33250 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 112 / Thursday, June 11, 2015 / Notices 

1More information on the ICC code development 

and consensus process is described at http://

www.iccsafe.org/cs/codes/Pages/procedures.aspx. 

• Presentation by DOE 

• Public Comment Period 

• Adjourn 

Public Participation: The NNMCAB’s 

Committees welcome the attendance of 

the public at their combined committee 

meeting and will make every effort to 

accommodate persons with physical 

disabilities or special needs. If you 

require special accommodations due to 

a disability, please contact Menice 

Santistevan at least seven days in 

advance of the meeting at the telephone 

number listed above. Written statements 

may be filed with the Committees either 

before or after the meeting. Individuals 

who wish to make oral statements 

pertaining to agenda items should 

contact Menice Santistevan at the 

address or telephone number listed 

above. Requests must be received five 

days prior to the meeting and reasonable 

provision will be made to include the 

presentation in the agenda. The Deputy 

Designated Federal Officer is 

empowered to conduct the meeting in a 

fashion that will facilitate the orderly 

conduct of business. Individuals 

wishing to make public comments will 

be provided a maximum of five minutes 

to present their comments. 

Minutes: Minutes will be available by 

writing or calling Menice Santistevan at 

the address or phone number listed 

above. Minutes and other Board 

documents are on the Internet at: 

http://www.nnmcab.energy.gov/. 

Issued at Washington, DC, on June 8, 2015. 

LaTanya R. Butler, 

Deputy Committee Management Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2015–14301 Filed 6–10–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

[EERE–2014–BT–DET–0030] 

RIN 1904–AD33 

Determination Regarding Energy 

Efficiency Improvements in the 2015 

International Energy Conservation 

Code (IECC) 

AGENCY: Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of determination. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) has determined that the 

2015 edition of the International Energy 

Conservation Code (IECC) would 

improve energy efficiency in buildings 

subject to the code compared to the 

2012 edition. DOE analysis indicates 

that buildings meeting the 2015 IECC (as 

compared with buildings meeting the 

2012 IECC) would result in national 

source energy savings of approximately 

0.87 percent, site energy savings of 

approximately 0.98 percent, and energy 

cost savings of approximately 0.73 

percent of residential building energy 

consumption, as regulated by the IECC. 

Upon publication of this affirmative 

determination, each State is required by 

statute to certify that it has reviewed the 

provisions of its residential building 

code regarding energy efficiency, and 

made a determination as to whether to 

update its code to meet or exceed the 

2015 IECC. Additionally, this notice 

provides guidance to States on these 

processes and associated certifications. 

DATES: Certification statements provided 

by States must be submitted by June 12, 

2017. 

ADDRESSES: Certification Statements 

must be addressed to the Building 

Technologies Office—Building Energy 

Codes Program Manager, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., EE–5B, 

Washington, DC 20585. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jeremiah Williams; U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, 1000 Independence 

Avenue SW., EE–5B, Washington, DC 

20585; (202) 287–1941; 

Jeremiah.Williams@ee.doe.gov. 

For legal issues, please contact Kavita 

Vaidyanathan; U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW., GC– 

33, Washington, DC 20585; (202) 586– 

0669; Kavita.Vaidyanathan@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

A. Statutory Authority 

B. Background 

C. Public Comments Regarding the 

Determination 

II. Methodology 

III. Summary of Findings 

IV. Determination Statement 

V. State Certification 

VI. Regulatory Review & Analysis 

I. Introduction 

A. Statutory Authority 

Title III of the Energy Conservation 

and Production Act (ECPA), as 

amended, establishes requirements for 

building energy conservation standards, 

administered by the DOE Building 

Energy Codes Program. (42 U.S.C. 6831 

et seq.) Section 304(a), as amended, of 

ECPA provides that whenever the 1992 

Model Energy Code (MEC), or any 

successor to that code, is revised, the 

Secretary of Energy (Secretary) must 

make a determination, not later than 12 

months after such revision, whether the 

revised code would improve energy 

efficiency in residential buildings, and 

must publish notice of such 

determination in the Federal Register. 

(42 U.S.C. 6833(a)(5)(A)) The Secretary 

may determine that the revision of the 

1992 MEC, or any successor thereof, 

improves the level of energy efficiency 

in residential buildings. If so, then not 

later than two years after the date of the 

publication of such affirmative 

determination, each State is required to 

certify that it has reviewed its 

residential building code regarding 

energy efficiency, and made a 

determination as to 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)(2)) 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)(4)) 

ECPA requires the Secretary to permit 

extensions of the deadlines for the State 

certification if a State can demonstrate 

that it has made a good faith effort to 

comply with the requirements of section 

304(a) of ECPA, and that it has made 

significant progress in doing so. (42 

U.S.C. 6833(c)) DOE is also directed to 

provide technical assistance to States to 

support implementation of State 

residential and commercial building 

energy efficiency codes. (42 U.S.C. 

6833(d)) 

B. Background 

The International Energy 

Conservation Code (IECC) is the 

national model code establishing energy 

efficiency requirements for residential 

buildings. The IECC is revised every 3 

years through a code development and 

consensus process administered by the 

International Code Council (ICC) 1. Code 

change proposals may be submitted by 

any interested party, and are evaluated 

through a series of public hearings. As 

part of the ICC process, any interested 

party may submit proposals, as well as 

written comments or suggested changes 

to any proposal, and make arguments 

before a committee of experts assembled 

by the ICC. At the final public hearing, 

arguments are presented to and voted 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 112 / Thursday, June 11, 2015 / Notices 33251 

2A notation in the form ‘‘ICC, No. 2 at p. 2’’ 

identifies a written comment that DOE received and 

has included in the docket of DOE’s ‘‘Preliminary 

Determination Regarding Energy Efficiency 

Improvements in the 2015 International Energy 

Conservation Code (Docket No. EERE–2014–BT– 

DET–0030), which is maintained at 

www.regulations.gov. This particular notation refers 

to a comment: (1) Submitted by ICC; (2) filed as 

document number 2 of the docket, and (3) 

appearing on page 2 of that document. 

3Mendon et al., Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the 

2009 and 2012 IECC Residential provisions— 

Technical Support Document (PNNL, Richland, 

WA, April 2013), available at http://www.

energycodes.gov/sites/default/files/documents/

State_CostEffectiveness_TSD_Final.pdf. 

upon by the ICC Governmental Member 

Representatives, with the collection of 

accepted proposals forming the revised 

edition of the IECC. The ICC published 

the 2015 edition of the IECC (2015 IECC 

or 2015 edition) on June 3, 2014, which 

forms the basis of this determination 

notice. 

In arriving at its determination, DOE 

reviewed all changes between the 2012 

and 2015 editions of the IECC with 

respect to residential buildings. 

Accordingly, DOE published a Notice of 

Preliminary Determination regarding the 

2015 IECC in the Federal Register on 

September 26, 2014 (79 FR 57915). 

C. Public Comments Regarding the 

Determination 

DOE accepted public comments on 

the Notice of Preliminary Determination 

for the 2015 IECC until October 27, 

2014. DOE received timely submissions 

from a total of five submitters. 

TABLE I—INVENTORY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED

Submitter Number of 

comments Public docket reference 

International Code Council (ICC) ....................................................................................... 3 EERE–2014–BT–DET–0030–0002 

National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) ................................................................ 2 EERE–2014–BT–DET–0030–0003 

Responsible Energy Codes Alliance (RECA) .................................................................... 9 EERE–2014–BT–DET–0030–0004 

Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) .................................................................... 4 EERE–2014–BT–DET–0030–0005 

Individual Commenter (Conner) ......................................................................................... 1 EERE–2014–BT–DET–0030–0006 

ICC’s first comment offers general 

support for DOE’s preliminary 

determination. (ICC, No. 2 at p. 2) 2 In 

its second comment, ICC suggests DOE 

accompany its 2015 IECC determination 

with ‘‘previously released information 

regarding the increased efficiency of the 

2012 IECC over the 2009 version, and 

the increased efficiency of the 2009 

version over the 2006 version, in order 

to make it abundantly clear that the 

efficiency of the 2015 IECC is much 

higher than versions of the IECC in use 

in many states and jurisdictions around 

the nation.’’ (ICC, No. 2 at p. 2–3) DOE 

agrees with ICC’s assessment that the 

provisions of the 2015 edition of the 

IECC are much more energy efficient 

than several earlier editions of the 

model code. In performing its 

determination, DOE evaluates the 

expected national impact of the new 

edition of the model code, in this case 

the 2015 IECC, against the most recent 

previous edition receiving an 

affirmative determination of energy 

savings, in this case the 2012 IECC (42 

U.S.C. 6833(a)(5)(A)). However, DOE 

recognizes that the updated code 

represents a significant savings 

opportunity—in many cases up to 30 

percent savings relative to codes 

currently adopted by U.S. states.3 In 

response, DOE has added references to 

earlier determinations, as well as the 

associated energy savings estimates, in 

Section V of this notice. In its third 

comment, ICC suggests DOE ‘‘emphasize 

that states are to compare the provisions 

of their current codes with the 

provisions and requirements of the 2015 

IECC, and not assume that the 

percentage increase in efficiency for 

their respective state will be the same as 

the 1% increase measured by DOE over 

the provisions in the 2012 IECC.’’ (ICC, 

No. 2 at p. 3) DOE acknowledges that 

States and localities should indeed 

consider the impact of updated model 

codes relative to the specific 

requirements in effect within the state 

or locality. In performing its 

determination, DOE evaluates the 

updated model code relative to the 

previous model code, and estimates the 

aggregate impact on national energy 

consumption. As many adopting states 

and localities make modifications to the 

model code, these entities should 

evaluate the impacts of the updated 

code relative to their own provisions. 

ICC further offers suggested 

communication options for DOE to 

consider: ‘‘(1) DOE should transmit, 

with a cover letter offering assistance 

and cooperation, a copy of the final 

determination to the governor of each 

state, with a copy to the State Energy 

Office, and post a copy of the cover 

letter template on the DOE Building 

Energy Codes Web site. (2) DOE should 

provide, along with the cover letter and 

determination, a simple form response 

‘state determination form’ in a format 

that allows the state officials charged 

with complying with the law the ability 

to check off whether the state (a) has 

reviewed its code, (b) has provided 

notice and an opportunity for comment 

in the state, (c) has made findings, (d) 

has published such findings, and (e) if 

the state has determined to revise its 

code a description of the new code, and 

if it has decided not to revise its 

residential building energy code, a 

space to provide the reasons for such 

decision. (3) The cover letter, as well as 

the proposed form for response to DOE, 

should prominently note the date on 

which the response to DOE is due. (4) 

DOE should publish on its Building 

Energy Codes Web site the response 

received from each state, as well as a list 

of states from which a response has not 

been received, updated on a regular 

basis. (5) Publishing the information on 

each state, and its response or nonresponse would allow citizens to 

become involved and ask questions of 

their public officials, and otherwise 

determine whether their state is in 

compliance with the law.’’ (ICC, No. 2 

at p. 3) DOE is currently evaluating the 

means by which it tracks the national 

implementation of building energy 

codes, and will consider the 

communication options proposed by 

ICC. 

NAHB’s first comment suggests that 

‘‘DOE’s analysis of the pipe insulation 

was not properly calculated’’ and noted 

that the actual net change made by this 

proposal was to increase the length of 

3⁄4-inch pipe requiring insulation by 

including runs shorter than 10 feet, 

while eliminating insulation 

requirements on smaller diameter 

piping. NAHB suggests ‘‘by properly 

applying the new hot water pipe 

insulation requirements, the resulting 

energy savings will change.’’ (NAHB, 

No. 3 at p. 1) DOE agrees with NAHB’s 

comments relative to the net energy 

savings surrounding this particular 

proposal, and has revised its analysis 

accordingly. The revised estimated total 

energy cost savings compared to the 

2012 IECC are now 0.73% compared to 

the preliminary estimate of 0.90% (see 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

33252 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 112 / Thursday, June 11, 2015 / Notices 

4Taylor et al., Identification of RESNET HERS 

Index Values Corresponding to Minimal 

Compliance with the IECC (PNNL, Richland, WA, 

May 2014), available at http://www.energycodes.

gov/hers-and-iecc-performance-path. 

Section III of this notice). NAHB’s 

second comment notes that the 

‘‘International Code Council (ICC) 

originally had proposal RE112–13 listed 

as being approved to be included in the 

2015 edition of the IECC. This proposal, 

however, was actually withdrawn by the 

proponent before it was approved on the 

consent agenda. As a result, the changes 

were not included in the 2015 IECC and 

thus, any reference to RE112–13 should 

be removed from the analysis.’’ (NAHB, 

No. 3 at p. 2) DOE agrees with NAHB’s 

comment and acknowledges that the 

subject proposal is not included in the 

2015 IECC. DOE notes that the original 

documentation published by the ICC 

following the public hearing process 

inadvertently included this proposal, 

and it has since been confirmed that the 

proposal was withdrawn from 

consideration during the hearing 

process. DOE has revised this notice and 

supporting documentation accordingly. 

(Note that RECA offered a similar 

comment on RE112–13; see RECA, No. 

4 at p. 3.) 

RECA’s first comment expresses 

general support for DOE’s Preliminary 

Determination on the 2015 edition of 

IECC, DOE’s evaluation methodology in 

both its quantitative and qualitative 

aspects, and DOE’s conclusion that the 

2015 IECC’s weakening amendments are 

outweighed by its strengthening 

amendments. (RECA No. 4 at p. 1) In its 

second comment, RECA ‘‘urges the 

Department to move ahead to finalize its 

Determination endorsing the 2015 IECC 

for state adoption’’; ‘‘to continue to 

provide materials to states and localities 

that will facilitate the adoption of, and 

compliance with, this latest edition of 

the IECC’’; ‘‘to expeditiously make 

training and compliance software 

available to states that adopt the 2015 

IECC’’; and ‘‘to provide additional 

funding to those states that are early 

adopters of the 2015 IECC.’’ (RECA No. 

4 at p. 1, and 3) DOE acknowledges the 

need for materials that can assist in 

facilitating the adoption of the latest 

editions of the model code. While these 

activities are not directly within the 

scope of the DOE determination 

analysis, DOE is directed to provide 

technical assistance to states 

implementing building energy codes (42 

U.S.C. 6833(d)), and does so through a 

variety of activities, such as statespecific energy and cost analysis, code 

compliance software, and a collection of 

technical resources. DOE intends to 

continue to provide such resources to 

assist states in implementing updated 

model codes, including adoption of 

such codes by states and localities, and 

increasing compliance with building 

energy codes to ensure intended 

consumer energy and cost savings. In its 

third comment, RECA agrees with DOE 

that, ‘‘proposal RE68–13 slightly 

weakens sunroom fenestration 

requirements’’, ‘‘the impact should be 

very small’’, and it, ‘‘does not affect 

SHGC requirements’’, but notes that 

‘‘the impact is on climate zones 2–3, not 

climate zone 1.’’ (RECA No. 4 at p. 2) 

DOE agrees with RECA’s comment and 

assessment of the subject proposal, and 

has revised the determination notice 

and supporting analysis accordingly. In 

its fourth comment, RECA disagrees 

with DOE that duct tightness levels tend 

to always be a ‘‘zero sum trade-off’’ as 

claimed in the Preliminary 

Determination, and suggests that ‘‘the 

Department explicitly and correctly 

recognize the value of mandatory 

measures, and that removal of this 

mandatory backstop is a reduction in 

stringency in some cases, albeit likely 

modest, depending on the measure that 

replaces duct efficiency.’’ (RECA No. 4 

at p. 2–3) DOE agrees in principle with 

RECA’s comment that energy neutrality 

depends on a variety of factors, 

including impacts over the useful life of 

alternative energy measures. In the case 

of building energy efficiency tradeoffs, 

the impact on longer-term energy 

savings can vary significantly between 

the measures being traded and the 

chosen alternative designs. In addition, 

DOE understands the purpose of 

mandatory requirements within the 

code, and while the subject proposal 

cannot directly be captured within the 

DOE quantitative analysis, DOE indeed 

acknowledges the potential effect on 

building energy efficiency in 

application. In its fifth comment, RECA 

notes that proposal RE112–13 ‘‘was 

withdrawn prior to final consideration, 

and is thus not part of the 2015 IECC.’’ 

(RECA No. 4 at p. 3) DOE agrees with 

this comment, as detailed above in 

response to NAHB’s similar comment. 

In its sixth comment, RECA suggests 

that DOE should ‘‘continue to assess the 

potential impact of changes to the IECC 

for compliance paths outside the 

prescriptive path’’ averring that 

expanding the Department’s ability to 

further assess such changes is in the 

public interest. (RECA No. 4 at p. 3) 

With specific reference to DOE’s 

evaluation of the new ERI compliance 

path, RECA agrees with DOE’s use of the 

prescriptive compliance path as the 

generally predominant path, but 

recommends ‘‘this emphasis on the 

prescriptive path for the numerical 

analysis should not be read as limiting 

the overall assessment of all changes in 

the code, nor should it suggest that an 

edition of the code will receive a 

positive or negative determination 

solely on the basis of this quantitative 

analysis.’’ RECA notes that in previous 

determinations, DOE has not 

historically limited itself to analyzing 

only changes to the prescriptive path, 

and encourages DOE not to limit itself 

to only considering changes to the 

prescriptive path in the future. RECA 

‘‘urges the Department to clarify in its 

Determination that it will continue to 

assess any changes made to the 

performance path, and any new 

compliance options (like ERI) that are 

added to the IECC going forward in 

future Determinations.’’ DOE agrees 

with RECA’s comment in principle, and 

acknowledges that changes in the 2015 

IECC, as well as potential future changes 

to the IECC, are likely to require 

increasingly nuanced analyses of the 

changes’ impacts. As stated in the 

preliminary notice, DOE plans to collect 

data specifically on the ERI path, and 

will consider means to broaden the 

scope of that commitment, as necessary, 

in the future. In addition, while the DOE 

Determination has typically focused on 

the mandatory and prescriptive 

requirements of the IECC, the 

Department reserves the right to 

evaluate other means of compliance 

when adequate information is available. 

In its seventh comment, RECA agrees 

with DOE that ‘‘it is difficult to assess 

the impact of the new Energy Rating 

Index in the context of a 

Determination,’’ but argues that ‘‘DOE 

could reasonably conclude, based on the 

results of a Pacific Northwest National 

Laboratory study, that the new 

compliance path is reasonably likely to 

save energy as compared to compliance 

with the 2012 IECC prescriptive 

requirements on average, even if some 

individual homes could be weaker than 

those built to the 2012 IECC.’’ 4 (RECA 

No. 4 at p. 5) DOE appreciates the 

comment and agrees, based on the 

referenced PNNL analysis, that most 

homes built using the ERI path, as 

specified in the 2015 IECC, are likely to 

be at least as efficient as the homes built 

to meet the prescriptive requirements of 

the IECC or the traditional performance 

path. In its eighth comment, RECA urges 

DOE to ‘‘promote the proper adoption 

and implementation of the ERI as 

contained in the 2015 IECC, without any 

weakening amendments, including 

monitoring its deployment in states and 

cities going forward.’’ RECA also 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 112 / Thursday, June 11, 2015 / Notices 33253 

recommends ‘‘DOE develop and/or fund 

comprehensive support materials and 

training to help to ensure that the ERI 

is properly implemented,’’ and that 

‘‘DOE should also consider how it can 

help to ensure that the ERI process 

produces consistent, repeatable, and 

credible results for code compliance.’’ 

(RECA No. 4 at p. 5–7) DOE 

acknowledges the importance of the 

new ERI path in the 2015 IECC and its 

potential impact on energy as the code 

is implemented. While code 

implementation activities are outside 

the direct scope of the DOE 

determination, DOE does provide 

technical assistance to states 

implementing building energy codes (42 

U.S.C. 6833(d)). DOE recognizes the 

need for continued analysis and support 

for states adopting the 2015 IECC, and 

will consider the requested activities, as 

able and appropriate, through the 

Building Energy Codes Program. In its 

ninth comment, RECA supports the 

‘‘Department’s stated plan to collect 

data relevant to the ERI, as well as all 

compliance options allowed in the 

IECC.’’ RECA further encourages the 

Department to ‘‘reach out to industry 

and nonprofit partners to aggregate the 

data already available, and to explore 

new methods for collecting and 

analyzing data on the various 

compliance options and tools used 

across the country.’’ (RECA No. 4 at p. 

7) DOE acknowledges and appreciates 

RECA’s support, and plans to work with 

the industry and stakeholders in 

evaluating the new ERI path and 

associated energy impact. As previously 

stated, DOE intends to collect relevant 

data and track the implementation of 

the ERI path relative to the traditional 

compliance options provided by the 

IECC. DOE will continue to 

communicate with interested and 

affected parties as the 2015 IECC is 

implemented and as further data and 

resulting analysis becomes available. 

NRDC’s first two comments offer 

general support for DOE’s determination 

that the 2015 IECC saves energy 

compared to the 2012 IECC, for DOE’s 

quantitative finding of energy savings, 

and for DOE’s qualitative assessment of 

the specific code changes that will 

result in energy savings. (NRDC, No. 5 

at p. 1–2) In its third comment NRDC 

suggests that ‘‘actual energy savings 

from the 2015 IECC are likely to be 

much larger than indicated by DOE’s 

analysis’’, specifically suggesting that 

the ‘‘new Energy Rating Index (ERI) 

pathway created by RE188–13 is likely 

to result in significant energy savings.’’ 

(NRDC, No.5 at p.2) NRDC 

acknowledges that it is not knowable 

exactly how many homes will comply 

using the ERI pathway, but suggests it 

is certainly not zero. NRDC suggests that 

‘‘currently about half of new homes 

constructed in the U.S. are rated using 

the RESNET HERS rating’’, and that ‘‘it 

is likely a large percentage of these 

homes will choose to comply with the 

code via the ERI pathway, since this 

will likely be the simplest method of 

compliance.’’ (NRDC, No. 5 at p. 2) 

NRDC further notes that a ‘‘Pacific 

Northwest National Laboratory analysis 

of the HERS index’s relationship to the 

2012 IECC performance path found that 

for all climate zones the ERI values 

adopted in the 2015 IECC ranged from 

at least as efficient to substantially more 

efficient than the 2012 IECC, indicating 

that homes complying with the ERI path 

will on average achieve large energy 

savings compared to the 2012 IECC.’’ 

(NRDC, No. 5 at p. 2) DOE agrees that 

the new alternative ERI compliance 

path, including the associated 

thresholds as published in the 2015 

IECC, is reasonably likely to result in 

energy savings compared to the 2012 

IECC and the majority of current state 

codes. However, DOE remains unaware 

of any current data source that would 

allow for adequate evaluation of the 

newly created path. DOE continues to 

base its evaluation of the new path on 

the recent analysis conducted by PNNL, 

as referenced in the preliminary 

determination notice. In its fourth 

comment, NRDC appreciates DOE’s 

indication in the preliminary 

determination that ‘‘it will attempt to 

collect data on the utilization of the 

various compliance pathways and 

evaluate whether it can quantify savings 

from compliance pathways other than 

the prescriptive path in future 

determinations’’, and urges DOE to 

‘‘evaluate energy savings from the ERI 

pathway in future determinations, as 

currently the analysis leaves out this 

potential source of significant energy 

savings.’’ (NRDC, No. 5 at p.2) DOE 

acknowledges the importance of 

evaluating the energy impact of the ERI 

alternative, but remains unaware of any 

current data source that would allow for 

adequate evaluation of the newly 

created path. DOE, therefore, maintains 

its intentions to track the adoption of 

the ERI path relative to traditional 

application of the IECC, and may further 

evaluate this path in future analyses. 

One comment was received from an 

individual submitter, Craig Conner, who 

indicated that ‘‘DOE made errors in 

estimating the residential energy savings 

for the change that included a new 

tropical option for residential 

construction (CE66-13 Part II, or CE66- 

II).’’ (Conner No. 6 at p. 1) Mr. Conner 

suggests that ‘‘DOE modeling was not 

done in accordance with the IECC 

standard reference design, and therefore 

is not as required for a determination.’’ 

He further suggests that ‘‘several major 

energy saving requirements provided by 

this new option were ignored or 

underestimated’’, and argues that ‘‘the 

definition of the Tropical Zone, which 

is a subset of existing IECC Climate 

Zone 1, does not by itself increase or 

decrease energy’’, but that ‘‘it is the 

associated requirements that would 

potentially affect energy use.’’ (Conner 

No. 6 at p. 1) Mr. Conner cites three 

aspects of proposal CE66-13 Part II that 

should have been considered new 

energy-saving requirements rather than 

conditions under which other 

requirements may be lessened, as DOE 

interpreted them: The restriction that 

the home not be heated and that 50% 

of the home be uncooled, the restriction 

that 80% of domestic water heating be 

by solar or other renewable sources, and 

the restriction that natural ventilation be 

facilitated by operable windows. 

(Conner No. 6 at p. 1) In response, DOE 

appreciates Mr. Conner’s comments, but 

does not agree with his assessment 

regarding the particular proposal. The 

IECC Standard Reference Design (SRD) 

is intended for demonstrating 

compliance of individual buildings, 

which differs from the aggregate 

national analysis applied in DOE 

determinations. Although the DOE 

building modeling prototypes and 

simulation methodology occasionally 

draw on SRD assumptions, where 

appropriate, they are also informed by 

additional sources that may better 

represent typical construction practices, 

and to estimate an expected impact of 

code changes. In this case, DOE 

considered typical construction affected 

by the newly defined Tropical Zone, 

and acknowledges the modified criteria 

associated with partially-conditioned 

homes (e.g., with solar water heating 

systems and operable windows). 

However, it is not clear that these 

changes will encourage additional use 

of energy-saving features, and DOE has 

maintained its original assessment. 

II. Methodology 

In arriving at a determination, DOE 

reviewed all changes between the 2015 

and 2012 editions of the IECC. The IECC 

covers a broad spectrum of the energyrelated components and systems in 

buildings, ranging from simpler 

residential buildings to more complex 

multifamily facilities. For the purposes 

of its determination, DOE focused only 

on low-rise residential buildings, 

defined in a manner consistent with the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

33254 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 112 / Thursday, June 11, 2015 / Notices 

5See http://www.energycodes.gov/development/

residential/methodology. 

6Mendon et al., 2015 IECC: Energy Savings 

Analysis (PNNL, Richland, WA, December 2014), 

available at http://www.energycodes.gov/

determinations. 

ICC and the American Society of 

Heating, Refrigerating and Airconditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). 

Low-rise residential buildings include 

one- and two-family detached and 

attached buildings, and low-rise 

multifamily buildings (not greater than 

three stories), such as condominiums 

and garden apartments. The 2015 IECC 

was developed through the same 

approach as the previous 2012 edition 

with approval through the ICC 

consensus process. The 2015 edition 

contains no significant changes to the 

overall scope or the structure of the 

prescriptive and mandatory provisions 

of the code, which form the basis of the 

DOE determination analyses. As a 

result, DOE determined that the 

methodology used for the analysis of the 

2012 IECC should again be utilized for 

the analysis of the 2015 IECC. 

Overview of Methodology 

The analysis methodology used by 

DOE contains both qualitative and 

quantitative components. A qualitative 

comparison is undertaken to identify 

textual changes between requirements 

in the 2015 and 2012 editions of the 

IECC, followed by a quantitative 

assessment of energy savings conducted 

through whole-building simulations of 

buildings constructed to meet the 

minimum requirements of each code 

over a range of U.S. climates. The 

analysis methodology, which was 

previously developed through a public 

comment process, is available on the 

DOE Building Energy Codes Program 

Web site.5

Consistent with its previous 

determinations, DOE compared overall 

editions of the IECC, and did not issue 

determinations for individual code 

changes. DOE interprets the language in 

section 304(a) of ECPA to mean that 

when a comprehensive revision of the 

1992 MEC, or its successor (which in 

this case is the 2015 IECC), is published, 

then that revised or successor code 

triggers the Secretary’s obligation to 

issue a determination as to whether the 

revised code improves energy efficiency 

in residential buildings. (See 42 U.S.C. 

6833(a)(5)(A)) This determination is 

made by comparing the revised or 

successor code to the last predecessor 

code. 

Consideration for Technological and 

Economic Factors 

Section 304(a) of ECPA states that the 

Secretary is required to make a 

determination as to whether any 

successor standard to the 1992 MEC will 

improve energy efficiency. (42 U.S.C. 

6833(a)(5)(A)) Section 304 of ECPA does 

not include any reference to economic 

justification, although such criteria are 

considered directly by the ICC code 

development and consensus process, as 

applicable. Each proposal submitted to 

the ICC code development process also 

requires a declaration of whether the 

proposed code change will increase the 

cost of construction. 

Separate from the Secretary’s 

determination under section 304(a), 

section 307 of ECPA requires DOE to 

periodically review the technical and 

economic basis of the voluntary 

building energy codes, and participate 

in the industry process for review and 

modification, including seeking 

adoption of all technologically feasible 

and economically justified energy 

efficiency measures. (42 U.S.C. 6836(b)) 

In fulfillment of this directive, DOE 

evaluates its code change proposals 

submitted to the ICC, analyzing energy 

savings and cost-effectiveness, as 

applicable, and otherwise participates 

in the ICC process. In addition, DOE 

performs independent technical and 

economic analysis of the IECC as part of 

its direction to provide assistance to 

States implementing building energy 

codes. This approach allows DOE to 

meet its statutory obligation to 

participate in the industry process for 

review and modification of the IECC, 

and to seek adoption of all 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified energy efficiency 

measures. (42 U.S.C. 6836(b)). 

In preparation for technical assistance 

activities, DOE previously developed a 

standardized methodology for assessing 

the cost-effectiveness of code changes 

through a public process. (78 FR 47677) 

This methodology is published on the 

DOE Building Energy Codes Program 

Web site, and has been applied by DOE 

in the development of code change 

proposals for the IECC, as well as 

assessing the cost-effectiveness of 

published editions of the IECC. DOE 

expects to update this methodology 

periodically to ensure its assumptions 

and economic criteria remain valid and 

adequate for the analysis of potential 

code change proposals, and for States 

considering adoption of model building 

energy codes. DOE will continue to use 

the currently established methodology 

and parameters for developing materials 

for the technical assistance of the 2015 

IECC. 

III. Summary of Findings 

In performing its determination, DOE 

performed both a qualitative and 

quantitative analysis of the prescriptive 

and mandatory requirements contained 

in the 2015 IECC. The chosen 

methodology for these analyses is 

consistent with actions of recent 

determinations, and provides a 

reasonable assessment of how the code 

will affect energy savings in residential 

buildings. A summary of the analyses 

supporting DOE’s determination is 

outlined in the following sections. 

Qualitative Analysis 

DOE performed a comparative 

analysis of the textual requirements of 

the 2015 IECC, examining the specific 

changes (approved code changes) made 

between the 2012 and the 2015 editions. 

The ICC Code Hearing process considers 

individual code changes for approval, 

and then bundles all the approved code 

changes together to form the next 

published edition. In creating the 2015 

IECC, ICC processed 76 approved code 

change proposals. DOE evaluated each 

of these code change proposals in 

preparing its determination. In 

conducting the revised analysis, DOE 

also took into consideration NAHB’s 

comment about DOE’s analysis of pipe 

insulation requirements (NAHB, No. 3 

at p. 1). 

Overall, DOE found that the vast 

majority of changes in the 2015 IECC 

appear to be neutral (i.e., have no direct 

impact on energy savings) within the 

context of the determination analysis. 

DOE also found that beneficial changes 

(i.e., increased energy savings) outweigh 

any changes with a detrimental effect on 

energy efficiency in residential 

buildings. Of the 76 total changes: 

• 6 were considered beneficial; 

• 62 were considered neutral; 

• 5 were considered negligible; 

• 2 were considered detrimental; and 

• 1 was considered to have an 

unquantifiable impact. 

Table III.1 presents the findings 

resulting from the qualitative analysis, 

along with a description of the change, 

as well as an assessment of the 

anticipated impact on energy savings in 

residential buildings. Additional details 

pertaining to the qualitative analysis are 

presented in a technical support 

document.6

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 112 / Thursday, June 11, 2015 / Notices 33255 

TABLE III.1—QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS FINDINGS

Proposal No. Code section(s) affected a Description of changes 

Impact on 

energy 

efficiency 

Reason 

RE1–13 ................... R101.4.3 (IRC N1101.3) .............. Deletes the exception for vestibules in the provisions pertaining to additions, alterations, 

renovations, and repairs. 

Neutral ......... The residential code has no requirements for vestibules. 

RE3–13 ................... R103.2 (IRC N1101.8) ................. Deletes text relating to commercial building components in 

‘‘Information on Construction 

Documents.’’ 

Neutral ......... Editorial change. 

RE5–13 ................... R202 (IRC N1101.9) .................... Deletes the definition of ‘‘entrance door.’’ Neutral ........ The definition applied to nonresidential buildings only. 

RE6–13 ................... R202 (NEW) (IRC N1101.9 

(NEW)).

Adds definition of ‘‘Insulating Siding’’ and notes that the insulation level of this siding must be 

R–2 or greater. 

Neutral ........ Addition of definition. 

RE9–13 ................... R202 (NEW) (IRC N1101.9 

(NEW)), R304 (NEW) (IRC 

N1101.16 (NEW)).

Adds an appendix with non-mandatory provisions for homes to 

be ‘‘solar-ready.’’ Designed to 

be readily referenced by adopting authorities as needed. 

Neutral ......... No direct impact, but has the potential to increase efficiency in 

the future. 

RE12–13 ................. R401.2 (IRC N1101.15) ............... Minor clarification that the code’s 

mandatory requirements should 

be met in all compliance paths. 

Neutral ......... Clarification of code requirements. 

RE14–13 ................. R401.3 (IRC N1101.16) ............... Adds more options for the allowable locations for posting the 

certificate of occupancy. 

Neutral ......... Not energy related but does 

eliminate a small enforcement 

hindrance. 

RE16–13 ................. R401.3 (IRC N1101.16) ............... Similar to RE14–13. Allows more 

options for the allowable locations for posting the certificate 

of occupancy. 

Neutral ......... Not energy related but does 

eliminate a small enforcement 

hindrance. 

RE18–13 ................. R402.1 (IRC N1102.1), R402.1.1 

(NEW) (IRC N1102.1.1 (NEW)).

Cross-references vapor barrier 

requirements by referencing 

IRC R702.7. 

Neutral ......... Adds consistency and clarifies 

code requirements. 

RE30–13 ................. Table R402.1.1, (IRC Table 

N1102.1.1).

Modifies footnote h to these tables to allow combined sheathing/siding. Neutral ......... Adds an option for combined insulated sheathing/siding that 

meets code requirements. 

RE43–13 ................. R402.1.2 (IRC N1102.1.2) ........... Adds use of term ‘‘continuous insulation’’ instead of ‘‘insulating 

sheathing.’’ 

Neutral ......... Minor clarification of terminology. 

RE45–13 ................. Table R402.1.3 (IRC N1102.1.3) Slightly increases frame wall Ufactor in climate zones 1 and 2. 

The R-value table remains unchanged. 

Negligible .... Intended to correct a perceived 

misalignment between the 

code’s R-value-based requirements and the alternative Ufactor-based requirements. The 

changes are very small and 

unlikely to change wall insulation levels in most homes. 

RE50–13 ................. Table R402.1.3 (IRC Table 

N1102.1.3).

Slightly increases frame wall Ufactor in climate zones 1–5 but 

reduces it in climate zones 6– 

8. The R-value table remains 

unchanged. 

Negligible .... Intended to correct a perceived 

misalignment between the 

code’s R-value-based requirements and the alternative Ufactor-based requirements. The 

changes are very small and 

unlikely to change wall insulation levels in most homes. 

RE53–13 ................. R402.2.1 (IRC N1102.2.1) ........... Clarifies decreased ceiling insulation allowance for ceilings with 

attic spaces only. 

Neutral ......... Clarification of the code requirement. 

RE58–13 ................. R402.2.4 (IRC N1102.2.4) ........... Clarifies that vertical doors are 

not ‘‘access doors’’ in R402.2.4 

and shall be permitted to meet 

the fenestration requirements 

of Table 402.1.1. 

Neutral ......... Clarification of the code requirement. 

RE60–13 ................. R402.2.7 (IRC N1102.2.7), Table 

R402.4.1.1 (IRC Table 

N1102.4.1.1).

Allows the floor cavity insulation 

to not be in contact with the 

underside of the subfloor decking if it is in contact with the 

topside of sheathing or continuous insulation installed on the 

bottom side of floor framing. 

Neutral ......... Allows a combination of cavity 

and continuous insulation to 

meet the floor R-value requirement. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

33256 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 112 / Thursday, June 11, 2015 / Notices 

TABLE III.1—QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS FINDINGS—Continued 

Proposal No. Code section(s) affected a Description of changes 

Impact on 

energy 

efficiency 

Reason 

RE63–13 ................. Table R402.1.1 (IRC Table 

N1102.1.1), R402.2.13 

(NNEW) (IRC N1102.2.13 

(NEW)).

Clarifies footnote h text by rewording it and moving it to new 

section R402.2.13. 

Neutral ........ Clarification of code requirements. 

RE68–13 ................. R402.3.5 (IRC N1102.3.5) ........... Slightly increases sunroom U-factor. Detrimental .. Applies to only climate zones 2 

and 3; impacts only thermally 

isolated sunrooms. 

RE83–13 ................. Table R402.4.1.1 (IRC Table 

N1102.4.1.1).

Clarifies requirements for wall 

corner and headers to have insulation that has at least R–3 

per inch, and clarifies that it is 

the cavities in such components that require the insulation. 

Neutral ........ Minor addition and clarification of 

code requirements. 

RE84–13 ................. Table R402.4.1.1 (IRC Table 

N1102.4.1.1).

Allows a combination of cavity 

and continuous insulation to 

meet the floor R-value requirement. 

Neutral ......... Subset of RE60–13; makes minor 

clarifying revisions to wording. 

RE85–13 ................. Table R402.4.1.1 (IRC Table 

N1102.4.1.1).

Reorganizes Table 402.4.1.1 by 

adding an additional column 

and separating ‘‘air barrier criteria’’ from ‘‘insulation installation criteria,’’ for clarity. 

Neutral ......... Clarification of code requirements. 

RE86–13 ................. Table R402.4.1.1 (IRC Table 

N1102.4.1.1), R402.4.2 (IRC 

N1102.4.2).

Clarifies language relating to fireplace sealing/door requirements. Neutral ......... Clarification of code requirements. 

RE91–13 ................. R402.4.1.2 (IRC N1102.4.1.2), 

Chapter 5.

Adds references to the American 

Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards E779 

and E1827 for blower door 

testing. 

Neutral ......... Adds more detailed references 

for procedures. 

RE103–13 ............... R403.1.1 (IRC N1103.1.1) ........... Adds requirements for the thermostat to be pre-programmed 

by the manufacturer. 

Neutral ......... Clarifies that the requirement is 

the manufacturer’s responsibility. 

RE105–13 ............... R403.1.1 (IRC N1103.1.1) ........... Makes the programmable thermostat requirement apply to 

any heating/cooling system. 

Neutral ......... No direct impact on energy. 

RE107–13 ............... R403.2.1 (IRC N1103.2.1) ........... Increases insulation requirements 

for return ducts in attics from 

R–6 to R–8. 

Beneficial ..... Modestly reduces conduction 

losses from return ducts in attics. 

RE109–13 ............... R403.2 (IRC N1103.2), R403.2.2 

(IRC N1103.2.2), R403.2.3 

(NEW) (IRC N1103.2.3 

(NEW)), R403.2.4 (NEW) (IRC 

N1103.2.4 (NEW)).

Makes the maximum allowable 

duct leakage rates prescriptive, 

allowing performance path 

trade-offs. 

Neutral ......... Zero-sum tradeoff within IECC 

performance path rules; applies 

only to compliance via performance path. 

RE111–13 ............... R403.2.2 (IRC N1103.2.2) ........... Aligns the IECC with the International Mechanical Code 

(IMC) by removing exception 

from duct sealing for low-pressure continuously welded 

ducts. 

Neutral ......... Requires sealing of additional 

locking joints for consistency 

between the IECC and IMC. 

Impact is negligible because 

the mandatory duct pressure 

test governs duct leakage regardless of specific sealing 

strategies. 

RE117–13 ............... R403.2.2 (IRC N1103.2.2) ........... Deletes exception relating to partially inaccessible duct connections. Neutral ......... Editorial change to eliminate irrelevant text. 

RE118–13 ............... R403.2.2 (IRC N1103.2.2) ........... Reverses the order of how the 

two duct testing options are 

presented. 

Neutral ........ Rearrangement of text. 

RE125–13, Part I .... R403.4.1 (IRC N1103.4.1), 

R403.4.1.1 (NEW) (IRC 

N1103.4.1.1 (NEW)), 

R403.4.1.2 (NEW) (IRC 

N1103.4.1.2 (NEW)), Chapter 

5, IPC [E] 607.2.1, [E] 

607.2.1.1 (NEW), [E] 

607.2.1.1.1 (NEW), [E] 

607.2.1.1.2 (NEW), IPC Chapter 14, IRC P2905 (NEW), IRC 

P2905.1 (NEW).

Adds requirements for demandactivated control on hot water 

circulation systems and heat 

trace systems. Makes IECC, 

IRC, and IPC consistent and 

clarifies requirements for these 

systems. 

Beneficial ..... Demand activated control reduces the runtime of circulation 

pumps. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 112 / Thursday, June 11, 2015 / Notices 33257 

TABLE III.1—QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS FINDINGS—Continued 

Proposal No. Code section(s) affected a Description of changes 

Impact on 

energy 

efficiency 

Reason 

RE132–13 ............... R403.4.2 (IRC N1103.4.2), Table 

R403.4.2 (IRC Table 

N1103.4.2).

Deletes requirement for domestic 

hot water (DHW) pipe insulation to kitchen and the generic 

requirement on long/large-diameter pipes. However, adds 

DHW pipe insulation for 3/4- 

inch pipes. 

Beneficial ..... Energy lost due to the elimination 

of hot water pipe insulation on 

the kitchen pipe is typically 

more than made up by added 

insulation requirements for 

pipes 3/4 inches in diameter, 

the most common size for 

trunk lines. 

RE136–13, Part I .... R403.4.2 (NEW) (IRC N1103.4.2 

(NEW)), IPC 202, IPC 

[E]607.2.1.1 (NEW), IRC 

P2905 (NEW), IRC P2905.1 

(NEW).

Adds demand control requirements for recirculating systems 

that use a cold water supply 

pipe to return water to the tank. 

Beneficial ..... Demand activated control reduces the runtime of circulation 

pumps. 

RE142–13 ............... R403.6 (IRC N1103.6) ................. Requires heating, ventilation, and 

air-conditioning equipment to 

meet Federal efficiency standards. 

Neutral ......... DOE’s Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards Program regulates the minimum 

efficiency of units produced by 

equipment manufacturers. 

RE163–13 ............... R405.4.2 (IRC N1105.4.2), 

R405.4.2.1 (NEW) (IRC 

N1105.4.2.1 (NEW)), R405.2.2 

(NEW) (IRC N1105.4.2.2 

(NEW)).

Specifies details of a compliance 

report for the performance approach. 

Neutral ........ No direct impact on energy. 

RE167–13 ............... Table R405.5.2(1) (IRC Table 

B1105.5.2(1)).

Fixes missing standard reference 

design specifications for thermal distribution systems. 

Neutral ......... Adds details for modeling the 

standard reference design in 

the performance path. 

RE173–13 ............... Table R405.5.2(1) (IRC Table 

N1105.5.2(1)).

Adjusts Table R405.5.2(1) (the 

performance path) terminology 

for doors and fenestration. 

Neutral ......... Simple clarification of the intent 

of the code. 

RE184–13 ............... R101.4.3, R202, R406 (NEW), 

(IRC N1101. 3, N1101.9, 

N1106 (NEW)).

Revamps alterations language 

and moves it from chapter 1 to 

section R406. 

Neutral ......... Trade-offs between weakened 

and strengthened requirements 

possible but there is no feasible method for quantifying the 

energy impact of these tradeoffs. 

RE188–13 ............... R202 (NEW) (IRC N1101.9 

(NEW)), R401.2 (IRC 

N1101.15), R406 (NEW) (IRC 

N1106 NEW).

Optional new approach in section 

406 requiring an ERI with a 

tradeoff limitation on the thermal envelope requirements. 

Not quantifiable at this 

time.

New alternative compliance 

path—no data is currently 

available to adequately estimate the number of homes that 

may be constructed using this 

compliance path. 

RE193–13 ............... R202 (IRC N1101.9), 403.10 

(New) (IRC N1103.10 (New)).

Adds requirements for testing of 

combustion venting systems. 

Neutral ........ Impacts air quality; no direct impact on home energy usage. 

RE195–13 ............... R402.1.2 ...................................... Subtracts out R–0.6 for insulating 

siding from R-value table to 

prevent double counting of siding. 

Neutral ......... Adds consistency in R-value calculations. 

RB96–13, Part I ...... Table R402.4.1.1 ......................... Specifies that air sealing shall be 

provided in fire separation assemblies. 

Neutral ........ Minor clarification of code requirements. 

RB100–13 ............... R303.4 ......................................... Corrects the air infiltration threshold in R303.4 to be 5 air 

changes per hour or less to 

align it with the infiltration limits 

set by the code. 

Neutral ........ Consistency change. 

SP19–13, Part III .... 303.1; IECC C404.7; IECC 

R403.9.

Makes numerous wording 

changes to pool and spa requirements. Doesn’t appear to 

make substantive changes. 

Neutral ......... No direct impact on home energy 

usage. 

ADM22–13, Part III IECC: R108.2 ............................... Revises ‘‘owner’s agent’’ to 

‘‘owner’s authorized agent’’ in 

R108.2. 

Neutral ......... Simple language change. 

ADM30–13, Part III IECC: R103.4 ............................... Adds ‘‘work shall be installed in 

accordance with the approved 

construction documents’’ to 

R103.4. 

Neutral ......... Simple language change. 

ADM40–13, Part III IECC: R103.1 ............................... Adds ‘‘technical reports’’ as acceptable data for submittal with 

a permit application. 

Neutral ......... Simple language change. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

33258 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 112 / Thursday, June 11, 2015 / Notices 

TABLE III.1—QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS FINDINGS—Continued 

Proposal No. Code section(s) affected a Description of changes 

Impact on 

energy 

efficiency 

Reason 

ADM51–13, Part III IECC: R202 (IRC N1101.9) ......... Adds ‘‘retrofit’’ and other terms to 

definition of ‘‘alteration.’’ 

Neutral ......... Simple language change. 

ADM57–13, Part III IECC: R202 (IRC N1101.9) 

(New).

Adds definition of ‘‘approved 

agency.’’ 

Neutral ......... Simple language change. 

ADM60–13, Part III IECC: R202 (IRC N1101.9) ......... Revises definition of ‘‘repairs.’’ Neutral ......... Simple language change. 

CE4–13, Part II ....... R101.4, R202 (IRC N1101.9); 

R402.3.6 (IRC N1102.3.6), 

Chapter 5 (RE) (NEW) (IRC 

N1106 (NEW)).

Editorial relocation of code text 

pertaining to ‘‘existing buildings’’ to a separate chapter. 

Neutral ......... Editorial change. 

CE8–13, Part II ....... R101.4.2, R202 (NEW) (IRC 

N1101.9 (NEW)).

Revises language requiring the 

code to apply to historic buildings if no ‘‘compromise to the 

historic nature and function of 

the building’’ occurs. 

Beneficial ..... Additional buildings must meet 

the code requirements. 

CE11–13, Part II ..... R101.4.3, (IRC N1101.3) ............. Adds existing single-pane fenestration with surface films to 

the list of exceptions in 

R101.4.3. 

Neutral ......... Exceptions are allowed only if energy use is not increased. 

CE15–13, Part II ..... R101.4.3 (IRC N1101.3), R202 

(NEW) (IRC N1101.9 (NEW)).

Revises exemption for roofing replacement. Neutral ......... Editorial change. 

CE23–13, Part II ..... R101.5.2 (IRC N1101.6), R402.1 

(IRC N1102.1).

Relocates exception for ‘‘low energy’’ buildings from R101.5.2 

to R402.1. 

Neutral ......... Editorial change. 

CE33–13, Part II ..... R102, R102.1.1 (NEW) ................ Changes title of section R102 to 

‘‘Applicability—Duties and powers of the Code Official’’ and 

revises language on ‘‘alternative materials, design and 

methods of construction and 

equipment.’’ 

Neutral ......... Editorial change. 

CE37–13, Part II ..... R103.2.1 (NEW) .......................... Requires the building’s thermal 

envelope to be represented on 

construction documents. 

Neutral ......... Simple documentation requirement. 

CE38–13, Part II ..... R103.3, R104.1, R104.2 (NEW), 

R104.3, R104.3.1 (NEW), 

R014.3.2 (NEW), R104.3.3 

(NEW), R104.3.4 (NEW), 

R104.3.5 (NEW), R104.3.6 

(NEW), R104.5.

Revises a number of administrative requirements to enhance 

the ability to ensure compliance with the code and improve the usability of the code. 

Neutral ......... No direct impact on energy. 

CE43–13, Part II ..... R106.2 ......................................... Deletes R106.2 ‘‘Conflicting requirements’’ because it is redundant with ‘‘Conflicts’’ in 

R106.1.1. 

Neutral ......... Editorial change. 

CE44–13, Part II ..... R108.4 ......................................... Revises language pertaining to 

‘‘fines’’ in section R108.4. 

Neutral ......... Editorial change. 

CE49–13, Part III .... R202 (NEW) (IRC N1101.9 

(NEW)).

Adds definition of a ‘‘circulating 

hot water system.’’ 

Neutral ......... Editorial change. 

CE50–13, Part II ..... R202 (NEW) (IRC N1101.9 

(NEW)).

Add definition of ‘‘climate zone.’’ Neutral ......... Editorial change. 

CE51–13, part II ...... R202 (IRC N1101.9) .................... Revises the definition of ‘‘conditioned space.’’ Neutral ........ Revision of definition. 

CE52–13, Part II ..... R202 (NEW) (IRC N1101.9 

(NEW)).

Adds definition of ‘‘continuous insulation.’’ Neutral ......... Definition addition. 

CE59–13, Part II ..... R202 (IRC N1101.9) .................... Revises the definition of ‘‘vertical 

glazing.’’ 

Neutral ......... Revision of definition. 

CE61–13, Part II ..... Table R301.1 ............................... Adds ‘‘Broomfield County’’ to 

Table C301.1 and R301.1. 

Neutral ........ Editorial change. 

CE62–13, Part II ..... Figure R301.1 (IRC Figure 

N1101.10), Table R301.1 (IRC 

Table N1101.10).

Eliminates the ‘‘warm humid’’ 

designation for counties in the 

‘‘dry’’ moisture regime in 

Southwest Texas. 

Neutral ........ No efficiency requirements depend on the warm-humid designation in Climate Zone 2/Dry. 

CE63–13, Part II ..... R303.1.1 (IRC N1101.12.1) ......... Requires labeling R-value on 

packaging of insulated siding 

and listing of same on the certification. 

Neutral ......... Labeling requirement. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 112 / Thursday, June 11, 2015 / Notices 33259 

TABLE III.1—QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS FINDINGS—Continued 

Proposal No. Code section(s) affected a Description of changes 

Impact on 

energy 

efficiency 

Reason 

CE65–13, Part II ..... R303.1.3 (IRC N1101.12.3), 

Chapter 5.

Adds the American National 

Standards Institute (ANSI)/Door 

and Access Systems Manufacturers Association (DASMA) 

standard 105 as an alternative 

to National Fenestration and 

Rating Council (NFRC) 100 for 

determining U-factors of garage doors, where required. 

Neutral ......... Adds an option of using ANSI/

DASMA 105 instead of NFRC 

100. 

CE66–13, Part II ..... R301.4 (NEW) (IRC N1101.10.3 

(NEW)), R406 (NEW) (IRC 

N1106 (NEW)).

Defines a new ‘‘Tropical’’ climate 

zone and adds an optional 

compliance path for semi-conditioned residential buildings 

with a list of pre-defined criteria 

to be deemed as code compliant in this climate zone. 

Detrimental .. Exception to code requirements 

applicable to a small number of 

homes in tropical areas. 

CE67–13, Part II ..... R303.1.4.1 (N1101.12.4) (NEW), 

Chapter 5.

Adds ASTM C1363 as the required test standard for determining the thermal resistance 

(R-value) of insulating siding. 

Neutral ......... Addition of testing requirements. 

CE161–13, Part II ... R402.3.2 (IRC N1102.3.2) ........... Allows dynamic glazing to satisfy 

the SHGC requirements provided the ratio of upper to 

lower SHGC is 2.4 or greater 

and is automatically controlled 

to modulate the amount of 

solar gain into the space. 

Negligible .... Similar energy impact to non-dynamic glazing. 

CE177–13, Part II ... R402.1.2 (NEW), (IRC 

N1102.4.1.2 (NEW)).

Requires open combustion appliances to be outside conditioned space or in a room isolated from conditioned space 

and ducted to the outside. 

Neutral ......... Relates to indoor air quality and 

does not impact energy directly. 

CE179–13, Part II ... Table R402.4.1.1 (IRC Table 

N1102.4.1.1).

Exempts fire sprinklers from air 

sealing requirements. 

Negligible .... The home/unit would still have to 

pass the blower door test. 

CE283–13, Part II ... R403.4.3 (NEW) (N1103.5 

(NEW)), Chapter 5, IRC 

P2903.11 (NEW).

Requires drain water heat recovery systems to comply with Canadian Standards Association 

(CSA) Standard 55 and adds 

references to CSA Standard 55 

to chapter 5. 

Negligible .... Enables credit for efficiency improvements due to the use of 

drain water heat recovery devices. 

CE362–13, Part II ... R403.2 (New) (IRC N1103.2 

(New)).

Adds requirement for outdoor setback control for hot water boilers that controls the boiler 

water temperature based on 

the outdoor temperature. 

Beneficial ..... Lowering boiler water temperature during periods of moderate 

outdoor temperature reduces 

energy consumption of the boiler. 

a Code sections refer to the 2012 IECC. 

KEY: The following terms are used to characterize the effect of individual code change on energy efficiency (as contained in the above table): 

Beneficial indicates that a code change is anticipated to improve energy efficiency; Detrimental indicates a code change may increase energy 

use in certain applications; Neutral indicates that a code change is not anticipated to impact energy efficiency; Negligible indicates a code 

change may have energy impacts but too small to quantify; and Not Quantifiable indicates that a code change may have energy impacts but 

can’t be quantified at this time. 

In addition to the changes approved 

for inclusion in the prescriptive and 

mandatory paths, ICC also approved a 

proposal based on an Energy Rating 

Index (ERI) in the 2015 IECC. While this 

change does not directly alter stringency 

of the code, it does provide an 

additional compliance path as an 

alternative to the traditional IECC 

prescriptive and performance paths. 

DOE determination analyses have 

historically focused on the prescriptive 

compliance path. This has been done 

because: (1) The prescriptive path is 

generally considered the predominant 

compliance path in practice, and; (2) the 

performance path effectively allows a 

limitless number of ways to comply 

with the code, and no accepted 

methodology exists for how to analyze 

it. Equally important, there is no 

aggregated source of data allowing for 

documentation of how buildings meet 

the performance path criteria. In the 

absence of such data, an analysis of the 

performance path would have no 

empirical basis. 

The inclusion of a new type of 

compliance path in the 2015 IECC, 

which is based on an Energy Rating 

Index (ERI), prompted DOE to review its 

historical approach, and make a 

decision as to whether a change in 

methodology would be appropriate for 

the current determination analysis. 

Three primary points were considered: 

(1) The impact of the ERI path on 

national residential energy consumption 

is dependent on the number of homes 

that use this new path, and the unique 

building characteristics of those homes. 

As no jurisdiction has yet implemented 

the 2015 IECC, there is no way to know 

how many homes will use this path. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

33260 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 112 / Thursday, June 11, 2015 / Notices 

7Taylor et al., Identification of RESNET HERS 

Index Values Corresponding to Minimal 

Compliance with the IECC (PNNL, Richland, WA, May 2014), available at http://www.energycodes.

gov/hers-and-iecc-performance-path 

(2) An analysis conducted by Pacific 

Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) 

suggests that most homes built using the 

ERI path, as specified in the 2015 IECC, 

are likely to be at least as efficient as the 

homes built to meet the prescriptive 

requirements of the IECC or the 

traditional performance path.7

(3) Including the new ERI path but not 

the traditional performance path would 

be arbitrary relative to historical 

determination analysis. An accepted 

methodology, along with a supporting 

data source, by which to analyze the 

performance path would also be 

necessary, and is not currently 

available. 

Based on these three points, DOE 

concluded that it is appropriate to 

follow its historical approach for the 

current determination. However, DOE 

acknowledges that the landscape of 

code compliance may be changing, and 

therefore plans to track the 

implementation and application of the 

new ERI path, as well as collect relevant 

data that may enable DOE to further 

evaluate the ERI path in future analyses. 

It will also investigate the possibility of 

collecting data that could provide the 

basis for a broader analysis of 

performance-based compliance paths. 

Finally, DOE will explore whether the 

total number of homes built under each 

path can be determined and tracked 

over time. DOE anticipates that multiple 

paths may be considered in future 

determinations, but will only be 

included if the potential energy savings 

are relative to the traditional DOE 

analysis. 

Table III.2 summarizes the overall 

impact of the code change proposals in 

the qualitative analysis. Overall, the 

sum of the beneficial code changes (6) 

is greater than the number of the 

detrimental code change proposals (2). 

TABLE III.2—OVERALL SUMMARY OF CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL IMPACT IN QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS

Detriment Neutral Benefit Negligible impact Unquantifiable at this 

time Total 

2 62 6 5 1 76 

Quantitative Analysis 

The quantitative analysis of the 2015 

IECC was carried out using wholebuilding energy simulations of 

prototype buildings designed to meet 

the requirements of the 2012 IECC and 

the 2015 IECC. DOE simulated 32 

representative residential building types 

across 15 U.S. climate locations, with 

locations selected to be representative of 

all U.S climate zones, as defined by the 

IECC. Energy use intensities (EUI) by 

fuel type and by end-use, as regulated 

by the IECC (i.e., heating, cooling, 

domestic water heating and lighting) 

were extracted for each building type, 

and weighted by the relative square 

footage of construction (represented by 

building type in each climate regions). 

The methodology used for carrying out 

the quantitative analysis remains 

unchanged from the preliminary 

determination of the 2015 IECC, 

however, the overall findings have been 

updated based on comments received 

(see Public Comments Regarding the 

Determination section of this notice). 

The quantitative analysis of buildings 

designed to meet the requirements of 

the 2015 IECC indicates national site 

energy savings of 0.98 percent of 

residential building energy 

consumption, as regulated by the IECC 

(in comparison to the 2012 IECC). 

Associated source energy savings are 

estimated to be approximately 0.87 

percent, and national average energy 

cost savings are estimated to be 

approximately 0.73 percent. Table III.3 

and Table III.4 show the energy use and 

associated savings resulting from the 

2015 IECC by climate zone and on an 

aggregated national basis. Further 

details on the quantitative analysis can 

be found in the technical support 

document. 

TABLE III.3—ESTIMATED REGULATED ANNUAL SITE AND SOURCE ENERGY USE INTENSITIES (EUI), AND ENERGY COSTS

BY CLIMATE-ZONE

[2012 IECC] 

Climate zone Site EUI 

(kBtu/ft2-yr) 

Source EUI 

(kBtu/ft2-yr) 

Energy costs 

($/residence-yr) 

1 ....................................................................................................................................... 13.96 38.57 845 

2 ....................................................................................................................................... 16.99 43.24 1,104 

3 ....................................................................................................................................... 16.90 40.43 988 

4 ....................................................................................................................................... 19.52 44.00 1,069 

5 ....................................................................................................................................... 27.62 47.49 1,162 

6 ....................................................................................................................................... 29.28 49.21 1,195 

7 ....................................................................................................................................... 36.18 63.25 1,501 

8 ....................................................................................................................................... 50.28 89.49 2,320 

National Weighted Average ...................................................................................... 20.82 44.17 1,086 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 112 / Thursday, June 11, 2015 / Notices 33261 

8Available at http://www.energycodes.gov/

regulations/determinations/previous. 

9Available at http://www.energycodes.gov/

development/residential/iecc_analysis. 

TABLE III.4—ESTIMATED REGULATED ANNUAL SITE AND SOURCE ENERGY USE INTENSITIES (EUI), AND ENERGY COSTS

BY CLIMATE-ZONE

[2015 IECC] 

Climate zone Site EUI 

(kBtu/ft2-yr) 

Source EUI 

(kBtu/ft2-yr) 

Energy costs 

($/residence-yr) 

1 ....................................................................................................................................... 13.85 38.33 841 

2 ....................................................................................................................................... 16.84 42.90 1,096 

3 ....................................................................................................................................... 16.71 40.03 980 

4 ....................................................................................................................................... 19.31 43.56 1,060 

5 ....................................................................................................................................... 27.38 47.14 1,155 

6 ....................................................................................................................................... 29.03 48.84 1,187 

7 ....................................................................................................................................... 35.86 62.72 1,490 

8 ....................................................................................................................................... 49.80 88.65 2,299 

National Weighted Average ...................................................................................... 20.61 43.78 1,078 

Table III.5 presents the estimated 

energy savings (based on percent change 

in EUI and energy costs) associated with 

the 2015 IECC. Overall, the quantitative 

analysis indicates increased energy 

efficiency of residential buildings, as 

regulated by the updated code. 

