[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 96 (Thursday, May 17, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29322-29331]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12000]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 final determination.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE or Department) has 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 this
affirmative final determination, States are 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.
DATES: Certification Statements by the States must be provided by May
17, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Certification Statements must be addressed to the Buildings
Technologies Program-Building Energy Codes Program Manager, 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.
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, email: 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, email:
kavita.vaidyanathan@hq.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
A. Statutory Requirements
B. Background
C. Public Comments on the Preliminary Determination
D. DOE's Final 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
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 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 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.
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. A map depicting the
[[Page 29323]]
status of State residential building codes is available at: http://www.energycodes.gov/states/maps/residentialStatus.stm.
On October 19, 2011, Federal Register 76 FR 64924 announced the
Secretary's preliminary determination that the 2012 edition of the IECC
should receive an affirmative determination under Section 304(a) of
ECPA. A thirty-day public comment period concluded on November 18,
2011.
C. Public Comments on the Preliminary Determination
DOE received four sets of public comments on the preliminary
determination for the 2012 IECC. Comments were received from the
Responsible Energy Code Alliance (RECA), the Natural Resources Defense
Council (NRDC), and the Coalition for Fair Energy Codes (CFEC), and
Pilkington North America (PNA)/ACG Glass Company North America (AGC).
However, DOE notes that PNA/AGC's comment was received late. Although
the comment was filed late this final determination is not contrary to
any of the issues raised in the comment.
RECA provided three general comments of support for the
preliminary determination on the 2012 IECC, three specific comments on
the preliminary determination, and a list of recommended next steps.
NRDC provided two general comments supporting DOE's
determination efforts and DOE's preliminary determination of the 2012
IECC, and a recommendation that DOE continue its efforts in
development, adoption, and implementation of strong building energy
codes.
CFEC provided general support for the conclusion of the
preliminary determination, but also raised five specific points
regarding the treatment of wood products in the 2012 IECC.
Overall, a total of 18 individual comments were received. These
eighteen comments may be divided into 6 major categories:
(1) Support and Agreement--8 comments
(2) Alternate U-factors, Codes, and Approaches--3 comments
(3) Recommendations--3 comments
(4) SHGC requirements in Climate Zone 4--1 comment
(5) Performance Path--2 comments
(6) DOE's 30% Improvement Goal for the 2012 IECC--1 comment
Support and Agreement
In their general comments, RECA, NRDC, and CFEC all expressed
agreement with DOE's conclusion that the 2012 IECC on the whole, would
result in a significant improvement in energy efficiency as compared to
previous versions of the IECC. Specifically, RECA stated ``first and
foremost, we fully agree with the Department's conclusion that the 2012
IECC represents a `significant improvement' overall, as compared to the
2009 IECC.'' (RECA, No. 1 at p. 2) NRDC stated ``NRDC agrees with and
supports the Department's preliminary determination that the 2012 IECC
saves energy compared to the 2009 IECC.'' (NRDC, No. 2 at p. 1) CFEC
stated ``we do not disagree with the overall determination contained in
the Notice * * *'' (CFEC, No. 1 at p. 2)
A general comment from RECA and a recommendation from NRDC
expressed support for DOE efforts in adoption of and compliance with
model energy codes. RECA also expressed support for DOE's intent to
make the state certification process more transparent. Specifically,
RECA commented ``we are also encouraged by the Department's recent
efforts in promoting adoption and compliance with the model energy
codes nationwide, and support the Department's plans in the preliminary
determination to make compliance with certification statements more
transparent.'' (RECA, No. 3 at p. 2) NRDC stated ``NRDC urges DOE to
continue to take steps to promote the development, adoption, and
implementation of strong building energy codes, including issuing
timely code determinations.'' (NRDC, No. 4 at p. 2)
RECA also expressed agreement with the Department that the thermal
envelope requirements of the IECC have been improved in nearly every
aspect in the 2012 edition. (RECA, No. 4 at p. 3) RECA also stated that
this was not just a matter of better windows and more insulation. The
2012 IECC also includes more efficient ducts and whole building leakage
testing. DOE notes that these aspects of the 2012 IECC were discussed
in the preliminary determination in the section entitled ``Discussion
of Changes in the 2012 IECC Compared with the 2009 IECC Summary'' and
again under ``Changes in the 2012 IECC that are Estimated to Increase
Energy Efficiency''. DOE accepts this comment as already discussed in
the preliminary determination. The discussion of changes in the 2012
IECC is also included in today's final determination.
Alternate U-factors, Codes, and Approaches
CFEC made 3 comments related to alternate U-factors, Codes, and
Approaches they felt should be included in the determination.
Specifically, CFEC stated that ``DOE should recognize other
prescriptive wall configurations based on equivalent energy
performance, calculated from the least restrictive of either the
prescriptive R-value table [Table R402.1.1] or U-factor table [Table
R402.1.3] in the IECC.'' (CFEC, No. 3 at p. 2) In response to this
comment, DOE notes that the content of the 2012 IECC is the result of
the ICC process. DOE also notes that this is again a matter of
implementation materials rather than a subject for this determination,
which is focused solely on whether the 2012 IECC improves energy
efficiency relative to the 2009 IECC. One of the main pieces of support
material DOE does provide is the REScheck software and alternative U-
factors are handled in REScheck.
CFEC also commented that DOE should ``[r]ecognize in the
Determination Statement that using a U = 0.061 in calculations in
accordance with the Total UA alternative in Climate Zone 4
and 5 results in equivalent energy efficiency performance as it is
equivalent to the U-factor derived from the prescriptive table.''
(CFEC, No. 4 at p. 2) In response, DOE acknowledges that there are
potential differences in the U-factor and R-value tables based on
construction details used in actual buildings for the 2012 IECC, but
DOE notes that CFEC's comment takes issue with the content of the 2012
IECC. As noted above, the purpose of this determination is to compare
the latest version of the IECC with the previous version and to
determine if the latest version improves the level of energy efficiency
in residential buildings over the previous version.
CFEC also commented that DOE should ``[r]ecognize in the
Determination Statement that a performance approach that accounts for
equipment which is more efficient than federally mandated minimums may
result in equivalent or better energy efficiency performance than is
required by the IECC 2012.'' (CFEC, No. 5 at p. 3) DOE notes that
CFEC's comment takes issue with the contents of the 2012 IECC. Again,
this comment is beyond the scope of the determination as required under
ECPA.
Recommendations
RECA commented that ``RECA encourages the Department to move
quickly to finalize this determination in order to start the two-year
period for state compliance.'' (RECA, No. 7 at p. 8) RECA also provided
a series of recommended next steps, including:
Follow up on state requirements;
[[Page 29324]]
Produce support materials and copies of code books to
promote state adoption of the 2012 IECC;
Update compliance materials (including REScheck) to
reflect the 2012 IECC; and
Continue to offer incentives for leading states;
Set the 2012 IECC as the standard/baseline for future
codes activities.
(RECA, No. 8 at p. 8)
NRDC made similar recommendations that DOE ``continue to take steps
to promote the development, adoption, and implementation of strong
building energy codes, including issuing timely code determinations.''
(NRDC, No. 4 at p. 2) DOE agrees with both RECA's and NRDC's
recommendations and notes that it is already planning to follow up with
the states on their obligations under the determination process once
this determination is finalized. Once this determination is finalized,
the 2012 IECC will serve as the baseline for future code activities at
DOE. DOE routinely produces and updates support materials for new codes
and these materials can be found at www.energycodes.gov.
SHGC Requirements in Climate Zone 4
DOE received a comment supporting the change to the SHGC
requirements in climate zone 4. Specifically, RECA supported the
requirement for a maximum solar heat gain coefficient (SHGC) of 0.40
for glazed fenestration in climate zone 4 of the 2012 IECC, and
disagrees with the Department's preliminary conclusion that energy
efficiency improvement from 0.40 SHGC in climate zone 4 is ``unclear.''
(RECA, No. 6 at p. 5) RECA continued their comment by stating ``While
we agree with the Department that the 0.40 SHGC requirement in climate
zone 4 could increase heating load in some cases, cooling loads will
also be reduced. Depending on the assumptions made and given the limits
on typical building performance analysis, the direct calculated energy
savings impact from this requirement is likely small and varies from
location to location. However, this requirement is an improvement based
on the other energy efficiency benefits it brings. Specifically, the
new provision yields savings from lower peak electric demands and
reduced energy use during peak periods, may allow for smaller air
conditioners to be installed, and potentially increased occupant
comfort on hot sunny days.'' DOE agrees with RECA that lower peak
electric demand, reduced energy use during peak periods, reduced
cooling equipment size, and the potential for increased occupant
comfort on hot summer days are all significant aspects of this
requirement. However, DOE's determinations of energy savings on the
model energy codes are focused strictly on whether or not the new
version of the code saves energy when compared to the previous version
and these considerations are therefore not relevant to this
determination. DOE stands by its statement that it is ``unclear'' if
this requirement saves energy in climate zone 4. Whether or not this
change does save energy depends greatly on other assumptions made about
the how the home is designed and operated and the specific location of
the home in climate zone 4. These assumptions are not part of today's
determination, but would be on a particular home.
Performance Path
RECA commented that ``improvements to the assumptions in the
performance path will lead to more energy efficiency and better
enforcement, and as such, these improvements should be viewed as
positive improvements in energy efficiency.'' (RECA, No. 5 at p. 4)
RECA discussed two specific parts of the performance path--interior
shading assumptions and the baseline heating system for electrically
heated homes. Specifically, RECA asserted that the new treatment of
interior shading in the performance path is an improvement. DOE
acknowledges that there were changes in the performance path and in
fact does discuss these changes in the preliminary determination. The
change in treatment of interior shading does represent the latest
research on this topic. DOE also acknowledges that properly quantifying
the impact of interior shading is important for the performance
approach. However, as stated in the preliminary determination and again
in today's final determination, DOE also believes that the true impact
of this change on homes remains nuanced and difficult to generalize,
but is expected to be small. DOE notes that impact of this particular
assumption depends on a number of other parameters of the building
being modeled, including (but not limited to): The specific areas,
distribution, and orientation of glazing in the home in question;
whether the home has overhangs and other exterior shadings; how
internally dominated the home is (a function of surface-to-volume
ratio, aspect ratio, etc.); and the ratio of heating to cooling loads
in the specific location of the home.
RECA also commented that ``the baseline assumption for electric
heating of an electric heat pump is not so much a ``penalty'' on
electric resistance heating as a clarification of the intent of the
2009 IECC.'' (RECA, No 5. at p. 4) In response, DOE believes that the
baseline assumption of a heat pump for homes using electric resistance
heating will be harder for homes with electric resistant heating to
comply with under the whole building compliance path in the 2012 IECC
than it would be for that same home under the 2009 IECC. RECA also
commented that they view this change as a clarification to the
``traditional use of a heat pump as the baseline in the Standard
Reference Design for electric heated homes''. DOE agrees that the 2006
IECC used heat pumps as the baseline. However, the heat pump baseline
was not included in the 2009 IECC. DOE's role in determinations is to
compare the latest version of the IECC with the previous version and to
determine if the latest version improves the level of energy efficiency
in residential buildings over the previous version. Therefore, DOE's
final determination is based on the comparison between the 2009 IECC
and the 2012 IECC.
CFEC also commented that DOE should ``Recognize in the
Determination Statement a performance approach that calculates energy
savings when less than 15% of wall area contains windows.'' (CFEC, No.
6 at p. 3) DOE assumes the basis of this comment is the fact that the
Simulated Performance Alternative in the 2012 IECC does not provide
``credit'' for homes with less than 15% of conditioned floor area in
windows. In response, DOE notes that CFEC's comment takes issue with
the content of the 2012 IECC. DOE's role in determinations is to
compare the latest version of the IECC with the previous version and to
determine if the latest version improves the level of energy efficiency
in residential buildings over the previous version. DOE also notes that
the provisions in the 2012 IECC with regards to window area in the
performance approach are identical to those in the 2009 IECC.
DOE's 30% Improvement Goal for the 2012 IECC
CFEC commented that ``DOE should explicitly recognize in the
Determination Statement that the use of greater levels of insulation in
Climate Zone 3 above R13 is not necessary to achieve the 30%
improvement goal that DOE has established. As the proponent of IECC
code change EC13-09/10 Parts I and II, to overhaul the residential
energy provisions of the IRC and IECC, DOE did not propose to change
Climate Zone 3 from R13 to either R20 or R13+5 ci.'' (CFEC, No. 2 at p.
2) In response, DOE notes that CFEC's comment takes
[[Page 29325]]
issue with the content of the 2012 IECC. DOE's role in determinations
is to compare the latest version of the IECC with the previous version
and to determine if the latest version improves the level of energy
efficiency in residential buildings over the previous version.
D. DOE's Final 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 concludes that the 2012 edition of the IECC receives 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 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 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. Additionally, Table R402.1.3 has an
improvement for fenestration U-factor in climate zone 1 from 1.20 in
the 2009 IECC to 0.50 in the 2012 IECC. 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 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.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
[[Page 29326]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN17MY12.000
BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
Table 2--National Average Increase in Thermal Resistance for Lowest
Required Insulation Level by Building Component
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increase in
thermal
resistance of
Building component 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 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.
Mechanical ventilation systems can be used to provide fresh air
from the outdoors to a home. The 2009 IECC does not require any
mechanical ventilation. Section R403.5 of the 2012 IECC refers to the
2012 International Residential Code and International Mechanical Code
which, in tandem with the 2012 IECC, require that a mechanical
ventilation system meet these requirements or other approved means of
ventilation in new homes.
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
[[Page 29327]]
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 cubic feet per minute
cubic feet per minute (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 100ft\2\ of conditioned floor area to 4cfm/100ft\2\ for tests
done on completed buildings, and from 6 to 4 cfm per 100ft\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 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 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
[[Page 29328]]
improve a home's air leakage characteristics. Therefore, this is deemed
an improvement in efficiency for homes with fireplaces.
In-Ground Spas
Section R403.9 has been updated to include in-ground spas under the
purview of the code, where previously only swimming pools were
included. The change effectively requires in-ground 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- R-0+14.6 or R- R-0+9.3 or R-13+3 R-0+14 or R-13+8.3
13+4.2 or R- 13+9.5 or R- or R-15+2.4. or R-15+7.7 or R-
15+3.8 or R- 15+9.1 or R- 19+6.9 or R-
19+2.1 or R- 19+8.4 or R- 21+6.5 or R-
21+2.8. 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.
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
[[Page 29329]]
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 [Cdot] 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 Affect Energy Efficiency
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Code section Change Comments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
R202....................... Clarifies that This change is only
residential a clarification.
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.
R202....................... Definition of a whole- Because whole-house
house ventilation ventilation systems
system. 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 This change only
leakage test must be affects the
documented on the transparency of
certificate. code compliance.
R202 and R303.1.3.......... Introduction of The table only
``Visible provides default VT
Transmittance'' (VT) values for certain
for fenestrations. window types. VT is
Default Visible not directly
Transmittances regulated by the
defined in Table. code.
R402.4.4................... Clarification that This is only a
recessed lighting clarification of
must be labeled as previous text.
having a leakage
rate to ceiling
cavity of <=2 cfm.
Chapter 6.................. Introduction of Provides a test
ASHRAE test procedure to enable
procedure 193 for compliance with a
determining the air new requirement.
leakage rate for
HVAC Equipment.
Chapter 5.................. Introduction of test Provides a test
standard for home procedure to enable
ventilation systems: compliance with a
HVI 916-09 Airflow new requirement.
Test Procedure.
Table R405.5.2(1).......... Requirements for This change is only
Proposed Design for a clarification.
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.
R403.6..................... Heating and cooling This moves this
equipment shall be requirement
sized in accordance directly into the
with ACCA Manual S IECC instead of
based on building referencing the
loads calculated in IRC.
accordance with ACCA
Manual J or other
approved heating and
cooling calculation
methodologies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Filing Certification Statements With DOE
A. State Determinations
Based on today's final determination, each State is required to
determine the appropriateness of revising, in full or in part, 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)) The State determinations are required to be made
not later than two years from today's date, 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.
In evaluating the 2012 IECC, States should note that DOE's
determination was based on an evaluation of the code as applied to new
construction only. The scope of the 2012 IECC includes new construction
as well as additions, alterations, renovations, or repairs to an
existing building or building system, or portion thereof, as it relates
to new construction as detailed in chapter 1, part 1 of the 2012 IECC.
Chapter 1, part 1 of the 2012 IECC specifies the scope of the IECC as
it pertains to existing buildings: The 2012 IECC does not require the
unaltered portion(s) of the existing building or building system to
comply with this code nor does the code require the removal, alteration
or abandonment of, nor prevent the continued use and maintenance of, an
existing building or building system lawfully in existence at the time
of adoption of the IECC. Additionally, DOE notes that its determination
was based on a comparison of energy efficiency
[[Page 29330]]
impacts only and did not take into consideration other factors such as
cost, or health and safety. DOE provides States technical assistance to
aid them in determining whether to update specific residential building
codes. See http://www.energycodes.gov/states/techAssist.stm. In
addition, funds provided through the State Energy Program, can be used
to support code development consistent with a State's approved plan.
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)) The reasons are to be sent to the address provided in the
ADDRESSES section.
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 final determination does not
apply to IECC chapters specific to non-residential buildings as defined
above. Therefore, today's final action requires that 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 specific to non-residential buildings as defined above.
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. Requests are to be
sent to the address provided in the ADDRESSES section.
IV. 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 (Oct. 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 (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: http://www.gc.doe.gov. Today's action on the final
determination of improved energy efficiency between IECC editions
requires States to undertake an analysis of their respective building
codes. Today's action does not impact small entities. Therefore, DOE
has 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 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 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
[[Page 29331]]
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
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
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.
Issued in Washington, DC, on May 9, 2012.
David T. Danielson,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 2012-12000 Filed 5-16-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P