29322 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 96 / Thursday, May 17, 2012 / Notices 

statements on the agenda. The 

Chairperson of the Committee will 

conduct the meeting to facilitate the 

orderly conduct of business. Public 

comment will follow the 10-minute 

rule. 

Minutes: The NCC will prepare 

meeting minutes within 45 days of the 

meeting. The minutes will be posted on 

the NCC Web site at http:// 

www.nationalcoalcouncil.org/. 

Dated: Issued at Washington, DC, on May 

11, 2012. 

LaTanya R. Butler, 

Acting Deputy Committee Management 

Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2012–11977 Filed 5–16–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

[Docket No. EERE–2011–BT–DET–0057] 

RIN 1904–AC59 

Updating State Residential Building 

Energy Efficiency Codes 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of final determination. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy 

(DOE or Department) has determined 

that the 2012 edition of the International 

Code Council (ICC) International Energy 

Conservation Code (IECC) (2012 IECC or 

2012 edition) would achieve greater 

energy efficiency in low-rise residential 

buildings than the 2009 IECC. Upon 

publication of this affirmative final 

determination, States are required to file 

certification statements to DOE that they 

have reviewed the provisions of their 

residential building code regarding 

energy efficiency and made a 

determination as to whether to update 

their code to meet or exceed the 2012 

IECC. Additionally, this Notice provides 

guidance to States on how the codes 

have changed from previous versions, 

and the certification process. 

DATES: Certification Statements by the 

States must be provided by May 17, 

2014. 

ADDRESSES: Certification Statements 

must be addressed to the Buildings 

Technologies Program-Building Energy 

Codes Program Manager, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 

Forrestal Building, Mail Station EE–2J, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Erbesfeld, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Forrestal Building, 

Mail Station EE–2J, 1000 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585– 

0121, (202) 287–1874, email: 

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

issues contact Kavita Vaidyanathan, 

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the 

General Counsel, Forrestal Building, 

GC–71, 1000 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586– 

0669, email: 

kavita.vaidyanathan@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

A. Statutory Requirements 

B. Background 

C. Public Comments on the Preliminary 

Determination 

D. DOE’s Final Determination Statement 

II. Discussion of Changes in the 2012 IECC 

A. Changes in the 2012 IECC That Increase 

Energy Efficiency 

B. Changes in the 2012 IECC That Decrease 

Energy Efficiency 

C. Changes in the 2012 IECC That Have an 

Unclear Impact on Energy Efficiency 

D. Changes in the 2012 IECC That Do Not 

Affect Energy Efficiency 

III. Filing Certification Statements With DOE 

A. State Determinations 

B. Certification 

C. Request for Extensions 

IV. Regulatory Analysis 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

C. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

D. Review Under Executive Order 13132, 

‘‘Federalism’’ 

E. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

F. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act of 1999 

G. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act of 2001 

H. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

I. Review Under Executive Order 13175 

I. Introduction 

A. Statutory Requirements 

Title III of the Energy Conservation 

and Production Act, as amended 

(ECPA), establishes requirements for the 

Building Energy Standards Program. 

(42 U.S.C. 6831–6837) Section 304(a) of 

ECPA provides that when the 1992 

Model Energy Code (MEC), or any 

successor to that code, is revised, the 

Secretary must determine, not later than 

12 months after the revision, whether 

the revised code would improve energy 

efficiency in residential buildings and 

must publish notice of the 

determination in the Federal Register. 

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

Department, following precedent set by 

the ICC and the American Society of 

Heating, Refrigerating and 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 is 

required to certify that it has compared 

its residential building code regarding 

energy efficiency to the revised code 

and made a determination whether it is 

appropriate to revise its code to meet or 

exceed the provisions of the successor 

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

determinations are to be made: (1) After 

public notice and hearing; (2) in writing; 

(3) based upon findings included in 

such determination and upon evidence 

presented at the hearing; and (4) 

available to the public. (See, 42 U.S.C. 

6833(a)(5)(C)) In addition, if a State 

determines that it is not appropriate to 

revise its residential building code, the 

State is required to submit to the 

Secretary, in writing, the reasons, which 

are to be made available to the public. 

(See, 42 U.S.C. 6833(a)(5)(C)) 

B. Background 

The ICC’s IECC establishes a national 

model code for energy efficiency 

requirements for buildings. In 1997, the 

Council of American Building Officials 

(CABO) was incorporated into the ICC 

and the MEC was renamed to the IECC. 

A previous Federal Register notice, 59 

FR 36173, July 15, 1994, announced the 

Secretary’s determination that the 1993 

MEC increased energy efficiency 

relative to the 1992 MEC for residential 

buildings. Similarly, another Federal 

Register notice, 61 FR 64727, December 

6, 1996, announced the Secretary’s 

determination that the 1995 MEC is an 

improvement over the 1993 MEC. 

Federal Register notice 66 FR 1964, 

January 10, 2001, simultaneously 

announced the Secretary’s 

determination that the 1998 IECC is an 

improvement over the 1995 MEC and 

the 2000 IECC is an improvement over 

the 1998 IECC. Federal Register notice 

76 FR 42688, July 19, 2011, announced 

the Secretary’s determination that the 

2003 IECC was not a substantial 

improvement over its predecessor, 

while the 2006 and 2009 editions were 

a substantial improvement over its 

predecessors. A map depicting the 

mstockstill on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 96 / Thursday, May 17, 2012 / Notices 29323 

status of State residential building codes 

is available at: http:// 

www.energycodes.gov/states/maps/ 

residentialStatus.stm. 

On October 19, 2011, Federal Register 

76 FR 64924 announced the Secretary’s 

preliminary determination that the 2012 

edition of the IECC should receive an 

affirmative determination under Section 

304(a) of ECPA. A thirty-day public 

comment period concluded on 

November 18, 2011. 

C. Public Comments on the Preliminary 

Determination 

DOE received four sets of public 

comments on the preliminary 

determination for the 2012 IECC. 

Comments were received from the 

Responsible Energy Code Alliance 

(RECA), the Natural Resources Defense 

Council (NRDC), and the Coalition for 

Fair Energy Codes (CFEC), and 

Pilkington North America (PNA)/ACG 

Glass Company North America (AGC). 

However, DOE notes that PNA/AGC’s 

comment was received late. Although 

the comment was filed late this final 

determination is not contrary to any of 

the issues raised in the comment. 

• RECA provided three general 

comments of support for the 

preliminary determination on the 2012 

IECC, three specific comments on the 

preliminary determination, and a list of 

recommended next steps. 

• NRDC provided two general 

comments supporting DOE’s 

determination efforts and DOE’s 

preliminary determination of the 2012 

IECC, and a recommendation that DOE 

continue its efforts in development, 

adoption, and implementation of strong 

building energy codes. 

• CFEC provided general support for 

the conclusion of the preliminary 

determination, but also raised five 

specific points regarding the treatment 

of wood products in the 2012 IECC. 

Overall, a total of 18 individual 

comments were received. These 

eighteen comments may be divided into 

6 major categories: 

(1) Support and Agreement—8 

comments 

(2) Alternate U-factors, Codes, and 

Approaches—3 comments 

(3) Recommendations—3 comments 

(4) SHGC requirements in Climate Zone 

4—1 comment 

(5) Performance Path—2 comments 

(6) DOE’s 30% Improvement Goal for 

the 2012 IECC—1 comment 

Support and Agreement 

In their general comments, RECA, 

NRDC, and CFEC all expressed 

agreement with DOE’s conclusion that 

the 2012 IECC on the whole, would 

result in a significant improvement in 

energy efficiency as compared to 

previous versions of the IECC. 

Specifically, RECA stated ‘‘first and 

foremost, we fully agree with the 

Department’s conclusion that the 2012 

IECC represents a ‘significant 

improvement’ overall, as compared to 

the 2009 IECC.’’ (RECA, No. 1 at p. 2) 

NRDC stated ‘‘NRDC agrees with and 

supports the Department’s preliminary 

determination that the 2012 IECC saves 

energy compared to the 2009 IECC.’’ 

(NRDC, No. 2 at p. 1) CFEC stated ‘‘we 

do not disagree with the overall 

determination contained in the Notice 

* * *’’ (CFEC, No. 1 at p. 2) 

A general comment from RECA and a 

recommendation from NRDC expressed 

support for DOE efforts in adoption of 

and compliance with model energy 

codes. RECA also expressed support for 

DOE’s intent to make the state 

certification process more transparent. 

Specifically, RECA commented ‘‘we are 

also encouraged by the Department’s 

recent efforts in promoting adoption and 

compliance with the model energy 

codes nationwide, and support the 

Department’s plans in the preliminary 

determination to make compliance with 

certification statements more 

transparent.’’ (RECA, No. 3 at p. 2) 

NRDC stated ‘‘NRDC urges DOE to 

continue to take steps to promote the 

development, adoption, and 

implementation of strong building 

energy codes, including issuing timely 

code determinations.’’ (NRDC, No. 4 at 

p. 2) 

RECA also expressed agreement with 

the Department that the thermal 

envelope requirements of the IECC have 

been improved in nearly every aspect in 

the 2012 edition. (RECA, No. 4 at p. 3) 

RECA also stated that this was not just 

a matter of better windows and more 

insulation. The 2012 IECC also includes 

more efficient ducts and whole building 

leakage testing. DOE notes that these 

aspects of the 2012 IECC were discussed 

in the preliminary determination in the 

section entitled ‘‘Discussion of Changes 

in the 2012 IECC Compared with the 

2009 IECC Summary’’ and again under 

‘‘Changes in the 2012 IECC that are 

Estimated to Increase Energy 

Efficiency’’. DOE accepts this comment 

as already discussed in the preliminary 

determination. The discussion of 

changes in the 2012 IECC is also 

included in today’s final determination. 

Alternate U-factors, Codes, and 

Approaches 

CFEC made 3 comments related to 

alternate U-factors, Codes, and 

Approaches they felt should be 

included in the determination. 

Specifically, CFEC stated that ‘‘DOE 

should recognize other prescriptive wall 

configurations based on equivalent 

energy performance, calculated from the 

least restrictive of either the prescriptive 

R-value table [Table R402.1.1] or Ufactor table [Table R402.1.3] in the 

IECC.’’ (CFEC, No. 3 at p. 2) In response 

to this comment, DOE notes that the 

content of the 2012 IECC is the result of 

the ICC process. DOE also notes that this 

is again a matter of implementation 

materials rather than a subject for this 

determination, which is focused solely 

on whether the 2012 IECC improves 

energy efficiency relative to the 2009 

IECC. One of the main pieces of support 

material DOE does provide is the 

REScheck software and alternative Ufactors are handled in REScheck. 

CFEC also commented that DOE 

should ‘‘[r]ecognize in the 

Determination Statement that using a 

U = 0.061 in calculations in accordance 

with the Total UA alternative in Climate 

Zone 4 and 5 results in equivalent 

energy efficiency performance as it is 

equivalent to the U-factor derived from 

the prescriptive table.’’ (CFEC, No. 4 at 

p. 2) In response, DOE acknowledges 

that there are potential differences in 

the U-factor and R-value tables based on 

construction details used in actual 

buildings for the 2012 IECC, but DOE 

notes that CFEC’s comment takes issue 

with the content of the 2012 IECC. As 

noted above, the purpose of this 

determination is to compare the latest 

version of the IECC with the previous 

version and to determine if the latest 

version improves the level of energy 

efficiency in residential buildings over 

the previous version. 

CFEC also commented that DOE 

should ‘‘[r]ecognize in the 

Determination Statement that a 

performance approach that accounts for 

equipment which is more efficient than 

federally mandated minimums may 

result in equivalent or better energy 

efficiency performance than is required 

by the IECC 2012.’’ (CFEC, No. 5 at p. 

3) DOE notes that CFEC’s comment 

takes issue with the contents of the 2012 

IECC. Again, this comment is beyond 

the scope of the determination as 

required under ECPA. 

Recommendations 

RECA commented that ‘‘RECA 

encourages the Department to move 

quickly to finalize this determination in 

order to start the two-year period for 

state compliance.’’ (RECA, No. 7 at p. 8) 

RECA also provided a series of 

recommended next steps, including: 

• Follow up on state requirements; 

mstockstill on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

29324 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 96 / Thursday, May 17, 2012 / Notices 

• Produce support materials and 

copies of code books to promote state 

adoption of the 2012 IECC; 

• Update compliance materials 

(including REScheck) to reflect the 2012 

IECC; and 

• Continue to offer incentives for 

leading states; 

• Set the 2012 IECC as the standard/ 

baseline for future codes activities. 

(RECA, No. 8 at p. 8) 

NRDC made similar recommendations 

that DOE ‘‘continue to take steps to 

promote the development, adoption, 

and implementation of strong building 

energy codes, including issuing timely 

code determinations.’’ (NRDC, No. 4 at 

p. 2) DOE agrees with both RECA’s and 

NRDC’s recommendations and notes 

that it is already planning to follow up 

with the states on their obligations 

under the determination process once 

this determination is finalized. Once 

this determination is finalized, the 2012 

IECC will serve as the baseline for future 

code activities at DOE. DOE routinely 

produces and updates support materials 

for new codes and these materials can 

be found at www.energycodes.gov. 

SHGC Requirements in Climate Zone 4 

DOE received a comment supporting 

the change to the SHGC requirements in 

climate zone 4. Specifically, RECA 

supported the requirement for a 

maximum solar heat gain coefficient 

(SHGC) of 0.40 for glazed fenestration in 

climate zone 4 of the 2012 IECC, and 

disagrees with the Department’s 

preliminary conclusion that energy 

efficiency improvement from 0.40 SHGC 

in climate zone 4 is ‘‘unclear.’’ (RECA, 

No. 6 at p. 5) RECA continued their 

comment by stating ‘‘While we agree 

with the Department that the 0.40 SHGC 

requirement in climate zone 4 could 

increase heating load in some cases, 

cooling loads will also be reduced. 

Depending on the assumptions made 

and given the limits on typical building 

performance analysis, the direct 

calculated energy savings impact from 

this requirement is likely small and 

varies from location to location. 

However, this requirement is an 

improvement based on the other energy 

efficiency benefits it brings. 

Specifically, the new provision yields 

savings from lower peak electric 

demands and reduced energy use during 

peak periods, may allow for smaller air 

conditioners to be installed, and 

potentially increased occupant comfort 

on hot sunny days.’’ DOE agrees with 

RECA that lower peak electric demand, 

reduced energy use during peak periods, 

reduced cooling equipment size, and the 

potential for increased occupant comfort 

on hot summer days are all significant 

aspects of this requirement. However, 

DOE’s determinations of energy savings 

on the model energy codes are focused 

strictly on whether or not the new 

version of the code saves energy when 

compared to the previous version and 

these considerations are therefore not 

relevant to this determination. DOE 

stands by its statement that it is 

‘‘unclear’’ if this requirement saves 

energy in climate zone 4. Whether or 

not this change does save energy 

depends greatly on other assumptions 

made about the how the home is 

designed and operated and the specific 

location of the home in climate zone 4. 

These assumptions are not part of 

today’s determination, but would be on 

a particular home. 

Performance Path 

RECA commented that 

‘‘improvements to the assumptions in 

the performance path will lead to more 

energy efficiency and better 

enforcement, and as such, these 

improvements should be viewed as 

positive improvements in energy 

efficiency.’’ (RECA, No. 5 at p. 4) RECA 

discussed two specific parts of the 

performance path—interior shading 

assumptions and the baseline heating 

system for electrically heated homes. 

Specifically, RECA asserted that the 

new treatment of interior shading in the 

performance path is an improvement. 

DOE acknowledges that there were 

changes in the performance path and in 

fact does discuss these changes in the 

preliminary determination. The change 

in treatment of interior shading does 

represent the latest research on this 

topic. DOE also acknowledges that 

properly quantifying the impact of 

interior shading is important for the 

performance approach. However, as 

stated in the preliminary determination 

and again in today’s final determination, 

DOE also believes that the true impact 

of this change on homes remains 

nuanced and difficult to generalize, but 

is expected to be small. DOE notes that 

impact of this particular assumption 

depends on a number of other 

parameters of the building being 

modeled, including (but not limited to): 

The specific areas, distribution, and 

orientation of glazing in the home in 

question; whether the home has 

overhangs and other exterior shadings; 

how internally dominated the home is 

(a function of surface-to-volume ratio, 

aspect ratio, etc.); and the ratio of 

heating to cooling loads in the specific 

location of the home. 

RECA also commented that ‘‘the 

baseline assumption for electric heating 

of an electric heat pump is not so much 

a ‘‘penalty’’ on electric resistance 

heating as a clarification of the intent of 

the 2009 IECC.’’ (RECA, No 5. at p. 4) 

In response, DOE believes that the 

baseline assumption of a heat pump for 

homes using electric resistance heating 

will be harder for homes with electric 

resistant heating to comply with under 

the whole building compliance path in 

the 2012 IECC than it would be for that 

same home under the 2009 IECC. RECA 

also commented that they view this 

change as a clarification to the 

‘‘traditional use of a heat pump as the 

baseline in the Standard Reference 

Design for electric heated homes’’. DOE 

agrees that the 2006 IECC used heat 

pumps as the baseline. However, the 

heat pump baseline was not included in 

the 2009 IECC. DOE’s role in 

determinations is to compare the latest 

version of the IECC with the previous 

version and to determine if the latest 

version improves the level of energy 

efficiency in residential buildings over 

the previous version. Therefore, DOE’s 

final determination is based on the 

comparison between the 2009 IECC and 

the 2012 IECC. 

CFEC also commented that DOE 

should ‘‘Recognize in the Determination 

Statement a performance approach that 

calculates energy savings when less 

than 15% of wall area contains 

windows.’’ (CFEC, No. 6 at p. 3) DOE 

assumes the basis of this comment is the 

fact that the Simulated Performance 

Alternative in the 2012 IECC does not 

provide ‘‘credit’’ for homes with less 

than 15% of conditioned floor area in 

windows. In response, DOE notes that 

CFEC’s comment takes issue with the 

content of the 2012 IECC. DOE’s role in 

determinations is to compare the latest 

version of the IECC with the previous 

version and to determine if the latest 

version improves the level of energy 

efficiency in residential buildings over 

the previous version. DOE also notes 

that the provisions in the 2012 IECC 

with regards to window area in the 

performance approach are identical to 

those in the 2009 IECC. 

DOE’s 30% Improvement Goal for the 

2012 IECC 

CFEC commented that ‘‘DOE should 

explicitly recognize in the 

Determination Statement that the use of 

greater levels of insulation in Climate 

Zone 3 above R13 is not necessary to 

achieve the 30% improvement goal that 

DOE has established. As the proponent 

of IECC code change EC13–09/10 Parts 

I and II, to overhaul the residential 

energy provisions of the IRC and IECC, 

DOE did not propose to change Climate 

Zone 3 from R13 to either R20 or R13+5 

ci.’’ (CFEC, No. 2 at p. 2) In response, 

DOE notes that CFEC’s comment takes 

mstockstill on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 96 / Thursday, May 17, 2012 / Notices 29325 

issue with the content of the 2012 IECC. 

DOE’s role in determinations is to 

compare the latest version of the IECC 

with the previous version and to 

determine if the latest version improves 

the level of energy efficiency in 

residential buildings over the previous 

version. 

D. DOE’s Final Determination Statement 

The 2012 IECC has a substantial 

variety of revisions compared to the 

2009 IECC. Most of these revisions 

appear to directly improve energy 

efficiency that, on the whole, would 

result in a significant improvement in 

efficiency to homes built to the code. 

Therefore, the Department concludes 

that the 2012 edition of the IECC 

receives an affirmative determination 

under Section 304(a) of ECPA. 

II. Discussion of Changes in the 2012 

IECC Compared With the 2009 IECC 

Summary 

The 2012 IECC appears to improve 

residential energy efficiency with 

respect to the 2009 IECC. Based on 

DOE’s analysis, a preponderance of 

major energy efficiency improvements 

more than offset a small number of 

changes which have unclear or negative 

impacts on energy efficiency. The major 

changes that are estimated to improve 

energy efficiency in new homes built to 

comply with the code in most climate 

zones include: 

• Building thermal envelope 

improvements 

Æ Increases in prescriptive insulation 

levels of walls, roofs and floors 

Æ Decrease (improvement) in U-factor 

allowances for fenestration 

Æ Decrease (improvement) in 

allowable Solar Heat Gain 

Coefficient (SHGC) for fenestration 

in warm climates 

• Infiltration control: Mandated wholehouse pressure test with strict 

allowances for air leakage rates 

• Wall insulation when structural 

sheathing is used 

• Ventilation fan efficiency 

• Lighting—Increased fraction of lamps 

required to be high-efficacy 

• Air distribution systems—leakage 

control requirements 

• Hot water pipe insulation and length 

requirements 

• Skylight definition change 

• Penalizing electric resistance heating 

in the performance compliance path 

• Fireplace air leakage control 

• Insulating covers for in-ground spas 

• Baffles for attic insulation 

Changes that appear to decrease 

residential efficiency in some situations 

include the following. 

• Steel-framed wall insulation 

• Air barrier location 

Changes whose effect is unclear: 

• Fenestration SHGC requirement in 

climate zone 4 

• Interior shading assumptions in the 

performance compliance path 

All of the changes that are estimated 

to positively or negatively impact 

energy efficiency are discussed in the 

following text. 

A. Changes in the 2012 IECC That Are 

Estimated To Increase Energy Efficiency 

Building Thermal Envelope 

Improvements 

Table R402.1.1 which specifies 

prescriptive envelope requirements, has 

been extensively modified in the 2012 

IECC compared to the 2009 IECC. This 

table represents the code’s primary 

regulation of a home’s envelope thermal 

resistance, or the resistance of the 

ceilings, walls, windows, and floors to 

the transfer of heat into or out of the 

home. The criteria are expressed as 

either R-values (Btu/h-ft2-F), which 

quantify a building component’s 

resistance to heat flow, or U-factors 

(h-ft2-F/Btu), which are the inverse of Rvalues and represent a component’s 

thermal conductance. A higher R-value 

or a lower U-factor represents an 

efficiency improvement. Table R402.1.1 

also includes requirements for glazed 

fenestration solar heat gain coefficients 

(SHGC) in the southern and central 

climate zones. In a cooling-dominated 

climate, a lower SHGC will almost 

always reduce a home’s annual energy 

consumption. 

Table 1 below shows the changes in 

the code’s required R-values and Ufactors by climate zone. Additionally, 

Table R402.1.3 has an improvement for 

fenestration U-factor in climate zone 1 

from 1.20 in the 2009 IECC to 0.50 in 

the 2012 IECC. DOE has preliminarily 

determined that every change in the 

code’s table represents an improvement 

in efficiency. Table 2 below shows the 

increase in required thermal resistance 

for each building component type 

weighted by climate zone. 

For the fenestration U-factor, the code 

has increased the required thermal 

resistance by an average of 26.7%. In 

climate zone 1, Table R402.1.1 appears 

to revert from a required U-factor of 1.2 

to NR (no requirement). This, however, 

should have no effect on the energy 

efficiency of the code because the Ufactor of a minimally efficient singlepane window meets the requirement of 

1.2. Seen in this light, the change to NR 

is really a clarification, rather than an 

actual change. The U-factor 

requirements for skylights in the 2012 

IECC would reduce allowable heat loss 

through skylights an average of 12.6% 

compared to the 2009 IECC. 

For glazed fenestration the allowable 

solar heat gain coefficient (SHGC) has 

been lowered, reducing solar heat gain 

by 17% in the cooling-dominated 

climate zones (1–3). 

Four climate zones (2 through 5) were 

affected by more stringent insulation 

requirements in ceilings. Required Rvalues increased by 27% to 29% in 

these zones. However, accounting for 

the thermal bridging effects of typical 

wood framing members, DOE has 

preliminarily determined that the 

changes in the code represent a 

weighted average increase of 12.2% in 

the thermal resistance of ceilings. 

For wood frame walls, the code 

allows a choice in some climate zones 

of a single value for insulation in the 

cavity between wall studs, or two 

values: One for cavity insulation and 

one for additional continuous insulation 

applied to the interior or exterior of the 

wall. Accounting for thermal bridging 

effects, and choosing the least thermally 

resistive of the two options, the 2012 

code is estimated to improve thermal 

resistance of wood-frame walls an 

average of 13.7%. Mass wall (e.g., 

concrete, concrete block, log) R-value 

requirements increased by an average of 

33.4%. Basement wall and crawl space 

wall R-values increased by 14.5% and 

17.6%, respectively. 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

mstockstill on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

29326 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 96 / Thursday, May 17, 2012 / Notices 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–C 

TABLE 2—NATIONAL AVERAGE INCREASE IN THERMAL RESISTANCE

FOR LOWEST REQUIRED INSULATION

LEVEL BY BUILDING COMPONENT

Building component 

Increase in 

thermal 

resistance of 

required 

insulation 

(percent) 

Fenestration .................... 26.7 

Skylights ......................... 12.6 

Ceiling ............................. 18.2 

Wood Frame Wall ........... 13.7 

Mass Wall 1 ..................... 33.4 

Basement Wall 1 ............. 14.5 

Crawl Space Wall 1 ......... 17.6 

1There are two R-value options in the 

IECC. The first R-value option is used for this 

comparison. For mass walls, this first value 

applies when less than half of the insulation is 

on the interior of the mass wall, the case for 

which the code allows a greater reduction in 

required R-value due to the beneficial effects 

of thermal mass. The second number is more 

similar to wood frame wall requirements. For 

basement and crawl space walls, this first 

value applies for continuous insulation on the 

interior or exterior of the wall, whereas the 

second value is for insulation in cavities between studs or furring strips. In this case the 

two values represent approximately similar 

overall thermal resistance. 

The 2012 IECC specifies that 

insulation R-values conform to the 

requirements of Table R402.1.1 even if 

the insulation must be compressed to fit 

within the available cavity. This clause 

primarily affects some nominal R–19 

fiberglass batts that are designed for 

floor and/or ceiling applications where 

the available cavity is greater than the 

5.5 inches typically available in a 2×6 

wall. However, the 2012 edition has no 

prescriptive requirements that exactly 

require R–19 in wall cavities, so it is 

expected that there is no direct impact 

on energy savings. 

Infiltration Control 

Section 402.4.1.2 contains a new 

provision for a mandatory whole-house 

pressure test to determine the envelope 

air leakage rate (the test was optional in 

the 2009 IECC). The maximum 

allowable air leakage rate is 5 air 

changes/hour when tested at a pressure 

difference of 50 Pascals (5 ACH50) in 

climate zone 1 and climate zone 2; and 

3 air changes/hour (3 ACH50) in climate 

zones 3–8. The 2009 IECC specified a 

maximum of 7 ACH50 when the 

optional test was used, or directed the 

building official to inspect the envelope 

against a detailed checklist when the 

test was not used. The lower allowed 

leakage rate of the 2012 IECC is 

expected to save energy, and the 

mandatory test will likely result in 

improved energy efficiency in homes 

that would have had higher leakage 

rates as a result of leaks that would not 

be detected by visual inspection. 

Mechanical ventilation systems can 

be used to provide fresh air from the 

outdoors to a home. The 2009 IECC does 

not require any mechanical ventilation. 

Section R403.5 of the 2012 IECC refers 

to the 2012 International Residential 

Code and International Mechanical 

Code which, in tandem with the 2012 

IECC, require that a mechanical 

ventilation system meet these 

requirements or other approved means 

of ventilation in new homes. 

Wall Insulation When Structural 

Sheathing Is Used 

Footnote h to Table R402.1.1 allows 

certain reductions in the required Rvalue of continuous insulation on walls 

that use structural sheathing (e.g., 

plywood, OSB) for shear bracing. The 

footnote is relevant only when there is 

a mixture of structural and insulating 

sheathing on the wall(s). The 2009 IECC 

states: ‘‘First value is cavity insulation, 

second is continuous insulation, so 

‘‘13+5’’ means R–13 cavity insulation 

plus R–5 insulated sheathing. If 

structural sheathing covers 25 percent 


mstockstill on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with NOTICESEN17MY12.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 96 / Thursday, May 17, 2012 / Notices 29327 

or less of the exterior, insulating 

sheathing is not required in the 

locations where structural sheathing is 

used. If structural sheathing covers 

more than 25 percent of exterior, 

structural sheathing shall be 

supplemented with insulated sheathing 

of at least R–2.’’ 

The footnote has the effect of 

suspending the continuous R-value 

requirement for portions of the wall 

covered with structural sheathing, 

provided those portions represent 25% 

or less of the wall area. If structural 

sheathing covers more than 25% of the 

wall, the structural portions must be 

augmented with additional insulating 

sheathing of at least R–2. The 2012 IECC 

states: ‘‘First value is cavity insulation, 

second is continuous insulation, so 

‘‘13+5’’ means R–13 cavity insulation 

plus R–5 continuous insulation. If 

structural sheathing covers 40 percent 

or less of the exterior, continuous 

insulation R-value shall be permitted to 

be reduced by no more than R–3 in the 

locations where structural sheathing is 

used—to maintain a consistent total 

sheathing thickness.’’ 

The 2012 IECC allows a larger fraction 

of the wall (40% rather than 25%) to 

contain reduced continuous insulation 

but, unlike the 2009 IECC, does not 

allow elimination of continuous 

insulation. The 2012 IECC specifies 

substantially more continuous 

insulation layered on top of structural 

sheathing when the structural fraction 

exceeds the 40% threshold. It is 

estimated that the net effect is greater 

overall efficiency. 

Ventilation Fan Efficiency 

When installed to function as a 

whole-house ventilation system, the 

2012 IECC specifies that mechanical 

fans meet the following requirements: 

• Range Hoods and In-line fans: 2.8 

cubic feet per minute cubic feet per 

minute (cfm)/watt 

• Bathroom (10–90 cfm): 1.4 cfm/watt 

• Bathroom (>90 cfm): 2.8 cfm/watt 

Because the 2012 IECC places upper 

limits on the energy requirements for 

these fans where there were no such 

limits in the 2009 IECC, this change is 

expected to improve overall efficiency 

in residences. 

Lighting 

The requirement for high efficacy 

lamps has been increased from a 

minimum of 50% of the lamps in 

permanently-installed fixtures to a 

minimum of 75%. Further, the high 

efficacy lamp requirement has been 

changed from prescriptive to 

mandatory, meaning the specification 

cannot be lessened in trade for 

efficiency improvements elsewhere in 

the home. This change also addresses an 

aspect of the 2009 IECC under which 

the use of high-efficacy lamps is not 

specified when a building achieved 

compliance via the simulated 

performance compliance path. This is 

expected to improve the energy savings 

in the 2012 IECC by reducing lighting 

energy use. The 2012 IECC also added 

an option for calculating the highefficacy fraction based on a count of 

fixtures instead of individual lamps, a 

change not expected to change overall 

efficiency. 

Section R404.1.1 in the 2012 IECC 

contains a new provision that bans 

continuously burning pilot lights on 

fuel-fired lighting. While the potential 

energy savings are limited due to the 

fringe application of this type of 

lighting, where applied, this rule would 

tend to increase energy savings by 

cutting standby energy use of the pilot 

light. 

Air Distribution System 

There are three key changes to 

requirements for air distribution 

systems that improve energy efficiency: 

• A change to section R403.2.2.1 that 

places a limit on air leakage from air 

handlers. The change is to ensure that 

the air handler delivers the vast majority 

of the supply air downstream to the rest 

of the distribution system. 

• Section R403.2.2 reduces maximum 

allowable levels of duct leakage in the 

distribution system compared to the 

2009 IECC (from 12 cfm per 100ft2 of 

conditioned floor area to 4cfm/100ft2 for 

tests done on completed buildings, and 

from 6 to 4 cfm per 100ft2 for tests done 

at the rough-in stage of construction). 

• Section R403.2.3 now specifies that 

building framing cavities may not be 

used as supply ducts or plenums, which 

would eliminate the potential for air 

leaks into adjacent framing cavities and/ 

or attics, crawlspaces, or unheated 

basements. This may also lessen the 

chance of an unbalanced distribution 

system. 

DOE has determined that all of these 

changes will increase the energy savings 

of the 2012 edition of the IECC by 

delivering more of the conditioned air to 

where it is needed via a more efficient 

distribution system. 

Hot Water Pipe Insulation and Length 

Requirements 

Section R403.4.2 contains new 

specifications for noncirculating service 

hot water distribution systems that 

should reduce energy losses from 

‘‘stranded’’ hot water and conduction of 

heat out of the pipes. The 2012 IECC 

specifies that all such pipes to be 

insulated unless they have sufficiently 

low volume as defined by a combination 

of their length (measured from the tank 

or distribution manifold to the point of 

use) and diameter. This change is 

expected to reduce the amount of hot 

water that cools off in the pipes and is 

thus wasted as users wait for 

sufficiently warm water to reach the 

fixture. Also, for circulating hot water 

systems, the required insulation has 

been increased from R–2 to R–3 and 

therefore should increase efficiency. A 

final change in the 2012 IECC requires 

that piping insulation be protected from 

the elements. Although primarily a 

durability concern, this change may 

save energy by reducing the incidence 

of damaged and/or missing insulation. 

Skylight Definition Change 

Previously, skylights were defined as 

any glazed fenestration at less than 75 

degrees from horizontal. That definition 

has been changed in the 2012 IECC to 

be less than 60 degrees from horizontal. 

The effect of this change is to classify 

more glazing as vertical fenestration 

rather than skylights. Although the 

number of skylights in this slope range 

is small, because the U-factor 

requirements for vertical fenestration 

are more stringent than for skylights, 

this change is expected to improve the 

energy savings of the 2012 IECC. 

Electric Resistance Heating in the 

Performance Path 

Under the performance compliance 

path (Section R405), the 2012 IECC has 

modified the reference design for 

buildings with electric heating systems 

that do not use a heat pump, requiring 

that a heat pump be assumed in the 

standard reference design. Because of 

the efficiency of heat pumps as 

compared to other electric heating 

technologies, this code change is 

expected to increase the energy 

efficiency of the reference design, which 

would have the effect of specifying that 

the proposed design to be more energy 

efficient if it is to comply via this 

section and the proposed design has an 

electric heating system that is less 

efficient than a heat pump. Although 

this affects only homes with electric 

resistance heating, its effect is expected 

to be an improvement in efficiency if 

such homes comply via the performance 

method. 

Fireplace Air Leakage Control 

The 2012 IECC specifies that all 

fireplaces have tight-fitting flue dampers 

and gasketed doors (the 2009 IECC 

requires such only for wood-burning 

fireplaces). This is expected to result in 

very air-tight fireplaces which would 

mstockstill on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

29328 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 96 / Thursday, May 17, 2012 / Notices 

improve a home’s air leakage 

characteristics. Therefore, this is 

deemed an improvement in efficiency 

for homes with fireplaces. 

In-Ground Spas 

Section R403.9 has been updated to 

include in-ground spas under the 

purview of the code, where previously 

only swimming pools were included. 

The change effectively requires inground spas to have insulating covers, 

which should lower energy losses. To 

the extent that these devices typically 

already have insulating covers this may 

have limited impact in terms of 

efficiency. 

The 2012 IECC now specifies that log 

walls meet the requirements of ICC–400, 

a separate standard for log wall 

construction. Although this does not 

change the thermal requirements, it may 

result in better quality construction of 

log walls, which would improve energy 

performance by reducing air leaks and 

thermal bypasses. 

Baffles for Attic Insulation 

Section R402.2.3 now requires a wind 

wash baffle for vented attics. For airpermeable insulation, this should 

improve the effective insulation value of 

the ceiling by reducing wind-driven air 

movement and may in some cases 

prevent blown-in insulation from being 

displaced by wind. Therefore, this is an 

improvement in efficiency for attics. 

B. Changes in the 2012 IECC That Are 

Estimated To Decrease Energy 

Efficiency 

Steel-Framed Wall Insulation 

The 2012 IECC modifies the IECC 

code’s tables of steel-framed wall Ufactor equivalences with wood-frame 

walls of various R-values in such a way 

that less efficient steel-framed walls will 

be deemed equivalent to a 

corresponding wood-frame wall in 

many cases. In the 2009 IECC, there was 

no distinction between homes with 

different steel stud spacing. In the 2012 

IECC, there are now separate U-factor 

equivalences for studs with 16′′ and 24′′ 

spacing. The 16′′ stud spacing 

requirements have two categories that 

are directly comparable to the 2009 

IECC requirements: Walls with woodframe R-values of R–13 or R–21. 

According to Table A3.3 of ASHRAE 

90.1 2007, the 2009 IECC-required Rfactors represent an equivalent U-factor 

for the wall assembly of 0.077 to 0.080 

Btu/hr-ft2-F, depending on the 

compliance option. This has been 

changed in the 2012 IECC to a range of 

0.059–0.089 Btu/hr-ft2-F. The average 

compliance option based on R–13 

wood-frame walls represents a 5.4% 

higher U-factor. For R–21 wood-frame 

walls, the steel frame options previously 

represented U-factors of 0.054, whereas 

in the 2012 code, they represent Ufactors of 0.056, a 3.1% increase. 

Insulation equivalences in the 2012 

IECC for steel walls with 24′′ stud 

spacing are slightly more lax, reflecting 

the decreased thermal bridging effects, 

compared with 16′′ stud spacing. 

Because the baseline for comparison for 

24′′ stud spacing in the 2009 IECC is still 

the general requirements that did not 

distinguish based on stud spacing, these 

new requirements represent higher 

increases in assembly U-factors than for 

16′′ stud spacing. Specifically, there is a 

9.1% increase in assembly U-factors 

among the various insulation options for 

R–13 and an 11.8% increase for R–21. 

The steel-wood framing equivalences of 

the 2009 IECC and the 2012 IECC are 

compared below in Table 3. In this 

table, the first value is cavity insulation 

and the second is continuous insulation. 

For example, R–13+5 is R–13 cavity 

insulation plus R–5 continuous 

insulation. 

Note that while the steel/wood 

equivalences have changed such that 

steel-stud walls may be less efficient 

than before in comparison to a 

particular wood-frame R-value, the base 

R-value requirements (expressed in 

terms of wood-frame walls) have 

substantially increased in climate zones 

3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 which would result in 

energy savings in these zones even for 

steel framed walls. Because the number 

of homes with external walls with steel 

framing is small compared to woodframe homes, this change is not 

expected to result in substantial overall 

efficiency losses in zones 1, 2, and 5. 

TABLE 3—COMPARISON OF STEEL-FRAME WALL REQUIREMENTS BETWEEN THE 2009 AND 2012 IECC 

Steel Frame Spacing ......... 16′′ stud spacing 24′′ stud spacing 

Wood-Frame Requirement R–13 .................................. R–21 .................................. R–13 .................................. R–21. 

2009 IECC Options ........... R–0+10 or R13+5 or R– 

15+4 or R–21+3.

R–13+10 or R–19+9 or R– 

25+8.

R–13+5 or R–15+4 or R– 

21+3 or R–0+10.

R–13+10 or R–19+9 or R– 

25+8. 

2012 IECC Options ........... R–0+9.3 or R–13+4.2 or 

R–15+3.8 or R–19+2.1 

or R–21+2.8.

R–0+14.6 or R–13+9.5 or 

R–15+9.1 or R–19+8.4 

or R–21+8.1 or R– 

25+7.7.

R–0+9.3 or R–13+3 or R– 

15+2.4.

R–0+14 or R–13+8.3 or 

R–15+7.7 or R–19+6.9 

or R–21+6.5 or R– 

25+5.9. 

Average U-factor (2009) 1 0.079 ................................. 0.054 ................................. 0.063 ................................. 0.04. 

Average U-factor (2012) .... 0.083 ................................. 0.056 ................................. 0.07 ................................... 0.045. 

Average U-factor Increase 5.4% .................................. 3.1% .................................. 9.1% .................................. 11.8%. 

1 Calculated using ASHRAE 90.1–2007 Table A3.4. 

Air Barrier Location 

The 2012 IECC changes Table 

R402.4.1.1 by removing a requirement 

that air-permeable insulation be located 

inside the air barrier, allowing the 

insulation to be outside of the air barrier 

in the exterior envelope construction. 

By allowing air-permeable insulation to 

be located outside the air barrier this 

change may result in increased levels of 

outdoor air infiltration in the interstices 

of the insulation material. This would 

tend to reduce the effectiveness of the 

insulation. The magnitude of impact for 

this change, however, is expected to be 

minimal because an interior air barrier 

will still be effective at reducing air 

movement through the envelope and 

because the 2012 IECC’s new mandate 

for a whole-house pressure test will 

ensure that total air leakage through the 

building envelope be kept at a low rate. 

There is an additional change in the 

2012 IECC that may reduce the energy 

efficiency of the code. In the 2009 IECC, 

the common wall between dwelling 

units of a multifamily or two-family 

structure was required to be air-sealed. 

In the 2012 IECC, this requirement has 

been removed. In practice, these 

common walls can provide a route for 

air leakage to the outdoors if they are 

coupled to attics, basements, 

crawlspaces, or other unconditioned 

spaces. Because multifamily represent a 

small fraction of low-rise residential 

dwelling units (about 15%) and because 

this change creates the potential for only 

mstockstill on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 96 / Thursday, May 17, 2012 / Notices 29329 

an indirect air movement path, DOE 

does not consider this change to be 

significant. 

C. Changes in the 2012 IECC That Have 

an Unclear Impact on Energy Efficiency 

Fenestration SHGC in Climate Zone 4 

As presented in Table 1, the 2012 

IECC changes SHGC specifications for 

climate zone 4 from no requirement 

(NR) to 0.4. Because climate zone 4 

contains locations where the energy 

savings from increased solar heat gains 

in winter may more than offset 

increased energy use for air 

conditioning in summer, it is possible 

that a lower SHGC would increase 

energy use in some parts of the zone. 

However, the specified fenestration Ufactor of 0.35 in both the 2009 and 2012 

IECC usually implies the use of 

windows with low-emissivity coatings 

that have an SHGC of 0.4 or below even 

in the absence of a specific SHGC 

requirement. Therefore, DOE expects 

this change to have minimal impact 

either in terms of energy savings or 

energy losses. 

Interior Shading Assumptions in the 

Performance Compliance Path 

The 2012 IECC modifies internal 

shade fractions required as inputs to the 

performance compliance path. The 2009 

IECC specified the following internal 

shade fractions for the reference design: 

Summer—0.70, Winter—0.85. These 

have been replaced in the 2012 IECC 

with the following equation for 

calculating interior shade fraction (ISF): 

ISF = 0.92 ¥ 0.21 C ̇ SHGC 

The impact of this change on the 

energy consumption of homes 

complying via the performance path is 

nuanced and difficult to generalize, but 

is expected to be small. Its primary 

impact is to modestly change the 

relative importance of cooling- and 

heating-oriented energy-saving features. 

D. Changes in the 2012 IECC That Do 

Not Affect Energy Efficiency 

Several changes were made to the 

IECC that do not directly affect energy 

efficiency. Table 4 details these changes, 

listing the section of the 2009 IECC to 

which the change was made, a 

description of the change, and an 

explanation why overall energy 

efficiency is not affected. 

TABLE 4—CHANGES TO IECC THAT DO NOT AFFECT ENERGY EFFICIENCY

Code section Change Comments 

R202 ............................ Clarifies that residential buildings covered by chapter 4 

are one- and two-family dwellings, townhouses and 

multi-family residential (R–2) not over 3 stories in height 

above grade.

This change is only a clarification. 

R202 ............................ Definition of a whole-house ventilation system ................... Because whole-house ventilation systems are not yet required by the code, this new definition effects no real 

change to the code’s requirements. 

R401.3 ......................... Results of an air leakage test must be documented on the 

certificate.

This change only affects the transparency of code compliance. 

R202 and R303.1.3 ..... Introduction of ‘‘Visible Transmittance’’ (VT) for fenestrations. Default Visible Transmittances defined in Table.The table only provides default VT values for certain window types. VT is not directly regulated by the code. 

R402.4.4 ...................... Clarification that recessed lighting must be labeled as having a leakage rate to ceiling cavity of <=2 cfm.This is only a clarification of previous text. 

Chapter 6 .................... Introduction of ASHRAE test procedure 193 for determining the air leakage rate for HVAC Equipment.Provides a test procedure to enable compliance with a 

new requirement. 

Chapter 5 .................... Introduction of test standard for home ventilation systems: 

HVI 916–09 Airflow Test Procedure.

Provides a test procedure to enable compliance with a 

new requirement. 

Table R405.5.2(1) ....... Requirements for Proposed Design for Thermal Distribution Systems: Thermal distribution system efficiency 

shall be as tested or as specified by Table 405.5.2 if not 

tested. Duct insulation shall be as proposed.

This change is only a clarification. 

R403.6 ......................... Heating and cooling equipment shall be sized in accordance with ACCA Manual S based on building loads calculated in accordance with ACCA Manual J or other approved heating and cooling calculation methodologies.This moves this requirement directly into the IECC instead 

of referencing the IRC. 

III. Filing Certification Statements With 

DOE 

A. State Determinations 

Based on today’s final determination, 

each State is required to determine the 

appropriateness of revising, in full or in 

part, the portion of its residential 

building code regarding energy 

efficiency to meet or exceed the energy 

efficiency provisions of the 2012 IECC. 

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

determinations are required to be made 

not later than two years from today’s 

date, unless an extension is provided. 

The State determination must be: (1) 

Made after public notice and hearing; 

(2) in writing; (3) based upon findings 

and upon the evidence presented at the 

hearing; and (4) made available to the 

public. States have considerable 

discretion with regard to the hearing 

procedures they use, subject to 

providing an adequate opportunity for 

members of the public to be heard and 

to present relevant information. The 

Department recommends publication of 

any notice of public hearing in a 

newspaper of general circulation. 

In evaluating the 2012 IECC, States 

should note that DOE’s determination 

was based on an evaluation of the code 

as applied to new construction only. 

The scope of the 2012 IECC includes 

new construction as well as additions, 

alterations, renovations, or repairs to an 

existing building or building system, or 

portion thereof, as it relates to new 

construction as detailed in chapter 1, 

part 1 of the 2012 IECC. Chapter 1, part 

1 of the 2012 IECC specifies the scope 

of the IECC as it pertains to existing 

buildings: The 2012 IECC does not 

require the unaltered portion(s) of the 

existing building or building system to 

comply with this code nor does the code 

require the removal, alteration or 

abandonment of, nor prevent the 

continued use and maintenance of, an 

existing building or building system 

lawfully in existence at the time of 

adoption of the IECC. Additionally, DOE 

notes that its determination was based 

on a comparison of energy efficiency 

mstockstill on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

29330 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 96 / Thursday, May 17, 2012 / Notices 

impacts only and did not take into 

consideration other factors such as cost, 

or health and safety. DOE provides 

States technical assistance to aid them 

in determining whether to update 

specific residential building codes. See 

http://www.energycodes.gov/states/ 

techAssist.stm. In addition, funds 

provided through the State Energy 

Program, can be used to support code 

development consistent with a State’s 

approved plan. 

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

amended, requires that if a State makes 

a determination that it is not 

appropriate to revise the energy 

efficiency provisions of its residential 

building code, the State must submit to 

the Secretary, in writing, the reasons for 

this determination and the statement 

shall be available to the public. (42 

U.S.C. 6833(a)(4)) The reasons are to be 

sent to the address provided in the 

ADDRESSES section. 

States should be aware that, 

consistent with IECC definitions, the 

Department considers high-rise (greater 

than three stories) multifamily 

residential buildings and hotel, motel, 

and other transient residential building 

types of any height as non-residential 

buildings for energy code purposes. 

Residential buildings include one- and 

two-family detached and attached 

buildings, duplexes, townhouses, row 

houses, and low-rise multifamily 

buildings (not greater than three stories) 

such as condominiums and garden 

apartments. 

States should also be aware that this 

final determination does not apply to 

IECC chapters specific to nonresidential buildings as defined above. 

Therefore, today’s final action requires 

that States must certify their evaluations 

of their State building codes for 

residential buildings with respect to all 

provisions of the IECC except for those 

chapters specific to non-residential 

buildings as defined above. 

B. Requests for Extensions To Certify 

Section 304(c) of ECPA, as amended, 

requires that the Secretary permit an 

extension of the deadline for complying 

with the certification requirements 

described above, if a State can 

demonstrate that it has made a good 

faith effort to comply with such 

requirements and that it has made 

significant progress toward meeting its 

certification obligations. (42 U.S.C. 

6833(c)) Such demonstrations could 

include one or both of the following: (1) 

A plan for response to the requirements 

stated in Section 304; and/or (2) a 

statement that the State has 

appropriated or requested funds (within 

State funding procedures) to implement 

a plan that would respond to the 

requirements of Section 304 of ECPA. 

This list is not exhaustive. Requests are 

to be sent to the address provided in the 

ADDRESSES section. 

IV. Regulatory Analysis 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

Today’s action is a significant 

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

Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review’’ (58 FR 51735 

(Oct. 4, 1993)). Accordingly, today’s 

action was reviewed by the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA) in the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB). 

B. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires the 

preparation of an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis for any rule that by 

law must be proposed for public 

comment, unless the agency certifies 

that the rule, if promulgated, will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

As required by Executive Order 13272, 

‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities 

in Agency Rulemaking,’’ (67 FR. 53461 

(Aug. 16, 2002)), DOE published 

procedures and policies on February 19, 

2003, to ensure that the potential 

impacts of its rules on small entities are 

properly considered during the 

rulemaking process (68 FR 7990). DOE 

has made its procedures and policies 

available on the Office of General 

Counsel’s Web site: http:// 

www.gc.doe.gov. Today’s action on the 

final determination of improved energy 

efficiency between IECC editions 

requires States to undertake an analysis 

of their respective building codes. 

Today’s action does not impact small 

entities. Therefore, DOE has certified 

that there is no significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

C. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

DOE has determined that today’s 

action is covered under the Categorical 

Exclusion found in DOE’s National 

Environmental Policy Act regulations at 

paragraph A.6 of Appendix A to subpart 

D, 10 CFR part 1021. That Categorical 

Exclusion applies to actions that are 

strictly procedural, such as rulemaking 

establishing the administration of 

grants. Today’s action impacts whether 

States must perform an evaluation of 

State building codes. The action would 

not have direct environmental impacts. 

Accordingly, DOE has not prepared an 

environmental assessment or an 

environmental impact statement. 

D. Review Under Executive Order 

13132, ‘‘Federalism’’ 

Executive Order 13132, 64 FR 43255 

(Aug. 4, 1999), imposes certain 

requirements on agencies formulating 

and implementing policies or 

regulations that pre-empt State law or 

that have federalism implications. 

Agencies are required to examine the 

constitutional and statutory authority 

supporting any action that would limit 

the policymaking discretion of the 

States and carefully assess the necessity 

for such actions. DOE has examined 

today’s action and has determined that 

it will not pre-empt State law and will 

not have a substantial direct effect on 

the States, on the relationship between 

the national government and the States, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. Today’s action 

impacts whether States must perform an 

evaluation of State building codes. No 

further action is required by Executive 

Order 13132. 

F. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) generally 

requires Federal agencies to examine 

closely the impacts of regulatory actions 

on State, local, and tribal governments. 

Subsection 101(5) of Title I of that law 

defines a Federal intergovernmental 

mandate to include any regulation that 

would impose upon State, local, or 

tribal governments an enforceable duty, 

except a condition of Federal assistance 

or a duty arising from participating in a 

voluntary Federal program. Title II of 

that law requires each Federal agency to 

assess the effects of Federal regulatory 

actions on State, local, and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or to the 

private sector, other than to the extent 

such actions merely incorporate 

requirements specifically set forth in a 

statute. Section 202 of that title requires 

a Federal agency to perform a detailed 

assessment of the anticipated costs and 

benefits of any rule that includes a 

Federal mandate which may result in 

costs to State, local, or tribal 

governments, or to the private sector, of 

$100 million or more. Section 204 of 

that title requires each agency that 

proposes a rule containing a significant 

Federal intergovernmental mandate to 

develop an effective process for 

obtaining meaningful and timely input 

from elected officers of State, local, and 

tribal governments. 

Today’s action impacts whether States 

must perform an evaluation of State 

mstockstill on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 96 / Thursday, May 17, 2012 / Notices 29331 

building codes. Today’s action would 

not impose a Federal mandate on State, 

local or tribal governments, and it 

would not result in the expenditure by 

State, local, and tribal governments in 

the aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100 million or more in any one year. 

Accordingly, no assessment or analysis 

is required under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995. 

G. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act of 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

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

Federal agencies to issue a Family 

Policymaking Assessment for any rule 

that may affect family well-being. 

Today’s action would not have any 

impact on the autonomy or integrity of 

the family as an institution. 

Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it 

is not necessary to prepare a Family 

Policymaking Assessment. 

H. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act of 2001 

Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) 

provides for agencies to review most 

disseminations of information to the 

public under guidelines established by 

each agency pursuant to general 

guidelines issued by OMB. OMB’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed 

today’s action under the OMB and DOE 

guidelines and has concluded that it is 

consistent with applicable policies in 

those guidelines. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

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

22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to 

prepare and submit to the OMB a 

Statement of Energy Effects for any 

proposed significant energy action. A 

‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined as 

any action by an agency that 

promulgated or is expected to lead to 

promulgation of a final rule, and that: 

(1) Is a significant regulatory action 

under Executive Order 12866, or any 

successor order; and (2) is likely to have 

a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy, or 

(3) is designated by the Administrator of 

the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs (OIRA) as a significant energy 

action. For any proposed significant 

energy action, the agency must give a 

detailed statement of any adverse effects 

on energy supply, distribution, or use, 

should the proposal be implemented, 

and of reasonable alternatives to the 

action and their expected benefits on 

energy supply, distribution, and use. 

Today’s action would not have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy and is 

therefore not a significant energy action. 

Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a 

Statement of Energy Effects. 

J. Review Under Executive Order 13175 

Executive Order 13175. ‘‘Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments’’ (65 FR 67249 (Nov. 9, 

2000)), requires DOE to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by tribal 

officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal 

implications’’ refers to regulations that 

have ‘‘substantial direct effects on one 

or more Indian tribes, on the 

relationship between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes.’’ Today’s 

regulatory action is not a policy that has 

‘‘tribal implications’’ under Executive 

Order 13175. 

DOE has reviewed today’s action 

under Executive Order 13175 and has 

determined that it is consistent with 

applicable policies of that Executive 

Order. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 9, 2012. 

David T. Danielson, 

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2012–12000 Filed 5–16–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy 

[Case No. RF–022] 

Publication of the Petition for Waiver 

From Sanyo E&E Corporation From the 

Department of Energy Residential 

Refrigerator and Refrigerator-Freezer 

Test Procedure 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of re-opening of public 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: On April 2, 2012, the U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE) published 

the Sanyo E&E Corporation (Sanyo) 

petition for waiver from the residential 

refrigerator and refrigerator-freezer test 

procedure. Comments were required to 

be submitted by May 2, 2012. This 

document announces that the period for 

submitting comments on the Sanyo 

petition for waiver is re-opened until 

June 18, 2012. 

DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, 

and information regarding the Sanyo 

petition for waiver received no later 

than June 18, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Any comments submitted 

must identify the Sanyo E&E 

Corporation petition for waiver, and 

provide case number RF–022. 

Comments may be submitted using any 

of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email: 

AS_Waiver_Requests@ee.doe.gov. 

Include the case number [Case No. RF– 

022] in the subject line of the message. 

• Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J/ 

1000 Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–2945. Please 

submit one signed original paper copy. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda 

Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Building Technologies Program, 950 

L’Enfant Plaza SW., Suite 600, 

Washington, DC 20024. Please submit 

one signed original paper copy. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, visit the U.S. 

Department of Energy, Resource Room 

of the Building Technologies Program, 

950 L’Enfant Plaza SW., 6th Floor, 

Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586–2945, 

between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. Please call Ms. Brenda 

Edwards at the above telephone number 

for additional information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Bryan Berringer, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Building Technologies Program, 

Mail Stop EE–2J, Forrestal Building, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–0371. Email: 

Bryan.Berringer@ee.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 

2, 2012, DOE published the Sanyo 

petition for waiver from the residential 

refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and 

freezer test procedure in the Federal 

Register (77 FR 19654). The notice 

provided for the submission of 

comments by May 2, 2012. After the 

notice of petition for waiver was 

published, Sanyo provided DOE with 

mstockstill on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES