```

[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 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
```