[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 171 (Friday, September 3, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54131-54142]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-22062]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. EERE-2010-BT-DET-0030]
RIN 1904-AC17
Updating State Residential Building Energy Efficiency Codes
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of proposed determination.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE or Department) has preliminarily
determined that the 2009 version of the International Code Council
(ICC) International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) would achieve
greater energy efficiency in low-rise residential buildings than the
2006 IECC. Also, DOE has preliminarily determined that the 2006 version
of the IECC would achieve greater energy efficiency than the 2003 IECC.
Finally, DOE has preliminarily determined that the 2003 version of the
IECC would not achieve greater energy efficiency than the 2000 IECC. If
these determinations are finalized, 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 most recent code with an affirmative determination, the 2009 IECC.
Additionally, this Notice provides guidance to States on how the codes
have changed from previous versions, how to submit certifications, and
how to request extensions of the deadline to submit certifications,
should the preliminary determinations be adopted as final.
DATES: Comments on the preliminary determinations must be provided by
October 4, 2010.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by any of the following
methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: [email protected]. Include RIN 1904-AC17
in the subject line of the message.
Postal Mail: Mr. Ronald B. Majette, 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. Ronald B. Majette, U.S.
Department of Energy, Federal Energy Management Program, Room 6003,
1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121.
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name,
Department of Energy, and docket number, EERE-2010-BT-DET-0030, or
Regulatory Information Number (RIN), 1904-AC17, for this rulemaking.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ronald B. Majette, 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, 202-586-7935. For legal issues contact Chris
Calamita, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel,
Forrestal Building, GC-72, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington,
DC 20585, (202) 586-9507, e-mail: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
A. Statutory Requirements
B. Background
C. DOE's Preliminary Determination Statements
II. Discussion of Changes in the 2003, 2006, and 2009 IECC
A. 2003 IECC Compared With the 2000 IECC
B. 2006 IECC Compared With the 2003 IECC
C. 2009 IECC Compared With the 2006 IECC
III. Comparison of the 2009 IRC to the 2009 IECC
IV. Filing Certification Statements With DOE
A. State Determinations
B. Certification
C. Request for Extensions
V. 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
VI. Public Participation
VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
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(b) of ECPA, as amended,
provides that when the 1992 Model Energy Code, or any successor to that
code, is revised, the Secretary of the Department of Energy 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 International Code Council (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 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
[[Page 54132]]
are to be made available to the public. (See, 42 U.S.C. 6833(a)(5)(C))
B. Background
The International Code Council's (ICC) International Energy
Conservation Code (IECC) establishes national energy efficiency
requirements for buildings. In 1997, the Council of American Building
Officials (CABO) was incorporated into the ICC and the Model Energy
Code (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. Finally, 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.
C. DOE's Preliminary Determination Statement
2003 IECC
The Department of Energy's review and evaluation found that there
are not significant differences in energy efficiency between the 2003
edition and the 2000 edition of the IECC. Although there are a few
changes that would modestly improve the energy efficiency of
residential buildings, there are a number of changes that reduce energy
efficiency in certain situations. Most of the changes to the IECC
between the 2000 and 2003 editions would not affect energy efficiency
but rather make the code simpler and clearer for designers, builders,
and code compliance officials to understand and use. Based on these
findings, the Department has preliminarily concluded that the 2003
edition of the IECC should not receive an affirmative determination
under Section 304(b) of ECPA. The Department preliminarily concludes
that there is a slight improvement in energy efficiency for many
residential buildings, but this improvement is not sufficient to merit
an affirmative determination. It should be noted that DOE is not
concluding that the energy efficiency of the 2003 IECC less stringent
than the 2000 IECC.
2006 IECC
The residential portion of the 2006 IECC has been extensively
changed from that the 2003 IECC. However, the most significant changes
to the code between 2003 and 2006 simplify the code format rather than
fundamentally changing the overall (national average) energy efficiency
of the code. Multifamily buildings, which in the past have had
separate, less stringent thermal requirements, are an exception. By
eliminating the separate requirements, the 2006 IECC increased the
energy efficiency of multifamily buildings.
Although the most significant 2006 changes did not directly target
efficiency improvements, the new format of the code does result in some
energy efficiency differences. The requirements for any given building
may have increased or decreased based on the specific location
(climate) and building design. The Department has preliminarily found
that overall the 2006 IECC has a small improvement in energy efficiency
compared to the 2003 IECC. The Department preliminarily concludes that
the 2006 edition of the IECC should receive an affirmative
determination under Section 304(b) of EPCA.
2009 IECC
The 2009 IECC has substantial revisions compared to the 2006 IECC.
Many of these revisions appear to directly improve energy efficiency,
and the sum results of all changes appear to result in a significant
increase in code stringency. Therefore, the Department preliminarily
concludes that the 2009 edition of the IECC should receive an
affirmative determination under Section 304(b) of EPCA.
II. Discussion of Changes in the 2003, 2006, and 2009 IECC
A. 2003 IECC Compared With the 2000 IECC
As a whole, the 2003 IECC's provisions for energy efficiency in
residential buildings appear largely unchanged from the 2000 IECC.
There are some changes in the code that can have a modest effect on
energy efficiency. These are discussed below. In addition, there is a
variety of minor changes intended to make the code more concise, more
complete, and better organized, but not more or less stringent. For
example, more specific requirements have been added for steel roofs/
ceilings and floors to correspond to those already in the code for
steel walls. Another example is the relocation of the 51 pages of state
maps from the middle of the code to the back of the code. Additionally,
the performance path in Chapter 4 of the 2003 IECC contains a variety
of modest improvements compared to the 2000 IECC, which creates more
concise requirements.
Changes in the 2003 IECC That Improve Energy Efficiency
1. Increased Duct Insulation Requirements
Duct insulation requirements generally increased in the 2003 IECC.
The 2003 IECC requirements are shown in Table 1. These are somewhat
difficult to compare to the 2000 IECC requirements because the latter
are more complex, differing between ducts in unconditioned spaces and
ducts completely exterior to the building and distinguishing
requirements by the design temperature difference between the duct air
and the space in which the ducts are located. The 2000 IECC
requirements for ducts in unconditioned spaces are shown in Table 2.
Assuming typical supply air temperatures of 55 degrees F for cooling
and 95 degrees F for heating (for heat pumps), the 2000 IECC insulation
requirement for supply ducts in unconditioned spaces is R-5 (minimum)
for nearly all cases. Insulation required by the 2000 IECC for return
ducts in unconditioned spaces will generally be R-3.3 in warmer
climates and R-5 in colder climates.
For the very common case of supply ducts in attics, and the case
that is likely to have the greatest impact on energy use, the 2003 IECC
always requires at least R-8, which exceeds the 2000 IECC's R-5
requirement. For supply ducts in other unconditioned spaces, the 2003
IECC's requirements exceed the 2000 IECC's requirements in all cases
except very warm locations (less than 1500 heating degree-days), where
the 2003 IECC requires R-4 compared to the 2000 IECC's requirement of
R-5. Because supply ducts transport air in its hottest (or coldest)
condition, insulation has its greatest impact on these ducts. The 2003
IECC is almost always more stringent than the 2000 IECC for supply
ducts. This includes all supply ducts in attics and, based on the
distribution of population \1\, more than 80% of ducts in other
unconditioned spaces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Estimated from USGS Population Places data that allows
mapping of population to climate (http://geonames.usgs.gov/domestic/download_data.htm).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requirements for return ducts in attics are slightly more stringent
in the 2003 IECC (R-4 vs R-3.3) in the warmest climates, slightly less
stringent (R-4 vs R-5) in mid climates, and slightly more stringent (R-
6 vs R-5) in the coldest climates.
[[Page 54133]]
Research \2\ showing the impact on heating and cooling energy use
due to duct insulation is summarized in Table 3. Based on this
research, the Department estimates that improved duct insulation in the
2003 IECC will reduce heating and cooling energy use by about 1%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Triedler, B., R. Lucas, M. Modera, J. Miller. 1996. Impact
of Residential Duct Insulation on HVAC Energy Use and Life-Cycle
Costs to Consumers. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and
Air-Conditioning Engineers.
Table 1--Duct Insulation Requirements in the 2003 IECC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Insulation R-value (h [middot] ft2 [middot] [deg]F)/Btu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ducts in unconditioned attics or Ducts in unconditioned basements,
Annual heating degree days base outside building crawl spaces, and other unconditioned
65[deg]F ---------------------------------------- spaces
---------------------------------------
Supply Return Supply Return
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below 1,500..................... 8 4 4 0
1,500 to 3,500.................. 8 4 6 2
3,501 to 7,500.................. 8 4 8 2
Above 7,500..................... 11 6 11 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2--Insulation Requirements (R-value, h-ft2-F/Btu) for Ducts in
Unconditioned Spaces in the 2000 IECC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Design Temperature Difference
(TD) between air temperature in
duct and space in which duct is Cooling Heating
located (degrees F)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TD <= 15........................ None required..... None required.
40 >= TD > 15................... 3.3............... 3.3.
TD > 40......................... 5.0............... 5.0.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3--Heating and Cooling Energy Savings (Percent) From Increased Duct Insulation
[Atlanta, Natural Gas Heating]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attic Basement Crawlspace
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R-4 to R-6...................................................... 2.3 1.6 1.8
R-6 to R-8...................................................... 1.4 0.9 1.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Minor Changes to ``Systems Analysis'' Performance Compliance Method
There are two changes that can increase the stringency of the
performance path in Chapter 4 of the 2003 IECC in certain cases. First,
any house proposed to use electric resistance heating must have equal
or lower calculated energy use than a hypothetical ``standard design''
that uses a more efficient electric air source heat pump. This change
makes the performance approach much more stringent for designs that
have electric resistance heating. However, compliance can be achieved
for these designs using the prescriptive compliance methods in Chapters
5 and 6, thereby bypassing the increased stringency of the performance
path.
Second, a provision has also been added requiring that the least
efficient orientation in terms of energy use be assumed for a proposed
group of residences with identical designs. Therefore, in a development
where the same design is built on multiple lots facing various
directions, the compliance analysis must be based on the least
advantageous orientation. In most of the United States, this is the
orientation that points the most window area toward a westerly
direction, maximizing solar heat gains in summer afternoons and
therefore increasing air conditioning energy use. Because proposed
building designs must have a calculated annual energy use equal to or
less than that of a home with window area equally distributed toward
the four cardinal directions, the requirement to assume the least
efficient orientation effectively makes the code more stringent because
the increased energy use from the least efficient orientation must be
offset by improved energy efficiency. This requirement in the 2003 IECC
will have only modest average impact because it affects only the
performance approach and identical house designs used repeatedly in a
development.
B. Changes in the 2003 IECC That Decrease Energy Efficiency
1. Sunroom Additions
A special set of requirements has been added to Table 502.2.5 of
the 2003 IECC for sunroom additions having a floor area of less than
500 ft\2\ (46.5 m\2\). Sunroom additions are permitted to have ceiling,
wall insulation, and window U-factor requirements that are typically
less stringent than the requirements for all other types of residential
construction. These special requirements for sunrooms only apply to
additions to existing dwellings, not to sunrooms that are built as part
of a new dwelling. In the 2000 IECC, there were no special requirements
for sunroom additions; they had to meet the same requirements as other
residential construction. To qualify for the less stringent
requirements in the 2003 IECC, the sunroom addition must be capable of
being controlled as a separately heated and cooled zone. Additionally,
new walls, doors or windows between the sunroom and the house must meet
the envelope requirements of the IECC. Finally, the glazing area must
exceed 40% of the gross area of the exterior walls and roof to qualify
as a sunroom in the IECC.
Testing with the DOE-2 simulation tool indicates that for a 500
ft\2\ sunroom, the less stringent 2003 requirements could add about
$200 to the annual energy costs in Chicago if the sunroom is both
heated and cooled all year. Impacts are much smaller in Houston,
[[Page 54134]]
about $10 added energy costs. However, this increase in energy
consumption is mitigated (on average) by several factors. First, the
requirements apply to a very small fraction of all new residential
construction. The Wall Street Journal Online (June 3, 2003) reports
three billion dollars worth of sunroom construction each year, or less
than one percent of all residential construction expenditures. But that
fraction includes new construction as well as additions, so the
fraction representing sunroom additions is less than 1%. Second, it is
expected that many sunrooms will not be maintained at comfort
conditions all year, further reducing the overall impact. Finally,
because the 2003 IECC requires that the sunroom be thermally isolated
from the rest of the house and that walls, windows, and doors between
the sunroom and house meet the code's envelope requirements, the
thermal impact when these spaces are not actively conditioned is
negligible. Therefore, the overall impact of this reduction in
stringency to national energy use is expected to be extremely small.
2. Climate Zone Maps
The IECC contains prescriptive envelope requirements (insulation R-
values and glazing U-factors) in Chapter 6 and Section 502.2.4 of the
code. In the 2000 IECC, only the heating degree-days for the city where
the housing was to be built could be used to determine the applicable
prescriptive envelope requirements. In the 2003 IECC, the heating
degree-days can still be used to determine the requirements, but
additionally the designer/builder can use the climate zones provided in
the state maps in the IECC. For most locations, the Chapter 3 climate
zones and heating degree-days lead to the exact same requirements.
Using the climate zones in the maps instead of the heating degree-days
will allow about 10% of cities nationwide to have a less stringent set
of prescriptive requirements. However, about 20% of cities nationwide
will have more stringent requirements when the climate zones are used
with the prescriptive requirements. If the designer/builders select to
use the climate zone maps in the 10% of cities where it lowers
requirements but not in the 20% of locations where it raises
requirements, the 2003 code effectively is less stringent. However, DOE
believes code users will make use of the climate zone maps even in many
of the locations where they raise requirements. It is doubtful most
code users will go through the level of effort of determining which
method of determining climate based requirements may give less
stringent requirements. In fact, DOE believes most users will not even
be aware of these differences, but will prefer the climate zone maps
because of their simplicity. The REScheck compliance materials
developed by the U.S. Department of Energy utilize the same heating
degree day based requirements for both the 2000 and 2003 IECC.
3. Increased U-Factor for Skylight Replacements
The maximum U-factor for skylight replacements in existing
buildings (Section 502.2.5 of the IECC) is raised from a U-factor of
0.50 to a U-factor of 0.60 for locations above 1,999 heating degree-
days. A higher U-factor reduces energy efficiency.
C. Net Impact on Energy Efficiency
The change in the 2003 IECC that is expected to have the greatest
impact on energy efficiency for the nation is the improved duct
insulation because a majority of new residential buildings have ducts
that pass through attics, crawl spaces, unheated basements and other
spaces where the IECC requires duct insulation. The improved duct
insulation in the 2003 IECC is estimated to save about 1% of heating
and cooling costs.
The ``Systems Analysis'' performance compliance method is a less
commonly used compliance method and the modest energy savings from the
improvements in this optional compliance method can easily be bypassed
by choosing a different compliance method. Because this approach is
optional, it is impossible to calculate the cumulative effect these
code changes will have on energy efficiency. DOE believes that the
changes to the system analysis method are insufficient to sway the
decision on whether the determination is affirmative or not.
The changes that reduce energy efficiency for sunroom additions and
skylight replacements are not considered to have substantial impacts on
national energy use as they do not apply to new buildings and only
apply to specific types or retrofits and additions to existing
buildings. The skylight U-factor change is only a modest reduction in
energy efficiency and sunroom additions are a small fraction of the
residential construction market.
The addition of the climate zone maps in the 2003 IECC as an option
to using city-specific heating degree-day data allows for the
possibility of preferentially lowering thermal envelope requirements in
about 10% of all national locations. However, it is difficult to
exploit this change because the code user must perform relatively
complex calculations rather than using the popular and user-friendly
REScheck software.
DOE preliminarily concludes the improved duct insulation will
slightly improve energy efficiency in most houses. However, the
reductions in energy efficiency for skylight replacements and sunroom
additions are expected to at least partially offset these savings from
a national energy total use perspective. The vast majority of all
requirements in the IECC are unchanged from 2000 to 2003. For these
reasons, DOE initially finds insufficient improvements in the 2003 to
merit an affirmative determination.
B. 2006 IECC Compared With the 2003 IECC
The residential portion of the IECC in general and the building
thermal envelope (ceilings, walls, doors, windows, foundations, etc.)
requirements in particular were completely restructured from 2003 to
2006. This resulted in the code becoming much shorter and simpler, its
volume reduced from 38 pages to 9 pages. The climate basis on which
envelope requirements depend was completely reworked. The 2003 IECC has
envelope requirements that vary continuously with heating degree-days
(HDD),\3\ or with 17 HDD zones (geographically-defined based on
counties, roughly following 500-HDD bins). In contrast, the 2006 IECC
has eight geographically-defined climate zones with all borders set on
county boundaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Some compliance paths defined requirements based on 17
``zones'' based on HDD ranges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A major change to envelope requirements was the combining of
separate requirements for two building categories (one- and two-family
dwellings, and all other low-rise residential buildings). The 2006 IECC
requirements are the same for all low-rise residential building types,
which has the effect of increasing the energy efficiency of the other
low-rise buildings. Also eliminated were nine related tables that
provided predefined packages of thermal transmittance prescriptive
requirements (glazing, ceiling-roof, exterior wall, floor over
unconditioned space, basement and crawl space walls, and floor slab on
grade) for different window to wall area ratios (WWR). In their place,
the 2006 IECC provides a single table of predefined packages of thermal
[[Page 54135]]
transmittance prescriptive requirements that do not vary with WWR.
Table 4 shows a comparison of major prescriptive envelope
requirements for a single-family house at a typical 15% WWR. The
requirements for the 2003 IECC will differ from those shown in Table 4
for other WWRs and for multifamily buildings. The 2006 IECC climate
zones do not exactly map to the 2003 IECC zones. Table 5 shows a more
detailed estimate of how residential construction maps from the 2006
IECC compare to the 2003 IECC climate zones.
Table 4--Comparison of the 2003 IECC and 2006 IECC Envelope Thermal Component Prescriptive Criteria for One- and Two-Family Dwellings at 15% Window Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IECC climate zone Maximum Minimum
------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heating degree Glazing U-factor Ceiling R-value Wall R-value Floor R-value
days ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003 2006 ------------------
2003 2006 2003 2006 2003 2006 2003 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1........... 1 2 0-499............. Any 1.20 R-13 R-30 R-11 R-13 R-11 R-13
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2........... .............. 500-999........... 0.90 0.75 R-19 R-30 R-11 R-13 R-11 R-13
��������������
3........... 2 1,000-1,499....... 0.75 0.75 R-19 R-30 R-11 R-13 R-11 R-13
��������������
4........... .............. 1,500-1,999....... 0.75 0.75 R-26 R-30 R-13 R-13 R-11 R-13
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5........... .............. 2,000-2,499....... 0.65 0.65 R-30 R-30 R-13 R-13 R-11 R-19
��������������
6........... 3 2,500-2,999....... 0.60 0.65 R-30 R-30 R-13 R-13 R-19 R-19
��������������
7........... .............. 3,000-3,499....... 0.55 0.65 R-30 R-30 R-13 R-13 R-19 R-19
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8........... .............. 3,500-3,999....... 0.50 0.40 R-30 R-38 R-13 R-13 R-19 R-19
��������������
9........... 4 4,000-4,499....... 0.45 0.40 R-38 R-38 R-13 R-13 R-19 R-19
��������������
10........... .............. 4,500-4,999....... 0.45 0.40 R-38 R-38 R-16 R-13 R-19 R-19
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11........... .............. 5,000-5,499....... 0.45 0.35 R-38 R-38 R-18 R-19 R-19 R-19/30
��������������
12........... .............. 5,500-5,999....... 0.40 0.35 R-38 R-38 R-18 R-19 R-21 R-19/30
��������������
13........... 5 6,000-6,499....... 0.35 0.35 R-38 R-38 R-18 R-19 R-21 R-19/30
��������������
14........... .............. 6,500--6,999...... 0.35 0.35 R-49 R-38 R-21 R-19 R-21 R-19/30
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15........... 5 6 7,000-8,499....... 0.35 0.35 R-49 R-38/49 R-21 R-19 R-21 R-21
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16........... 6 8,500-8,999....... 0.35 0.35 R-49 R-49 R-21 R-21 R-21 R-21
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17........... 7 9,000-12,999...... 0.35 0.35 R-49 R-49 R-21 R-21 R-21 R-21
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IECC climate zone Minimum
--------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------
Heating degree Basement wall Slab perimeter R-value Crawl space wall R-value
days R-value and depth feet
2003 2006 -------------------------------------------------------------------
2003 2006 2003 2006 2003 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......... 1 2 0-499........... R-0 R-0 R-0 R-0 R-0 R-0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.......... ............ 500-999......... R-0 R-0 R-0 R-0 R-4 R-0
�������������
3.......... 2 1,000-1,499..... R-0 R-0 R-0 R-0 R-5 R-0
�������������
4.......... ............ 1,500-1,999..... R-5 R-0 R-0 R-0 R-5 R-0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.......... ............ 2,000-2,499..... R-5 R-10/ R-0 R-0 R-6 R-5
13
�������������
6.......... 3 2,500-2,999..... R-6 R-10/ R-4,2 R-0 R-7 R-5
13
�������������
7.......... ............ 3,000-3,499..... R-7 R-10/ R-4,2 R-0 R-8 R-5
13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 54136]]
8.......... ............ 3,500-3,999..... R-8 R-10/ R-5,2 R-10,2 R-10 R-10
13
�������������
9.......... 4 4,000-4,499..... R-8 R-10/ R-5,2 R-10,2 R-11 R-10
13
�������������
10.......... ............ 4,500-4,999..... R-9 R-10/ R-6,2 R-10,2 R-17 R-10
13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11.......... ............ 5,000-5,499..... R-9 R-10/ R-6,2 R-10,2 R-17 R-10
13
�������������
12.......... ............ 5,500-5,999..... R-10 R-10/ R-9,4 R-10,2 R-19 R-10
13
�������������
13.......... 5 6,000-6,499..... R-10 R-10/ R-9,4 R-10,2 R-20 R-10
13
�������������
14.......... ............ 6,500-6,999..... R-11 R-10/ R-11,4 R-10,2 R-20 R-10
13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15.......... 5 6 7,000-8,499..... R-11 R-10/ R-13,4 R-10,2 R-20 R-10
13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16.......... 6 8,500-8,999..... R-18 R-10/ R-14,4 R-10,4 R-20 R-10
13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17.......... 7 9,000-12,999.... R-19 R-10/ R-18 R-10,4 R-20 R-10
13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5--Percentage of Homes in Each 2006 IECC Climate Zone That Would Have Been in Each 2003 IECC Climate Zone
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006 IECC climate zone
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003 IECC climate zone 4 except 5 and
1 2 3 marine marine 4 6 7 & 8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................................ 100 5 0 0 0 0 0
2............................................................ 0 20 0 0 0 0 0
3............................................................ 0 40 22 0 0 0 0
4............................................................ 0 31 10 0 0 0 0
5............................................................ 0 3 18 0 0 0 0
6............................................................ 0 0 28 0 0 0 0
7............................................................ 0 0 16 4 0 0 0
8............................................................ 0 0 6 9 0 0 0
9............................................................ 0 0 0 13 1 0 0
10........................................................... 0 0 0 28 6 0 0
11........................................................... 0 0 0 41 8 0 0
12........................................................... 0 0 0 5 28 0 0
13........................................................... 0 0 0 0 31 0 0
14........................................................... 0 0 0 0 20 12 0
15........................................................... 0 0 0 0 6 81 3
16........................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 5 6
17........................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 2 85
18........................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
19........................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department has conducted an analysis and has preliminarily
found that the 2006 IECC would modestly increase energy efficiency on
an overall national average basis. This analysis is summarized below; a
technical support document published in conjunction with this Notice
contains the full results. The Department stresses that this increased
energy efficiency is based on an average across all new residential
buildings. The analysis identified combinations of locations and
building design where the 2006 IECC would slightly reduce energy
efficiency; however, the analysis indicates that the reductions would
be more than offset by cases where energy efficiency is improved.
Table 6 provides the overall results of the comparative analysis of
the
[[Page 54137]]
prescriptive envelope requirements of the 2006 IECC and the 2003 IECC.
The DOE-2 energy simulation software was used to calculate these
values. The 2006 IECC has a 1% average overall national energy savings.
The table shows combined results for single-family and multifamily
construction accounting for weighted average building characteristics.
Table 6 illustrates significant regional differences that are primarily
a result of the revised climate zones. In most climates, the two codes
are very nearly equivalent. In climate zone 5, the 2006 IECC shows a
substantial improvement (about 5%). In climate zone 3, the 2003 IECC is
more energy efficient (by about 5%).
Table 6--Annual Energy Savings (MBtu) of 2006 IECC Compared to 2003 IECC for Prescriptive Building Envelope
Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foundation type
---------------------------------------------------- Percent
2006 IECC Climate zone Heated Slab-on- Unheated Average savings
basement Crawl space grade basement
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zone 1............................ 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 2
Zone 2............................ -0.1 1.4 0.9 -0.1 0.9 3
Zone 3............................ -8.6 -1 -3.3 -1.5 -3.4 -5
Zone 4............................ 2 0.8 0.6 0.7 1.1 1
Zone 5............................ 5.5 7.3 4.2 6.3 5.7 5
Zone 6............................ 1.1 3.3 0 2.3 1.4 1
Zone 7............................ -2 4.5 0.4 3.4 -0.4 0
Average........................... 2.4 2.7 -0.3 3.3 1 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The analysis underlying the results in Table 6 does not account for
all changes in the IECC from 2003 to 2006. For example, the 2006 IECC
requires increased duct insulation in certain cases. On the other hand,
the 2006 IECC is missing requirements for pool heater controls (on-off
switch) and pool covers contained in the 2003 IECC. However, these and
a few other miscellaneous changes do not appear to alter a
determination that the 2006 IECC has a modest improvement in overall
energy efficiency compared to the 2003 IECC. The Department expects all
heated pools to have an on-off switch, basic pool covers are dependent
on the diligent occupant behavior for removing/covering the pool, and
many homes do not have a pool or may not heat their pool. Furthermore,
the 2003 IECC allows the pool cover requirement to be bypassed if 20%
of the heating energy is provided by solar heat from the sun striking
the pool surface.
There was one particular issue that received the most extensive
debate during the 2006 IECC development process. This issue was how the
2006 IECC sets requirements based on the window area of a home. There
was considerable concern because a residential building with unlimited
windows (e.g., an ``all glass'' house) can be built without any penalty
under the 2006 IECC. This is not the case in the 2003 IECC, where, as
the WWR becomes higher, the code requires improved performance of
windows and/or wall insulation. However, this effect is offset in two
ways. First, while the 2003 IECC becomes more stringent at high WWRs,
it also becomes less stringent at low WWRs, whereas the 2006 IECC does
not. Second, the 2006 IECC increased the baseline efficiency
requirements (U-factor) of glazing to almost equal then-current Energy
Star levels in most locations. The Department's analysis of the IECC's
requirements related to window area indicate that the 2006 code is not
weaker than the 2003 IECC when the distribution of window areas in all
residential buildings is accounted for.
A major factor influencing the Department's preliminary
determination of improved efficiency in the 2006 IECC is the
improvement in energy efficiency for multifamily housing. The building
envelope requirements in 2006 IECC are identical for all residential
building types. This is not the case in the 2003 IECC where the
requirements for multifamily building types are considerably less
stringent than those for one and two-family dwellings. This is shown in
the wall requirements in Figure 502.2(1) of the 2003 IECC. While
multifamily residential construction has a much smaller market share
than single-family in terms of number of dwelling units, there is a
nearly universal improvement in requirements for multifamily buildings
regardless of building design or climate zone. As indicated below in
the certification discussion, 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. However, the building envelope revisions in 2006
IECC would impact residential buildings such as townhouses, row houses,
and low-rise multifamily buildings (not greater than three stories)
such as condominiums and garden apartments.
C. 2009 IECC Compared With the 2006 IECC
Each of the major changes in the 2009 IECC that impact energy
efficiency is examined individually below. All but one of the changes
appear to improve energy efficiency.
1. Changes That Improve Energy Efficiency
Lighting
The 2009 IECC has a major new requirement that a minimum of 50% of
all lamps (bulbs, tubes, etc.) be ``high efficacy,'' which is defined
to include compact fluorescent lights (CFLs), T-8 or smaller diameter
fluorescent tubes, or other products achieving comparable or better
lumen-per-watt ratings. Traditional incandescent bulbs do not meet this
requirement. The 2006 IECC had no lighting requirements for residential
buildings. The Department estimates that lighting consumed 11.6% of all
primary energy use in residential buildings in 2006 and that the
requirement in the 2009 IECC could reduce lighting energy use by about
25%.
Building Envelope Thermal Measures
The 2009 IECC has a number of changes that improve energy
efficiency in the building envelope. There are direct increases in
prescriptive building envelope requirements in Tables 402.1.1 and
402.1.3 of the IECC. Table 7 shows these changes. Additionally, there
were a number of minor improvements, including establishing an area
limit of 24 ft\2\ on the door exemption from U-factor requirements.
[[Page 54138]]
Table 7--Improvements in Prescriptive Envelope Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Component 2006 IECC 2009 IECC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum fenestration U-factor Zone 2: 0.75...... Zone 2: 0.65.
(excluding skylights). Zone 3: 0.65...... Zone 3: 0.50.
Zone 4: 0.40...... Zone 4: 0.35.
Maximum fenestration solar heat 0.40.............. 0.30.
gain coefficient (SHGC) in
Zones 1 through 3.
Basement wall insulation in R-13 cavity or R- R-19 cavity or R-
Zones 6 through 8. 10 continuous 15 continuous
insulation. insulation.
Basement wall insulation in No insulation R-13 cavity or R-5
northern section of Zone 3. required. continuous
insulation.
Wood-Frame wall insulation (all R-19.............. R-20.
but basements) in Zones 5 and 6.
Floor insulation in Zones 7 and R-30.............. R-38.
8.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Building Envelope Air Leakage
Although the fundamental requirement to seal all potential sources
of leaks has not changed, the air leakage control specifications in
Section 402.4 of the 2009 IECC are considerably more detailed than in
the 2006 edition, requiring either a comprehensive inspection against a
checklist of component sealing criteria or a whole-building
pressurization test. There is a new requirement that fireplaces have
gasketed doors to limit air leakage. Additionally, compliance with
Standard ASTM E283 is now required to limit air leakage through
recessed light fixtures. The 2006 IECC only required recessed light
fixtures to be sealed but did not require compliance with the ASTM
standard. This testing of fixtures is expected to help eliminate energy
consuming leaks through these fixtures, which can be a very common
method of lighting in kitchens and other rooms in new houses.
Duct Leakage Limits and Testing Requirement
The 2009 IECC contains a new requirement that buildings with ducts
that pass outside the conditioned space (for example, if ducts are in
unconditioned attics, garages or crawlspaces) have the ducts pressure
tested and shown to have a maximum leakage rate below specified limits.
While the 2006 IECC also requires ducts to be sealed, the addition of a
specific leakage limit verified by a pressure test in each new home or
retrofit is expected to substantially reduce leakage in many if not
most cases.
Testing of completed homes in Washington State where prescriptive
code requirements for duct sealing apply without any testing to confirm
compliance, ``showed no significant improvement'' over non-code
homes.\4\ Another study from Washington State concluded: ``Comparisons
to air leakage rates reported elsewhere for homes built before the
implementation of the 1991 WSEC show no significant improvement by the
general population'' despite years of training emphasizing duct
sealing.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Washington State University. 2001. Washington State Energy
Code Duct Leakage Study Report. WSUCEEP01105. Washington State
University Cooperative Extension Energy Program, Olympia,
Washington.
\5\ Hales, D., A. Gordon, and M. Lubliner. 2003. Duct Leakage in
New Washington State Residences: Findings and Conclusions. ASHRAE
Transactions. KC-2003-1-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Numerous other studies around the nation show substantial duct
leakage in new homes, including those in states with codes requiring
duct sealing. For example, a 2001 study of 186 houses built under the
Model Energy Code in Massachusetts reported ``serious problems were
found in the quality of duct sealing in about 80% of these houses''.\6\
Pressurization tests in 22 of these houses found an average leakage to
the outside of the house of 183 cfm, or 21.6% of the system flow, at a
pressure of 25 Pascals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Xenergy. 2001. Impact Analysis Of The Massachusetts 1998
Residential Energy Code Revisions. http://www.mass.gov/Eeops/docs/dps/inf/inf_bbrs_impact_analysis_final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The energy savings of improved duct sealing are very substantial. A
California study estimated a sales-weighted state annual average
savings from duct sealing of 38 therms and 239 kWh for a 1761 ft \2\
house.\7\ This is based on an estimated 12% improvement in duct
efficiency based on previous studies indicating a 12-15% improvement
potential. The Department preliminarily concludes that the 2009 IECC's
requirement that duct air leakage meet an upper limit and be verified
by a pressure test will save significant energy compared to the 2006
and prior editions of the IECC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Hammon, R. W., and M. P. Modera. 1999. ``Improving the
Efficiency of Air Distribution Systems in New California Homes-
Updated Report.'' Consol. Stockton, California. http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/ducttape/documents/IMPROVE_EFFICIENCY_RES.PDF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improvement in Other Requirements
1. There are a number of changes to the ``simulated performance
alternative'' compliance path in the 2009 IECC. The glazing area in the
baseline ``standard reference design'' was reduced from a maximum of
18% of the conditioned floor area to 15%. This results in increased
energy efficiency for any proposed design having a glazing area of more
than 15%. Because use of this compliance path is completely optional,
these savings will only occur when the user chooses this compliance
path. Another change does not directly alter code stringency in the
performance path but may ultimately result in some energy savings is
the removal of the option to trade high-efficiency HVAC equipment for
reductions in other requirements in the code, such as reduced envelope
insulation. Because building envelopes have substantially longer lives
than HVAC and/or water heating equipment, energy savings from envelope
improvements may persist for many more years than comparable equipment
improvements. Also, because high-efficiency equipment is already the
predominant choice in many markets, disallowing envelope/equipment
trade-offs is likely to result in improved overall efficiency in many
situations.
2. Changes That Reduce Energy Efficiency
There is only one change in the 2009 IECC that directly reduces
energy efficiency. Insulation requirements for many ducts outside the
building thermal envelope are reduced from R-8 to R-6; exceptions are
supply ducts in attics, which must still have R-8 insulation, and ducts
in floor trusses, which retain the 2006 code's R-6 requirement.
3. Net Impact on Energy Efficiency
The Department has conducted an energy simulation analysis of 2009
IECC compared to the 2006 using the DOE-
[[Page 54139]]
2 simulation tool to model \8\ a two-story, single-family house with a
crawl space foundation and a conditioned floor area of 2,400 ft.\2\ It
was assumed that the house had 8.5-ft high ceilings, a ceiling area
(bordering the unconditioned attic) of 1,200 ft \2\, a gross exterior
wall area of 2,380 ft\2\, and a window area of 357 ft \2\ (15% of the
wall area) equally oriented north, south, east, and west. Heating with
a natural gas furnace ($1.20/therm) and central electric air
conditioning ($.12/kWh) were assumed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The DOE-2 simulation tool is available at http://doe2.com/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
High-efficacy lighting was assumed to increase from 10% to 50% of
all lighting within the building, reducing lighting energy use by 26%,
or $74 a year. Savings attributable to the lighting requirements in the
IECC will decrease as Federal law requires improved light bulbs in 2012
to 2014. Improved duct sealing was assumed to save 10% of the heating
and cooling costs. Figure 1 shows the estimated annual energy cost
savings resulting from the 2009 IECC changes for 14 diverse climates
and for the national average. Actual savings will vary depending on
many factors, including how well ducts are currently sealed in the
absence of any testing requirements.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN03SE10.000
III. Comparison of the 2009 IRC to the 2009 IECC
In the past some states have adopted the 2009 International
Residential Code (IRC) in lieu of the 2009 IECC because the IRC
provides a comprehensive building construction code (structural,
plumbing, electrical, energy, etc.) in a single book for one- and two-
family dwellings and townhouses. Consequently, DOE anticipates that
some states may wish to adopt the 2009 IRC in lieu of the 2009 IECC. In
order to provide technical assistance to States that may wish to adopt
the 2009 IRC, DOE has evaluated the 2009 IRC to compare the stringency
of its energy provisions with those of the 2009 IECC. Our analysis
indicates that the 2009 IRC would not equal or exceed the energy
efficiency of the 2009 IECC.
Chapter 11 of the IRC contains energy efficiency provisions. The
IRC allows compliance with the IECC as an alternative to complying with
Chapter 11. Most of the energy efficiency requirements in the IRC and
IECC are identical. However, there are several differences between the
two codes that result in the 2009 IRC having reduced energy efficiency
compared to the 2009 IECC. All the differences are listed below.
1. The 2009 IECC requires a glazed fenestration solar heat gain
coefficient (SHGC) of 0.30 or lower whereas the 2009 IRC requires a
higher (less stringent) SHGC of 0.35 or lower, in climate zones 1, 2,
and 3. Further, the 2009 IRC allows impact resistant fenestration in
zones 1 through 3 to meet an even less stringent SHGC requirement of
0.40 and less stringent U-factor requirements in zones 2 and 3.
2. For basement walls, the 2009 IECC requires either R-15
continuous insulation or R-19 cavity insulation in zones 6-8, whereas
the 2009 IRC requires lower (less stringent) R-values in these zones:
R-10 continuous or R-15 cavity.
3. The 2009 IECC requires R-38 floors in zones 7 and 8; the 2009
IRC requires only R-30.
[[Page 54140]]
4. The 2009 IECC limits the allowance for R-30 insulation in
ceilings without attics to 500 ft\2\ or 20% of the total insulated
ceiling area, whichever is less. The 2009 IRC limits the allowance to
500 ft\2\ without regard to the total ceiling area. Thus, under the
2009 IRC some smaller homes will have less efficient ceilings.
The 2009 IRC differs from the 2009 IECC in some ways that, although
they do not reduce the stringency of code requirements, have the
potential to result in increased energy consumption in certain
situations:
1. Both the IRC and IECC allow for ``trade-offs'' by which the
efficiency of one building component can be lowered in trade for higher
efficiency in another. The 2009 IECC limits the extent to which glazing
properties can be reduced in such trade-offs. The 2009 IECC sets a
trade-off ``cap'' on SHGC at a maximum of 0.50 in climate zones 1, 2,
and 3 and a cap on U-factor trade-offs of U-0.48 in zones 4 and 5 and
U-0.40 in zones 6, 7, and 8. These caps are not present in the 2009
IRC. As these caps do not increase stringency of the code (but rather
restrict trade-off options), there is no direct impact on annual energy
consumption or cost. There may, however, be some impacts on occupant
comfort and/or resistance to moisture condensation, either of which
could possibly induce occupants to increase energy consumption, for
example by raising thermostat set points.
2. The air barrier and insulation inspection requirements differ
slightly between the codes. The 2009 IECC requires checking that ``Air-
permeable insulation is inside of an air barrier'' (right column in the
first row). The 2009 IRC is missing this, which could result in
insulation on the exterior side of an air barrier being exposed to
wind-induced air movement that reduces its effective R-value.
3. The definitions of ``conditioned space'' are different between
the two codes, which, depending on local officials' interpretations,
could result in different portions of a building being deemed
conditioned and hence subject to the code's envelope requirements.
4. The three labels ``mandatory,'' ``prescriptive,'' and
``performance'' are used to label many sections in the 2009 IECC, but
are not used at all in the 2009 IRC. The provisions that are mandatory
are always required while prescriptive provisions can be traded off as
long as overall home energy efficiency is not decreased. Thus the 2009
IRC may permit trading down the efficiency of some components with the
potential to induce increased energy consumption as described above.
5. The 2009 IRC (section N1101.1, ``Scope'') states that Chapter 11
(Energy Efficiency) does not apply to portions of the building envelope
that do not enclose conditioned space. Section 101.5.2 of the IECC is
more specific, exempting only building thermal envelope provisions that
do not contain conditioned space.
Impact of the Differences Between the 2009 IRC and 2009 IECC
The Department of Energy has performed a limited analysis of
potential impact of the differences between the 2009 IECC and 2009 IRC.
The analysis involves thermal simulation of home performance in several
representative locations using the EnergyGauge (DOE-2) \9\ simulation
tool on a typical house:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ EnergyGauge is available at http://doe2.com/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2400 ft\2\ floor area, two-story
Natural gas furnace heating at $1.20/therm
Central air conditioning electricity at 12 cents/kWh
Equipment efficiencies at Federal minimum levels
360 ft\2\ window area equally distributed to the north,
east, south, and west building faces, with no exterior shading.
The results are shown in Tables 8 through 10. The 2009 IRC yields a
higher annual energy cost in almost all cases.
Table 8--Energy Savings of Reducing SHGC From 0.35 to 0.30 in Climate Zones One Through Three
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cooling Heating Energy
Climate zone Representative city savings increase savings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1......................................... Miami........................ $29 $0 $29
2......................................... Houston...................... 18 9 9
2......................................... Phoenix...................... 20 1 19
3......................................... Atlanta...................... 16 18 -2
3......................................... Jackson MS................... 19 15 4
3......................................... Memphis...................... 17 17 0
3......................................... Dallas....................... 20 14 6
3......................................... El Paso...................... 18 17 1
3......................................... Las Vegas.................... 16 15 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 9--Energy Savings of Increasing Basement Wall Insulation From R-13
to R-19 in Climate Zones Six Through Eight
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy
Climate zone Representative city savings
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.................................. Burlington............ $29
7.................................. Duluth................ 34
8.................................. Fairbanks............. 33
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 54141]]
Table 10--Energy Savings of Increasing Floor Insulation From R-30 to R-
38 in Climate Zones Seven and Eight
[Floor over unheated basement]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy
Climate zone Representative city savings
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7.................................. Duluth................ $13
8.................................. Fairbanks............. 19
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Filing Certification Statements With DOE
A. State Determinations
If today's determinations are 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 provisions of the ICC International Energy Conservation
Code, 2009 edition. (42 U.S.C. 6833(a)(5)(B)) A State determination for
the 2009 IECC would be sufficient to address all of the DOE
determinations in this notice. 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
would be required to be made not later than two years from the date of
notice 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 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 commercial 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 the determinations do not apply to
Chapter 5 of the 2009 IECC, which addresses commercial buildings as
defined above. Therefore, 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 more of the following: (1) A plan for response to
the requirements stated in Section 304, 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.
V. Regulatory Analysis
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
Today's action is a significant regulatory action under section
3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review''
(58 FR 51735; October 4, 1993). Accordingly, today's action was
reviewed 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; August 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: http://www.gc.doe.gov. Today's action on the determination of
improved energy efficiency between IECC editions would require States
to undertake an analysis of their respective building codes. Today's
action does not impact small entities. Therefore, we certify 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 (August 4, 1999), imposes
certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies
or regulations that preempt 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
[[Page 54142]]
States and carefully assess the necessity for such actions. DOE has
examined today's action and has determined that it will not preempt
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.
E. 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 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.
F. 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
concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking
Assessment.
G. 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 (February 22, 2002),
and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (October 7, 2002).
DOE has reviewed today's action under the OMB and DOE guidelines and
has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those
guidelines.
H. 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.
I. Review Under Executive Order 13175
Executive Order 13175. ``Consultation and Coordination with Indian
tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249; November 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.
VI. Public Participation
The public is invited to submit comments on the preliminary
determinations. Comments must be provided by October 4, 2010 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.
VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of these
preliminary determinations.
Issued in Washington, DC, on August 26, 2010.
Cathy Zoi,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 2010-22062 Filed 9-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P