Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 171 / Friday, September 3, 2010 / Notices 54131 

Information regulations at 10 CFR 

1004.11. 

VII. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this preliminary 

determination. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 26, 

2010. 

Cathy Zoi, 

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2010–22060 Filed 9–2–10; 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: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed 

determination. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy 

(DOE or Department) has preliminarily 

determined that the 2009 version of the 

International Code Council (ICC) 

International Energy Conservation Code 

(IECC) would achieve greater energy 

efficiency in low-rise residential 

buildings than the 2006 IECC. Also, 

DOE has preliminarily determined that 

the 2006 version of the IECC would 

achieve greater energy efficiency than 

the 2003 IECC. Finally, DOE has 

preliminarily determined that the 2003 

version of the IECC would not achieve 

greater energy efficiency than the 2000 

IECC. If these determinations are 

finalized, States would be 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 most 

recent code with an affirmative 

determination, 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, should the 

preliminary determinations be adopted 

as final. 

DATES: Comments on the preliminary 

determinations must be provided by 

October 4, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• E-mail: ronald.majette@ee.doe.gov. 

Include RIN 1904–AC17 in the subject 

line of the message. 

• Postal Mail: Mr. Ronald B. Majette, 

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. 

Please submit one signed paper original. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: Mr. Ronald 

B. Majette, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Federal Energy Management Program, 

Room 6003, 1000 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585– 

0121. 

Instructions: All submissions must 

include the agency name, Department of 

Energy, and docket number, EERE– 

2010–BT–DET–0030, or Regulatory 

Information Number (RIN), 1904–AC17, 

for this rulemaking. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Ronald B. Majette, 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, 202–586–7935. For legal issues 

contact Chris Calamita, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

Forrestal Building, GC–72, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586–9507, 

e-mail: 

Christopher.Calamita@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

A. Statutory Requirements 

B. Background 

C. DOE’s Preliminary 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 

VI. Public Participation 

VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

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, or any 

successor to that code, is revised, the 

Secretary of the Department of Energy 

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 International Code Council (ICC) 

and the American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning 

Engineers (ASHRAE) considers high-rise 

(greater than three stories) multifamily 

residential buildings and hotel, motel, 

and other transient residential building 

types of any height as commercial 

buildings for energy code purposes. 

Low-rise residential buildings include 

one- and two-family detached and 

attached buildings, duplexes, 

townhouses, row houses, and low-rise 

multifamily buildings (not greater than 

three stories) such as condominiums 

and garden apartments. 

If the Secretary determines that the 

revision would improve energy 

efficiency then, not later than 2 years 

after the date of the publication of the 

affirmative determination, each State is 

required to certify that it has compared 

its residential building code regarding 

energy efficiency to the revised code 

and made a determination whether it is 

appropriate to revise its code to meet or 

exceed the provisions of the successor 

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

determinations are to be made: (1) After 

public notice and hearing; (2) in writing; 

(3) based upon findings included in 

such determination and upon evidence 

presented at the hearing; and (4) 

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

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

determines that it is not appropriate to 

revise its residential building code, the 

State is required to submit to the 

Secretary, in writing, the reasons, which 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
54132 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 171 / Friday, September 3, 2010 / Notices 

1Estimated from USGS Population Places data 

that allows mapping of population to climate 

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

data.htm). 

are to be made available to the public. 

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

B. Background 

The International Code Council’s 

(ICC) International Energy Conservation 

Code (IECC) establishes national energy 

efficiency requirements for buildings. In 

1997, the Council of American Building 

Officials (CABO) was incorporated into 

the ICC and the Model Energy Code 

(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. DOE’s Preliminary Determination 

Statement 

2003 IECC 

The Department of Energy’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 affect 

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 

preliminarily concluded that the 2003 

edition of the IECC should not receive 

an affirmative determination under 

Section 304(b) of ECPA. The 

Department preliminarily concludes 

that there is a slight improvement in 

energy efficiency for many residential 

buildings, but this improvement is not 

sufficient to merit an affirmative 

determination. It should be noted that 

DOE is not concluding that the energy 

efficiency of the 2003 IECC less 

stringent than the 2000 IECC. 

2006 IECC 

The residential portion of the 2006 

IECC has been extensively changed from 

that 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 

preliminarily found that overall the 

2006 IECC has a small improvement in 

energy efficiency compared to the 2003 

IECC. The Department preliminarily 

concludes that the 2006 edition of the 

IECC should receive an affirmative 

determination under Section 304(b) of 

EPCA. 

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 

preliminarily concludes that the 2009 

edition of the IECC should receive 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 appear 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. 

Changes in the 2003 IECC That Improve 

Energy Efficiency 

1. 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 

degrees F for cooling and 95 degrees 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, and the case that 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 1, more than 80% of ducts in 

other unconditioned spaces. 

Requirements for return ducts in 

attics are slightly more stringent in the 

2003 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. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 171 / Friday, September 3, 2010 / Notices 54133 

2Triedler, 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. 

Research 2 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%. 

TABLE 1—DUCT INSULATION REQUIREMENTS IN THE 2003 IECC 

Annual heating degree days base 65°F 

Insulation R-value (h · ft2 · °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 

2. 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. 

B. Changes in the 2003 IECC That 

Decrease Energy Efficiency 

1. 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 DOE–2 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, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
54134 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 171 / Friday, September 3, 2010 / Notices 

3Some compliance paths defined requirements 

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

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 

Online (June 3, 2003) reports three 

billion dollars 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. 

2. 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. It is 

doubtful 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 U.S. Department of 

Energy utilize the same heating degree 

day based requirements for both the 

2000 and 2003 IECC. 

3. 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. 

C. Net Impact on Energy Efficiency 

The change in the 2003 IECC that is 

expected to have the greatest impact on 

energy efficiency for the nation 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. 

The ‘‘Systems Analysis’’ performance 

compliance method is a less commonly 

used compliance method and the 

modest energy savings from the 

improvements in this optional 

compliance method can easily be 

bypassed by choosing a different 

compliance method. Because this 

approach is optional, it is impossible to 

calculate the cumulative effect these 

code changes will have on energy 

efficiency. DOE believes that the 

changes to the system analysis method 

are insufficient to sway the decision on 

whether the determination is affirmative 

or not. 

The changes that reduce energy 

efficiency for sunroom additions and 

skylight replacements are not 

considered to have 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 is 

difficult to exploit this change because 

the code user must perform relatively 

complex calculations rather than using 

the popular and user-friendly REScheck 

software. 

DOE preliminarily concludes the 

improved duct insulation 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. The vast majority 

of all requirements in the IECC are 

unchanged from 2000 to 2003. For these 

reasons, DOE initially finds insufficient 

improvements in the 2003 to merit an 

affirmative determination. 

B. 2006 IECC Compared With the 2003 

IECC 

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),3 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 requirements for two building 

categories (one- and two-family 

dwellings, and all other low-rise 

residential buildings). The 2006 IECC 

requirements are the same for all lowrise residential building types, which 

has the effect of increasing the energy 

efficiency of the other low-rise 

buildings. Also 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 171 / Friday, September 3, 2010 / Notices 54135 

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

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

6 ........ 3 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 ........ 3,500–3,999 ....................................... 0.50 0.40 R–30 R–38 R–13 R–13 R–19 R–19 

9 ........ 4 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 ........ 5,000–5,499 ....................................... 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 ........ 5 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 

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

3 ........ 2 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 ........ 2,000–2,499 .............................................................................. R–5 R–10/ 

13 

R–0 R–0 R–6 R–5 

6 ........ 3 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
54136 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 171 / Friday, September 3, 2010 / Notices 

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 

8 ........ 3,500–3,999 .............................................................................. R–8 R–10/ 

13 

R–5,2 R–10,2 R–10 R–10 

9 ........ 4 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 ........ 5,000–5,499 .............................................................................. 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 ........ 5 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 

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 

The Department has conducted an 

analysis and has preliminarily found 

that the 2006 IECC would modestly 

increase energy efficiency on an overall 

national average basis. This analysis is 

summarized below; a technical support 

document 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 171 / Friday, September 3, 2010 / Notices 54137 

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-ongrade 

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, 

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 weaker than the 2003 IECC when 

the distribution of window areas in all 

residential buildings is accounted for. 

A major factor influencing the 

Department’s preliminary 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 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 

Each of the major changes in the 2009 

IECC that impact energy efficiency is 

examined individually below. All but 

one of the changes appear to improve 

energy efficiency. 

1. Changes That Improve Energy 

Efficiency 

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 

estimates that lighting consumed 11.6% 

of all primary energy use in residential 

buildings in 2006 and that the 

requirement in the 2009 IECC could 

reduce lighting energy use by about 

25%. 

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 shows 

these changes. Additionally, there were 

a number of minor improvements, 

including establishing an area limit of 

24 ft2 on the door exemption from Ufactor requirements. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
54138 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 171 / Friday, September 3, 2010 / Notices 

4Washington State University. 2001. Washington 

State Energy Code Duct Leakage Study Report. 

WSUCEEP01105. Washington State University 

Cooperative Extension Energy Program, Olympia, 

Washington. 

5Hales, D., A. Gordon, and M. Lubliner. 2003. 

Duct Leakage in New Washington State Residences: 

Findings and Conclusions. ASHRAE Transactions. 

KC–2003–1–3. 

6 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. 

7Hammon, R. W., and M. P. Modera. 1999. 

‘‘Improving the Efficiency of Air Distribution 

Systems in New California Homes-Updated Report.’’ 

Consol. Stockton, California. http:// 

www.energy.ca.gov/title24/ducttape/documents/ 

IMPROVE_EFFICIENCY_RES.PDF. 

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. 

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. 

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.4

Another study from Washington State 

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.5

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 Model Energy Code in 

Massachusetts reported ‘‘serious 

problems were found in the quality of 

duct sealing in about 80% of these 

houses’’.6 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 ft 2 house.7 This is based on an 

estimated 12% improvement in duct 

efficiency based on previous studies 

indicating a 12–15% improvement 

potential. The Department preliminarily 

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. 

Improvement in Other Requirements 

1. 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 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 on Energy Efficiency 

The Department has conducted an 

energy simulation analysis of 2009 IECC 

compared to the 2006 using the DOE– 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 171 / Friday, September 3, 2010 / Notices 54139 

8The DOE–2 simulation tool is available at http:// 

doe2.com/. 

2 simulation tool to model 8 a two-story, 

single-family house with a crawl space 

foundation and a conditioned floor area 

of 2,400 ft.2 It was assumed that the 

house had 8.5-ft high ceilings, a ceiling 

area (bordering the unconditioned attic) 

of 1,200 ft 2, a gross exterior wall area of 

2,380 ft2, and a window area of 357 ft 2

(15% of the wall area) equally oriented 

north, south, east, and west. Heating 

with a natural gas furnace ($1.20/therm) 

and central electric air conditioning 

($.12/kWh) were assumed. 

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 2009 IECC 

changes for 14 diverse climates and for 

the national average. Actual savings will 

vary depending on many factors, 

including how well ducts are currently 

sealed in the absence of any testing 

requirements. 

III. Comparison of the 2009 IRC to the 

2009 IECC 

In the past some states have adopted 

the 2009 International Residential Code 

(IRC) in lieu of the 2009 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. 

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 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. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICESen03se10.000</GPH>
54140 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 171 / Friday, September 3, 2010 / Notices 

9EnergyGauge is available at http://doe2.com/. 

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. 

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 

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. 

Impact of the Differences Between the 

2009 IRC and 2009 IECC 

The Department of Energy 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) 9 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 171 / Friday, September 3, 2010 / Notices 54141 

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 

If today’s determinations are 

finalized, each State would be 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 International 

Energy Conservation Code, 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 in this notice. 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. The determinations 

would be required to be made not later 

than two years from the date of notice 

final determination, 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. 

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)) 

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 

those chapters. 

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 more of the following: (1) 

A plan for response to the requirements 

stated in Section 304, or (2) a statement 

that the State has appropriated or 

requested funds (within State funding 

procedures) to implement a plan that 

would respond to the requirements of 

Section 304 of ECPA. 

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; 

October 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; 

August 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 

determination of improved energy 

efficiency between IECC editions would 

require States to undertake an analysis 

of their respective building codes. 

Today’s action does not impact small 

entities. Therefore, we certify 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 preliminarily 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 

(August 4, 1999), imposes certain 

requirements on agencies formulating 

and implementing policies or 

regulations that preempt 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
54142 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 171 / Friday, September 3, 2010 / Notices 

States and carefully assess the necessity 

for such actions. DOE has examined 

today’s action and has determined that 

it will not preempt 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. 

E. 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 

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. 

F. 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. 

G. 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 (February 22, 2002), and DOE’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

62446 (October 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. 

H. 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. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 13175 

Executive Order 13175. ‘‘Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian tribal 

Governments’’ (65 FR 67249; November 

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. 

VI. Public Participation 

The public is invited to submit 

comments on the preliminary 

determinations. Comments must be 

provided by October 4, 2010 using any 

of the methods described in the 

ADDRESSES section of this notice. If you 

submit information that you believe to 

be exempt by law from public 

disclosure, you should submit one 

complete copy, as well as one copy from 

which the information claimed to be 

exempt by law from public disclosure 

has been deleted. DOE is responsible for 

the final determination with regard to 

disclosure or nondisclosure of the 

information and for treating it 

accordingly under the DOE Freedom of 

Information regulations at 10 CFR 

1004.11. 

VII. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of these preliminary 

determinations. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 26, 

2010. 

Cathy Zoi, 

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2010–22062 Filed 9–2–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES