42688 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 19, 2011 / Notices 

assessment of the project’s nuclear safety 

culture by a group of nuclear industry subject 

matter experts, who have experience in INPO 

evaluations and/or Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) inspections. 

• At both a site and corporate level, we are 

also taking steps to enhance reporting 

mechanisms for safety-related concerns. At 

the Hanford site, we have combined the 

Employee Concerns Programs for ORP and 

the Richland Operations Office to leverage 

existing resources to both strengthen this 

important program and increase its visibility 

at the site. 

• Within EM Headquarters, we have 

established ombudsmen to act as advocates 

for employees and their concerns. We have 

made it easier for employees to use a variety 

of avenues to raise concerns, including: the 

line management for each project, site 

employee concerns programs, union 

representatives, EM’s Office of Safety and 

Security Programs, HSS, and DOE’s Chief of 

Nuclear Safety. Each office now offers 

employees access to both a hotline number 

and general email inbox, so that workers will 

have the opportunity to ask questions or 

voice concerns either directly or 

anonymously. 

• We will also require that both EM 

Headquarters and field sites assess nuclear 

safety culture and the implementation of a 

safety conscious work environment in their 

annual submittals for Integrated Safety 

Management System (ISMS) declarations. 

The specific criteria will build on the 

existing requirements for the ISMS 

declarations and will be expanded to include 

safety culture principles not only from DOE, 

but also from INPO and NRC. 

• Regarding your final recommendation, 

when the Department became aware of Dr. 

Tamosaitis’ petition to the Board, the 

Assistant Secretary for Environmental 

Management immediately requested the 

Department’s Inspector General to perform an 

investigation into the alleged retaliation 

issues raised by Dr. Tamosaitis. The Office of 

the Inspector General decided not to examine 

the merits of the allegations since they were 

already the focus of an ongoing investigation 

by DOL, which has jurisdiction and expertise 

to review whistle blower claims. The 

Department will fully cooperate with the 

DOL as requested in its investigation. 

Even while DOE fully embraces the 

objectives of the Board’s specific 

recommendations, it is important to note that 

DOE does not agree with all of the findings 

included in the Board’s report. 

Specifically, the conclusions drawn by the 

Board about the overall quality of the safety 

culture at WTP differ significantly from the 

HSS findings and are not consistent with the 

safety culture data and field performance 

experience at WTP. We are concerned that 

your letter includes the October 2010 HSS 

review in the list of ‘‘other examples of a 

failed safety culture.’’ The Department 

disagrees with this categorization and 

believes the HSS report provided an accurate 

representation of the nuclear safety culture— 

and existing gaps—at the WTP. 

As discussed above, the HSS review found 

areas in need of immediate improvement; 

however, most WTP personnel did not 

express a loss of confidence in management 

support, a sense of a chilled environment, or 

a fear of retaliation. 

Additionally, in its report, the Board 

alleges that DOE and contractor management 

suppressed technical dissent on the project. 

The Department rightly takes any such claim 

very seriously. Based on an investigation by 

the DOE Office of the General Counsel, 

however, we do not necessarily agree with 

some of the specific details the Board 

provided. For example, our investigation 

found no evidence that DOE or its contractors 

were aware of and sought to suppress a 

technical report. 

Moreover, the Board’s findings appear to 

rely on a number of accounts describing the 

actions and behaviors of both contractor and 

DOE personnel that we believe may have 

been misunderstood by the Board. The 

Department feels compelled to address these 

for the public record and in fairness to its 

personnel. 

To do so effectively, on June 22, 2011, DOE 

requested the Board’s full investigative 

record, including transcripts, interview 

notes, and exhibits. Per your conversation 

with Deputy Secretary Daniel Poneman 

today, we look forward to continuing to 

engage with you to obtain additional details 

from the Board’s investigation. The Board’s 

investigative record or other supporting 

information will allow us to provide further 

details on specific discrepancies between our 

findings and the Board’s and will be of great 

use in defining the structure and scope of 

follow-on safety culture improvement 

initiatives and actions. 

We look forward to working with the Board 

and its staff as we continue to strive towards 

excellence. It is important for the both the 

Department and the Board to function 

collaboratively and openly as we work to 

further improve the safety culture at DOE. To 

facilitate that objective and in recognition of 

the significance of these concerns, I 

recommend we jointly charter a third-party 

review, such as the National Academy of 

Science, to evaluate how we can strengthen 

our relationship and most effectively work 

together to achieve our shared objective of 

helping DOE to safely perform its mission. 

As additional information becomes 

available from our actions addressing this 

Recommendation, we will make it available 

to you. We hope to continue a meaningful, 

regular, and open dialogue on this and all 

safety matters. 

I am designating Mr. Daniel Poneman, the 

Deputy Secretary of Energy, as the 

Responsible Manager for this 

recommendation. He will be charged with 

reporting to me regularly on the specific 

additional steps we are taking to improve the 

safety culture at WTP and all of our facilities. 

Sincerely, 

Steven Chu. 

cc: 

D. Poneman, S–2 

M. Campagnone, HS–1.1 

[FR Doc. 2011–18084 Filed 7–18–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

[Docket No. EERE–2010–BT–DET–0030] 

RIN 1904–AC17 

Updating State Residential Building 

Energy Efficiency Codes 

AGENCY: Department of Energy, Office of 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of final determination. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE or Department) has 

determined that the 2009 edition of the 

International Code Council (ICC) 

International Energy Conservation Code 

(IECC) (2009 IECC or 2009 edition) 

would achieve greater energy efficiency 

in low-rise residential buildings than 

the 2006 IECC, with site energy savings 

estimated at 14%. Also, DOE has 

determined that the 2006 edition of the 

ICC IECC (2006 IECC or 2006 edition) 

would achieve greater energy efficiency 

than the 2003 edition of the ICC IECC 

(2003 IECC or 2003 edition), with site 

energy savings estimated at 1%. Finally, 

DOE has determined that the 2003 

edition would not achieve greater 

energy efficiency than the 2000 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 2009 

IECC. Additionally, this Notice provides 

guidance to States on how the codes 

have changed from previous versions, 

how to submit certifications, and how to 

request extensions of the deadline to 

submit certifications. 

DATES: Certification statements by the 

States must be provided by July 19, 

2013. 

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, e-mail: 

michael.erbesfeld@ee.doe.gov. For legal 

issues contact Chris Calamita, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Office of the 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 19, 2011 / Notices 42689 

1The term State includes ‘‘each of the several 

States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth 

of Puerto Rico, and any territory and possession of 

the United States.’’ 42 U.S.C. 6832(11). 

General Counsel, Forrestal Building, 

Mail Station GC–72, 1000 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585– 

0121, (202) 586–9507, e-mail: 

Christopher.Calamita@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

A. Statutory Requirements 

B. Background 

C. Preliminary Determination 

D. Public Comments Regarding the 

Preliminary Determination 

E. DOE’s Final Determination Statements 

II. Discussion of Changes in the 2003, 2006, 

and 2009 IECC 

A. 2003 IECC Compared With the 2000 

IECC 

B. 2006 IECC Compared With the 2003 

IECC 

C. 2009 IECC Compared With the 2006 

IECC 

III. Comparison of the 2009 IRC to the 2009 

IECC 

IV. Filing Certification Statements With DOE 

A. State Determinations 

B. Certification 

C. Request for Extensions 

V. Regulatory Analysis 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

C. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

D. Review Under Executive Order 13132, 

‘‘Federalism’’ 

E. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

F. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act of 1999 

G. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act of 2001 

H. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

I. Review Under Executive Order 13175 

I. Introduction 

A. Statutory Requirements 

Title III of the Energy Conservation 

and Production Act, as amended 

(ECPA), establishes requirements for the 

Building Energy Standards Program. (42 

U.S.C. 6831–6837) Section 304(b) of 

ECPA, as amended, provides that when 

the 1992 Model Energy Code (MEC), or 

any successor to that code, is revised, 

the Secretary must determine, not later 

than 12 months after the revision, 

whether the revised code would 

improve energy efficiency in residential 

buildings and must publish notice of the 

determination in the Federal Register. 

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

Department, following precedent set by 

the ICC and the American Society of 

Heating, Refrigerating and AirConditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) 

considers high-rise (greater than three 

stories) multifamily residential 

buildings and hotel, motel, and other 

transient residential building types of 

any height as commercial buildings for 

energy code purposes. Low-rise 

residential buildings include one- and 

two-family detached and attached 

buildings, duplexes, townhouses, row 

houses, and low-rise multifamily 

buildings (not greater than three stories) 

such as condominiums and garden 

apartments. 

If the Secretary determines that the 

revision would improve energy 

efficiency then, not later than 2 years 

after the date of the publication of the 

affirmative determination, each State 1 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)) 

In the specific case of this final 

determination, where DOE is publishing 

the results of three residential 

determinations at once, each state 

should certify it has compared its 

residential building code regarding 

energy efficiency to the 2009 IECC and 

made a determination whether it is 

appropriate to revise its code to meet or 

exceed the provisions of the successor 

code. 

B. Background 

The ICC’s IECC establishes national 

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. 

Finally, Federal Register notice 66 FR 

1964, January 10, 2001, simultaneously 

announced the Secretary’s 

determination that the 1998 IECC is an 

improvement over the 1995 MEC and 

the 2000 IECC is an improvement over 

the 1998 IECC. 

C. Preliminary Determination 

DOE published in the Federal 

Register a Notice of Preliminary 

Determination for the 2003, 2006 and 

2009 editions of the IECC that 

preliminarily concluded that the 2009 

version of the IECC would achieve 

greater energy efficiency in low-rise 

residential buildings than the 2006 

IECC. Also, DOE preliminarily 

determined that the 2006 version of the 

IECC would achieve greater energy 

efficiency than the 2003 IECC. Finally, 

DOE preliminarily determined that the 

2003 version of the IECC would not 

achieve greater energy efficiency than 

the 2000 IECC. 75 FR 54131 (Sept. 3, 

2010). 

D. Public Comments Regarding the 

Preliminary Determination 

DOE accepted public comments on 

the preliminary determination for the 

2003, 2006, and 2009 editions of the 

IECC until October 4, 2010. DOE 

received submissions from a total of 

seven different entities. 

The Responsible Energy Codes 

Alliance (RECA) submitted a written 

comment (Docket No. EERE–2010–BT– 

DET–0030–0006.1, pgs. 2–4) stating that 

it strongly supports the Department’s 

determination that the 2006 and 2009 

editions of the IECC would achieve 

greater energy efficiency in buildings 

than the relative previous editions. 

RECA suggests that DOE follow up with 

the States after publication of the Final 

Determination, as well as making 

public, on the Department’s Web site, 

the certification letters that States 

submit. RECA went on to comment that 

the Department’s decision to publish a 

Notice of Preliminary Determination 

rather than a Notice of Determination is 

unnecessary to comply with the Energy 

Policy Act and that adding an extra 

level of administrative procedure is 

likely to further delay determinations on 

future editions of the model energy 

codes. 

In response to RECA’s comment 

concerning following up with the States 

in their certification efforts, DOE notes 

that under section 304(d) and (e) of 

ECPA DOE provides technical 

assistance and funding to States that 

choose to improve and implement State 

residential building energy efficiency 

codes, including increasing and 

verifying compliance with such codes. 

As certification letters are received from 

the States, they will be made public on 

the Department’s Web site at http://


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
42690 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 19, 2011 / Notices 

2Census data reports an average square footage of 

2438 ft 2 in 2009. See, http://www.census.gov/const/ 

C25Ann/sftotalmedavgsqft.pdf. 

energycodes.gov/states/. The 

certification letters will also be 

forwarded to the State Energy Program 

for their consideration. DOE further 

notes that a listing of those States that 

have submitted certification letters from 

their respective governors under the 

requirements of the American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act is available at 

http://www.energy.gov/

InYourState.htm. The letters can be 

found on each State’s Web site under 

Recovery Act activity. 

With regard to issuing a preliminary 

determination, the Department believes 

that there is value in providing an 

opportunity for public comment on its 

analysis, particularly given that a 

positive determination could potentially 

impact States. 

The American Chemistry Council 

(ACC) submitted a written comment 

(Docket No. EERE–2010–BT–DET– 

0030–0007.1, pg. 1) stating that it 

strongly supports the Department’s 

determination that the 2009 edition of 

the IECC would achieve greater energy 

efficiency in buildings than the 2006 

edition. 

The Edison Electric Institute (EEI) 

submitted a written comment (Docket 

No. EERE–2010–BT–DET–0030–0002.1, 

pgs. 1–2) supporting the preliminary 

determination with one concern about 

the analysis. Their concern was that the 

DOE model estimates the annual 

average baseline residential lighting 

energy usage at 2,373 kWh per year. EEI 

suggests that the annual lighting usage 

should be closer to 900 kWh per year. 

The basis of DOE’s lighting energy 

assumptions comes from the 2006 

Mortgage Industry National Home 

Energy Rating Standards developed by 

the Residential Energy Services Network 

(RESNET), http://www.resnet.us/

standards/RESNET_Mortgage_Industry_

National_HERS_Standards.pdf , pg. 3– 

19. These standards assume 2,375 kWh/ 

year of lighting energy use for a newly 

constructed 2400 ft 2 house. The EEI 

comment references data from the 2001 

Residential Energy Consumption Survey 

(RECS), http://www.eia.gov/emeu/recs/

recs2001/enduse2001/enduse2001.html, 

which reports average energy usage for 

all existing housing in the year 2001 to 

be 940 kWh/year. DOE used RESNET as 

opposed to RECS, because it was the 

most up-to-date lighting energy usage 

estimate for a newly constructed 2400 

ft 2 house.2 Therefore, DOE considers 

the 2,375 kWh for annual lighting 

energy usage to be a reasonable estimate 

based on RESNET’s standards. 

The ICC submitted a written comment 

(Docket No. EERE–2010–BT–DET– 

0030–0003.1, pg. 2) stating that DOE’s 

conclusion that the use of the 2009 IECC 

will improve energy efficiency in 

residential buildings that are built to 

meet its requirements is correct. 

The Building Codes Assistance 

Project (BCAP) submitted a written 

comment (Docket No. EERE–2010–BT– 

DET–0030–0004.1, pgs. 1–2) supporting 

the DOE’s determination and suggesting 

that DOE follow up with the States after 

publication of the Final Determination, 

as well as making public which States 

comply with the statutory requirements 

by updating their code, submitting in 

writing why they are choosing not to 

update their code, or by filing for a 

formal extension within two years of 

publication. In regards to BCAP’s 

comments see response to RECA’s 

comments above. 

The Energy Efficient Codes Coalition 

(EECC) submitted a written comment 

(Docket No. EERE–2010–BT–DET– 

0030–0005.1, pg. 2) stating they strongly 

support DOE’s determination that the 

2009 IECC achieves greater energy 

efficiency than the 2006 IECC. 

The Natural Resources Defense 

Council (NRDC) submitted a written 

comment (Docket No. EERE–2010–BT– 

DET–0030–0008.1, pgs. 2–4) stating the 

following three issues: (1) It urges DOE 

to use this opportunity to clarify States’ 

commitments with regards to updating 

and implementing their building energy 

codes; (2) clarify the limits of 

preemption of testing and labeling of 

energy conservation of consumer 

products under section 327 of the 

Energy Policy and Conservation Act 

EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6297); and (3) revise 

the energy efficiency standards for 

Federal buildings to reflect the most 

recent model energy codes. 

In regards to NRDC’s first comment, 

see response to RECA’s comments 

above. In addition, Section IV below 

describes the process for States to file 

certification statements with DOE. 

NRDC’s second comment is in reference 

to the preemption requirements 

applicable to the Federal energy 

efficiency standards for appliances. 

Essentially, section 307(f) of ECPA 

limits the ability of State and local 

building codes to require minimum 

energy efficiency levels of appliances. 

(See, 42 U.S.C. 6297(e)) It is important 

to note that today’s final determination 

does not require States to adopt a 

specific building code. Today’s final 

determination requires a State to certify 

that it has reviewed the provisions of its 

residential building code regarding 

energy efficiency and made a 

determination as to whether it is 

appropriate for such State to revise such 

residential building code provisions to 

meet or exceed the revised code for 

which the Secretary made such 

determination. (42 U.S.C. 6833(a)(5)(B)) 

Section 304 of ECPA does not prescribe 

how State code provisions must achieve 

the required energy efficiencies. This 

final determination does not require 

States to adopt a specific code or to 

require energy efficiency levels of 

covered appliances as part of that code, 

but rather it allows for States to adopt 

building codes that meet or exceed the 

energy efficiency requirements of 

Standard 90.1–2007. As such, there is 

no potential conflict between the State 

code provisions of ECPA and the 

preemption language in EPCA. In 

response to NRDC’s final comment, DOE 

intends to update the baseline standards 

for Federal buildings found in 10 CFR 

part 433 and 10 CFR part 435 that 

reference IECC following the issuance of 

this final determination for 2003, 2006 

and 2009 IECC. 

E. DOE’s Final Determination Statement 

Below is a detailed discussion of the 

Department’s final determinations for 

the 2003, 2006, and 2009 IECCs. 

2003 IECC 

DOE’s review and evaluation found 

that there are not significant differences 

in energy efficiency between the 2003 

edition and the 2000 edition of the 

IECC. Although there are a few changes 

that would modestly improve the energy 

efficiency of residential buildings, there 

are a number of changes that reduce 

energy efficiency in certain situations. 

Most of the changes to the IECC between 

the 2000 and 2003 editions would not 

effect energy efficiency but rather make 

the code simpler and clearer for 

designers, builders, and code 

compliance officials to understand and 

use. Based on these findings, the 

Department has concluded that the 2003 

edition of the IECC should not receive 

an affirmative determination under 

Section 304(b) of ECPA. The 

Department concludes that there is at 

best a slight improvement in energy 

efficiency for some residential 

buildings, but this potential 

improvement is not sufficient to merit 

an affirmative determination. This is 

discussed in further detail below. It 

should be noted that DOE is not 

concluding that the energy efficiency of 

the 2003 IECC is less stringent than the 

2000 IECC. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 19, 2011 / Notices 42691 

3Estimated from USGS Population Places data 

that allows mapping of population to climate 

(http://geonames.usgs.gov/domestic/ 

download_data.htm). 