TABLE III.5—REGULATED ANNUAL ENERGY SAVINGS ESTIMATED FROM THE QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS

Climate zone Site EUI a

(percent) 

Source EUI a

(percent) 

Energy costs a

(percent) 

1 ....................................................................................................................................... 0.78 0.61 0.43 

2 ....................................................................................................................................... 0.88 0.79 0.68 

3 ....................................................................................................................................... 1.13 0.99 0.83 

4 ....................................................................................................................................... 1.08 0.99 0.82 

5 ....................................................................................................................................... 0.87 0.74 0.63 

6 ....................................................................................................................................... 0.85 0.75 0.61 

7 ....................................................................................................................................... 0.88 0.84 0.71 

8 ....................................................................................................................................... 0.95 0.94 0.94 

National Weighted Average ...................................................................................... 0.98 0.87 0.73 

aPercentages are calculated before rounding and may not exactly match percentages calculated between Table III.3 and Table III.4. 

IV. Determination Statement 

Review and evaluation of the 2012 

and 2015 editions of the IECC indicate 

that there are differences between the 

two editions. Qualitative analysis of the 

updated code reveals that many of the 

code changes are anticipated to have a 

neutral impact on energy efficiency, 

while a small number of code changes 

are anticipated to yield improved energy 

efficiency, and a smaller number of code 

changes are anticipated to be 

detrimental to energy efficiency. In 

addition, quantitative analysis of the 

code indicates regulated site energy, 

source energy, and energy cost savings 

of 0.98 percent, 0.87 percent and 0.73 

percent, respectively. Finally, DOE 

acknowledges the reasonable probability 

that the new ERI compliance path will 

result in energy efficiency 

improvements that cannot be quantified 

at this time. DOE has rendered the 

conclusion that the 2015 IECC will 

improve energy efficiency in residential 

buildings, and, therefore, should receive 

an affirmative determination under 

Section 304(a) of ECPA. 

V. State Certification 

Based on today’s determination, each 

State is required to review the 

provisions of its residential building 

code regarding energy efficiency, and 

determine whether it is appropriate for 

such state to revise its building code to 

meet or exceed the energy efficiency 

provisions of the 2015 IECC. (42 U.S.C. 

6833(a)(5)(B)) This action must be made 

not later than 2 years from the date of 

publication of a Notice of 

Determination, unless an extension is 

provided. 

State Review and Update 

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. (42 U.S.C. 6833(a)(2)) States 

have 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 through 

appropriate and prominent media 

outlets, such as in a newspaper of 

general circulation. States should also 

be aware that this determination does 

not apply to IECC chapters specific to 

nonresidential buildings, as defined in 

the IECC. 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 not affecting 

residential buildings. Because state 

codes are based on a variety of model 

code editions, DOE encourages States to 

consider the energy efficiency 

improvements of the 2015 IECC, as well 

as other recent editions of the IECC, 

which may also represent a significant 

energy and cost savings opportunity. 

DOE determinations regarding earlier 

editions of the IECC are available on the 

DOE Building Energy Codes Program 

Web site.8 Further national and state 

analysis is also available.9

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

33262 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 112 / Thursday, June 11, 2015 / Notices 

10Available at http://www.energycodes.gov/

adoption/states. 

11Available at http://energy.gov/gc/office-generalcounsel. 

State Certification Statements 

State certifications are to be sent to 

the address provided in the ADDRESSES

section, or may be submitted to 

BuildingEnergyCodes@ee.doe.gov, and 

must be submitted in accordance with 

the deadline identified in the DATES

section. 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, which 

shall be made available to the public. 

(42 U.S.C. 6833(a)(4)) 

The DOE Building Energy Codes 

Program tracks and reports State code 

adoption and certifications.10 Once a 

State has adopted an updated 

residential code, DOE typically provides 

software, training, and support for the 

new code, as long as the new code is 

based on the national model code (i.e., 

the 2015 IECC). DOE has issued 

previous guidance on how it intends to 

respond to technical assistance requests 

related to implementation resources, 

such as building energy code 

compliance software. (79 FR 15112) 

DOE also recognizes that some States 

develop their own codes that are only 

loosely related to the national model 

codes, and DOE does not typically 

provide technical support for those 

codes. DOE does not prescribe how each 

State adopts and enforces its energy 

codes. 

Requests for Extensions 

Section 304(c) of ECPA 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 substantive 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. This list is not exhaustive. 

Requests are to be sent to the address 

provided in the ADDRESSES section, or 

may be submitted to 

BuildingEnergyCodes@ee.doe.gov. 

VI. Regulatory Review and Analysis 

Review Under Executive Orders 12866 

and 13563 

Today’s action is not a significant 

regulatory action under Section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review’’ (58 FR 51735). 

Accordingly, today’s action was not 

reviewed by the Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB). DOE has also reviewed this 

regulation pursuant to Executive Order 

13563, issued on January 18, 2011. (76 

FR 3281) Executive Order 13563 is 

supplemental to and explicitly reaffirms 

the principles, structures, and 

definitions governing regulatory review 

established in Executive Order 12866. 

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), 

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 also made its procedures and 

policies available on the Office of 

General Counsel Web site.11

DOE has reviewed today’s action 

under the provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act and the procedures and 

policies published in February 2003. 

Today’s action on the 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. 

Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

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 is required by 

Title III of ECPA, as amended, which 

provides that whenever the 1992 MEC, 

or any successor to that code, is revised, 

the Secretary must make a 

determination, not later than 12 months 

after such revision, whether the revised 

code would improve energy efficiency 

in residential buildings and must 

publish notice of such determination in 

the Federal Register. (42 U.S.C. 

6833(a)(5)(A)) If the Secretary 

determines that the revision of 1992 

MEC, or any successor thereof, improves 

the level of energy efficiency in 

residential buildings, then no later than 

two years after the date of the 

publication of such affirmative 

determination, each State is required to 

certify that it has reviewed its 

residential building code regarding 

energy efficiency 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)) 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. 

Review Under Executive Order 13132, 

‘‘Federalism’’ 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255) 

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. Congress 

found that: 

(1) Large amounts of fuel and energy 

are consumed unnecessarily each year 

in heating, cooling, ventilating, and 

providing domestic hot water for newly 

constructed residential and commercial 

buildings because such buildings lack 

adequate energy conservation features; 

(2) Federal voluntary performance 

standards for newly constructed 

buildings can prevent such waste of 

energy, which the Nation can no longer 

afford in view of its current and 

anticipated energy shortage; 

(3) The failure to provide adequate 

energy conservation measures in newly 

constructed buildings increases longterm operating costs that may affect 

adversely the repayment of, and security 

for, loans made, insured, or guaranteed 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 112 / Thursday, June 11, 2015 / Notices 33263 

by Federal agencies or made by 

federally insured or regulated 

instrumentalities; and 

(4) State and local building codes or 

similar controls can provide an existing 

means by which to ensure, in 

coordination with other building 

requirements and with a minimum of 

Federal interference in State and local 

transactions, that newly constructed 

buildings contain adequate energy 

conservation features. (42 U.S.C. 6831) 

Pursuant to Section 304(a) of ECPA, 

DOE is statutorily required to determine 

whether the most recent edition of the 

MEC (or its successor) would improve 

the level of energy efficiency in 

residential buildings as compared to the 

previous edition. If DOE makes an 

affirmative determination, the statute 

requires each State to certify that it has 

reviewed its residential building code 

regarding energy efficiency 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)) 

Executive Order 13132 requires 

meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications unless funds necessary to 

pay the direct costs incurred by the 

State and local governments in 

complying with the regulation are 

provided by the Federal Government. 

(62 FR 43257) 

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. 

Review Under 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 an 

assessment of the anticipated costs and 

benefits of any rule that includes a 

Federal mandate that 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. 

Consistent with previous 

determinations, DOE has completed its 

review, and concluded that impacts on 

state, local, and tribal governments are 

less than the $100 million threshold 

specified in the Unfunded Mandates 

Act. Accordingly, no further action is 

required under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995. 

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. 

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) 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. Both OMB and DOE have 

published established relevant 

guidelines (67 FR 8452 and 67 FR 

62446, respectively). 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. 

Review Under Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use,’’ (66 FR 28355), 

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 OMB 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. 

Review Under Executive Order 13175 

Executive Order 13175, ‘‘Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian tribal 

Governments’’, (65 FR 67249), 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 

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 29, 

2015. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2015–14297 Filed 6–10–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

DOE/NSF Nuclear Science Advisory 

Committee; Meetings 

AGENCY: Office of Science, Department 

of Energy. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES