[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 169 (Wednesday, September 1, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48024-48049]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-22577]



[[Page 48023]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part III





Federal Trade Commission





_______________________________________________________________________



16 CFR Part 460



Trade Regulation Rule: Labeling and Advertising of Home Insulation; 
Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 169 / Wednesday, September 1, 1999 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 48024]]



FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 460


Trade Regulation Rule: Labeling and Advertising of Home 
Insulation

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission (``Commission'') proposes 
commencing a rulemaking proceeding to amend its Trade Regulation Rule 
Concerning the Labeling and Advertising of Home Insulation (``R-value 
Rule'' or ``Rule''). The purpose of the rulemaking is to streamline and 
increase the benefits of the Rule to consumers and sellers, minimize 
its costs, and respond to the development and utilization of new 
technologies to make American homes more energy efficient and less 
costly to operate. This document: First, summarizes public comments the 
Commission received in response to a request for comments about the 
need for the rule and its benefits and burdens; second, proposes 
amendments to recognize technological advances in R-value testing and 
specimen preparation procedures, and to clarify and streamline the 
Rule's requirements; and third, solicits comments on the proposed 
amendments and additional issues.

DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before November 15, 
1999.

ADDRESSES: Five paper copies of each written comment should be 
submitted to the Office of the Secretary, Federal Trade Commission, 
Room 159, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. All 
comments also should be submitted, if possible, in electronic form, on 
a 3\1/2\ inch personal computer diskette, with a label on the diskette 
stating the name of the commenter and the name and version of the word 
processing program used to create the document. Programs based on DOS 
are preferred. Files from other operating systems should be submitted 
in ASCII text format. Individuals filing comments need not submit 
multiple copies or comments in electronic form. Comments alternatively 
may be submitted by electronic mail (e-mail) to <[email protected]>. 
Submissions should be identified as ``ANPR Comment, R-value Rule, 16 
CFR Part 460.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kent C. Howerton or James G. Mills, 
Attorneys, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326-
3013 or (202) 326-3035 (voice), or (202) 326-3259 (FAX).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

    According to the U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE''), the typical 
U.S. family spends close to $1,300 each year on energy bills. DOE 
statistics show that, typically, 44% of a homeowner's utility bill goes 
for heating and cooling costs. DOE states that homeowners may be able 
to reduce their energy bills from 10% to 50% by taking certain 
steps.\1\ One of the major steps is increasing the amount of thermal 
insulation in their existing homes, or purchasing additional insulation 
when purchasing new homes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The amount of energy savings a particular homeowner can 
save, of course, will vary depending on individual circumstances. 
DOE provides recommendations about the amount of insulation 
homeowners need, based on local heating and cooling costs and 
climate conditions. DOE's recommendations are based on the cost-
effectiveness of the recommended insulation levels. for more 
information, see <http://www.eren.doe.gov/consumerinfo/
energy__>savers/ on the Internet, or telephone the U.S. 
Department of Energy's Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 
Clearinghouse (``EREC'') at (800) 363-3732.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To assist consumers in reducing energy bills, the President of the 
United States announced in 1998 the Partnership for Advancing 
Technology in Housing (``PATH''). PATH is a public/private sector 
initiative that seeks to expand the development and utilization of new 
technologies in order to make American homes stronger, safer and more 
durable; more energy efficient and environmentally friendly; easier to 
maintain and less costly to operate; and more comfortable and exciting 
to live in. The PATH effort is expected to result in, among other 
things, improved energy efficiency and the increased market acceptance 
of new housing technologies.
    The FTC has long recognized the importance of energy expenditures 
on housing to homeowners and other consumers. In 1979, the Commission 
promulgated the R-value Rule, 16 CFR Part 460. The R-value Rule 
requires that thermal insulation manufacturers and other sellers 
disclose the thermal performance of their products, based on uniform 
testing procedures adopted by the thermal insulation industry. The 
purpose of this Rule is to provide consumers with information about 
thermal insulation products, based on uniform standards, that allows 
them to make meaningful, cost-based purchasing decisions among 
competing products. As part of its ongoing program to review all its 
rules and guides to ensure that they provide the maximum benefits at 
the lowest cost, the Commission reviewed the R-value Rule in 1995 and 
adopted amendments in 1996 to support the use of the most current 
testing procedures available and to streamline the Rule.
    To increase further the benefits of the Rule, reduce its costs, and 
support PATH's goals to make American homes more energy efficient, and 
less costly to operate, the Commission now proposes to consider 
amending the Rule to recognize the latest technology available. At this 
time the Commission proposes only a few limited amendments, which are 
designed to clarify the Rule, make disclosure requirements consistent 
for competing types of loose-fill insulation products, require the most 
current procedures for preparing R-value test specimens and conducting 
R-value tests, delete disclosures for a type of insulation that no 
longer is sold, and reduce disclosure requirements for retailers. 
Regarding these issues, the Commission believes that there is 
sufficient information to propose amendments. Regarding other issues, 
the Commission is not proposing amendments at this time, but seeks 
additional comment that could ultimately result in proposed amendments. 
The Commission, therefore, requests comments on additional issues, such 
as whether the Commission should revise the Rule to cover additional 
products or to require the disclosure of in-use performance values (as 
opposed to laboratory tests that are conducted under static, uniform 
conditions) or of the performance of building systems. In addition, the 
Commission requests comments on whether it should adopt additional test 
specimen preparation requirements for specific types and forms of 
insulation products to account for various factors that affect R-
values; adopt additional or updated testing requirements; and revise 
the disclosure requirements for manufacturers' label and fact sheets, 
advertisements and other promotional materials, and for professional 
installers, new home sellers, and retailers.

II. The R-Value Rule

    The Commission promulgated the R-value Rule on August 29, 1979 \2\ 
under section 18 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (``FTC Act''), 15 
U.S.C. 57a. The Rule became effective on September 30, 1980. The Rule 
specifies substantiation and disclosure requirements for those who sell 
thermal insulation products for use in the residential market, and 
prohibits certain claims unless they are true. The primary

[[Page 48025]]

disclosure required is the insulation product's ``R-value'' ``R-value'' 
is the recognized numerical measure of the ability of an insulation 
product to restrict the flow of heat and, therefore, to reduce energy 
costs. R-values may be expressed per unit of thickness (e.g., one inch) 
or for the total thickness of a particular insulation product or 
installation. The higher the R-value, the better the product's 
insulating ability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Final trade regulation rule (``Statement of Basis and 
Purpose'' or ``SBP''), 44 FR 50218 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 6, 1995, as part of its ongoing regulatory review program, 
the Commission solicited public comments about the economic impact of 
and current need for the R-value Rule.\3\ 60 FR 17492 (1995). At the 
same time, the Commission solicited comments on a petition 
(``Petition'') from Ronald S. Graves, who at that time was a Research 
Staff Member, Materials Analysis Group, Martin Marietta Energy System, 
Inc. (which operates Oak Ridge National Laboratory (``ORNL'') for the 
U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'')). The Petition requested that the 
Commission approve an additional (fifth) R-value test procedures, as an 
optional test procedure for determining the R-value of home insulation 
under the Rule. The test procedure had been issued by the American 
Society for Testing and Material (``ASTM''), a voluntary industry 
standards organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Commission previously reviewed the Rule in 1985 under 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 610, to determine the 
economic impact of the Rule on small entities. Based on that review, 
the Commission determined that: there was a continuing need for the 
Rule; there was no basis to conclude that the Rule had a significant 
impact on a substantial number of small entities; there was no basis 
to conclude that the Rule should be amended to minimize its economic 
impact on small entities; the Rule did not generally overlap, 
duplicate, or conflict with other regulations; and technological, 
economic, and other changes had not affected the Rule in any way 
that would warrant amending the Rule. 50 FR 13246 (1985).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the request for comments, the Commission received 42 
comments from manufacturers of cellular plastics, cellulosic, mineral 
fiber, and reflective insulation products; manufacturers of structural 
insulated panels; trade associations comprised of manufacturers of 
insulation products and structural insulated panels, professional 
installers, and roofing contractors; independent technical consultants 
to industry; a government contractor; and individual consumers.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The April 6, 1995 request for comments is filed as document 
number B172394. The comments filed in response to the request for 
comments are listed in the attached Appendix, alphabetically 
according to the citation abbreviations used in this notice. The 
comments are filed as document numbers B17239400001, B17239400002, 
etc. In today's notice, the comments are cited as #01, #02, etc. 
They are available for inspection in Room 130 at the Commission's 
Headquarters at 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thirty of the 31 comments that addressed the current need for the 
Rule stated that there is a continuing need for the Rule (and its 
requirements that manufacturers and other sellers substantiate and 
disclose the R-values of home insulation products). Twenty-four 
comments described benefits that the current Rule, and the disclosure 
of R-values and related information, confer on consumers and home 
insulation sellers, including: (1) Giving consumers the basic thermal 
performance information (i.e., R-values) they need to select products 
with the R-value they want; (2) giving consumers R-value information in 
a uniform manner that facilitates easy comparison of competing 
products; (3) requiring that R-value claims be substantiated so 
consumers receive what they are promised; (4) helping consumers save 
energy (and heating and cooling costs) by preventing misrepresentations 
about R-values of insulation products; (5) saving consumers money by 
eliminating marketing practices that lead them to over- or 
underinsulate; (6) improving the quality and consistency of home 
insulation and encouraging the development of advanced products; and 
(7) creating a ``level playing field'' for competing insulation 
sellers.\5\ Most of the comments stated that the costs the Rule imposes 
on consumers and sellers are minimal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In addition to these benefits, one comment explained that 
utility companies have embraced the Rule and developed their own 
energy savings programs that depend on the Rule to protect 
consumers. The comment also stated that state departments of 
consumer affairs have used the Rule as a model in writing their 
regulations, which has led to state enforcement that has generated 
publicity and educated consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the comments, the Commission determined that there is a 
continuing need for the Rule, published its determination to retain it, 
and adopted several technical, non-substantive amendments to support 
the use of the most current testing procedures available and to 
streamline the Rule.\6\ 61 FR 13659, at 13659-62, 13665 (1996). The 
comments also discussed other issues and recommended that the 
Commission consider additional Rule amendments. These comments, the 
Commission's discussion of the issues the comments raised, proposed 
revisions to the Rule, and objectives and regulatory alternatives to 
the proposed revisions, are summarized in Part IV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ These amendments: (1) Revised section 460.5 of the Rule to 
allow the use of an additional ASTM test procedure as an optional, 
but not required, test procedure to determine the R-value of home 
insulation; (2) revised section 460.5 to require the use of current, 
updated versions of other ASTM R-value test methods cited in the 
rule; (3) added an Appendix summarizing the exemptions from specific 
requirements of the Rule that the Commission previously granted for 
certain classes of persons covered by the Rule; and (4) revised 
section 460.10 of the Rule to cross-reference the Commission's 
enforcement policy statement for foreign language advertising in 16 
CFR 14.9 and deleted the previous Appendix to the Rule because it 
merely repeated the text of 16 CFR 14.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Overview of the Rule \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ This part of the notice outlines the coverage and 
requirements of the R-value Rule. Home insulation sellers should be 
aware, however, that additional Commission rules or guides may also 
apply to them. For example, the Commission's rules concerning 
Disclosure of Written Consumer Product Warranty Terms and 
Conditions, and the Pre-sale Availability of Written Warranty Terms, 
16 CFR Parts 701 and 702, specify requirements concerning warranties 
for home insulation products; the Commission's Guides for the Use of 
Environmental Marketing Claims, 16 CFR Part 260, address the 
application of section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45, to 
environmental advertising and marketing claims (e.g., claims 
concerning the amount of recycled material a product contains). 
Further, section 5 of the FTC Act declares that unfair or deceptive 
acts or practices are unlawful, and requires that advertisers and 
other sellers have a reasonable basis for advertising and other 
promotional claims before they are disseminated. See Deception 
Policy Statement, Letter from the Commission to the Honorable John 
D. Dingell, Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, U.S. House 
of Representatives (Oct. 14, 1983), reprinted in Cliffdale Assocs., 
Inc., 103 F.T.C. 110 (1984); Statement of Policy on the Scope of the 
Consumer Unfairness Jurisdiction, Letter from the Commission to the 
Honorable Wendell H. Ford, Chairman, Consumer Subcommittee, 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Honorable John C. Danforth, Ranking 
Minority Member, Consumer Subcommittee, Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation, U.S. Senate (Dec. 17, 1980), reprinted 
in International Harvester Co., 104 F.T.C. 949 (1984); and Policy 
Statement Regarding Advertising Substantiation, 49 FR 30999 (1984), 
reprinted in Thompson Medical Co., 104 F.T.C. 839 (1984).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Products Covered

    The R-value Rule covers all ``home insulation products.'' Under the 
Rule, ``insulation'' is any product mainly used to slow down the flow 
of heat from a warmer area to cooler area, for example, from the heated 
interior of a house to the exterior during the winter through exterior 
walls, attic, floors over crawl spaces, or basement. ``Home 
insulation'' includes insulation used in all types of residential 
structures. The Rule automatically covers new types or forms of 
insulation marketed for use in the residential market, whether or not 
they are specifically referred to in the Rule. The Rule does not cover 
pipe insulation, or any type of duct insulation except for duct wrap. 
The Rule does not cover insulation products sold for use in commercial 
(including industrial) buildings. It does not apply to other products 
with insulating characteristics, such as storm windows or storm doors.
    Home insulation includes two basic categories: ``mass'' insulations 
and

[[Page 48026]]

``reflective'' insulations. Mass insulations reduce heat transfer by 
conduction (through the insulation's mass), convection (by air movement 
within and through the air spaces inside the insulation's mass), and 
radiation. Reflective insulations (primarily aluminum foil) reduce heat 
transfer not through the mass of the product, but, when installed 
facing an airspace, by increasing the thermal resistance of the 
airspace by reducing heat transfer by radiation through it. 44 FR at 
50219. Within these basic categories, home insulation is sold in 
various types (``type'' refers to the material from which the 
insulation is made, e.g., fiberglass, cellulose, polyurethane, aluminum 
foil) and forms (``form'' refers to the physical form of the product, 
e.g., batt, dry-applied loose-fill, spray-applied, boardstock, multi-
sheet reflective).

B. Parties Covered

    The Rules applies to home insulation manufacturers, professional 
installers, retailers who sell insulation to consumers for do-it-
yourself installation, and new home sellers (including sellers of 
manufactured housing). It also applies to testing laboratories that 
conduct R-value tests for home insulation manufacturers or other 
sellers who use the test results as the basis for making R-value claims 
about home insulation products.

C. Purpose of the Rule

    The main reason consumers purchase home insulation is to reduce 
energy expenditures to heat and cool their homes. To assist consumers, 
the Rule requires sellers (including insulation manufacturers, 
professional installers, new home sellers, and retailers) to disclose 
the insulation product's R-value and related information, prior to 
retail sale, based on uniform, industry-adopted standards. This 
information enables consumers to evaluate how well a particular 
insulation product is likely to perform, to determine whether the cost 
of the insulation is justified, and to make meaningful, cost-based 
purchasing decisions among competing products.

D. Basis for the Rule

    The Commission issued the R-value Rule to prohibit, on an industry-
wide basis, specific unfair or deceptive acts or practices. When it 
issued the Rule, the Commission found that the following acts or 
practices were prevalent in the home insulation industry and were 
deceptive or unfair, in violation of section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 
U.S.C. 45: (1) Sellers had failed to disclose R-value, and caused 
substantial consumer injury by impeding the ability of consumers to 
make informed purchasing decisions, 44 FR at 50222-23; (2) the failure 
to disclose R-values, which vary significantly among competing home 
insulation products of the same thickness and price, misled consumers 
when they bought insulation on the basis of price or thickness alone, 
Id. at 50223; (3) sellers had exaggerated R-values, often failing to 
take into account factors (e.g., aging, settling) known to reduce 
thermal performance, Id. at 50223-24; (4) sellers had failed to inform 
consumers about the meaning and importance of R-value, which consumers 
need to understand R-values, Id. at 50224; (5) sellers had exaggerated 
the amount of savings of fuel bills that consumers could expect, and 
often failed to disclose that savings will vary depending on the 
consumer's particular circumstances, Id.; and (6) sellers had falsely 
claimed that consumers would qualify for tax credits through the 
purchase of home insulation, or that products had been ``certified'' or 
``favored'' by federal agencies, Id.

E. Requirements of the Rule

    The Rule requires that manufacturers and others who sell home 
insulation determine and disclose each product's R-value (and related 
information--e.g., thickness, coverage area per package) on package 
labels and manufacturers' fact sheets. R-value ratings vary among 
different types and forms of home insulations and among products of the 
same type and form. The Rule requires that R-value claims to consumers 
about specific home insulation products be based on uniform R-value 
test procedures that measure thermal performance under ``steady-state'' 
(i.e. ``static'') conditions.\8\ Mass insulation products may be tested 
under any of the test methods, reflective insulation products must be 
tested according to either ASTM C 236-89 (1993) or ASTM C 976-90, which 
can determine the R-value of insulation systems (such as those that 
include one or more air spaces).\9\ The tests must be conducted at a 
mean temperature of 75 deg.F. The tests on mass insulation products 
must be conducted on the insulation material alone (excluding any 
airspace).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Section 460.5 of the Rule requires that the R-values of home 
insulation products be based on one of the following R-value test 
procedures adopted by ASTM: (1) ASTM C 177-85 (Reapproved 1993): 
Standard Test Method for Steady-State Heat Flux Measurements and 
Thermal Transition Properties by Means of the Guarded-Hot-Plate 
Apparatus (``ASTMC C 177-85 (1993)''or ``Guarded Hot Plate''); (2) 
ASTM C 236-89 (Reapproved 1993): Standard Test Method for Steady-
State Thermal Performance of Building Assemblies by Means of a 
Guarded Hot Box (``ASTM C 236-89 (1993)'' or ``Guarded Hot Box''); 
(3) ASTM C 518-91: Standard Test Method for Steady-State Heat Flux 
Measurements and Thermal Transmission Properties by Means of the 
Heat Flow Meter Apparatus (``ASTM C 518-91'' or ``Heat Flow 
Meter''); (4) ASTM C 976-90; Standard Test Method for Thermal 
Performance of Building Assemblies by Means of a Calibrated Hot Box 
(``ASTM C 976-90'' or ``Calibrated Hot Box'')); and (5) ASTM C 1114-
95; Standard Test Method for Steady-State Thermal Transmission 
Properties by Means of the Thin-Heater Apparatus (``ASTM C 1114-
92''or ``Thin-Heater Apparatus''). R-values determined according to 
ASTM C 177-85 (1993) or ASTM C 518-91 must be reported in accordance 
with ASTM C 1045-90: Standard Practice for Calculating Thermal 
Transmission Properties from Steady-Heat Flux Measurements (``ASTM C 
1045-90''). The Commission gave manufacturers and others the option 
of choosing among those test procedures because it determined that 
all are highly accurate and reproducibly steady-state test methods 
that yield uniform and reliable results. 44 FR at 50226; Final rule, 
55 FR 10053, at 10054 (1990); Final rule, 61 FR 13659, at 13662-63 
(1996). ASTM reviews and revises each of these procedures 
periodically. Under section 460.7 of the Rule, the Commission will 
accept, but not require, the use of a revised version of any of 
these standards 90 days after ASTM adopts and publishes the 
revision. The Commission may, however, reopen the rulemaking 
proceeding during a 90-day period or at any later time to consider 
whether it should require use of the revised procedure or reject it 
under section 460.5 of the Rule. 61 FR at 13663.
    \9\ The R-value of a single-sheet reflective insulation product 
may be determined according to an alternative method. See Part 
IV.D.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When it promulgated the Rule, the Commission found that certain 
factors, such as aging or settling, affect the thermal performance of 
home insulation products. 44 FR at 50219-20, 50227-28. To ensure that 
R-value claims take these factors into account, the Rule mandates that 
the required R-value tests for polyurethane, polyisocyanurate, and 
extruded polystyrene insulation products be conducted on test specimens 
that fully reflect the effect of aging,\10\ and for loose-fill 
insulation products on test specimens that fully reflect the effect of 
settling.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Part IV.C.1.a, infra.
    \11\ See Part IV.C.2.a, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specific disclosures must be made: (1) By manufacturers on product 
labels and manufacturers' fact sheets; (2) by professional installers 
and new home sellers on receipts or contracts; and (3) by 
manufacturers, professional installers, and retailers in advertising 
and other promotional materials (including those on the Internet) that 
contain an R-value, price, thickness, or energy-savings claim, or 
compare one type of insulation to another. Manufacturers and other 
sellers must have a ``reasonable basis'' for any energy savings claims 
they make.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Although the Rule does not specify how energy savings 
claims must be substantiated, the Commission explained that 
scientifically reliable measurements of fuel use in actual houses or 
reliable computer models or methods of heat flow calculations would 
meet the reasonable basis standard. 44 FR at 50233-334. Sellers 
other than manufacturers can rely on the manufacturer's claims 
unless they know or should know that the manufacturer does not have 
a reasonable basis for the claims.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 48027]]

IV. Discussion of Comments, Proposed Amendments, Objectives, and 
Regulatory alternatives

    This part of the notice summarizes and discusses the issues raised 
by the comments, including suggestions that the Commission revise the 
Rule. In analyzing the comments, the Commission has considered whether 
the suggested revisions would further the Commission's objective of 
ensuring that consumers receive information about home insulation 
products prior to purchase in a uniform, reliable, and substantiated 
manner, so that they can evaluate how well a particular product is 
likely to perform and make meaningful, cost-based purchasing decisions. 
In addition, the Commission has considered alternatives to amending the 
Rule to impose new requirements on an industry-wide basis, such as 
dealing with questionable claims or practices on a case-by-case basis, 
or exploring other mechanisms such as consumer and business education 
or industry self-regulation. Below, the Commission explains, on an 
issue-by-issue basis, whether it proposes amending the Rule as 
suggested by the comments. Both Parts IV and V include specific issues 
and questions on which the Commission solicits public comments.

A. Disclosing Thermal Performance of Additional Products

1. Residential Pipe and Duct Insulations

Comments

    Dr. Kenneth E. Wilkes, for ORNL, recommended amending the Rule to 
include pipe insulations and all types of duct insulations, and listed 
the applicable ASTM test methods that apply to these products. Dr. 
Wilkes stated that the disclosure of R-value information would provide 
important information for purchasers of these products.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ ORNL/Wilkes, #29, at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion

    The Commission excluded pipe insulation based on uncontroverted 
evidence in the original rulemaking proceeding that it was used 
primarily to prevent moisture condensation on low temperature lines, 
not for energy conservation; that R-value was not a reliable basis for 
comparing the performance of pipe insulations; and that pipe 
insulations were not commonly advertised in terms of energy-savings 
potential.\14\ Similarly, it excluded duct insulations other than duct 
wrap because only duct wrap was used extensively in the residential 
setting. 44 FR at 50238 n.170. The Commission's staff has reviewed 
current consumer advertising for these products and found no 
information to indicate that these facts have changed. Unless 
interested parties have information that sellers are misrepresenting 
the thermal performance of these products to consumers, the Commission 
will not propose extending the Rule to cover them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Final Staff Report to the Federal Trade Commission and 
Proposed Trade Regulation Rule (16 CFR Part 460), July 1978 (``Staff 
Report''), at 21-22, 188.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Non-residential Insulations

Comments

    Two comments suggested extending the Rule to cover insulation 
products used in all buildings, not just residential applications. Dr. 
David W. Yarbrough, for Tennessee Technological University (``TN 
Tech.''), asserted that extending the Rule to cover commercial building 
insulations would improve the energy efficiency of buildings and would 
contribute to the nation's energy conservation effort without imposing 
a measurable increased cost on manufacturers.\15\ Dr. Wilkes, for ORNL, 
stated that the Rule has improved both the marketplace and the 
technology for home insulations and contended that similar improvements 
are needed in the commercial market and would occur if the Rule's 
coverage were expanded.\16\ In contrast, Celotex stated that the 
Commission should not extend the Rule to cover commercial applications 
because commercial insulations are purchased primarily by professional 
architects, engineers, and specification writers.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ TN Tech, #26, at 1.
    \16\ ORNL/Wilkes, #29, at 3.
    \17\ Celotex, #25, at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion

    Although applying the Rule to thermal insulation products used in 
commercial buildings might provide information to purchasers that could 
improve the energy efficiency of buildings, and otherwise prove useful, 
the comments do not demonstrate that sellers of commercial insulations 
are engaged in unfair or deceptive acts or practices that would justify 
expanding the Rule. Furthermore, in many instances, thermal insulation 
purchasing decisions for commercial building applications are made by 
architects or engineers. These professionals may require R-value and 
other performance information based on circumstances different than the 
uniform approach the Commission determined was necessary to provide 
accurate and understandable information to individual consumers to 
compare competing products and make purchasing decisions.
    In limiting the disclosure requirements to materials distributed 
``for consumer use,'' the Commission recognized that insulation 
manufacturers often prepare detailed, technical data for building 
industry professionals, who should already be informed concerning 
thermal insulation performance. The Commission also recognized that 
manufacturers may wish to provide these professionals with additional 
information or with information in a different form from that required 
for consumer use. 44 FR at 50225.
    For these reasons, the Commission does not propose extending the 
Rule to cover sales to the commercial market. If interested parties 
have evidence that sellers in this market are misrepresenting the 
thermal performance of insulation products or are engaging in other 
unfair or deceptive practices, however, the Commission invites them to 
submit this information.

B. Disclosing In-Use Thermal Performance Values

1. Performance of Insulations in Actual Use
    Eleven comments discussed seasonal and other variables that can 
affect the R-value of insulation products in actual use, and suggested 
that the Rule does not sufficiently account for these factors.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Benchmark #04, at 1; Regal, #16, at 3; CIMA, #19, at 3-5; 
GreenStone/Tranmer, #20, at 2; BASF, #21, at 1; Hamilton, #22, at 1-
2; ECI, #23, at 1; Superior, #27, at 1; ORNL/Wilkes, #29, at 4-5; 
GreenStone/Smith, #32, at 2: Tascon, #35, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments Regarding Factors That Affect Performance in Attics During 
Winter Conditions

    Ten of these comments discussed the reduction in R-value of very 
low density fibrous insulations (e.g., those at approximately 0.7 
pounds per cubic foot or less) installed in open or vented attics that 
can result from convective currents when the outside temperature (and 
that in the attic) is particularly low.\19\ CIMA stated that when the 
Rule was promulgated it was assumed that R-

[[Page 48028]]

value was relatively unchanging over a wide range of temperatures. CIMA 
asserted that subsequent research by ORNL has shown a reduction of 
steady-state R-values caused by convective heat loss in very low 
density fiber insulation materials during very cold periods, when the 
temperature difference (delta T) between the heat area of a home and 
its cold attic becomes particularly great. CIMA stated that this 
phenomenon can reduce the steady-state R-value of affected products 
from 10% of a delta T of 50  deg.F to 55  deg.F (17  deg.F to 25  deg.F 
in the attic of a home heated to 72  deg.F) to as much as 40% at a 
delta T of 90  deg.F (-18  deg.F in the attic of a home heated to 72 
deg.F), which can occur during the most severe winter conditions in 
some portions of the United States. CIMA recommended that the 
Commission require that insulation manufacturers provide winter design 
correction factors in coverage charts to compensate for R-value erosion 
due to convective heat loss, and require that, if insulation material 
is not subject to R-value loss under cold conditions, the manufacturer 
state on the package label that the insulation is not subject to 
convective heat loss at winter attic temperatures above -20  deg.F.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Regal, #16, at 3; CIMA, #19, at 3-5; GreenStone/Tranmer, 
#20, at 2; Hamilton, #22, at 1-2; ORNL/Wilkes, #29, at 4-5; 
GreenStone/Smith, #32, at 2; Tascon, #35, at 2.
    \20\ CIMA, #19, at 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dr. Wilkes, for ORNL, pointed out that tests on very low density 
loose-fill fiberglass insulations with an airspace above the insulation 
(as in an open attic application) gave R-values that decreased by more 
than 50% from those determined at a mean test temperature of 75  deg.F 
value, when they were tested with a delta T greater than 72  deg.F and 
a mean test temperature of 70  deg.F. Dr. Wilkes explained that ASTM is 
developing a method of determining the thermal performance of attic 
insulations during winter conditions, ASTM C 1373,\21\ and suggested 
that the Commission incorporate it into the Rule when it is adopted. 
This method is still under consideration by ASTM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Standard Practice for Determination of Thermal Resistance 
of Attic Insulation Systems Under Simulated Winter Conditions 
(``ASTM C 1373'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Tranmer, for GreenStone, asserted that several factors in 
addition to R-values that are determined under steady-state conditions 
have a major effect on product performance, such as air permeability 
and temperature differential. Mr. Tranmer stated that a measurement 
known as the Rayleigh number \22\ provides a more complete indication 
of the effect that the combination of R-value, air permeability, and 
temperature differential have on insulation materials under specific 
conditions, and that it represents a more accurate measure of 
insulating capabilities than R-value alone. He suggested that the 
Commission require the Rayleigh number on packages and promotional 
materials to give consumers a better measure of the overall 
effectiveness of insulation products.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The Rayleigh number is a measure of the tendency of air to 
move. In the context of very low density thermal insulations 
installed on the floor of an open attic during very cold periods, 
the Rayleigh number is a ratio between the buoyant force of warmer 
air (the air at the bottom of the insulation near the heated 
interior of the house) attempting to move upward and the resistance 
of the insulation fibers against that upward air movement. The 
higher the number, the stronger the buoyant force, and the greater 
the reduction of the insulation's steady-state R-value.
    \23\ GreenStone/Tranmer, #20, at 2-3, See also GreenStone/Smith, 
#32, at 2 (Rule leads consumers to believe that R-value is the most 
important factor in comparing insulations; not sufficient merely to 
state that other factors may affect insulation thermal performance 
if other important factors can be quantified; require testing for 
air permeability, R-value, and temperature difference to enable 
disclosure of a relative insulation performance factor (Rayleigh 
Number)), Hamilton, #22, at 2 (effects of convective heat loss on R-
value could be communicated to consumers by an ``air resistance 
index'' number to give them a reference to compare insulation for 
certain applications; bag label should include warning about 
convection effect on lighter-density materials below 20  deg.F); 
Tascon, #35, at 1-2 (require determination of the effects of air 
convection on R-value and depiction of that effect at representative 
temperatures on coverage charts; require disclosure of the Rayleigh 
number); Regal, #16, at 3 (insulation performance and cost 
effectiveness should address not only R-value, but also resistance 
to heat flow and to convective effects under winter design 
conditions.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Tranmer also recommended that the Commission specify testing 
with the ORNL Large Scale Climate Simulator to provide more accurate 
information for all attic insulation products, and that these products 
be tested at temperatures from -20 deg.F to +120 deg.F to provide 
consumers with performance information specific to a particular climate 
zone. He stated that, while the cost of testing in this apparatus is 
approximately $20,000 (significantly more than the usual R-value test), 
the benefits through increased energy savings would more than offset 
the increase in testing costs.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ GreenStone/Tranmer, #20, at 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Citing research that heating energy consumption can vary 25% to 38% 
in structures insulated to the same nominal R-value with different 
insulation materials, CIMA similarly asserted that, by focusing only on 
R-value, the current Rule has the effect of misleading consumers into 
thinking that R-value is the only consideration when buying or 
specifying insulation. Recognizing that presently there is no perfect 
solution to this dilemma, CIMA suggested that Commission expand the 
Rule to require manufacturers to disclose Rayleigh numbers for 
materials under specific conditions. CIMA asserted that the Rayleigh 
number combines the effects of R-value, air permeability, and 
temperature difference to produce an expression of relative insulation 
performance.

Comments Regarding Factors That Affect Performance Under Winter Versus 
Summer Conditions

    One commenter, Superior, contended that the R-value test procedures 
presently required as the primary means of identifying heat transfer 
are no longer valid, because they were developed almost exclusively for 
winter conditions. Superior asserted that, with the post-World War II 
advent of air conditioning and a higher concern for summer comfort, the 
primary mode of heat transfer that should be measured is radiant heat. 
Superior explained that R-value is a component of conductive heat 
transfer, while radiant heat should be measured by its emissivity,\25\ 
and contended that reflective insulations with one-half or less the 
steady-state R-value of fiberglass will stop more heat transfer into 
the home during summer conditions. Superior recommended that the 
Commission require manufacturers of all insulations to disclose winter 
and summer performance values, with the summer value determined 
according to a test procedure other than R-value tests, which have very 
little significance for radiant heat transfer during summer 
conditions.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ ``Emissivity'' is a numerical measurement of the ability of 
a surface to reflect back radiant heat transfer. It is expressed as 
a number between 0.0 and 1.0. The lower the emissivity, the greater 
the ability to reflect radiant heat back. The inverse of emissivity 
is the product's ``reflectivity'' (also called the ``reflectance'').
    \26\ Superior, #27, at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion

    The Rule requires that R-values be determined according to ASTM 
test methods that provide R-value measurements under ``steady-state'' 
or ``static'' laboratory conditions. These test methods do not take 
into account transient environmental factors, such as air circulation, 
that can have a significant effect on insulation performance in actual 
use (i.e., on site, or in situ). When it promulgated the Rule, the 
Commission determined that, notwithstanding this limitation, these 
steady-state tests were the most reliable and accurate test methods 
available. In addition, evidence on the rulemaking record indicated 
that, although environmental conditions might affect the R-value number 
determined in steady-state tests, these conditions would affect 
competing home insulation products in approximately the same manner. 
Accordingly, the Commission

[[Page 48029]]