4Triedler, B., R. Lucas, M. Modera, J. Miller. 

1996. Impact of Residential Duct Insulation on 

HVAC Energy Use and Life-Cycle Costs to 

Consumers. American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers. 

2006 IECC 

The residential portion of the 2006 

IECC has been extensively changed from 

that of the 2003 IECC. However, the 

most significant changes to the code 

between 2003 and 2006 simplify the 

code format rather than fundamentally 

changing the overall (national average) 

energy efficiency of the code. 

Multifamily buildings, which in the past 

have had separate, less stringent thermal 

requirements, are an exception. By 

eliminating the separate requirements, 

the 2006 IECC increased the energy 

efficiency of multifamily buildings. 

Although the most significant 2006 

changes did not directly target 

efficiency improvements, the new 

format of the code does result in some 

energy efficiency differences. The 

requirements for any given building 

may have increased or decreased based 

on the specific location (climate) and 

building design. The Department has 

found that overall the 2006 IECC has an 

improvement in energy efficiency 

compared to the 2003 IECC. The 

Department concludes that the 2006 

edition of the IECC receives an 

affirmative determination under Section 

304(b) of EPCA. A Technical Support 

Document (TSD) for the 2006 IECC is 

available at the following Web site; 

http://www.energycodes.gov/status/ 

determinations_res.stm. DOE has 

prepared a TSD for the 2006 IECC 

determination and not for the 2003 IECC 

and 2009 IECC determination for the 

following reasons. The 2006 IECC 

contained a very extensive change in the 

format of the code compared to the 2003 

IECC. In addition, the changes in the 

format to the 2006 IECC reduce energy 

efficiency in some cases and increase 

energy efficiency in others. DOE 

deemed that its analysis to determine 

whether energy efficiency was improved 

in the 2006 IECC would be better 

addressed in a TSD rather than in this 

Notice. As discussed above, for the 2003 

IECC determination, there were very few 

changes from the 2000 IECC and 

therefore no TSD is needed. For the 

2009 IECC determination, discussed 

below, there are a substantial number of 

changes that effect energy efficiency, but 

nearly all these changes are clear 

improvements that will reduce energy 

use. Therefore, highly detailed 

calculations are not needed to 

determine whether energy efficiency is 

improved overall in the code and these 

changes are also discussed in this 

Notice rather than a TSD. 

2009 IECC 

The 2009 IECC has substantial 

revisions compared to the 2006 IECC. 

Many of these revisions appear to 

directly improve energy efficiency, and 

the sum results of all changes appear to 

result in a significant increase in code 

stringency. Therefore, the Department 

concludes that the 2009 edition of the 

IECC receives an affirmative 

determination under Section 304(b) of 

EPCA. 

II. Discussion of Changes in the 2003, 

2006, and 2009 IECC 

A. 2003 IECC Compared With the 2000 

IECC 

As a whole, the 2003 IECC’s 

provisions for energy efficiency in 

residential buildings are largely 

unchanged from the 2000 IECC. There 

are some changes in the code that can 

have a modest effect on energy 

efficiency. These are discussed below. 

In addition, there is a variety of minor 

changes intended to make the code 

more concise, more complete, and better 

organized, but not more or less 

stringent. For example, more specific 

requirements have been added for steel 

roofs/ceilings and floors to correspond 

to those already in the code for steel 

walls. Another example is the relocation 

of the 51 pages of state maps from the 

middle of the code to the back of the 

code. Additionally, the performance 

path in chapter 4 of the 2003 IECC 

contains a variety of modest 

improvements compared to the 2000 

IECC, which creates more concise 

requirements. 

1. Changes in the 2003 IECC From the 

2000 IECC That Improve Energy 

Efficiency 

a. Increased Duct Insulation 

Requirements 

Duct insulation requirements 

generally increased in the 2003 IECC. 

The 2003 IECC requirements are shown 

in Table 1. These are somewhat difficult 

to compare to the 2000 IECC 

requirements because the latter are more 

complex, differing between ducts in 

unconditioned spaces and ducts 

completely exterior to the building, and 

distinguishing requirements by the 

design temperature difference between 

the duct air and the space in which the 

ducts are located. 

The 2000 IECC requirements for ducts 

in unconditioned spaces are shown in 

Table 2. Assuming typical supply air 

temperatures of 55°F for cooling and 

95°F for heating (for heat pumps), the 

2000 IECC insulation requirement for 

supply ducts in unconditioned spaces is 

R–5 (minimum) for nearly all cases. 

Insulation required by the 2000 IECC for 

return ducts in unconditioned spaces 

will generally be R–3.3 in warmer 

climates and R–5 in colder climates. 

For the very common case of supply 

ducts in attics, which is likely to have 

the greatest impact on energy use, the 

2003 IECC always requires at least R–8, 

which exceeds the 2000 IECC’s R–5 

requirement. For supply ducts in other 

unconditioned spaces, the 2003 IECC’s 

requirements exceed the 2000 IECC’s 

requirements in all cases except very 

warm locations (less than 1500 heating 

degree-days), where the 2003 IECC 

requires R–4 compared to the 2000 

IECC’s requirement of R–5. Because 

supply ducts transport air in its hottest 

(or coldest) condition, insulation has its 

greatest impact on these ducts. The 2003 

IECC is almost always more stringent 

than the 2000 IECC for supply ducts. 

This includes all supply ducts in attics 

and, based on the distribution of 

population,3 more than 80% of ducts in 

other unconditioned spaces. 

Requirements for return ducts in 

attics are slightly more stringent in the 

2003 IECC than the 2000 IECC (R–4 vs. 

R–3.3) in the warmest climates, slightly 

less stringent (R–4 vs. R–5) in mid 

climates, and slightly more stringent (R– 

6 vs. R–5) in the coldest climates. 

Research 4 showing the impact on 

heating and cooling energy use due to 

duct insulation is summarized in Table 

3. Based on this research, the 

Department estimates that improved 

duct insulation in the 2003 IECC will 

reduce heating and cooling energy use 

by about 1%. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
42692 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 19, 2011 / Notices 

5EnergyGuage (DOE–2) simulation tool is 

available at http://doe2.com/. 

TABLE 1—DUCT INSULATION REQUIREMENTS IN THE 2003 IECC 

Annual heating degree days base 65 °F 

Insulation R-value (h· ft 2·°F)/Btu 

Ducts in unconditioned attics or 

outside building 

Ducts in unconditioned basements, crawl spaces, and 

other unconditioned spaces 

Supply Return Supply Return 

Below 1,500 ..................................................................................................... 8 4 4 0 

1,500 to 3,500 .................................................................................................. 8 4 6 2 

3,501 to 7,500 .................................................................................................. 8 4 8 2 

Above 7,500 ..................................................................................................... 11 6 11 2 

TABLE 2—INSULATION REQUIREMENTS (R-VALUE, H-FT2-F/BTU) FOR DUCTS IN UNCONDITIONED SPACES IN THE 2000 

IECC 

Design Temperature Difference (TD) between air temperature in duct and space in which duct is located 

(degrees F) Cooling Heating 

TD ≤ 15 .............................................................................................................................................................. None required ... None required 

40 ≥ TD > 15 ..................................................................................................................................................... 3.3 .................... 3.3 

TD > 40 .............................................................................................................................................................. 5.0 .................... 5.0 

TABLE 3—HEATING AND COOLING ENERGY SAVINGS (PERCENT) FROM INCREASED DUCT INSULATION (ATLANTA, NATURAL

GAS HEATING) 

Attic Basement Crawlspace 

R–4 to R–6 .......................................................................................................................................................... 2.3 1.6 1.8 

R–6 to R–8 .......................................................................................................................................................... 1.4 0.9 1.1 

b. Minor Changes to ‘‘Systems Analysis’’ 

Performance Compliance Method 

There are two changes that can 

increase the stringency of the 

performance path in Chapter 4 of the 

2003 IECC in certain cases. First, any 

house proposed to use electric 

resistance heating must have equal or 

lower calculated energy use than a 

hypothetical ‘‘standard design’’ that 

uses a more efficient electric air source 

heat pump. This change makes the 

performance approach much more 

stringent for designs that have electric 

resistance heating. However, 

compliance can be achieved for these 

designs using the prescriptive 

compliance methods in chapters 5 and 

6, thereby bypassing the increased 

stringency of the performance path. 

Second, a provision has also been 

added requiring that the least efficient 

orientation in terms of energy use be 

assumed for a proposed group of 

residences with identical designs. 

Therefore, in a development where the 

same design is built on multiple lots 

facing various directions, the 

compliance analysis must be based on 

the least advantageous orientation. In 

most of the United States, this is the 

orientation that points the most window 

area toward a westerly direction, 

maximizing solar heat gains in summer 

afternoons and therefore increasing air 

conditioning energy use. Because 

proposed building designs must have a 

calculated annual energy use equal to or 

less than that of a home with window 

area equally distributed toward the four 

cardinal directions, the requirement to 

assume the least efficient orientation 

effectively makes the code more 

stringent because the increased energy 

use from the least efficient orientation 

must be offset by improved energy 

efficiency. This requirement in the 2003 

IECC will have only modest average 

impact because it affects only the 

performance approach and identical 

house designs used repeatedly in a 

development. 

2. Changes in the 2003 IECC From the 

2000 IECC That Decrease Energy 

Efficiency 

a. Sunroom Additions 

A special set of requirements has been 

added to Table 502.2.5 of the 2003 IECC 

for sunroom additions having a floor 

area of less than 500 ft2 (46.5 m2). 

Sunroom additions are permitted to 

have ceiling, wall insulation, and 

window U-factor requirements that are 

typically less stringent than the 

requirements for all other types of 

residential construction. These special 

requirements for sunrooms only apply 

to additions to existing dwellings, not to 

sunrooms that are built as part of a new 

dwelling. In the 2000 IECC, there were 

no special requirements for sunroom 

additions; they had to meet the same 

requirements as other residential 

construction. To qualify for the less 

stringent requirements in the 2003 IECC, 

the sunroom addition must be capable 

of being controlled as a separately 

heated and cooled zone. Additionally, 

new walls, doors or windows between 

the sunroom and the house must meet 

the envelope requirements of the IECC. 

Finally, the glazing area must exceed 

40% of the gross area of the exterior 

walls and roof to qualify as a sunroom 

in the IECC. 

Testing with the EnergyGuage (DOE– 

2) 5 simulation tool indicates that for a 

500 ft2 sunroom, the less stringent 2003 

requirements could add about $200 to 

the annual energy costs in Chicago if the 

sunroom is both heated and cooled all 

year. Impacts are much smaller in 

Houston, about $10 added energy costs. 

However, this increase in energy 

consumption is mitigated (on average) 

by several factors. First, the 

requirements apply to a very small 

fraction of all new residential 

construction. The Wall Street Journal 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 19, 2011 / Notices 42693 

6Some compliance paths defined requirements 

based on 17 ‘‘zones’’ based on HDD ranges. 

7The 2006 IECC defines residential buildings as 

‘‘R–3 buildings, as well as R–2 and R–4 buildings 

three stories or less in height above grade’’. The R– 

2/3/4 designation is from the International Building 

Code and these are defined as follows: 

R–2—Apartment houses, boarding houses, 

convents, dormitories, fraternities and sororities, 

monasteries. 

R–3—one or two family dwellings. 

R–4—Residential Care/Assisted living. 

R–2 and R–4 buildings that have more stories are 

covered commercial codes. 

Online (June 3, 2003) reports $3 billion 

worth of sunroom construction each 

year, or less than one percent of all 

residential construction expenditures. 

But that fraction includes new 

construction as well as additions, so the 

fraction representing sunroom additions 

is less than 1%. Second, it is expected 

that many sunrooms will not be 

maintained at comfort conditions all 

year, further reducing the overall 

impact. Finally, because the 2003 IECC 

requires that the sunroom be thermally 

isolated from the rest of the house and 

that walls, windows, and doors between 

the sunroom and house meet the code’s 

envelope requirements, the thermal 

impact when these spaces are not 

actively conditioned is negligible. 

Therefore, the overall impact of this 

reduction in stringency to national 

energy use is expected to be extremely 

small. 

b. Climate Zone Maps 

The IECC contains prescriptive 

envelope requirements (insulation Rvalues and glazing U-factors) in Chapter 

6 and Section 502.2.4 of the code. In the 

2000 IECC, only the heating degree-days 

for the city where the housing was to be 

built could be used to determine the 

applicable prescriptive envelope 

requirements. In the 2003 IECC, the 

heating degree-days can still be used to 

determine the requirements, but 

additionally the designer/builder can 

use the climate zones provided in the 

state maps in the IECC. For most 

locations, the Chapter 3 climate zones 

and heating degree-days lead to the 

exact same requirements. Using the 

climate zones in the maps instead of the 

heating degree-days will allow about 

10% of cities nationwide to have a less 

stringent set of prescriptive 

requirements. However, about 20% of 

cities nationwide will have more 

stringent requirements when the climate 

zones are used with the prescriptive 

requirements. If the designer/builders 

select to use the climate zone maps in 

the 10% of cities where it lowers 

requirements but not in the 20% of 

locations where it raises requirements, 

the 2003 code effectively is less 

stringent. However, DOE believes code 

users will make use of the climate zone 

maps even in many of the locations 

where they raise requirements. DOE 

does not anticipate that most code users 

will go through the level of effort of 

determining which method of 

determining climate based requirements 

may give less stringent requirements. In 

fact, DOE believes most users will not 

even be aware of these differences, but 

will prefer the climate zone maps 

because of their simplicity. The 

REScheck compliance materials 

developed by the DOE utilize the same 

heating degree day based requirements 

for both the 2000 and 2003 IECC. 

c. Increased U-Factor for Skylight 

Replacements 

The maximum U-factor for skylight 

replacements in existing buildings 

(Section 502.2.5 of the IECC) is raised 

from a U-factor of 0.50 to a U-factor of 

0.60 for locations above 1,999 heating 

degree-days. A higher U-factor reduces 

energy efficiency. 

3. Net Impact of Changes in the 2003 

IECC From the 2000 IECC on Energy 

Efficiency 

Ultimately, the DOE finds that the net 

impact of the changes in the 2003 IECC 

on energy efficiency is not sufficient to 

merit an affirmative determination. 

The change in the 2003 IECC that is 

expected to have the greatest impact on 

the nation’s energy efficiency is the 

improved duct insulation, because a 

majority of new residential buildings 

have ducts that pass through attics, 

crawl spaces, unheated basements and 

other spaces where the IECC requires 

duct insulation. The improved duct 

insulation in the 2003 IECC is estimated 

to save about 1% of heating and cooling 

costs. 

DOE believes that the changes to the 

system analysis method are not 

sufficient to sway the decision on 

whether the determination is affirmative 

or not. This performance compliance 

method is less commonly used, and, as 

it is optional, the modest energy savings 

from the improvements in this 

compliance method can easily be 

bypassed by choosing a different 

method. 

Although the changes that effect 

sunroom additions and skylight 

replacements reduce energy efficiency, 

DOE does not believe that they will lead 

to substantial impacts on national 

energy use, as they do not apply to new 

buildings and only apply to specific 

types or retrofits and additions to 

existing buildings. The skylight U-factor 

change is only a modest reduction in 

energy efficiency and sunroom 

additions are a small fraction of the 

residential construction market. 

The addition of the climate zone maps 

in the 2003 IECC as an option to using 

city-specific heating degree-day data 

allows for the possibility of 

preferentially lowering thermal 

envelope requirements in about 10% of 

all national locations. However, it will 

be difficult to exploit this change 

because the code user must perform 

relatively complex calculations rather 

than using the popular and user-friendly 

REScheck software. 

In sum, DOE concludes the changes to 

duct insulation requirements will 

slightly improve energy efficiency in 

most houses, however, the reductions in 

energy efficiency for skylight 

replacements and sunroom additions 

are expected to at least partially offset 

these savings from a national energy 

total use perspective. Additionally, the 

vast majority of all requirements in the 

IECC are unchanged from 2000 to 2003. 

For these reasons, DOE finds 

insufficient improvements in the 2003 

IECC to merit an affirmative 

determination. 

B. 2006 IECC Compared With the 2003 

IECC 

1. Changes in the 2006 IECC From the 

2003 IECC That Improve Energy 

Efficiency 

The residential portion of the IECC in 

general and the building thermal 

envelope (ceilings, walls, doors, 

windows, foundations, etc.) 

requirements in particular were 

completely restructured from 2003 to 

2006. This resulted in the code 

becoming much shorter and simpler, its 

volume reduced from 38 pages to 9 

pages. The climate basis on which 

envelope requirements depend was 

completely reworked. The 2003 IECC 

has envelope requirements that vary 

continuously with heating degree-days 

(HDD),6 or with 17 HDD zones 

(geographically-defined based on 

counties, roughly following 500–HDD 

bins). In contrast, the 2006 IECC has 

eight geographically-defined climate 

zones with all borders set on county 

boundaries. 

A major change to envelope 

requirements was the combining of 

separate 2003 IECC requirements for 

two building categories (1) One- and 

two-family dwellings, and (2) all other 

low-rise residential buildings 7. The 

2006 IECC requirements are the same for 

all low-rise residential building types, 

which has the effect of increasing the 

energy efficiency of the second category, 

all other low-rise buildings. Also 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
42694 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 19, 2011 / Notices 

eliminated were nine related tables that 

provided predefined packages of 

thermal transmittance prescriptive 

requirements (glazing, ceiling-roof, 

exterior wall, floor over unconditioned 

space, basement and crawl space walls, 

and floor slab on grade) for different 

window to wall area ratios (WWR). In 

their place, the 2006 IECC provides a 

single table of predefined packages of 

thermal transmittance prescriptive 

requirements that do not vary with 

WWR. 

Table 4 shows a comparison of major 

prescriptive envelope requirements for a 

single-family house at a typical 15% 

WWR. The requirements for the 2003 

IECC will differ from those shown in 

Table 4 for other WWRs and for 

multifamily buildings. The 2006 IECC 

climate zones do not exactly map to the 

2003 IECC zones. Table 5 shows a more 

detailed estimate of how residential 

construction maps from the 2006 IECC 

compare to the 2003 IECC climate 

zones. 

TABLE 4—COMPARISON OF THE 2003 IECC AND 2006 IECC ENVELOPE THERMAL COMPONENT PRESCRIPTIVE CRITERIA

FOR ONE- AND TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS AT 15% WINDOW AREA

IECC climate zone 

Heating degree days 

Maximum Minimum 

2003 2006 

Glazing 

U-factor 

Ceiling 

R-value 

Wall 

R-value 

Floor 

R-value 

2003 2006 2003 2006 2003 2006 2003 2006 

1 1 2 0–499 ........................................................ Any 1.20 R–13 R–30 R–11 R–13 R–11 R–13 

2 2 500–999 .................................................... 0.90 0.75 R–19 R–30 R–11 R–13 R–11 R–13 

3 ................ 1,000–1,499 .............................................. 0.75 0.75 R–19 R–30 R–11 R–13 R–11 R–13 

4 ................ 1,500–1,999 .............................................. 0.75 0.75 R–26 R–30 R–13 R–13 R–11 R–13 

5 3 2,000–2,499 .............................................. 0.65 0.65 R–30 R–30 R–13 R–13 R–11 R–19 

6 ................ 2,500–2,999 .............................................. 0.60 0.65 R–30 R–30 R–13 R–13 R–19 R–19 

7 ................ 3,000–3,499 .............................................. 0.55 0.65 R–30 R–30 R–13 R–13 R–19 R–19 

8 4 3,500–3,999 .............................................. 0.50 0.40 R–30 R–38 R–13 R–13 R–19 R–19 

9 ................ 4,000–4,499 .............................................. 0.45 0.40 R–38 R–38 R–13 R–13 R–19 R–19 

10 ................ 4,500–4,999 .............................................. 0.45 0.40 R–38 R–38 R–16 R–13 R–19 R–19 

11 5 5,000–5,499 .............................................. 0.45 0.35 R–38 R–38 R–18 R–19 R–19 R–19/30 

12 ................ 5,500–5,999 .............................................. 0.40 0.35 R–38 R–38 R–18 R–19 R–21 R–19/30 

13 ................ 6,000–6,499 .............................................. 0.35 0.35 R–38 R–38 R–18 R–19 R–21 R–19/30 

14 ................ 6,500–6,999 .............................................. 0.35 0.35 R–49 R–38 R–21 R–19 R–21 R–19/30 

15 5 6 7,000–8,499 .............................................. 0.35 0.35 R–49 R–38/49 R–21 R–19 R–21 R–21 

16 6 8,500–8,999 .............................................. 0.35 0.35 R–49 R–49 R–21 R–21 R–21 R–21 

17 7 9,000–12,999 ............................................ 0.35 0.35 R–49 R–49 R–21 R–21 R–21 R–21 

TABLE 4 CONTINUED—COMPARISON OF THE 2003 IECC AND 2006 IECC ENVELOPE THERMAL COMPONENT

PRESCRIPTIVE CRITERIA FOR ONE- AND TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS AT 15% WINDOW AREA

IECC climate zone 

Heating degree days 

Minimum 

2003 2006 

Basement wall 

R-value 

Slab perimeter 

R-value and depth 

feet 

Crawl space wall 

R-value 

2003 2006 2003 2006 2003 2006 

1 1 2 0–499 ................................................................................................ R–0 R–0 R–0 R–0 R–0 R–0 

2 2 500–999 ............................................................................................ R–0 R–0 R–0 R–0 R–4 R–0 

3 ................ 1,000–1,499 ...................................................................................... R–0 R–0 R–0 R–0 R–5 R–0 

4 ................ 1,500–1,999 ...................................................................................... R–5 R–0 R–0 R–0 R–5 R–0 

5 3 2,000–2,499 ...................................................................................... R–5 R–10/13 R–0 R–0 R–6 R–5 

6 ................ 2,500–2,999 ...................................................................................... R–6 R–10/13 R–4,2 R–0 R–7 R–5 

7 ................ 3,000–3,499 ...................................................................................... R–7 R–10/13 R–4,2 R–0 R–8 R–5 

8 4 3,500–3,999 ...................................................................................... R–8 R–10/13 R–5,2 R–10,2 R–10 R–10 

9 ................ 4,000–4,499 ...................................................................................... R–8 R–10/13 R–5,2 R–10,2 R–11 R–10 

10 ................ 4,500–4,999 ...................................................................................... R–9 R–10/13 R–6,2 R–10,2 R–17 R–10 

11 5 5,000–5,499 ...................................................................................... R–9 R–10/13 R–6,2 R–10,2 R–17 R–10 

12 ................ 5,500–5,999 ...................................................................................... R–10 R–10/13 R–9,4 R–10,2 R–19 R–10 

13 ................ 6,000–6,499 ...................................................................................... R–10 R–10/13 R–9,4 R–10,2 R–20 R–10 

14 ................ 6,500–6,999 ...................................................................................... R–11 R–10/13 R–11,4 R–10,2 R–20 R–10 

15 5 6 7,000–8,499 ...................................................................................... R–11 R–10/13 R–13,4 R–10,2 R–20 R–10 

16 6 8,500–8,999 ...................................................................................... R–18 R–10/13 R–14,4 R–10,4 R–20 R–10 

17 7 9,000–12,999 .................................................................................... R–19 R–10/13 R–18 R–10,4 R–20 R–10 

TABLE 5—PERCENTAGE OF HOMES IN EACH 2006 IECC CLIMATE ZONE THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN IN EACH 2003 IECC 

CLIMATE ZONE

2003 IECC climate zone 

2006 IECC climate zone 

1 2 3 4 except 

Marine 

5 and 

Marine 4 6 7 & 8 

1 ........................................................................................... 100 5 0 0 0 0 0 

2 ........................................................................................... 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 

3 ........................................................................................... 0 40 22 0 0 0 0 

4 ........................................................................................... 0 31 10 0 0 0 0 

5 ........................................................................................... 0 3 18 0 0 0 0 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 19, 2011 / Notices 42695 

TABLE 5—PERCENTAGE OF HOMES IN EACH 2006 IECC CLIMATE ZONE THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN IN EACH 2003 IECC 

CLIMATE ZONE—Continued 

2003 IECC climate zone 

2006 IECC climate zone 

1 2 3 4 except 

Marine 

5 and 

Marine 4 6 7 & 8 

6 ........................................................................................... 0 0 28 0 0 0 0 

7 ........................................................................................... 0 0 16 4 0 0 0 

8 ........................................................................................... 0 0 6 9 0 0 0 

9 ........................................................................................... 0 0 0 13 1 0 0 

10 ......................................................................................... 0 0 0 28 6 0 0 

11 ......................................................................................... 0 0 0 41 8 0 0 

12 ......................................................................................... 0 0 0 5 28 0 0 

13 ......................................................................................... 0 0 0 0 31 0 0 

14 ......................................................................................... 0 0 0 0 20 12 0 

15 ......................................................................................... 0 0 0 0 6 81 3 

16 ......................................................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 5 6 

17 ......................................................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 2 85 

18 ......................................................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 

19 ......................................................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 

2. Net Impact of Changes From the 2003 

to 2006 IECC 

The Department has conducted an 

analysis and has found that the 2006 

IECC would modestly increase energy 

efficiency on an overall national average 

basis. This analysis is summarized 

below; a TSD published in conjunction 

with this Notice contains the full 

results. The Department stresses that 

this increased energy efficiency is based 

on an average across all new residential 

buildings. The analysis identified 

combinations of locations and building 

design where the 2006 IECC would 

slightly reduce energy efficiency; 

however, the analysis indicates that the 

reductions would be more than offset by 

cases where energy efficiency is 

improved. 

Table 6 provides the overall results of 

the comparative analysis of the 

prescriptive envelope requirements of 

the 2006 IECC and the 2003 IECC. The 

DOE–2 energy simulation software was 

used to calculate these values. The 2006 

IECC has a 1% average overall national 

energy savings. The table shows 

combined results for single-family and 

multifamily construction accounting for 

weighted average building 

characteristics. Table 6 illustrates 

significant regional differences that are 

primarily a result of the revised climate 

zones. In most climates, the two codes 

are very nearly equivalent. In climate 

zone 5, the 2006 IECC shows a 

substantial improvement (about 5%). In 

climate zone 3, the 2003 IECC is more 

energy efficient (by about 5%). 

TABLE 6—ANNUAL ENERGY SAVINGS (MBTU) OF 2006 IECC COMPARED TO 2003 IECC FOR PRESCRIPTIVE BUILDING

ENVELOPE REQUIREMENTS

2006 IECC climate zone 

Foundation Type 

Average Percent 

Heated savings 

basement Crawl space Slab-ongrace 

Unheated 

basement 

Zone 1 .................................................................... 0 .5 0 .4 0 .3 0 .4 0 .3 2 

Zone 2 .................................................................... ¥0 .1 1 .4 0 .9 ¥0 .1 0 .9 3 

Zone 3 .................................................................... ¥8 .6 ¥1 ¥3 .3 ¥1 .5 ¥3 .4 ¥5 

Zone 4 .................................................................... 2 0 .8 0 .6 0 .7 1 .1 1 

Zone 5 .................................................................... 5 .5 7 .3 4 .2 6 .3 5 .7 5 

Zone 6 .................................................................... 1 .1 3 .3 0 2 .3 1 .4 1 

Zone 7 .................................................................... ¥2 4 .5 0 .4 3 .4 ¥0 .4 0 

Average .................................................................. 2 .4 2 .7 ¥0 .3 3 .3 1 1 

The analysis underlying the results in 

Table 6 does not account for all changes 

in the IECC from 2003 to 2006. For 

example, the 2006 IECC requires 

increased duct insulation in certain 

cases. On the other hand, the 2006 IECC 

is missing requirements for pool heater 

controls (on-off switch) and pool covers 

contained in the 2003 IECC. However, 

these and a few other miscellaneous 

changes do not appear to alter a 

determination that the 2006 IECC has a 

modest improvement in overall energy 

efficiency compared to the 2003 IECC. 

The Department expects all heated 

pools to have an on-off switch, basic 

pool covers are dependent on the 

diligent occupant behavior for 

removing/covering the pool, and many 

homes do not have a pool or may not 

heat their pool. Furthermore, the 2003 

IECC allows the pool cover requirement 

to be bypassed if 20% of the heating 

energy is provided by solar heat from 

the sun striking the pool surface. 

There was one particular issue that 

received the most extensive debate 

during the 2006 IECC development 

process. This issue was how the 2006 

IECC sets requirements based on the 

window area of a home. There was 

considerable concern because a 

residential building with unlimited 

windows (e.g., an ‘‘all glass’’ house) can 

be built without any penalty under the 

2006 IECC. This is not the case in the 

2003 IECC, where, as the WWR becomes 

higher, the code requires improved 

performance of windows and/or wall 

insulation. However, this effect is offset 

in two ways. First, while the 2003 IECC 

becomes more stringent at high WWRs, 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
42696 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 19, 2011 / Notices 

8Washington State University. 2001. Washington 

State Energy Code Duct Leakage Study Report. 

WSUCEEP01105. Washington State University 

Cooperative Extension Energy Program, Olympia, 

Washington. 

it also becomes less stringent at low 

WWRs, whereas the 2006 IECC does not. 

Second, the 2006 IECC increased the 

baseline efficiency requirements (Ufactor) of glazing to almost equal thencurrent Energy Star levels in most 

locations. The Department’s analysis of 

the IECC’s requirements related to 

window area indicate that the 2006 code 

is not less stringent than the 2003 IECC 

when the distribution of window areas 

in all residential buildings is accounted 

for. 

A major factor influencing the 

Department’s final determination of 

improved efficiency in the 2006 IECC is 

the improvement in energy efficiency 

for multifamily housing. The building 

envelope requirements in 2006 IECC are 

identical for all residential building 

types. This is not the case in the 2003 

IECC where the requirements for 

multifamily building types are 

considerably less stringent than those 

for one and two-family dwellings. This 

is shown in the wall requirements in 

Figure 502.2(1) of the 2003 IECC. While 

multifamily residential construction has 

a much smaller market share than 

single-family in terms of number of 

dwelling units, there is a nearly 

universal improvement in requirements 

for multifamily buildings regardless of 

building design or climate zone. As 

indicated below in the certification 

discussion, high-rise (greater than three 

stories) multifamily residential 

buildings and hotel, motel, and other 

transient residential building types of 

any height are classified as commercial 

buildings for energy code purposes. 

However, the building envelope 

revisions in 2006 IECC would impact 

residential buildings such as 

townhouses, row houses, and low-rise 

multifamily buildings (not greater than 

three stories) such as condominiums 

and garden apartments. 

C. 2009 IECC Compared With the 2006 

IECC 

1. Changes in the 2009 IECC From the 

2006 IECC That Improve Energy 

Efficiency 

Each of the major changes in the 2009 

IECC that impact energy efficiency is 

examined individually below. All but 

one of the changes improve energy 

efficiency. 

1. Changes That Improve Energy 

Efficiency 

a. Lighting 

The 2009 IECC has a major new 

requirement that a minimum of 50% of 

all lamps (bulbs, tubes, etc.) be ‘‘high 

efficacy,’’ which is defined to include 

compact fluorescent lights (CFLs), T–8 

or smaller diameter fluorescent tubes, or 

other products achieving comparable or 

better lumen-per-watt ratings. 

Traditional incandescent bulbs do not 

meet this requirement. The 2006 IECC 

had no lighting requirements for 

residential buildings. The Department 

has referenced the 2006 Mortgage 

Industry National Home Energy Rating 

Standards developed by the Residential 

Energy Services Network (RESNET) to 

assume 2,375 kWh/year of lighting 

energy use for a newly constructed 2400 

ft2 house. The new lighting 

requirements in the 2009 IECC could 

reduce this lighting energy use by about 

25%. 

b. Building Envelope Thermal Measures 

The 2009 IECC has a number of 

changes that improve energy efficiency 

in the building envelope. There are 

direct increases in prescriptive building 

envelope requirements in Tables 402.1.1 

and 402.1.3 of the IECC. Table 7 below 

shows these changes. Additionally, 

there were a number of minor 

improvements, including establishing 

an area limit of 24 ft2 on the door 

exemption from U-factor requirements. 

TABLE 7—IMPROVEMENTS IN PRESCRIPTIVE ENVELOPE REQUIREMENTS

Component 2006 IECC 2009 IECC 

Maximum fenestration U-factor (excluding skylights) ............................. Zone 2: 0.75 ..................................

Zone 3: 0.65 ..................................

Zone 4: 0.40 ..................................

Zone 2: 0.65. 

Zone 3: 0.50. 

Zone 4: 0.35. 

Maximum fenestration solar heat gain coefficient (SHGC) in Zones 1 

through 3.

0.40 ................................................ 0.30. 

Basement wall insulation in Zones 6 through 8 ...................................... R–13 cavity or R–10 continuous 

insulation.

R–19 cavity or R–15 continuous 

insulation. 

Basement wall insulation in northern section of Zone 3 ......................... No insulation required ................... R–13 cavity or R–5 continuous insulation. 

Wood-Frame wall insulation (all but basements) in Zones 5 and 6 ....... R–19 .............................................. R–20. 

Floor insulation in Zones 7 and 8 ........................................................... R–30 .............................................. R–38. 

c. Building Envelope Air Leakage 

Although the fundamental 

requirement to seal all potential sources 

of leaks has not changed, the air leakage 

control specifications in Section 402.4 

of the 2009 IECC are considerably more 

detailed than in the 2006 edition, 

requiring either a comprehensive 

inspection against a checklist of 

component sealing criteria or a wholebuilding pressurization test. There is a 

new requirement that fireplaces have 

gasketed doors to limit air leakage. 

Additionally, compliance with Standard 

ASTM E283 is now required to limit air 

leakage through recessed light fixtures. 

The 2006 IECC only required recessed 

light fixtures to be sealed but did not 

require compliance with the ASTM 

standard. This testing of fixtures is 

expected to help eliminate energy 

consuming leaks through these fixtures, 

which can be a very common method of 

lighting in kitchens and other rooms in 

new houses. 

d. Duct Leakage Limits and Testing 

Requirement 

The 2009 IECC contains a new 

requirement that buildings with ducts 

that pass outside the conditioned space 

(for example, if ducts are in 

unconditioned attics, garages or 

crawlspaces) have the ducts pressure 

tested and shown to have a maximum 

leakage rate below specified limits. 

While the 2006 IECC also requires ducts 

to be sealed, the addition of a specific 

leakage limit verified by a pressure test 

in each new home or retrofit is expected 

to substantially reduce leakage in many 

if not most cases. 

Testing of completed homes in 

Washington State where prescriptive 

code requirements for duct sealing 

apply without any testing to confirm 

compliance, ‘‘showed no significant 

improvement’’ over non-code homes.8

Another study from Washington State 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 19, 2011 / Notices 42697 

8Washington State University. 2001. Washington 

State Energy Code Duct Leakage Study Report. 

WSUCEEP01105. Washington State University 

Cooperative Extension Energy Program, Olympia, 

Washington. 9Hales, D., A. Gordon, and M. Lubliner. 2003. 

Duct Leakage in New Washington State Residences: 

Findings and Conclusions. ASHRAE Transactions. 

KC–2003–1–3. 10 Xenergy. 2001. Impact Analysis Of The 

Massachusetts 1998 Residential Energy Code 

Revisions. http://www.mass.gov/Eeops/docs/dps/ 

inf/inf_bbrs_impact_analysis_final.pdf. 11Hammon, R. W., and M. P. Modera. 1999. 12The DOE–2 simulation tool is available at 

http://doe2.com/. 

concluded: ‘‘Comparisons to air leakage 

rates reported elsewhere for homes built 

before the implementation of the 1991 

WSEC show no significant improvement 

by the general population’’ despite years 

of training emphasizing duct sealing.9

Numerous other studies around the 

nation show substantial duct leakage in 

new homes, including those in States 

with codes requiring duct sealing. For 

example, a 2001 study of 186 houses 

built under the MEC in Massachusetts 

reported ‘‘serious problems were found 

in the quality of duct sealing in about 

80% of these houses’’.10 Pressurization 

tests in 22 of these houses found an 

average leakage to the outside of the 

house of 183 cfm, or 21.6% of the 

system flow, at a pressure of 25 Pascals. 

The energy savings of improved duct 

sealing are very substantial. A California 

study estimated a sales-weighted state 

annual average savings from duct 

sealing of 38 therms and 239 kWh for 

a 1761 ft2 house.11 This is based on an 

estimated 12% improvement in duct 

efficiency based on previous studies 

indicating a 12–15% improvement 

potential. The Department concludes 

that the 2009 IECC’s requirement that 

duct air leakage meet an upper limit and 

be verified by a pressure test will save 

significant energy compared to the 2006 

and prior editions of the IECC. 

e. Improvement in Other Requirements 

There are a number of changes to the 

‘‘simulated performance alternative’’ 

compliance path in the 2009 IECC. The 

glazing area in the baseline ‘‘standard 

reference design’’ was reduced from a 

maximum of 18% of the conditioned 

floor area to 15%. This results in 

increased energy efficiency for any 

proposed design having a glazing area of 

more than 15%. Because use of this 

compliance path is completely optional, 

these savings will only occur when the 

user chooses this compliance path. 

Another change does not directly alter 

code stringency in the performance path 

but may ultimately result in some 

energy savings is the removal of the 

option to trade high-efficiency HVAC 

equipment for reductions in other 

requirements in the code, such as 

reduced envelope insulation. Because 

building envelopes have substantially 

longer lives than HVAC and/or water 

heating equipment, energy savings from 

envelope improvements may persist for 

many more years than comparable 

equipment improvements. Also, because 

high-efficiency equipment is already the 

predominant choice in many markets, 

disallowing envelope/equipment tradeoffs is likely to result in improved 

overall efficiency in many situations. 

2. Changes in the 2009 IECC From the 

2006 IECC That Reduce Energy 

Efficiency 

There is only one change in the 2009 

IECC that directly reduces energy 

efficiency. Insulation requirements for 

many ducts outside the building 

thermal envelope are reduced from 

R–8 to R–6; exceptions are supply ducts 

in attics, which must still have R–8 

insulation, and ducts in floor trusses, 

which retain the 2006 code’s R–6 

requirement. 

3. Net Impact of Changes From the 2009 

IECC to 2009 IECC on Energy Efficiency 

The Department has conducted an 

energy simulation analysis of 2009 IECC 

compared to the 2006 using the DOE– 

2 simulation tool to model 12 a typical 

single family house: 

• 2400 ft2 floor area, two-story. 

• Crawl space foundation. 

• 8.5-ft high ceilings. 

• A ceiling area (bordering the 

unconditioned attic) of 1,200 ft2, 

• A gross exterior wall area of 2,380 

ft2, 

• And a window area of 357 ft2 (15% 

of the wall area) equally oriented north, 

south, east, and west. 

• Heating with a natural gas furnace 

($1.20/therm). 

• Central electric air conditioning 

($.12/kWh). 

High-efficacy lighting was assumed to 

increase from 10% to 50% of all lighting 

within the building, reducing lighting 

energy use by 26%, or $74 a year. 

Savings attributable to the lighting 

requirements in the IECC will decrease 

as Federal law requires improved light 

bulbs in 2012 to 2014. Improved duct 

sealing was assumed to save 10% of the 

heating and cooling costs. 

Figure 1 shows the estimated annual 

energy cost savings resulting from the 

Department’s energy simulation analysis 

of the 2009 IECC changes for 14 diverse 

climates and for the national average. 

The energy simulation analysis, as 

described above, takes into account 

changes involving the space heating, 

space cooling (air conditioning), and 

lighting systems. A 10% reduction is 

applied to solely the heating and 

cooling energy to account for the 

improved duct sealing necessary to 

achieve the low duct leakage rates 

specified in the 2009 IECC. The 10% 

reduction is applied post energy 

simulation analysis to all 14 climate 

locations and is accounted for in the 

cost savings presented in Figure 1. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
42698 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 19, 2011 / Notices 

III. Comparison of the 2009 IRC to the 

2009 IECC 

In the past, some States have adopted 

the ICC’s International Residential Code 

(IRC) in lieu of the IECC, because the 

IRC provides a comprehensive building 

construction code (structural, plumbing, 

electrical, energy, etc.) in a single book 

for one- and two-family dwellings and 

townhouses. Consequently, DOE 

anticipates that some States may wish to 

adopt the 2009 IRC in lieu of the 2009 

IECC. In order to provide technical 

assistance to States that may wish to 

adopt the 2009 IRC, DOE has evaluated 

the 2009 IRC to compare the stringency 

of its energy provisions with those of 

the 2009 IECC. Our analysis indicates 

that the 2009 IRC would not equal or 

exceed the energy efficiency of the 2009 

IECC. 

A. Changes That Reduce Energy 

Efficiency or Have the Potential To 

Increase Energy Consumption 

Chapter 11 of the IRC contains energy 

efficiency provisions. The IRC allows 

compliance with the IECC as an 

alternative to complying with Chapter 

11. Most of the energy efficiency 

requirements in the IRC and IECC are 

identical. However, there are several 

differences between the two codes that 

result in the 2009 IRC having reduced 

energy efficiency compared to the 2009 

IECC. All the differences that reduce 

efficiency are listed below: 

1. The 2009 IECC requires a glazed 

fenestration solar heat gain coefficient 

(SHGC) of 0.30 or lower whereas the 

2009 IRC requires a higher (less 

stringent) SHGC of 0.35 or lower, in 

climate zones 1, 2, and 3. Further, the 

2009 IRC allows impact resistant 

fenestration in zones 1 through 3 to 

meet an even less stringent SHGC 

requirement of 0.40 and less stringent 

U-factor requirements in zones 2 and 3. 

2. For basement walls, the 2009 IECC 

requires either R–15 continuous 

insulation or R–19 cavity insulation in 

zones 6–8, whereas the 2009 IRC 

requires lower (less stringent) R-values 

in these zones: R–10 continuous or 

R–15 cavity. 

3. The 2009 IECC requires R–38 floors 

in zones 7 and 8; the 2009 IRC requires 

only R–30. 

4. The 2009 IECC limits the allowance 

for R–30 insulation in ceilings without 

attics to 500 ft2 or 20% of the total 

insulated ceiling area, whichever is less. 

The 2009 IRC limits the allowance to 

500 ft2 without regard to the total 

ceiling area. Thus, under the 2009 IRC 

some smaller homes will have less 

efficient ceilings. 

Additionally, the 2009 IRC differs 

from the 2009 IECC in some ways that, 

although they do not reduce the 

stringency of code requirements, have 

the potential to result in increased 

energy consumption in certain 

situations: 

1. Both the IRC and IECC allow for 

‘‘trade-offs’’ by which the efficiency of 

one building component can be lowered 

in trade for higher efficiency in another. 

The 2009 IECC limits the extent to 

which glazing properties can be reduced 

in such trade-offs. The 2009 IECC sets 

a trade-off ‘‘cap’’ on SHGC at a 

maximum of 0.50 in climate zones 1, 2, 

and 3 and a cap on U-factor trade-offs 

of U–0.48 in zones 4 and 5 and U–0.40 

in zones 6, 7, and 8. These caps are not 

present in the 2009 IRC. As these caps 

do not increase stringency of the code 

(but rather restrict trade-off options), 

there is no direct impact on annual 

energy consumption or cost. There may, 

however, be some impacts on occupant 

comfort and/or resistance to moisture 

condensation, either of which could 

possibly induce occupants to increase 

energy consumption, for example by 

raising thermostat set points. 

2. The air barrier and insulation 

inspection requirements differ slightly 

between the codes. The 2009 IECC 

requires checking that ‘‘Air-permeable 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICESEN19JY11.121</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 19, 2011 / Notices 42699 

13EnergyGauge is available at http://doe2.com/. 

insulation is inside of an air barrier’’ 

(right column in the first row). The 2009 

IRC is missing this, which could result 

in insulation on the exterior side of an 

air barrier being exposed to windinduced air movement that reduces its 

effective R-value. 

3. The definitions of ‘‘conditioned 

space’’ are different between the two 

codes, which, depending on local 

officials’ interpretations, could result in 

different portions of a building being 

deemed conditioned and hence subject 

to the code’s envelope requirements. 

4. The three labels ‘‘mandatory,’’ 

‘‘prescriptive,’’ and ‘‘performance’’ are 

used to label many sections in the 2009 

IECC, but are not used at all in the 2009 

IRC. The provisions that are mandatory 

are always required while prescriptive 

provisions can be traded off as long as 

overall home energy efficiency is not 

decreased. Thus the 2009 IRC may 

permit trading down the efficiency of 

some components with the potential to 

induce increased energy consumption 

as described above. 

5. The 2009 IRC (section N1101.1, 

‘‘Scope’’) states that chapter 11 (Energy 

Efficiency) does not apply to portions of 

the building envelope that do not 

enclose conditioned space. Section 

101.5.2 of the IECC is more specific, 

exempting only building thermal 

envelope provisions that do not contain 

conditioned space. 

B. Impact of the Differences Between the 

2009 IRC and 2009 IECC 

DOE has performed a limited analysis 

of potential impact of the differences 

between the 2009 IECC and 2009 IRC. 

The analysis involves thermal 

simulation of home performance in 

several representative locations using 

the EnergyGauge (DOE–2) 13 simulation 

tool on a typical house: 

• 2400 ft2 floor area, two-story. 

• Natural gas furnace heating at 

$1.20/therm. 

• Central air conditioning electricity 

at 12 cents/kWh. 

• Equipment efficiencies at Federal 

minimum levels. 

• 360 ft2 window area equally 

distributed to the north, east, south, and 

west building faces, with no exterior 

shading. 

The results are shown in Tables 8 

through 10. The 2009 IRC yields a 

higher annual energy cost in almost all 

cases. 

TABLE 8—ENERGY SAVINGS OF REDUCING SHGC FROM 0.35 TO 0.30 IN CLIMATE ZONES ONE THROUGH THREE

Climate zone Representative city Cooling 

savings 

Heating 

increase 

Energy 

savings 

1 ............................................................................ Miami .................................................................... $29 $0 $29 

2 ............................................................................ Houston ................................................................ 18 9 9 

2 ............................................................................ Phoenix ................................................................. 20 1 19 

3 ............................................................................ Atlanta .................................................................. 16 18 ¥2 

3 ............................................................................ Jackson MS .......................................................... 19 15 4 

3 ............................................................................ Memphis ............................................................... 17 17 0 

3 ............................................................................ Dallas .................................................................... 20 14 6 

3 ............................................................................ El Paso ................................................................. 18 17 1 

3 ............................................................................ Las Vegas ............................................................ 16 15 1 

TABLE 9—ENERGY SAVINGS OF INCREASING BASEMENT WALL INSULATION FROM R–13 TO R–19 IN CLIMATE ZONES SIX THROUGH EIGHT

Climate zone Representative city 

Energy 

savings 

6 .................... Burlington ...... $29 

7 .................... Duluth ............ 34 

8 .................... Fairbanks ...... 33 

TABLE 10—ENERGY SAVINGS OF INCREASING FLOOR INSULATION FROM

R–30 TO R–38 IN CLIMATE ZONES

SEVEN AND EIGHT (FLOOR OVER

UNHEATED BASEMENT) 

Climate zone Representative city 

Energy 

savings 

7 .................... Duluth ............ 13 

8 .................... Fairbanks ...... 19 

IV. Filing Certification Statements With 

DOE 

A. State Determinations 

Upon publication of this final 

determination, each State is required to 

determine the appropriateness of 

revising the portion of its residential 

building code regarding energy 

efficiency to meet or exceed the 

provisions of the ICC IECC, 2009 

edition. (42 U.S.C. 6833(a)(5)(B)) A State 

determination for the 2009 IECC would 

be sufficient to address all of the DOE 

determinations (e.g. 2006 and 2003) in 

this notice. The State determination 

must be: (1) Made after public notice 

and hearing; (2) in writing; (3) based 

upon findings and upon the evidence 

presented at the hearing; and (4) made 

available to the public. States have 

considerable discretion with regard to 

the hearing procedures they use, subject 

to providing an adequate opportunity 

for members of the public to be heard 

and to present relevant information. The 

Department recommends publication of 

any notice of public hearing in a 

newspaper of general circulation and 

online. The determinations are required 

to be made not later than two years from 

the date of publication of this notice of 

final determination, unless an extension 

is provided (see section B. below for 

more details). 

Note that the applicability of any 

State revisions to new or existing 

buildings would be governed by the 

State building codes. However, it is our 

understanding that generally, the 

revisions would not apply to existing 

buildings unless they are undergoing a 

change that requires a building permit. 

States should be aware that the 

Department considers high-rise (greater 

than three stories) multifamily 

residential buildings and hotel, motel, 

and other transient residential building 

types of any height as commercial 

buildings for energy code purposes. 

Residential buildings include one- and 

two-family detached and attached 

buildings, duplexes, townhouses, row 

houses, and low-rise multifamily 

buildings (not greater than three stories) 

such as condominiums and garden 

apartments. 

States should also be aware that the 

determinations do not apply to Chapter 

5 of the 2009 IECC, which addresses 

commercial buildings as defined above. 

Therefore, States must certify their 

evaluations of their State building codes 

for residential buildings with respect to 

all provisions of the IECC except for that 

chapter. 

Section 304(a)(4) of ECPA, as 

amended, requires that if a State makes 

a determination that it is not 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
42700 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 19, 2011 / Notices 

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)) 

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. However, DOE does 

provide grants to these States through 

grant programs administered by the 

National Energy Technology Laboratory 

(NETL). DOE does not prescribe how 

each State adopts and enforces its 

energy codes. 

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. 

V. Regulatory Analysis 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

Today’s action is a significant 

regulatory action under section 3(f)(1) of 

Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review’’ (58 FR 51735 

(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. 

DOE has reviewed today’s rule under 

the provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act and the procedures and 

policies published on February 19, 

2003. Today’s final determination of 

improved energy efficiency between 

IECC editions requires States to 

undertake an analysis of their respective 

building codes. As such, the only 

entities directly regulated by this 

rulemaking would be States. DOE does 

not believe that there will be any direct 

impacts on small entities such as small 

businesses, small organizations, or small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

On the basis of the foregoing, DOE 

certifies that the rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a 

regulatory flexibility analysis for this 

rulemaking. DOE’s certification and 

supporting statement of factual basis 

will be provided to the Chief Counsel 

for Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

605(b). 

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 final rule 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. Pursuant 

to Section 304(a) of ECPA, DOE is 

statutorily required to determine 

whether the most recent version of the 

1992 Model Energy Code (MEC), or any 

successor to that code, would improve 

the level of energy efficiency in 

residential buildings compared to the 

previous version. If DOE makes a 

positive determination, the statute 

requires each State 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)) Therefore, today’s action 

only 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. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 19, 2011 / Notices 42701 

Today’s action impacts whether States 

must perform an evaluation of State 

building codes. Today’s action would 

not impose a Federal mandate on State, 

local or tribal governments, and it 

would not result in the expenditure by 

State, local, and tribal governments in 

the aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100 million or more in any one year. 

Accordingly, no assessment or analysis 

is required under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995. 

G. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act of 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires 

Federal agencies to issue a Family 

Policymaking Assessment for any rule 

that may affect family well-being. 

Today’s action would not have any 

impact on the autonomy or integrity of 

the family as an institution. 

Accordingly, DOE has 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 July 13, 

2011. 

Kathleen Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Office of Technology 

Development, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2011–18080 Filed 7–18–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

Combined Notice of Filings No. 2 

Take notice that the Commission has 

received the following Natural Gas 

Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings: 

Docket Numbers: RP11–2137–001. 

Applicants: Dominion Cove Point 

LNG, LP. 

Description: Supplemental 

Information of Dominion Cove Point 

LNG, LP. 

Filed Date: 07/01/2011. 

Accession Number: 20110701–5303. 

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time 

on Friday, July 15, 2011. 

Docket Numbers: RP11–2196–001. 

Applicants: Ruby Pipeline, L.L.C. 

Description: Ruby Pipeline, L.L.C. 

submits tariff filing per 154.203: Tariff 

Implementation & Compliance 

Amendment to be effective 12/31/9998. 

Filed Date: 07/06/2011. 

Accession Number: 20110706–5102. 

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time 

on Monday, July 18, 2011. 

Docket Numbers: RP06–298–014. 

Applicants: Public Service 

Commission of New York v. National 

Fuel Gas Supply Corporation. 

Description: Semi-Annual Report of 

Operational Sales of Gas for the period 

ending 06/30/11 of National Fuel Gas 

Supply Corporation. 

Filed Date: 07/11/2011. 

Accession Number: 20110711–5066. 

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time 

on Monday, July 25, 2011. 

Docket Numbers: RP11–1940–001. 

Applicants: Chesapeake Energy 

Marketing Inc, BHP Billiton Petroleum 

(Fayetteville) LL. 

Description: Request for Limited 

Extension of Temporary Waivers and 

Request for Expedited Action of BHP 

Billiton Petroleum (Fayetteville) LLC 

and Chesapeake Energy Marketing, Inc. 

Filed Date: 07/11/2011. 

Accession Number: 20110711–5219. 

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time 

on Monday, July 25, 2011. 

Docket Numbers: CP01–69–009. 

Applicants: Petal Gas Storage, L.L.C. 

Description: Petal Gas Storage, L.L.C. 

Compliance filing. 

Filed Date: 06/03/2011. 

Accession Number: 20110603–5136. 

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time 

on Monday, July 18, 2011. 

Any person desiring to protest this 

filing must file in accordance with Rule 

211 of the Commission’s Rules of 

Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 

385.211). Protests to this filing will be 

considered by the Commission in 

determining the appropriate action to be 

taken, but will not serve to make 

protestants parties to the proceeding. 

Such protests must be filed on or before 

5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified 

comment date. Anyone filing a protest 

must serve a copy of that document on 

all the parties to the proceeding. 

The Commission encourages 

electronic submission of protests in lieu 

of paper using the ‘‘eFiling’’ link at 

http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to 

file electronically should submit an 

original and 14 copies of the protest to 

the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 

Washington, DC 20426. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES