Updating State Residential Building Energy Efficiency Codes, 64924-64931 [2011-27050]
Download as PDF
64924
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Notices
11 a.m. Welcome and Roll Call;
Opening Remarks by the Committee
Chair; Program Status Update Since
the Last Meeting.
12:45 p.m. Public Comments.
1 p.m. Adjourn.
Public Participation: The meeting is
open to the public. The Designated
Federal Officer and the Chairman of the
Committee will lead the meeting for the
orderly conduct of business. Individuals
who would like to attend must RSVP by
e-mail to:
UnconventionalResources@hq.doe.gov
no later than 12 p.m. on Tuesday,
October 25, 2011. Please provide your
name, organization, and citizenship.
Anyone attending the meeting will be
required to present government issued
photo identification. Space is limited. If
you would like to file a written
statement with the Committee, you may
do so either before or after the meeting.
If you would like to make oral
statements regarding any of the items on
the agenda, you should contact Elena
Melchert at the address or telephone
number listed above. You must make
your request for an oral statement at
least two business days prior to the
meeting, and reasonable provisions will
be made to include the presentation on
the agenda. Public comment will follow
the three minute rule.
Minutes: The minutes of this meeting
will be available for public review and
copying within 60 days at: https://
www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/oilgas/
advisorycommittees/
UnconventionalResources.html.
Issued at Washington, DC, on October 11,
2011.
LaTanya Butler,
Acting Deputy Committee Management
Officer.
[FR Doc. 2011–27054 Filed 10–18–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. EERE–2011–BT–DET–0057]
RIN 1904–AC59
Updating State Residential Building
Energy Efficiency Codes
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of preliminary
determination.
emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY:
The Department of Energy
(DOE or Department) has preliminarily
determined that the 2012 edition of the
International Code Council (ICC)
International Energy Conservation Code
(IECC) (2012 IECC or 2012 edition)
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:34 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
would achieve greater energy efficiency
in low-rise residential buildings than
the 2009 IECC. Upon publication of an
affirmative final determination, States
would be required to file certification
statements to DOE that they have
reviewed the provisions of their
residential building code regarding
energy efficiency and made a
determination as to whether to update
their code to meet or exceed the 2012
IECC. Additionally, this Notice provides
guidance to States on how the codes
have changed from previous versions,
and the certification process should this
preliminary determination be finalized.
DATES: Comments on this preliminary
determination must be provided by
November 18, 2011.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by any of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• E-mail:
michael.erbesfeld@ee.doe.gov. Include
RIN 1904–AC59 in the subject line of
the message.
• Postal Mail: Mr. Michael Erbesfeld,
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, Forrestal Building, Mail Station
EE–2J, 1000 Independence Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121,
Please submit one signed paper original.
• Hand Delivery/Courier: Mr. Michael
Erbesfeld, U.S. Department of Energy,
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, 950 L’Enfant
Building, Room 6014, 950 L’Enfant
Plaza, Washington, DC 20024.
• Instructions: All submissions must
include the agency name, Department of
Energy, and docket number, EERE–
2011–BT–DET–0057, or Regulatory
Information Number (RIN), (1904–
AC59) for this determination.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael Erbesfeld, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Forrestal Building,
Mail Station EE–2J, 1000 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585–
0121, (202) 287–1874, e-mail:
michael.erbesfeld@ee.doe.gov. For legal
issues contact Kavita Vaidyanathan,
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the
General Counsel, Forrestal Building,
GC–71, 1000 Independence Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586–
0669, e-mail:
kavita.vaidyanathan@hq.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
A. Statutory Requirements
B. Background
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
C. DOE’s Preliminary Determination
Statement
II. Discussion of Changes in the 2012 IECC
A. Changes in the 2012 IECC That Increase
Energy Efficiency
B. Changes in the 2012 IECC That Decrease
Energy Efficiency
C. Changes in the 2012 IECC That Have an
Unclear Impact on Energy Efficiency
D. Changes in the 2012 IECC That Do Not
Affect Energy Efficiency
III. Filing Certification Statements With DOE
A. State Determinations
B. Certification
C. Request for Extensions
IV. Regulatory Analysis
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act
C. Review Under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
D. Review Under Executive Order 13132,
‘‘Federalism’’
E. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995
F. Review Under the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act of 1999
G. Review Under the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act of 2001
H. Review Under Executive Order 13211
I. Review Under Executive Order 13175
V. Public Participation
I. Introduction
A. Statutory Requirements
Title III of the Energy Conservation
and Production Act, as amended
(ECPA), establishes requirements for the
Building Energy Standards Program. (42
U.S.C. 6831–6837) Section 304(a) of
ECPA, as amended, provides that when
the 1992 Model Energy Code (MEC), or
any successor to that code, is revised,
the Secretary must determine, not later
than 12 months after the revision,
whether the revised code would
improve energy efficiency in residential
buildings and must publish notice of the
determination in the Federal Register.
(42 U.S.C. 6833(a)(5)(A)) The
Department, following precedent set by
the ICC and the American Society of
Heating, Refrigerating and AirConditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)
considers high-rise (greater than three
stories) multifamily residential
buildings and hotel, motel, and other
transient residential building types of
any height as commercial buildings for
energy code purposes. Low-rise
residential buildings include one- and
two-family detached and attached
buildings, duplexes, townhouses, row
houses, and low-rise multifamily
buildings (not greater than three stories)
such as condominiums and garden
apartments.
If the Secretary determines that the
revision would improve energy
efficiency then, not later than 2 years
after the date of the publication of the
E:\FR\FM\19OCN1.SGM
19OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Notices
affirmative determination, each State is
required to certify that it has compared
its residential building code regarding
energy efficiency to the revised code
and made a determination whether it is
appropriate to revise its code to meet or
exceed the provisions of the successor
code. (42 U.S.C. 6833(a)(5)(B)) State
determinations are to be made: (1) After
public notice and hearing; (2) in writing;
(3) based upon findings included in
such determination and upon evidence
presented at the hearing; and (4)
available to the public. (See, 42 U.S.C.
6833(a)(5)(C).) In addition, if a State
determines that it is not appropriate to
revise its residential building code, the
State is required to submit to the
Secretary, in writing, the reasons, which
are to be made available to the public.
(See, 42 U.S.C. 6833(a)(5)(C).)
B. Background
The ICC’s IECC establishes a national
model code for energy efficiency
requirements for buildings. In 1997, the
Council of American Building Officials
(CABO) was incorporated into the ICC
and the MEC was renamed to the IECC.
A previous Federal Register notice, 59
FR 36173, July 15, 1994, announced the
Secretary’s determination that the 1993
MEC increased energy efficiency
relative to the 1992 MEC for residential
buildings. Similarly, another Federal
Register notice, 61 FR 64727, December
6, 1996, announced the Secretary’s
determination that the 1995 MEC is an
improvement over the 1993 MEC.
Federal Register notice 66 FR 1964,
January 10, 2001, simultaneously
announced the Secretary’s
determination that the 1998 IECC is an
improvement over the 1995 MEC and
the 2000 IECC is an improvement over
the 1998 IECC. Finally Federal Register
notice 76 FR 42688, July 19, 2011,
announced the Secretary’s
determination that the 2003 IECC was
not a substantial improvement over its
predecessor, while the 2006 and 2009
editions were a substantial
improvement over its predecessors.
emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
C. DOE’s Preliminary Determination
Statement
The 2012 IECC has a substantial
variety of revisions compared to the
2009 IECC. Most of these revisions
appear to directly improve energy
efficiency that, on the whole, would
result in a significant improvement in
efficiency to homes built to the code.
Therefore, the Department preliminarily
concludes that the 2012 edition of the
IECC should receive an affirmative
determination under Section 304(a) of
ECPA.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:34 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
II. Discussion of Changes in the 2012
IECC Compared With the 2009 IECC
Summary
The 2012 IECC appears to improve
residential energy efficiency with
respect to the 2009 IECC. Based on
DOE’s preliminary analysis, a
preponderance of major energy
efficiency improvements more than
offset a small number of changes which
have unclear or negative impacts on
energy efficiency. The major changes
that are estimated to improve energy
efficiency in new homes built to comply
with the code in most climate zones
include:
• Building thermal envelope
improvements.
Æ Increases in prescriptive insulation
levels of walls, roofs and floors.
Æ Decrease (improvement) in U-factor
allowances for fenestration.
Æ Decrease (improvement) in
allowable Solar Heat Gain
Coefficient (SHGC) for fenestration
in warm climates.
• Infiltration control: Mandated wholehouse pressure test with strict
allowances for air leakage rates.
• Wall insulation when structural
sheathing is used.
• Ventilation fan efficiency.
• Lighting—Increased fraction of lamps
required to be high-efficacy.
• Air distribution systems—leakage
control requirements.
• Hot water pipe insulation and length
requirements.
• Skylight definition change.
• Penalizing electric resistance heating
in the performance compliance
path.
• Fireplace air leakage control.
• Insulating covers for in-ground hot
tubs and spas.
• Baffles for attic insulation.
Changes that appear to decrease
residential efficiency in some situations
include the following.
• Steel-framed wall insulation.
• Air barrier location.
Changes whose effect is unclear:
• Fenestration SHGC requirement in
climate zone 4.
• Interior shading assumptions in the
performance compliance path.
All of the changes that are estimated
to positively or negatively impact
energy efficiency are discussed in the
following text.
A. Changes in the 2012 IECC That Are
Estimated To Increase Energy Efficiency
Building Thermal Envelope
Improvements
Table R402.1.1 which specifies
prescriptive envelope requirements, has
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
64925
been extensively modified in the 2012
IECC compared to the 2009 IECC. This
table represents the code’s primary
regulation of a home’s envelope thermal
resistance, or the resistance of the
ceilings, walls, windows, and floors to
the transfer of heat into or out of the
home. The criteria are expressed as
either R-values (Btu/h-ft2-F), which
quantify a building component’s
resistance to heat flow, or U-factors (hft2-F/Btu), which are the inverse of Rvalues and represent a component’s
thermal conductance. A higher R-value
or a lower U-factor represents an
efficiency improvement. Table R402.1.1
also includes requirements for glazed
fenestration solar heat gain coefficients
(SHGC) in the southern and central
climate zones. In a cooling-dominated
climate, a lower SHGC will almost
always reduce a home’s annual energy
consumption.
Table 1 below shows the changes in
the code’s required R-values and Ufactors by climate zone. DOE has
preliminarily determined that every
change in the code’s table represents an
improvement in efficiency. Table 2
below shows the increase in required
thermal resistance for each building
component type weighted by climate
zone.
For the fenestration U-factor, the code
has increased the required thermal
resistance by an average of 26.7%. In
climate zone 1, Table R402.1.1 appears
to revert from a required U-factor of 1.2
to NR (no requirement). This, however,
should have no effect on the energy
efficiency of the code because the Ufactor of a minimally efficient singlepane window meets the requirement of
1.2. Seen in this light, the change to NR
is really a clarification, rather than an
actual change. The U-factor
requirements for skylights in the 2012
IECC would reduce allowable heat loss
through skylights an average of 12.6%
compared to the 2009 IECC.
For glazed fenestration the allowable
solar heat gain coefficient (SHGC) has
been lowered, reducing solar heat gain
by 17% in the cooling-dominated
climate zones (1–3).
Four climate zones (2 through 5) were
affected by more stringent insulation
requirements in ceilings. Required Rvalues increased by 27% to 29% in
these zones. However, accounting for
the thermal bridging effects of typical
wood framing members, DOE has
preliminarily determined that the
changes in the code represent a
weighted average increase of 12.2% in
the thermal resistance of ceilings.
For wood frame walls, the code
allows a choice in some climate zones
of a single value for insulation in the
E:\FR\FM\19OCN1.SGM
19OCN1
64926
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Notices
cavity between wall studs, or two
values: One for cavity insulation and
one for additional continuous insulation
applied to the interior or exterior of the
wall. Accounting for thermal bridging
effects, and choosing the least thermally
resistive of the two options, the 2012
code is estimated to improve thermal
resistance of wood-frame walls an
average of 13.7%. Mass wall (e.g.,
concrete, concrete block, log) R-value
requirements increased by an average of
33.4%. Basement wall and crawl space
wall R-values increased by 14.5% and
17.6%, respectively.
TABLE 2—NATIONAL AVERAGE INCREASE IN THERMAL RESISTANCE FOR LOWEST REQUIRED INSULATION LEVEL BY
BUILDING COMPONENT
Building component
Increase in thermal
resistance of required
insulation (percent)
Fenestration .....................................................................................................................................................................
Skylights ...........................................................................................................................................................................
Ceiling ..............................................................................................................................................................................
Wood Frame Wall ............................................................................................................................................................
Mass Wall 1 ......................................................................................................................................................................
Basement Wall 1 ..............................................................................................................................................................
Crawl Space Wall 1 ..........................................................................................................................................................
26.7
12.6
18.2
13.7
33.4
14.5
17.6
The 2012 IECC specifies that
insulation R-values conform to the
requirements of Table R402.1.1 even if
the insulation must be compressed to fit
within the available cavity. This clause
primarily affects some nominal R–19
fiberglass batts that are designed for
floor and/or ceiling applications where
the available cavity is greater than the
5.5 inches typically available in a 2x6
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:56 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
wall. However, the 2012 edition has no
prescriptive requirements that exactly
require R–19 in wall cavities, so it is
expected that there is no direct impact
on energy savings.
Infiltration Control
Section 402.4.1.2 contains a new
provision for a mandatory whole-house
pressure test to determine the envelope
air leakage rate (the test was optional in
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the 2009 IECC). The maximum
allowable air leakage rate is 5 air
changes/hour when tested at a pressure
difference of 50 Pascals (5 ACH50) in
climate zone 1 and climate zone 2; and
3 air changes/hour (3 ACH50) in climate
zones 3–8. The 2009 IECC specified a
maximum of 7 ACH50 when the
optional test was used, or directed the
building official to inspect the envelope
E:\FR\FM\19OCN1.SGM
19OCN1
EN19OC11.025
emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
1 There are two R-value options in the IECC. The first R-value option is used for this comparison. For mass walls, this first value applies when
less than half of the insulation is on the interior of the mass wall, the case for which the code allows a greater reduction in required R-value due
to the beneficial effects of thermal mass. The second number is more similar to wood frame wall requirements. For basement and crawl space
walls, this first value applies for continuous insulation on the interior or exterior of the wall, whereas the second value is for insulation in cavities
between studs or furring strips. In this case the two values represent approximately similar overall thermal resistance.
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Notices
emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
against a detailed checklist when the
test was not used. The lower allowed
leakage rate of the 2012 IECC is
expected to save energy, and the
mandatory test will likely result in
improved energy efficiency in homes
that would have had higher leakage
rates as a result of leaks that would not
be detected by visual inspection.
Wall Insulation When Structural
Sheathing Is Used
Footnote h to Table R402.1.1 allows
certain reductions in the required Rvalue of continuous insulation on walls
that use structural sheathing (e.g.,
plywood, OSB) for shear bracing. The
footnote is relevant only when there is
a mixture of structural and insulating
sheathing on the wall(s). The 2009 IECC
states: ‘‘First value is cavity insulation,
second is continuous insulation, so
‘‘13+5’’ means R–13 cavity insulation
plus R–5 insulated sheathing. If
structural sheathing covers 25 percent
or less of the exterior, insulating
sheathing is not required in the
locations where structural sheathing is
used. If structural sheathing covers more
than 25 percent of exterior, structural
sheathing shall be supplemented with
insulated sheathing of at least R–2.’’
The footnote has the effect of
suspending the continuous R-value
requirement for portions of the wall
covered with structural sheathing,
provided those portions represent 25%
or less of the wall area. If structural
sheathing covers more than 25% of the
wall, the structural portions must be
augmented with additional insulating
sheathing of at least R–2. The 2012 IECC
states: ‘‘First value is cavity insulation,
second is continuous insulation, so
‘‘13+5’’ means R–13 cavity insulation
plus R–5 continuous insulation. If
structural sheathing covers 40 percent
or less of the exterior, continuous
insulation R-value shall be permitted to
be reduced by no more than R–3 in the
locations where structural sheathing is
used—to maintain a consistent total
sheathing thickness.’’
The 2012 IECC allows a larger fraction
of the wall (40% rather than 25%) to
contain reduced continuous insulation
but, unlike the 2009 IECC, does not
allow elimination of continuous
insulation. The 2012 IECC specifies
substantially more continuous
insulation layered on top of structural
sheathing when the structural fraction
exceeds the 40% threshold. It is
estimated that the net effect is greater
overall efficiency.
Ventilation Fan Efficiency
When installed to function as a
whole-house ventilation system, the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:34 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
2012 IECC specifies that mechanical
fans meet the following requirements:
• Range Hoods and In-line fans: 2.8
cfm/watt.
• Bathroom (10–90 cfm): 1.4 cfm/
watt.
• Bathroom (>90 cfm): 2.8 cfm/watt.
Because the 2012 IECC places upper
limits on the energy requirements for
these fans where there were no such
limits in the 2009 IECC, this change is
expected to improve overall efficiency
in residences.
Lighting
The requirement for high efficacy
lamps has been increased from a
minimum of 50% of the lamps in
permanently-installed fixtures to a
minimum of 75%. Further, the high
efficacy lamp requirement has been
changed from prescriptive to
mandatory, meaning the specification
cannot be lessened in trade for
efficiency improvements elsewhere in
the home. This change also addresses an
aspect of the 2009 IECC under which
the use of high-efficacy lamps is not
specified when a building achieved
compliance via the simulated
performance compliance path. This is
expected to improve the energy savings
in the 2012 IECC by reducing lighting
energy use. The 2012 IECC also added
an option for calculating the highefficacy fraction based on a count of
fixtures instead of individual lamps, a
change not expected to change overall
efficiency.
Section R404.1.1 in the 2012 IECC
contains a new provision that bans
continuously burning pilot lights on
fuel-fired lighting. While the potential
energy savings are limited due to the
fringe application of this type of
lighting, where applied, this rule would
tend to increase energy savings by
cutting standby energy use of the pilot
light.
Air Distribution System
There are three key changes to
requirements for air distribution
systems that improve energy efficiency:
• A change to section R403.2.2.1 that
places a limit on air leakage from air
handlers. The change is to ensure that
the air handler delivers the vast majority
of the supply air downstream to the rest
of the distribution system.
• Section R403.2.2 reduces maximum
allowable levels of duct leakage in the
distribution system compared to the
2009 IECC (from 12 cfm per 100 ft 2 of
conditioned floor area to 4 cfm/100 ft 2
for tests done on completed buildings,
and from 6 to 4 cfm per 100 ft 2 for tests
done at the rough-in stage of
construction).
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
64927
• Section R403.2.3 now specifies that
building framing cavities may not be
used as supply ducts or plenums, which
would eliminate the potential for air
leaks into adjacent framing cavities and/
or attics, crawlspaces, or unheated
basements. This may also lessen the
chance of an unbalanced distribution
system.
DOE has preliminarily determined
that all of these changes will increase
the energy savings of the 2012 edition
of the IECC by delivering more of the
conditioned air to where it is needed via
a more efficient distribution system.
Hot Water Pipe Insulation and Length
Requirements
Section R403.4.2 contains new
specifications for noncirculating service
hot water distribution systems that
should reduce energy losses from
‘‘stranded’’ hot water and conduction of
heat out of the pipes. The 2012 IECC
specifies that all such pipes to be
insulated unless they have sufficiently
low volume as defined by a combination
of their length (measured from the tank
or distribution manifold to the point of
use) and diameter. This change is
expected to reduce the amount of hot
water that cools off in the pipes and is
thus wasted as users wait for
sufficiently warm water to reach the
fixture. Also, for circulating hot water
systems, the required insulation has
been increased from R-2 to R-3 and
therefore should increase efficiency. A
final change in the 2012 IECC requires
that piping insulation be protected from
the elements. Although primarily a
durability concern, this change may
save energy by reducing the incidence
of damaged and/or missing insulation.
Skylight Definition Change
Previously, skylights were defined as
any glazed fenestration at less than 75
degrees from horizontal. That definition
has been changed in the 2012 IECC to
be less than 60 degrees from horizontal.
The effect of this change is to classify
more glazing as vertical fenestration
rather than skylights. Although the
number of skylights in this slope range
is small, because the U-factor
requirements for vertical fenestration
are more stringent than for skylights,
this change is expected to improve the
energy savings of the 2012 IECC.
Electric Resistance Heating in the
Performance Path
Under the performance compliance
path (Section R405), the 2012 IECC has
modified the reference design for
buildings with electric heating systems
that do not use a heat pump, requiring
that a heat pump be assumed in the
E:\FR\FM\19OCN1.SGM
19OCN1
64928
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Notices
standard reference design. Because of
the efficiency of heat pumps as
compared to other electric heating
technologies, this code change is
expected to increase the energy
efficiency of the reference design, which
would have the effect of specifying that
the proposed design to be more energy
efficient if it is to comply via this
section and the proposed design has an
electric heating system that is less
efficient than a heat pump. Although
this affects only homes with electric
resistance heating, its effect is expected
to be an improvement in efficiency if
such homes comply via the performance
method.
Fireplace Air Leakage Control
The 2012 IECC specifies that all
fireplaces have tight-fitting flue dampers
and gasketed doors (the 2009 IECC
requires such only for wood-burning
fireplaces). This is expected to result in
very air-tight fireplaces which would
improve a home’s air leakage
characteristics. Therefore, this is
deemed an improvement in efficiency
for homes with fireplaces.
In-Ground Hot Tubs and Spas
Section R403.9 has been updated to
include in-ground hot tubs and spas
under the purview of the code, where
previously only swimming pools were
included. The change effectively
requires hot tubs and spas to have
insulating covers, which should lower
energy losses. To the extent that these
devices typically already have
insulating covers this may have limited
impact in terms of efficiency.
The 2012 IECC now specifies that log
walls meet the requirements of ICC–400,
a separate standard for log wall
construction. Although this does not
change the thermal requirements, it may
result in better quality construction of
log walls, which would improve energy
performance by reducing air leaks and
thermal bypasses.
Baffles for Attic Insulation
Section R402.2.3 now requires a wind
wash baffle for vented attics. For airpermeable insulation, this should
improve the effective insulation value of
the ceiling by reducing wind-driven air
movement and may in some cases
prevent blown-in insulation from being
displaced by wind. Therefore, this is an
improvement in efficiency for attics.
B. Changes in the 2012 IECC That Are
Estimated To Decrease Energy
Efficiency
Steel-Framed Wall Insulation
The 2012 IECC modifies the IECC
code’s tables of steel-framed wall Ufactor equivalences with wood-frame
walls of various R-values in such a way
that less efficient steel-framed walls will
be deemed equivalent to a
corresponding wood-frame wall in
many cases. In the 2009 IECC, there was
no distinction between homes with
different steel stud spacing. In the 2012
IECC, there are now separate U-factor
equivalences for studs with 16’’ and 24’’
spacing. The 16’’ stud spacing
requirements have two categories that
are directly comparable to the 2009
IECC requirements: walls with woodframe R-values of R-13 or R-21.
According to Table A3.3 of ASHRAE
90.1 2007, the 2009 IECC-required Rfactors represent an equivalent U-factor
for the wall assembly of 0.077 to 0.080
Btu/hr-ft2-F, depending on the
compliance option. This has been
changed in the 2012 IECC to a range of
0.059–0.089 Btu/hr-ft2-F. The average
compliance option based on R-13 woodframe walls represents a 5.4% higher Ufactor. For R-21 wood-frame walls, the
steel frame options previously
represented U-factors of 0.054, whereas
in the 2012 code, they represent Ufactors of 0.056, a 3.1% increase.
Insulation equivalences in the 2012
IECC for steel walls with 24’’ stud
spacing are slightly more lax, reflecting
the decreased thermal bridging effects,
compared with 16’’ stud spacing.
Because the baseline for comparison for
24’’ stud spacing in the 2009 IECC is
still the general requirements that did
not distinguish based on stud spacing,
these new requirements represent
higher increases in assembly U-factors
than for 16’’ stud spacing. Specifically,
there is a 9.1% increase in assembly Ufactors among the various insulation
options for R-13 and an 11.8% increase
for R-21. The steel-wood framing
equivalences of the 2009 IECC and the
2012 IECC are compared below in Table
3. In this table, the first value is cavity
insulation and the second is continuous
insulation. For example, R-13+5 is R-13
cavity insulation plus R-5 continuous
insulation.
Note that while the steel/wood
equivalences have changed such that
steel-stud walls may be less efficient
than before in comparison to a
particular wood-frame R-value, the base
R-value requirements (expressed in
terms of wood-frame walls) have
substantially increased in climate zones
3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 which would result in
energy savings in these zones even for
steel framed walls. Because the number
of homes with external walls with steel
framing is small compared to woodframe homes, this change is not
expected to result in substantial overall
efficiency losses in zones 1, 2, and 5.
TABLE 3—COMPARISON OF STEEL-FRAME WALL REQUIREMENTS BETWEEN THE 2009 AND 2012 IECC
Steel frame spacing .......................................
16″ stud spacing
24″ stud spacing
R-13
R-21
R-13
R-21
2009 IECC Options ........................................
R-0+10 or R13+5 or
R-15+4 or R-21+3
R-13+10 or R-19+9 or
R-25+8
R-13+5 or R-15+4 or
R-21+3 or R-0+10
R-13+10 or R-19+9 or
R-25+8
2012 IECC Options ........................................
emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Wood-Frame Requirement .............................
R-0+9.3 or R-13+4.2
or R-15+3.8 or R19+2.1 or R-21+2.8
R-0+14.6 or R-13+9.5
or R-15+9.1 or R19+8.4 or R-21+8.1
or R-25+7.7
R-0+9.3 or R-13+3 or
R-15+2.4
R-0+14 or R-13+8.3
or R-15+7.7 or R19+6.9 or R-21+6.5
or R-25+5.9
Average U-factor (2009) 1 ..............................
0.079
0.054
0.063
0.04
Average U-factor (2012) ................................
Average U-factor Increase .............................
0.083
5.4%
0.056
3.1%
0.07
9.1%
0.045
11.8%
1 Calculated
VerDate Mar<15>2010
using ASHRAE 90.1–2007 Table A3.4.
16:34 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\19OCN1.SGM
19OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Notices
Air Barrier Location
The 2012 IECC changes Table
R402.4.1.1 by removing a requirement
that air-permeable insulation be located
inside the air barrier, allowing the
insulation to be outside of the air barrier
in the exterior envelope construction.
By allowing air-permeable insulation to
be located outside the air barrier this
change may result in increased levels of
outdoor air infiltration in the interstices
of the insulation material. This would
tend to reduce the effectiveness of the
insulation. The magnitude of impact for
this change, however, is expected to be
minimal because an interior air barrier
will still be effective at reducing air
movement through the envelope and
because the 2012 IECC’s new mandate
for a whole-house pressure test will
ensure that total air leakage through the
building envelope be kept at a low rate.
There is an additional change in the
2012 IECC that may reduce the energy
efficiency of the code. In the 2009 IECC,
the common wall between dwelling
units of a multifamily or two-family
structure was required to be air-sealed.
In the 2012 IECC, this requirement has
been removed. In practice, these
common walls can provide a route for
air leakage to the outdoors if they are
coupled to attics, basements,
crawlspaces, or other unconditioned
spaces. Because multifamily represent a
small fraction of low-rise residential
dwelling units (about 15%) and because
this change creates the potential for only
an indirect air movement path, DOE
does not consider this change to be
significant.
C. Changes in the 2012 IECC That Have
an Unclear Impact on Energy Efficiency
Fenestration SHGC in Climate Zone 4
As presented in Table 1, the 2012
IECC changes SHGC specifications for
climate zone 4 from no requirement
(NR) to 0.4. Because climate zone 4
contains locations where the energy
savings from increased solar heat gains
in winter may more than offset
increased energy use for air
conditioning in summer, it is possible
that a lower SHGC would increase
energy use in some parts of the zone.
However, the specified fenestration Ufactor of 0.35 in both the 2009 and 2012
IECC usually implies the use of
windows with low-emissivity coatings
that have an SHGC of 0.4 or below even
in the absence of a specific SHGC
requirement. Therefore, DOE expects
this change to have minimal impact
either in terms of energy savings or
energy losses.
64929
Interior Shading Assumptions in the
Performance Compliance Path
The 2012 IECC modifies internal
shade fractions required as inputs to the
performance compliance path. The 2009
IECC specified the following internal
shade fractions for the reference design:
Summer—0.70, Winter—0.85. These
have been replaced in the 2012 IECC
with the following equation for
calculating interior shade fraction (ISF):
ISF = 0.92¥0.21 · SHGC
The impact of this change on the
energy consumption of homes
complying via the performance path is
nuanced and difficult to generalize, but
is expected to be small. Its primary
impact is to modestly change the
relative importance of cooling- and
heating-oriented energy-saving features.
D. Changes in the 2012 IECC That Do
Not Affect Energy Efficiency
Several changes were made to the
IECC that do not directly affect energy
efficiency. Table 4 details these changes,
listing the section of the 2009 IECC to
which the change was made, a
description of the change, and an
explanation why overall energy
efficiency is not affected.
TABLE 4—CHANGES TO IECC THAT DO NOT EFFECT ENERGY EFFICIENCY
Code Section
Change
R202 ..............................
R202 ..............................
Clarifies that residential buildings covered by chapter 4 are one- and
two-family dwellings, townhouses and multi-family residential (R-2)
not over 3 stories in height above grade.
Definition of a whole-house ventilation system .....................................
R401.3 ...........................
Results of an air leakage test must be documented on the certificate
R202 and R303.1.3 .......
Introduction of ‘‘Visible Transmittance’’(VT) for fenestrations. Default
‘‘Visible Transmittances’’ defined in Table.
R402.4.4 ........................
Clarification that recessed lighting must be labeled as having a leakage rate to ceiling cavity of < = 2 cfm.
Introduction of ASHRAE test procedure 193 for determining the air
leakage rate for HVAC Equipment.
Introduction of test standard for home ventilation systems: HVI 916–
09 Airflow Test Procedure.
Requirements for Proposed Design for Thermal Distribution Systems:
Thermal distribution system efficiency shall be as tested or as
specified by Table 405.5.2 if not tested. Duct insulation shall be as
proposed.
Heating and cooling equipment shall be sized in accordance with
ACCA Manual S based on building loads calculated in accordance
with ACCA Manual J or other approved heating and cooling calculation methodologies.
Chapter 6 ......................
Chapter 5 ......................
Table R405.5.2(1) .........
emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
R403.6 ...........................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:34 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4703
Comments
Sfmt 4703
This change is only a clarification.
Because whole-house ventilation systems are
not yet required by the code, this new definition effects no real change to the code’s
requirements.
This change only affects the transparency of
code compliance.
The table only provides default VT values for
certain window types. VT is not directly regulated by the code.
This is only a clarification of previous text.
Provides a test procedure to enable compliance with a new requirement.
Provides a test procedure to enable compliance with a new requirement.
This change is only a clarification.
This moves this requirement directly into the
IECC instead of referencing the IRC.
E:\FR\FM\19OCN1.SGM
19OCN1
64930
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Notices
emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
III. Filing Certification Statements With
DOE
A. State Determinations
If today’s determination is finalized,
each State would be required to
determine the appropriateness of
revising the portion of its residential
building code regarding energy
efficiency to meet or exceed the energy
efficiency provisions of the 2012 IECC.
(42 U.S.C. 6833(a)(5)(B)) Note that the
applicability of any State revisions to
new or existing buildings would be
governed by the State building codes.
However, it is our understanding that
generally, the revisions would not apply
to existing buildings unless they are
undergoing a change that requires a
building permit. The determinations are
required to be made not later than two
years from the date of publication of a
notice of final determination, unless an
extension is provided. The State
determination must be: (1) Made after
public notice and hearing; (2) in writing;
(3) based upon findings and upon the
evidence presented at the hearing; and
(4) made available to the public. States
have considerable discretion with
regard to the hearing procedures they
use, subject to providing an adequate
opportunity for members of the public
to be heard and to present relevant
information. The Department
recommends publication of any notice
of public hearing in a newspaper of
general circulation.
Section 304(a)(4) of ECPA, as
amended, requires that if a State makes
a determination that it is not
appropriate to revise the energy
efficiency provisions of its residential
building code, the State must submit to
the Secretary, in writing, the reasons for
this determination and the statement
shall be available to the public. (42
U.S.C. 6833(a)(4))
States should be aware that,
consistent with IECC definitions, the
Department considers high-rise (greater
than three stories) multifamily
residential buildings and hotel, motel,
and other transient residential building
types of any height as non-residential
buildings for energy code purposes.
Residential buildings include one- and
two-family detached and attached
buildings, duplexes, townhouses, row
houses, and low-rise multifamily
buildings (not greater than three stories)
such as condominiums and garden
apartments.
States should also be aware that this
preliminary determination does not
apply to IECC chapters specific to nonresidential buildings as defined above.
Therefore, if today’s action is finalized
then States must certify their
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:34 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
evaluations of their State building codes
for residential buildings with respect to
all provisions of the IECC except for
those chapters.
impact small entities. Therefore, DOE
has preliminarily certified that there is
no significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
B. Requests for Extensions To Certify
C. Review Under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
DOE has preliminarily determined
that today’s action is covered under the
Categorical Exclusion found in DOE’s
National Environmental Policy Act
regulations at paragraph A.6 of
Appendix A to subpart D, 10 CFR part
1021. That Categorical Exclusion
applies to actions that are strictly
procedural, such as rulemaking
establishing the administration of
grants. Today’s action impacts whether
States must perform an evaluation of
State building codes. The action would
not have direct environmental impacts.
Accordingly, DOE has not prepared an
environmental assessment or an
environmental impact statement.
Section 304(c) of ECPA, as amended,
requires that the Secretary permit an
extension of the deadline for complying
with the certification requirements
described above, if a State can
demonstrate that it has made a good
faith effort to comply with such
requirements and that it has made
significant progress toward meeting its
certification obligations. (42 U.S.C.
6833(c)) Such demonstrations could
include one or both of the following: (1)
A plan for response to the requirements
stated in Section 304; and/or (2) a
statement that the State has
appropriated or requested funds (within
State funding procedures) to implement
a plan that would respond to the
requirements of Section 304 of ECPA.
This list is not exhaustive.
IV. Regulatory Analysis
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
Today’s action is not a significant
regulatory action under section 3(f)(1) of
Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory
Planning and Review’’ (58 FR 51735
(Oct. 4, 1993)). Accordingly, today’s
action was not subject to review by the
Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB).
B. Review Under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires the
preparation of an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis for any rule that by
law must be proposed for public
comment, unless the agency certifies
that the rule, if promulgated, will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
As required by Executive Order 13272,
‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities
in Agency Rulemaking,’’ (67 FR 53461
(Aug. 16, 2002)), DOE published
procedures and policies on February 19,
2003, to ensure that the potential
impacts of its rules on small entities are
properly considered during the
rulemaking process (68 FR 7990). DOE
has made its procedures and policies
available on the Office of General
Counsel’s Web site: https://
www.gc.doe.gov. If today’s action on the
preliminary determination of improved
energy efficiency between IECC editions
is finalized it would require States to
undertake an analysis of their respective
building codes. Today’s action does not
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
D. Review Under Executive Order
13132, ‘‘Federalism’’
Executive Order 13132, 64 FR 43255
(Aug. 4, 1999), imposes certain
requirements on agencies formulating
and implementing policies or
regulations that pre-empt State law or
that have federalism implications.
Agencies are required to examine the
constitutional and statutory authority
supporting any action that would limit
the policymaking discretion of the
States and carefully assess the necessity
for such actions. DOE has examined
today’s action and has determined that
it will not pre-empt State law and will
not have a substantial direct effect on
the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States,
or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. Today’s action
impacts whether States must perform an
evaluation of State building codes. No
further action is required by Executive
Order 13132.
F. Review Under the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) generally
requires Federal agencies to examine
closely the impacts of regulatory actions
on State, local, and Tribal governments.
Subsection 101(5) of Title I of that law
defines a Federal intergovernmental
mandate to include any regulation that
would impose upon State, local, or
Tribal governments an enforceable duty,
except a condition of Federal assistance
or a duty arising from participating in a
voluntary Federal program. Title II of
that law requires each Federal agency to
assess the effects of Federal regulatory
E:\FR\FM\19OCN1.SGM
19OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Notices
actions on State, local, and Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or to the
private sector, other than to the extent
such actions merely incorporate
requirements specifically set forth in a
statute. Section 202 of that title requires
a Federal agency to perform a detailed
assessment of the anticipated costs and
benefits of any rule that includes a
Federal mandate which may result in
costs to State, local, or Tribal
governments, or to the private sector, of
$100 million or more. Section 204 of
that title requires each agency that
proposes a rule containing a significant
Federal intergovernmental mandate to
develop an effective process for
obtaining meaningful and timely input
from elected officers of State, local, and
Tribal governments.
Today’s action impacts whether States
must perform an evaluation of State
building codes. Today’s action would
not impose a Federal mandate on State,
local or Tribal governments, and it
would not result in the expenditure by
State, local, and Tribal governments in
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of
$100 million or more in any one year.
Accordingly, no assessment or analysis
is required under the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
G. Review Under the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act of 1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires
Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any rule
that may affect family well-being.
Today’s action would not have any
impact on the autonomy or integrity of
the family as an institution.
Accordingly, DOE has preliminarily
concluded that it is not necessary to
prepare a Family Policymaking
Assessment.
H. Review Under the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act of 2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note)
provides for agencies to review most
disseminations of information to the
public under guidelines established by
each agency pursuant to general
guidelines issued by OMB. OMB’s
guidelines were published at 67 FR
8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE’s
guidelines were published at 67 FR
62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed
today’s action under the OMB and DOE
guidelines and has preliminarily
concluded that it is consistent with
applicable policies in those guidelines.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:34 Oct 18, 2011
Jkt 226001
I. Review Under Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 FR 28355 (May
22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to
prepare and submit to the OMB a
Statement of Energy Effects for any
proposed significant energy action. A
‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined as
any action by an agency that
promulgated or is expected to lead to
promulgation of a final rule, and that:
(1) Is a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866, or any
successor order; and (2) is likely to have
a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy, or
(3) is designated by the Administrator of
the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs (OIRA) as a significant energy
action. For any proposed significant
energy action, the agency must give a
detailed statement of any adverse effects
on energy supply, distribution, or use,
should the proposal be implemented,
and of reasonable alternatives to the
action and their expected benefits on
energy supply, distribution, and use.
Today’s action would not have a
significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy and is
therefore not a significant energy action.
Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a
Statement of Energy Effects.
J. Review Under Executive Order 13175
Executive Order 13175. ‘‘Consultation
and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments’’ (65 FR 67249 (Nov. 9,
2000)), requires DOE to develop an
accountable process to ensure
‘‘meaningful and timely input by tribal
officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have tribal
implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal
implications’’ refers to regulations that
have ‘‘substantial direct effects on one
or more Indian Tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes.’’ Today’s
regulatory action is not a policy that has
‘‘tribal implications’’ under Executive
Order 13175. DOE has reviewed today’s
action under executive Order 13175 and
has determined that it is consistent with
applicable policies of that Executive
Order.
V. Public Participation
The public is invited to submit
comments on the preliminary
determinations. Comments must be
provided by the date specified in the
DATES section of this notice using any of
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
64931
the methods described in the ADDRESSES
section of this notice. If you submit
information that you believe to be
exempt by law from public disclosure,
you should submit one complete copy,
as well as one copy from which the
information claimed to be exempt by
law from public disclosure has been
deleted. DOE is responsible for the final
determination with regard to disclosure
or nondisclosure of the information and
for treating it accordingly under the
DOE Freedom of Information
regulations at 10 CFR 1004.11.
Issued in Washington, DC on October 13,
2011.
Henry Kelly,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 2011–27050 Filed 10–18–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy
[Docket No. EERE–2011–BT–BC–0046]
Building Energy Codes Cost Analysis
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of reopening the public
comment period.
AGENCY:
This notice announces a
reopening of the time period for
submitting comments on the request for
information on Building Energy Codes
Cost Analysis published in the Federal
Register on September 13, 2011. 76 FR
56413. The original comment period
closed on October 13, 2011. The
comment period is reopened for an
additional 30 days.
DATES: Comments must be received no
later that November 18, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Any comments submitted
must identify the request for
information on Building Energy Code
Cost Analysis and provide docket
number EERE–2011–BT–BC–0046.
Comments may be submitted using any
of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• E-mail: Res-CEAM–2011–BC–
0046@ee.doe.gov. Include EERE–2011–
BT–BC–0046 in the subject line of the
message. Submit electronic comments
in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, PDF,
or ASCII file format and avoid the use
of special characters or any form of
encryption.
• Postal Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards,
U.S. Department of Energy, Building
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\19OCN1.SGM
19OCN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 202 (Wednesday, October 19, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64924-64931]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-27050]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-DET-0057]
RIN 1904-AC59
Updating State Residential Building Energy Efficiency Codes
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of preliminary determination.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE or Department) has preliminarily
determined that the 2012 edition of the International Code Council
(ICC) International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) (2012 IECC or 2012
edition) would achieve greater energy efficiency in low-rise
residential buildings than the 2009 IECC. Upon publication of an
affirmative final determination, States would be required to file
certification statements to DOE that they have reviewed the provisions
of their residential building code regarding energy efficiency and made
a determination as to whether to update their code to meet or exceed
the 2012 IECC. Additionally, this Notice provides guidance to States on
how the codes have changed from previous versions, and the
certification process should this preliminary determination be
finalized.
DATES: Comments on this preliminary determination must be provided by
November 18, 2011.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by any of the following
methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: michael.erbesfeld@ee.doe.gov. Include RIN 1904-
AC59 in the subject line of the message.
Postal Mail: Mr. Michael Erbesfeld, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Forrestal
Building, Mail Station EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585-0121, Please submit one signed paper original.
Hand Delivery/Courier: Mr. Michael Erbesfeld, U.S.
Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
950 L'Enfant Building, Room 6014, 950 L'Enfant Plaza, Washington, DC
20024.
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency
name, Department of Energy, and docket number, EERE-2011-BT-DET-0057,
or Regulatory Information Number (RIN), (1904-AC59) for this
determination.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Erbesfeld, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Forrestal
Building, Mail Station EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585-0121, (202) 287-1874, e-mail:
michael.erbesfeld@ee.doe.gov. For legal issues contact Kavita
Vaidyanathan, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel,
Forrestal Building, GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington,
DC 20585, (202) 586-0669, e-mail: kavita.vaidyanathan@hq.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
A. Statutory Requirements
B. Background
C. DOE's Preliminary Determination Statement
II. Discussion of Changes in the 2012 IECC
A. Changes in the 2012 IECC That Increase Energy Efficiency
B. Changes in the 2012 IECC That Decrease Energy Efficiency
C. Changes in the 2012 IECC That Have an Unclear Impact on
Energy Efficiency
D. Changes in the 2012 IECC That Do Not Affect Energy Efficiency
III. Filing Certification Statements With DOE
A. State Determinations
B. Certification
C. Request for Extensions
IV. Regulatory Analysis
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
D. Review Under Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism''
E. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
F. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act of 1999
G. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act of 2001
H. Review Under Executive Order 13211
I. Review Under Executive Order 13175
V. Public Participation
I. Introduction
A. Statutory Requirements
Title III of the Energy Conservation and Production Act, as amended
(ECPA), establishes requirements for the Building Energy Standards
Program. (42 U.S.C. 6831-6837) Section 304(a) of ECPA, as amended,
provides that when the 1992 Model Energy Code (MEC), or any successor
to that code, is revised, the Secretary must determine, not later than
12 months after the revision, whether the revised code would improve
energy efficiency in residential buildings and must publish notice of
the determination in the Federal Register. (42 U.S.C. 6833(a)(5)(A))
The Department, following precedent set by the ICC and the American
Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers
(ASHRAE) considers high-rise (greater than three stories) multifamily
residential buildings and hotel, motel, and other transient residential
building types of any height as commercial buildings for energy code
purposes. Low-rise residential buildings include one- and two-family
detached and attached buildings, duplexes, townhouses, row houses, and
low-rise multifamily buildings (not greater than three stories) such as
condominiums and garden apartments.
If the Secretary determines that the revision would improve energy
efficiency then, not later than 2 years after the date of the
publication of the
[[Page 64925]]
affirmative determination, each State is required to certify that it
has compared its residential building code regarding energy efficiency
to the revised code and made a determination whether it is appropriate
to revise its code to meet or exceed the provisions of the successor
code. (42 U.S.C. 6833(a)(5)(B)) State determinations are to be made:
(1) After public notice and hearing; (2) in writing; (3) based upon
findings included in such determination and upon evidence presented at
the hearing; and (4) available to the public. (See, 42 U.S.C.
6833(a)(5)(C).) In addition, if a State determines that it is not
appropriate to revise its residential building code, the State is
required to submit to the Secretary, in writing, the reasons, which are
to be made available to the public. (See, 42 U.S.C. 6833(a)(5)(C).)
B. Background
The ICC's IECC establishes a national model code for energy
efficiency requirements for buildings. In 1997, the Council of American
Building Officials (CABO) was incorporated into the ICC and the MEC was
renamed to the IECC. A previous Federal Register notice, 59 FR 36173,
July 15, 1994, announced the Secretary's determination that the 1993
MEC increased energy efficiency relative to the 1992 MEC for
residential buildings. Similarly, another Federal Register notice, 61
FR 64727, December 6, 1996, announced the Secretary's determination
that the 1995 MEC is an improvement over the 1993 MEC. Federal Register
notice 66 FR 1964, January 10, 2001, simultaneously announced the
Secretary's determination that the 1998 IECC is an improvement over the
1995 MEC and the 2000 IECC is an improvement over the 1998 IECC.
Finally Federal Register notice 76 FR 42688, July 19, 2011, announced
the Secretary's determination that the 2003 IECC was not a substantial
improvement over its predecessor, while the 2006 and 2009 editions were
a substantial improvement over its predecessors.
C. DOE's Preliminary Determination Statement
The 2012 IECC has a substantial variety of revisions compared to
the 2009 IECC. Most of these revisions appear to directly improve
energy efficiency that, on the whole, would result in a significant
improvement in efficiency to homes built to the code. Therefore, the
Department preliminarily concludes that the 2012 edition of the IECC
should receive an affirmative determination under Section 304(a) of
ECPA.
II. Discussion of Changes in the 2012 IECC Compared With the 2009 IECC
Summary
The 2012 IECC appears to improve residential energy efficiency with
respect to the 2009 IECC. Based on DOE's preliminary analysis, a
preponderance of major energy efficiency improvements more than offset
a small number of changes which have unclear or negative impacts on
energy efficiency. The major changes that are estimated to improve
energy efficiency in new homes built to comply with the code in most
climate zones include:
Building thermal envelope improvements.
[cir] Increases in prescriptive insulation levels of walls, roofs
and floors.
[cir] Decrease (improvement) in U-factor allowances for
fenestration.
[cir] Decrease (improvement) in allowable Solar Heat Gain
Coefficient (SHGC) for fenestration in warm climates.
Infiltration control: Mandated whole-house pressure test with
strict allowances for air leakage rates.
Wall insulation when structural sheathing is used.
Ventilation fan efficiency.
Lighting--Increased fraction of lamps required to be high-
efficacy.
Air distribution systems--leakage control requirements.
Hot water pipe insulation and length requirements.
Skylight definition change.
Penalizing electric resistance heating in the performance
compliance path.
Fireplace air leakage control.
Insulating covers for in-ground hot tubs and spas.
Baffles for attic insulation.
Changes that appear to decrease residential efficiency in some
situations include the following.
Steel-framed wall insulation.
Air barrier location.
Changes whose effect is unclear:
Fenestration SHGC requirement in climate zone 4.
Interior shading assumptions in the performance compliance
path.
All of the changes that are estimated to positively or negatively
impact energy efficiency are discussed in the following text.
A. Changes in the 2012 IECC That Are Estimated To Increase Energy
Efficiency
Building Thermal Envelope Improvements
Table R402.1.1 which specifies prescriptive envelope requirements,
has been extensively modified in the 2012 IECC compared to the 2009
IECC. This table represents the code's primary regulation of a home's
envelope thermal resistance, or the resistance of the ceilings, walls,
windows, and floors to the transfer of heat into or out of the home.
The criteria are expressed as either R-values (Btu/h-ft\2\-F), which
quantify a building component's resistance to heat flow, or U-factors
(h-ft\2\-F/Btu), which are the inverse of R-values and represent a
component's thermal conductance. A higher R-value or a lower U-factor
represents an efficiency improvement. Table R402.1.1 also includes
requirements for glazed fenestration solar heat gain coefficients
(SHGC) in the southern and central climate zones. In a cooling-
dominated climate, a lower SHGC will almost always reduce a home's
annual energy consumption.
Table 1 below shows the changes in the code's required R-values and
U-factors by climate zone. DOE has preliminarily determined that every
change in the code's table represents an improvement in efficiency.
Table 2 below shows the increase in required thermal resistance for
each building component type weighted by climate zone.
For the fenestration U-factor, the code has increased the required
thermal resistance by an average of 26.7%. In climate zone 1, Table
R402.1.1 appears to revert from a required U-factor of 1.2 to NR (no
requirement). This, however, should have no effect on the energy
efficiency of the code because the U-factor of a minimally efficient
single-pane window meets the requirement of 1.2. Seen in this light,
the change to NR is really a clarification, rather than an actual
change. The U-factor requirements for skylights in the 2012 IECC would
reduce allowable heat loss through skylights an average of 12.6%
compared to the 2009 IECC.
For glazed fenestration the allowable solar heat gain coefficient
(SHGC) has been lowered, reducing solar heat gain by 17% in the
cooling-dominated climate zones (1-3).
Four climate zones (2 through 5) were affected by more stringent
insulation requirements in ceilings. Required R-values increased by 27%
to 29% in these zones. However, accounting for the thermal bridging
effects of typical wood framing members, DOE has preliminarily
determined that the changes in the code represent a weighted average
increase of 12.2% in the thermal resistance of ceilings.
For wood frame walls, the code allows a choice in some climate
zones of a single value for insulation in the
[[Page 64926]]
cavity between wall studs, or two values: One for cavity insulation and
one for additional continuous insulation applied to the interior or
exterior of the wall. Accounting for thermal bridging effects, and
choosing the least thermally resistive of the two options, the 2012
code is estimated to improve thermal resistance of wood-frame walls an
average of 13.7%. Mass wall (e.g., concrete, concrete block, log) R-
value requirements increased by an average of 33.4%. Basement wall and
crawl space wall R-values increased by 14.5% and 17.6%, respectively.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19OC11.025
Table 2--National Average Increase in Thermal Resistance for Lowest
Required Insulation Level by Building Component
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increase in thermal
Building component resistance of required
insulation (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fenestration................................ 26.7
Skylights................................... 12.6
Ceiling..................................... 18.2
Wood Frame Wall............................. 13.7
Mass Wall \1\............................... 33.4
Basement Wall \1\........................... 14.5
Crawl Space Wall \1\........................ 17.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are two R-value options in the IECC. The first R-value option
is used for this comparison. For mass walls, this first value applies
when less than half of the insulation is on the interior of the mass
wall, the case for which the code allows a greater reduction in
required R-value due to the beneficial effects of thermal mass. The
second number is more similar to wood frame wall requirements. For
basement and crawl space walls, this first value applies for
continuous insulation on the interior or exterior of the wall, whereas
the second value is for insulation in cavities between studs or
furring strips. In this case the two values represent approximately
similar overall thermal resistance.
The 2012 IECC specifies that insulation R-values conform to the
requirements of Table R402.1.1 even if the insulation must be
compressed to fit within the available cavity. This clause primarily
affects some nominal R-19 fiberglass batts that are designed for floor
and/or ceiling applications where the available cavity is greater than
the 5.5 inches typically available in a 2x6 wall. However, the 2012
edition has no prescriptive requirements that exactly require R-19 in
wall cavities, so it is expected that there is no direct impact on
energy savings.
Infiltration Control
Section 402.4.1.2 contains a new provision for a mandatory whole-
house pressure test to determine the envelope air leakage rate (the
test was optional in the 2009 IECC). The maximum allowable air leakage
rate is 5 air changes/hour when tested at a pressure difference of 50
Pascals (5 ACH50) in climate zone 1 and climate zone 2; and 3 air
changes/hour (3 ACH50) in climate zones 3-8. The 2009 IECC specified a
maximum of 7 ACH50 when the optional test was used, or directed the
building official to inspect the envelope
[[Page 64927]]
against a detailed checklist when the test was not used. The lower
allowed leakage rate of the 2012 IECC is expected to save energy, and
the mandatory test will likely result in improved energy efficiency in
homes that would have had higher leakage rates as a result of leaks
that would not be detected by visual inspection.
Wall Insulation When Structural Sheathing Is Used
Footnote h to Table R402.1.1 allows certain reductions in the
required R-value of continuous insulation on walls that use structural
sheathing (e.g., plywood, OSB) for shear bracing. The footnote is
relevant only when there is a mixture of structural and insulating
sheathing on the wall(s). The 2009 IECC states: ``First value is cavity
insulation, second is continuous insulation, so ``13+5'' means R-13
cavity insulation plus R-5 insulated sheathing. If structural sheathing
covers 25 percent or less of the exterior, insulating sheathing is not
required in the locations where structural sheathing is used. If
structural sheathing covers more than 25 percent of exterior,
structural sheathing shall be supplemented with insulated sheathing of
at least R-2.''
The footnote has the effect of suspending the continuous R-value
requirement for portions of the wall covered with structural sheathing,
provided those portions represent 25% or less of the wall area. If
structural sheathing covers more than 25% of the wall, the structural
portions must be augmented with additional insulating sheathing of at
least R-2. The 2012 IECC states: ``First value is cavity insulation,
second is continuous insulation, so ``13+5'' means R-13 cavity
insulation plus R-5 continuous insulation. If structural sheathing
covers 40 percent or less of the exterior, continuous insulation R-
value shall be permitted to be reduced by no more than R-3 in the
locations where structural sheathing is used--to maintain a consistent
total sheathing thickness.''
The 2012 IECC allows a larger fraction of the wall (40% rather than
25%) to contain reduced continuous insulation but, unlike the 2009
IECC, does not allow elimination of continuous insulation. The 2012
IECC specifies substantially more continuous insulation layered on top
of structural sheathing when the structural fraction exceeds the 40%
threshold. It is estimated that the net effect is greater overall
efficiency.
Ventilation Fan Efficiency
When installed to function as a whole-house ventilation system, the
2012 IECC specifies that mechanical fans meet the following
requirements:
Range Hoods and In-line fans: 2.8 cfm/watt.
Bathroom (10-90 cfm): 1.4 cfm/watt.
Bathroom (>90 cfm): 2.8 cfm/watt.
Because the 2012 IECC places upper limits on the energy
requirements for these fans where there were no such limits in the 2009
IECC, this change is expected to improve overall efficiency in
residences.
Lighting
The requirement for high efficacy lamps has been increased from a
minimum of 50% of the lamps in permanently-installed fixtures to a
minimum of 75%. Further, the high efficacy lamp requirement has been
changed from prescriptive to mandatory, meaning the specification
cannot be lessened in trade for efficiency improvements elsewhere in
the home. This change also addresses an aspect of the 2009 IECC under
which the use of high-efficacy lamps is not specified when a building
achieved compliance via the simulated performance compliance path. This
is expected to improve the energy savings in the 2012 IECC by reducing
lighting energy use. The 2012 IECC also added an option for calculating
the high-efficacy fraction based on a count of fixtures instead of
individual lamps, a change not expected to change overall efficiency.
Section R404.1.1 in the 2012 IECC contains a new provision that
bans continuously burning pilot lights on fuel-fired lighting. While
the potential energy savings are limited due to the fringe application
of this type of lighting, where applied, this rule would tend to
increase energy savings by cutting standby energy use of the pilot
light.
Air Distribution System
There are three key changes to requirements for air distribution
systems that improve energy efficiency:
A change to section R403.2.2.1 that places a limit on air
leakage from air handlers. The change is to ensure that the air handler
delivers the vast majority of the supply air downstream to the rest of
the distribution system.
Section R403.2.2 reduces maximum allowable levels of duct
leakage in the distribution system compared to the 2009 IECC (from 12
cfm per 100 ft \2\ of conditioned floor area to 4 cfm/100 ft \2\ for
tests done on completed buildings, and from 6 to 4 cfm per 100 ft \2\
for tests done at the rough-in stage of construction).
Section R403.2.3 now specifies that building framing
cavities may not be used as supply ducts or plenums, which would
eliminate the potential for air leaks into adjacent framing cavities
and/or attics, crawlspaces, or unheated basements. This may also lessen
the chance of an unbalanced distribution system.
DOE has preliminarily determined that all of these changes will
increase the energy savings of the 2012 edition of the IECC by
delivering more of the conditioned air to where it is needed via a more
efficient distribution system.
Hot Water Pipe Insulation and Length Requirements
Section R403.4.2 contains new specifications for noncirculating
service hot water distribution systems that should reduce energy losses
from ``stranded'' hot water and conduction of heat out of the pipes.
The 2012 IECC specifies that all such pipes to be insulated unless they
have sufficiently low volume as defined by a combination of their
length (measured from the tank or distribution manifold to the point of
use) and diameter. This change is expected to reduce the amount of hot
water that cools off in the pipes and is thus wasted as users wait for
sufficiently warm water to reach the fixture. Also, for circulating hot
water systems, the required insulation has been increased from R-2 to
R-3 and therefore should increase efficiency. A final change in the
2012 IECC requires that piping insulation be protected from the
elements. Although primarily a durability concern, this change may save
energy by reducing the incidence of damaged and/or missing insulation.
Skylight Definition Change
Previously, skylights were defined as any glazed fenestration at
less than 75 degrees from horizontal. That definition has been changed
in the 2012 IECC to be less than 60 degrees from horizontal. The effect
of this change is to classify more glazing as vertical fenestration
rather than skylights. Although the number of skylights in this slope
range is small, because the U-factor requirements for vertical
fenestration are more stringent than for skylights, this change is
expected to improve the energy savings of the 2012 IECC.
Electric Resistance Heating in the Performance Path
Under the performance compliance path (Section R405), the 2012 IECC
has modified the reference design for buildings with electric heating
systems that do not use a heat pump, requiring that a heat pump be
assumed in the
[[Page 64928]]
standard reference design. Because of the efficiency of heat pumps as
compared to other electric heating technologies, this code change is
expected to increase the energy efficiency of the reference design,
which would have the effect of specifying that the proposed design to
be more energy efficient if it is to comply via this section and the
proposed design has an electric heating system that is less efficient
than a heat pump. Although this affects only homes with electric
resistance heating, its effect is expected to be an improvement in
efficiency if such homes comply via the performance method.
Fireplace Air Leakage Control
The 2012 IECC specifies that all fireplaces have tight-fitting flue
dampers and gasketed doors (the 2009 IECC requires such only for wood-
burning fireplaces). This is expected to result in very air-tight
fireplaces which would improve a home's air leakage characteristics.
Therefore, this is deemed an improvement in efficiency for homes with
fireplaces.
In-Ground Hot Tubs and Spas
Section R403.9 has been updated to include in-ground hot tubs and
spas under the purview of the code, where previously only swimming
pools were included. The change effectively requires hot tubs and spas
to have insulating covers, which should lower energy losses. To the
extent that these devices typically already have insulating covers this
may have limited impact in terms of efficiency.
The 2012 IECC now specifies that log walls meet the requirements of
ICC-400, a separate standard for log wall construction. Although this
does not change the thermal requirements, it may result in better
quality construction of log walls, which would improve energy
performance by reducing air leaks and thermal bypasses.
Baffles for Attic Insulation
Section R402.2.3 now requires a wind wash baffle for vented attics.
For air-permeable insulation, this should improve the effective
insulation value of the ceiling by reducing wind-driven air movement
and may in some cases prevent blown-in insulation from being displaced
by wind. Therefore, this is an improvement in efficiency for attics.
B. Changes in the 2012 IECC That Are Estimated To Decrease Energy
Efficiency
Steel-Framed Wall Insulation
The 2012 IECC modifies the IECC code's tables of steel-framed wall
U-factor equivalences with wood-frame walls of various R-values in such
a way that less efficient steel-framed walls will be deemed equivalent
to a corresponding wood-frame wall in many cases. In the 2009 IECC,
there was no distinction between homes with different steel stud
spacing. In the 2012 IECC, there are now separate U-factor equivalences
for studs with 16'' and 24'' spacing. The 16'' stud spacing
requirements have two categories that are directly comparable to the
2009 IECC requirements: walls with wood-frame R-values of R-13 or R-21.
According to Table A3.3 of ASHRAE 90.1 2007, the 2009 IECC-required R-
factors represent an equivalent U-factor for the wall assembly of 0.077
to 0.080 Btu/hr-ft\2\-F, depending on the compliance option. This has
been changed in the 2012 IECC to a range of 0.059-0.089 Btu/hr-ft\2\-F.
The average compliance option based on R-13 wood-frame walls represents
a 5.4% higher U-factor. For R-21 wood-frame walls, the steel frame
options previously represented U-factors of 0.054, whereas in the 2012
code, they represent U-factors of 0.056, a 3.1% increase.
Insulation equivalences in the 2012 IECC for steel walls with 24''
stud spacing are slightly more lax, reflecting the decreased thermal
bridging effects, compared with 16'' stud spacing. Because the baseline
for comparison for 24'' stud spacing in the 2009 IECC is still the
general requirements that did not distinguish based on stud spacing,
these new requirements represent higher increases in assembly U-factors
than for 16'' stud spacing. Specifically, there is a 9.1% increase in
assembly U-factors among the various insulation options for R-13 and an
11.8% increase for R-21. The steel-wood framing equivalences of the
2009 IECC and the 2012 IECC are compared below in Table 3. In this
table, the first value is cavity insulation and the second is
continuous insulation. For example, R-13+5 is R-13 cavity insulation
plus R-5 continuous insulation.
Note that while the steel/wood equivalences have changed such that
steel-stud walls may be less efficient than before in comparison to a
particular wood-frame R-value, the base R-value requirements (expressed
in terms of wood-frame walls) have substantially increased in climate
zones 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 which would result in energy savings in these
zones even for steel framed walls. Because the number of homes with
external walls with steel framing is small compared to wood-frame
homes, this change is not expected to result in substantial overall
efficiency losses in zones 1, 2, and 5.
Table 3--Comparison of Steel-Frame Wall Requirements Between the 2009 and 2012 IECC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steel frame spacing............ 16'' stud spacing
24'' stud spacing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wood-Frame Requirement......... R-13 R-21 R-13 R-21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009 IECC Options.............. R-0+10 or R13+5 or R-13+10 or R-19+9 R-13+5 or R-15+4 R-13+10 or R-19+9
R-15+4 or R-21+3 or R-25+8 or R-21+3 or R- or R-25+8
0+10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 IECC Options.............. R-0+9.3 or R-13+4.2 R-0+14.6 or R- R-0+9.3 or R-13+3 R-0+14 or R-13+8.3
or R-15+3.8 or R- 13+9.5 or R- or R-15+2.4 or R-15+7.7 or R-
19+2.1 or R-21+2.8 15+9.1 or R- 19+6.9 or R-
19+8.4 or R- 21+6.5 or R-
21+8.1 or R- 25+5.9
25+7.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average U-factor (2009) \1\.... 0.079 0.054 0.063 0.04
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average U-factor (2012)........ 0.083 0.056 0.07 0.045
Average U-factor Increase...... 5.4% 3.1% 9.1% 11.8%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Calculated using ASHRAE 90.1-2007 Table A3.4.
[[Page 64929]]
Air Barrier Location
The 2012 IECC changes Table R402.4.1.1 by removing a requirement
that air-permeable insulation be located inside the air barrier,
allowing the insulation to be outside of the air barrier in the
exterior envelope construction. By allowing air-permeable insulation to
be located outside the air barrier this change may result in increased
levels of outdoor air infiltration in the interstices of the insulation
material. This would tend to reduce the effectiveness of the
insulation. The magnitude of impact for this change, however, is
expected to be minimal because an interior air barrier will still be
effective at reducing air movement through the envelope and because the
2012 IECC's new mandate for a whole-house pressure test will ensure
that total air leakage through the building envelope be kept at a low
rate.
There is an additional change in the 2012 IECC that may reduce the
energy efficiency of the code. In the 2009 IECC, the common wall
between dwelling units of a multifamily or two-family structure was
required to be air-sealed. In the 2012 IECC, this requirement has been
removed. In practice, these common walls can provide a route for air
leakage to the outdoors if they are coupled to attics, basements,
crawlspaces, or other unconditioned spaces. Because multifamily
represent a small fraction of low-rise residential dwelling units
(about 15%) and because this change creates the potential for only an
indirect air movement path, DOE does not consider this change to be
significant.
C. Changes in the 2012 IECC That Have an Unclear Impact on Energy
Efficiency
Fenestration SHGC in Climate Zone 4
As presented in Table 1, the 2012 IECC changes SHGC specifications
for climate zone 4 from no requirement (NR) to 0.4. Because climate
zone 4 contains locations where the energy savings from increased solar
heat gains in winter may more than offset increased energy use for air
conditioning in summer, it is possible that a lower SHGC would increase
energy use in some parts of the zone. However, the specified
fenestration U-factor of 0.35 in both the 2009 and 2012 IECC usually
implies the use of windows with low-emissivity coatings that have an
SHGC of 0.4 or below even in the absence of a specific SHGC
requirement. Therefore, DOE expects this change to have minimal impact
either in terms of energy savings or energy losses.
Interior Shading Assumptions in the Performance Compliance Path
The 2012 IECC modifies internal shade fractions required as inputs
to the performance compliance path. The 2009 IECC specified the
following internal shade fractions for the reference design: Summer--
0.70, Winter--0.85. These have been replaced in the 2012 IECC with the
following equation for calculating interior shade fraction (ISF):
ISF = 0.92-0.21 [middot] SHGC
The impact of this change on the energy consumption of homes
complying via the performance path is nuanced and difficult to
generalize, but is expected to be small. Its primary impact is to
modestly change the relative importance of cooling- and heating-
oriented energy-saving features.
D. Changes in the 2012 IECC That Do Not Affect Energy Efficiency
Several changes were made to the IECC that do not directly affect
energy efficiency. Table 4 details these changes, listing the section
of the 2009 IECC to which the change was made, a description of the
change, and an explanation why overall energy efficiency is not
affected.
Table 4--Changes to IECC That Do Not Effect Energy Efficiency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Code Section Change Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R202.................................. Clarifies that residential buildings This change is only a
covered by chapter 4 are one- and two- clarification.
family dwellings, townhouses and multi-
family residential (R-2) not over 3
stories in height above grade.
R202.................................. Definition of a whole-house ventilation Because whole-house
system. ventilation systems are not
yet required by the code,
this new definition effects
no real change to the code's
requirements.
R401.3................................ Results of an air leakage test must be This change only affects the
documented on the certificate. transparency of code
compliance.
R202 and R303.1.3..................... Introduction of ``Visible The table only provides
Transmittance''(VT) for fenestrations. default VT values for certain
Default ``Visible Transmittances'' window types. VT is not
defined in Table. directly regulated by the
code.
R402.4.4.............................. Clarification that recessed lighting This is only a clarification
must be labeled as having a leakage of previous text.
rate to ceiling cavity of < = 2 cfm.
Chapter 6............................. Introduction of ASHRAE test procedure Provides a test procedure to
193 for determining the air leakage enable compliance with a new
rate for HVAC Equipment. requirement.
Chapter 5............................. Introduction of test standard for home Provides a test procedure to
ventilation systems: HVI 916-09 Airflow enable compliance with a new
Test Procedure. requirement.
Table R405.5.2(1)..................... Requirements for Proposed Design for This change is only a
Thermal Distribution Systems: Thermal clarification.
distribution system efficiency shall be
as tested or as specified by Table
405.5.2 if not tested. Duct insulation
shall be as proposed.
R403.6................................ Heating and cooling equipment shall be This moves this requirement
sized in accordance with ACCA Manual S directly into the IECC
based on building loads calculated in instead of referencing the
accordance with ACCA Manual J or other IRC.
approved heating and cooling
calculation methodologies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 64930]]
III. Filing Certification Statements With DOE
A. State Determinations
If today's determination is finalized, each State would be required
to determine the appropriateness of revising the portion of its
residential building code regarding energy efficiency to meet or exceed
the energy efficiency provisions of the 2012 IECC. (42 U.S.C.
6833(a)(5)(B)) Note that the applicability of any State revisions to
new or existing buildings would be governed by the State building
codes. However, it is our understanding that generally, the revisions
would not apply to existing buildings unless they are undergoing a
change that requires a building permit. The determinations are required
to be made not later than two years from the date of publication of a
notice of final determination, unless an extension is provided. The
State determination must be: (1) Made after public notice and hearing;
(2) in writing; (3) based upon findings and upon the evidence presented
at the hearing; and (4) made available to the public. States have
considerable discretion with regard to the hearing procedures they use,
subject to providing an adequate opportunity for members of the public
to be heard and to present relevant information. The Department
recommends publication of any notice of public hearing in a newspaper
of general circulation.
Section 304(a)(4) of ECPA, as amended, requires that if a State
makes a determination that it is not appropriate to revise the energy
efficiency provisions of its residential building code, the State must
submit to the Secretary, in writing, the reasons for this determination
and the statement shall be available to the public. (42 U.S.C.
6833(a)(4))
States should be aware that, consistent with IECC definitions, the
Department considers high-rise (greater than three stories) multifamily
residential buildings and hotel, motel, and other transient residential
building types of any height as non-residential buildings for energy
code purposes. Residential buildings include one- and two-family
detached and attached buildings, duplexes, townhouses, row houses, and
low-rise multifamily buildings (not greater than three stories) such as
condominiums and garden apartments.
States should also be aware that this preliminary determination
does not apply to IECC chapters specific to non-residential buildings
as defined above. Therefore, if today's action is finalized then States
must certify their evaluations of their State building codes for
residential buildings with respect to all provisions of the IECC except
for those chapters.
B. Requests for Extensions To Certify
Section 304(c) of ECPA, as amended, requires that the Secretary
permit an extension of the deadline for complying with the
certification requirements described above, if a State can demonstrate
that it has made a good faith effort to comply with such requirements
and that it has made significant progress toward meeting its
certification obligations. (42 U.S.C. 6833(c)) Such demonstrations
could include one or both of the following: (1) A plan for response to
the requirements stated in Section 304; and/or (2) a statement that the
State has appropriated or requested funds (within State funding
procedures) to implement a plan that would respond to the requirements
of Section 304 of ECPA. This list is not exhaustive.
IV. Regulatory Analysis
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
Today's action is not a significant regulatory action under section
3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review''
(58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993)). Accordingly, today's action was not
subject to review by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
(OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires the
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule
that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency
certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As required
by Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in
Agency Rulemaking,'' (67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002)), DOE published
procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the
potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly
considered during the rulemaking process (68 FR 7990). DOE has made its
procedures and policies available on the Office of General Counsel's
Web site: https://www.gc.doe.gov. If today's action on the preliminary
determination of improved energy efficiency between IECC editions is
finalized it would require States to undertake an analysis of their
respective building codes. Today's action does not impact small
entities. Therefore, DOE has preliminarily certified that there is no
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
C. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
DOE has preliminarily determined that today's action is covered
under the Categorical Exclusion found in DOE's National Environmental
Policy Act regulations at paragraph A.6 of Appendix A to subpart D, 10
CFR part 1021. That Categorical Exclusion applies to actions that are
strictly procedural, such as rulemaking establishing the administration
of grants. Today's action impacts whether States must perform an
evaluation of State building codes. The action would not have direct
environmental impacts. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared an
environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement.
D. Review Under Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism''
Executive Order 13132, 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 4, 1999), imposes certain
requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or
regulations that pre-empt State law or that have federalism
implications. Agencies are required to examine the constitutional and
statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the
policymaking discretion of the States and carefully assess the
necessity for such actions. DOE has examined today's action and has
determined that it will not pre-empt State law and will not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Today's
action impacts whether States must perform an evaluation of State
building codes. No further action is required by Executive Order 13132.
F. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) generally
requires Federal agencies to examine closely the impacts of regulatory
actions on State, local, and Tribal governments. Subsection 101(5) of
Title I of that law defines a Federal intergovernmental mandate to
include any regulation that would impose upon State, local, or Tribal
governments an enforceable duty, except a condition of Federal
assistance or a duty arising from participating in a voluntary Federal
program. Title II of that law requires each Federal agency to assess
the effects of Federal regulatory
[[Page 64931]]
actions on State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or
to the private sector, other than to the extent such actions merely
incorporate requirements specifically set forth in a statute. Section
202 of that title requires a Federal agency to perform a detailed
assessment of the anticipated costs and benefits of any rule that
includes a Federal mandate which may result in costs to State, local,
or Tribal governments, or to the private sector, of $100 million or
more. Section 204 of that title requires each agency that proposes a
rule containing a significant Federal intergovernmental mandate to
develop an effective process for obtaining meaningful and timely input
from elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments.
Today's action impacts whether States must perform an evaluation of
State building codes. Today's action would not impose a Federal mandate
on State, local or Tribal governments, and it would not result in the
expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments in the aggregate,
or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year.
Accordingly, no assessment or analysis is required under the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
G. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act
of 1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a
Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family
well-being. Today's action would not have any impact on the autonomy or
integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has
preliminarily concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family
Policymaking Assessment.
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act
of 2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for agencies to review most
disseminations of information to the public under guidelines
established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by
OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and
DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has
reviewed today's action under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has
preliminarily concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies
in those guidelines.
I. Review Under Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to the
OMB a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy
action. A ``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an
agency that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a
final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) as a significant energy
action. For any proposed significant energy action, the agency must
give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply,
distribution, or use, should the proposal be implemented, and of
reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on
energy supply, distribution, and use.
Today's action would not have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy and is therefore not a
significant energy action. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a
Statement of Energy Effects.
J. Review Under Executive Order 13175
Executive Order 13175. ``Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249 (Nov. 9, 2000)), requires DOE to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have
tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal implications''
refers to regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on one or
more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government
and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.'' Today's regulatory
action is not a policy that has ``tribal implications'' under Executive
Order 13175. DOE has reviewed today's action under executive Order
13175 and has determined that it is consistent with applicable policies
of that Executive Order.
V. Public Participation
The public is invited to submit comments on the preliminary
determinations. Comments must be provided by the date specified in the
DATES section of this notice using any of the methods described in the
ADDRESSES section of this notice. If you submit information that you
believe to be exempt by law from public disclosure, you should submit
one complete copy, as well as one copy from which the information
claimed to be exempt by law from public disclosure has been deleted.
DOE is responsible for the final determination with regard to
disclosure or nondisclosure of the information and for treating it
accordingly under the DOE Freedom of Information regulations at 10 CFR
1004.11.
Issued in Washington, DC on October 13, 2011.
Henry Kelly,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 2011-27050 Filed 10-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P