be capable of resisting an allowable working load equal to or exceeding 
3,150 pounds and shall be capable of withstanding a 50 percent overload 
(4,725 pounds total) without failure of either the anchoring equipment 
or the attachment point on the manufactured home.
    (g) Anchoring equipment--weatherization. Anchoring equipment 
exposed to weathering shall have a resistance to weather deterioration 
at least equivalent to that provided by a coating of zinc on steel of 
not less than 0.30 ounces per square foot of surface coated, and in 
accordance with the following:
    (1) Slit or cut edges of zinc-coated steel strapping do not need to 
be zinc coated.
    (2) Type 1, Finish B, Grade 1 steel strapping, 1-1/4 inches wide 
and 0.035 inches in thickness, certified by a registered professional 
engineer or architect as conforming with ASTM Standard Specification 
D3953-91, Standard Specification for Strapping, Flat Steel, and Seals.
* * * * *
    9. Section 3280.403 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (e) 
introductory text and by adding new paragraph (f), to read as follows:


Sec. 3280.403  Standard for windows and sliding glass doors used in 
manufactured homes.

* * * * *
    (b) Standard. By January 17, 1995, all primary windows and sliding 
glass doors shall comply with AAMA Standard 1701.2-1985, Primary Window 
and Sliding Glass Door Voluntary Standard for Utilization in 
Manufactured Housing, except that the exterior and interior pressure 
tests for components and cladding shall be conducted at the design wind 
loads required by Sec. 3280.305(c)(1).
* * * * *
    (e) Certification. Except as otherwise indicated in paragraph (b) 
of this section, by January 17, 1995, all primary windows and sliding 
glass doors to be installed in manufactured homes shall be certified as 
complying with AAMA Standard 1701.2-1985 and design wind pressures 
specified in Sec. 3280.305.
* * * * *
    (f) Protection of primary window and sliding glass door openings in 
high wind areas. For homes designed to be located in Wind Zones II and 
III, manufacturers shall design exterior walls surrounding the primary 
window and sliding glass door openings to allow for the installation of 
shutters or other protective covers, such as plywood, to cover these 
openings. Although not required, the Department encourages 
manufacturers to provide the shutters or protective covers and to 
install receiving devices, sleeves, or anchors for fasteners to be used 
to secure the shutters or protective covers to the exterior walls. If 
the manufacturer does not provide shutters or other protective covers 
to cover these openings, the manufacturer must provide to the homeowner 
instructions for at least one method of protecting primary window and 
sliding glass door openings. This method must be capable of resisting 
the design wind pressures specified in Sec. 3280.305 without taking the 
home out of conformance with the standards in this part. These 
instructions must be included in the printed instructions that 
accompany each manufactured home. The instructions shall also indicate 
whether receiving devices, sleeves, or anchors, for fasteners to be 
used to secure the shutters or protective covers to the exterior walls, 
have been installed or provided by the manufacturer.
    10. Section 3280.404 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (e) 
and by adding a new paragraph (f), to read as follows:


Sec. 3280.404  Standard for egress windows and devices for use in 
manufactured homes.

* * * * *
    (b) Performance. By January 17, 1995, egress windows including 
auxiliary frame and seals, if any, shall meet all requirements of AAMA 
Standard 1701.2-1985, Primary Window and Sliding Glass Door Voluntary 
Standard for Utilization in Manufactured Housing and AAMA Standard 
1704-1985, Voluntary Standard Egress Window Systems for Utilization in 
Manufactured Housing, except as otherwise indicated in 
Sec. 3280.403(b).
* * * * *
    (e) Certification of egress windows and devices. Except as 
otherwise indicated by paragraph (b) of this section, by January 17, 
1995, egress windows and devices shall be listed in accordance with the 
procedures and requirements of AAMA Standard 1704-1985 and design wind 
pressures specified in Sec. 3280.305.
    (f) Protection of egress window openings in high wind areas. For 
homes designed to be located in Wind Zones II and III, manufacturers 
shall design exterior walls surrounding the egress window openings to 
allow for the installation of shutters or other protective covers, such 
as plywood, to cover these openings. Although not required, the 
Department encourages manufacturers to provide the shutters or 
protective covers and to install receiving devices, sleeves, or anchors 
for fasteners to be used to secure the shutters or protective covers to 
the exterior walls. If the manufacturer does not provide shutters or 
other protective covers to cover these openings, the manufacturer must 
provide to the homeowner instructions for at least one method of 
protecting egress window openings. This method must be capable of 
resisting the design wind pressures specified in Sec. 3280.305 without 
taking the home out of conformance with the standards in this part. 
These instructions must be included in the printed instructions that 
accompany each manufactured home. The instructions shall also indicate 
whether receiving devices, sleeves, or anchors, for fasteners to be 
used to secure the shutters or protective covers to the exterior walls, 
have been installed or provided by the manufacturer.
    11. Section 3280.405 is amended by adding paragraph (f), to read as 
follows:


Sec. 3280.405  Standard for swinging exterior passage doors for use in 
manufactured homes.

* * * * *
    (f) Protection of exterior doors in high wind areas. For homes 
designed to be located in Wind Zones II and III, manufacturers shall 
design exterior walls surrounding the exterior door openings to allow 
for the installation of shutters or other protective covers, such as 
plywood, to cover these openings. Although not required, the Department 
encourages manufacturers to provide the shutters or protective covers 
and to install receiving devices, sleeves, or anchors for fasteners to 
be used to secure the shutters or protective covers to the exterior 
walls. If the manufacturer does not provide shutters or other 
protective covers to cover these openings, the manufacturer must 
provide to the homeowner instructions for at least one method of 
protecting exterior door openings. This method must be capable of 
resisting the design wind pressures specified in Sec. 3280.305 without 
taking the home out of conformance with the standards in this part. 
These instructions must be included in the printed instructions that 
accompany each manufactured home. The instructions shall also indicate 
whether receiving devices, sleeves, or anchors, for fasteners to be 
used to secure the shutters or protective covers to the exterior walls, 
have been installed or provided by the manufacturer.

PART 3282--MANUFACTURED HOME PROCEDURAL AND ENFORCEMENT REGULATIONS

    12. The authority citation for part 3282 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 5424; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).

    13. Section 3282.362 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(3)(i) 
(E) and (F) and adding a new paragraph (G), to read as follows:


Sec. 3282.362  Production Inspection Primary Inspection Agencies 
(IPIAs).

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (E) Reference to the roof load zone and wind load zone for which 
the home is designed and duplicates of the maps as set forth in 
Sec. 3280.305. This information may be combined with the heating/
cooling certificate and insulation zone map required by Secs. 3280.510 
and 3280.511. The Wind Zone Map on the Data Plate shall also contain 
the statement:

    This home has not been designed for the higher wind pressures 
and anchoring provisions required for ocean/coastal areas and should 
not be located within 1500' of the coastline in Wind Zones II and 
III, unless the home and its anchoring and foundation system have 
been designed for the increased requirements specified for Exposure 
D in ANSI/ASCE 7-88.

    (F) The statement:

    This home has ____ has not ____ (appropriate blank to be checked 
by manufacturer) been equipped with storm shutters or other 
protective coverings for windows and exterior door openings. For 
homes designed to be located in Wind Zones II and III, which have 
not been provided with shutters or equivalent covering devices, it 
is strongly recommended that the home be made ready to be equipped 
with these devices in accordance with the method recommended in the 
manufacturers printed instructions.

    (G) The statement: ``Design Approval by'', followed by the name of 
the agency that approved the design.
* * * * *
    Dated: January 4, 1994.
Nicolas P. Retsinas,
Assistant Secretary for Housing--Federal Housing Commissioner.
[FR Doc. 94-825 Filed 1-13-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-27-P