determined that use of the ASTM steady-state R-value test methods would 
permit fair comparisons of product R-values on a standardized basis to 
provide consumers with a reliable, uniform, and comparative base for 
their purchasing decisions. 44 FR at 50225-26. At the same time, while 
the Rule requires that R-values claimed must be based on the uniform 
test methods specified in the Rule, manufacturers and other sellers may 
provide additional, truthful, substantial information voluntarily to 
consumers about the manner in which their products perform in actual 
use.
    The Commission recognizes that the testing of insulation products 
by means of steady-state laboratory testing procedures may not 
duplicate precisely the performance of an insulation product in situ. 
The thermal performance of any insulation product in actual use, 
however, is a highly complex subject that involves a broad range of 
parameters, including the design characteristics of the building and 
the specific application in which the product is installed (e.g., open 
attic, enclosed wall cavity), the geographical location, outside and 
inside temperatures, air and moisture movement, proper installation, 
and other variables. Determining the disclosing R-values under these 
varying circumstances, only some of which may apply to a particular use 
by a specific consumer, could result in multiple R-value disclosures 
that might overload rather than assist consumers in comparing 
insulation products and making purchase decisions. For these reasons, 
the Commission does not at this time propose specific amendments to 
require disclosures regarding in situ performance or multiple R-values 
for different uses.
    Consumers, however, could benefit from the most up-to-date, 
accurate, and useful information, based on the best available research 
and substantiation. For example, in areas where a significant delta T 
is predictable, consumers might want to install additional insulation 
to take into account the reduction in R-value that might occur during 
extreme conditions, or consider installing a higher density product. 
The Commission, therefore, solicits comments on the alternatives to 
steady-state R-values (e.g., Rayleigh numbers, R-value disclosures 
based on temperature ranges for different regions of the country or for 
different applications) suggested by the commenters, or other 
alternatives, that would provide consumers with accurate, meaningful, 
and understandable information relevant to their individual 
circumstances. The Commission requests that commenters address: (1) 
Specific alternative measurements that are available to describe the in 
situ use of home insulation products better than the steady-state R-
values required by the rule; (2) which in situ conditions should be 
accounted for (and why); (3) whether (and how and to what extent) 
different types or forms of home insulation products perform 
differently under specific in situ conditions, and how significant this 
different performance is under specific circumstances (e.g., how much 
would the difference in performance in actual use make on the 
consumer's annual fuel bill); (4) whether accepted test methods are 
available to measure in situ performance (and the identity of specific 
test methods); (5) how the results of in situ performance measurements 
could be described in a meaningful manner to consumers; and (6) the 
benefits and costs to consumers and sellers that would be associated 
with the use of the alternatives. Among other things, comments are 
requested to include data such as consumer research that demonstrate 
whether disclosures of in situ performance would be meaningful and 
understandable to consumers.
2. Performance of Building System Components That Include Insulation

Comments

    Four manufacturers of structural insulation panels (building 
systems products that include insulation as a major component) \27\ and 
a trade association representing such manufacturers \28\ supported 
requiring the thermal efficiency testing of insulation systems, rather 
than testing only individual insulation products. These comments 
asserted that the Structural Insulated Panel (``SIP'') industry is 
penalized by reporting R-values of the insulation components as the 
measure of the thermal efficiency of panel system because such R-values 
do not adequately represent the energy efficiency and thermal 
effectiveness of the panel systems in comparison to insulated panels 
may appear to have the same total R-value as some fiberglass batts used 
in stick construction, ``[in a typical installation, using EPS foam in 
a structural insulated panel, the EPS panel outperforms [a] fiberglass 
batt by 20%.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Porter, #03; BASF, #21; Insulspan, #33; Fischer Sips, #36.
    \28\ SIPA, #11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Three of the manufacturers \29\ and the trade association, however, 
apparently recognized that additional research and development would be 
necessary before the Commission could require the testing and 
disclosure of systems performance values. These comments recommended 
that the Commission, along with several other federal agencies, work 
with industry to develop consensus testing procedures to consider 
factors such as air infiltration, thermal bridging, and moisture 
effects on the performance of building systems, and provide resources 
for testing and evaluation of the thermal performance and energy 
efficiency of construction systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ BASF, #21; Insulspan, #33; FischerSips, #36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion

    The Rule covers home insulation products, including products made 
up of home insulation and other components (such as structural 
insulation panels) when they are marketed primarily to slow down the 
flow of heat. These comments appear to be concerned primarily that the 
Rule may penalize them by requiring that they disclose the R-value of 
the insulation component of their panels, instead of the thermal 
performance of their panels compared to the use of competing home 
insulation products in other types of building construction. Although 
the Rule requires that those who market home insulation test and 
disclose the R-value of their insulation, it does not restrict sellers 
from providing additional information about how their products perform 
in actual use, if they are able to substantiate their claims. The 
comments acknowledge that additional research would be required to 
develop the procedures necessary to implement a requirement that 
sellers include in their R-value disclosures information about how 
their products perform in various types of construction, which would 
depend on multiple variables. Even if such procedures were developed, 
as a practical matter, it might be extremely difficult, and perhaps 
impossible, to draft testing and disclosure requirements that could 
take such variables into account in a manner that would be meaningful 
to consumers, and where the benefits (e.g., better information for 
consumers) outweighed the additional costs (e.g. for additional testing 
and disclosures) that would be imposed.
    Accordingly, while the commission acknowledges the concerns 
underlying these comments, it has determined not to propose amending 
the Rule at this time to require the disclosure of insulation 
performance based on testing of home insulation products in different 
types of applications. The Commission

[[Page 48030]]

encourages interested parties to pursue the additional testing and 
research that support a system-type disclosure format, and the 
Commission's staff is available to provide advice about the type of 
documentation that would be necessary for the Commission to propose 
formal testing and disclosure requirements that include these 
applications.

C. Disclosing R-values that Account for Factors Affecting R-value

    The comments described in this section addressed issuers relating 
to the Rule's R-value test specimen preparation requirements for 
specific types and forms of home insulation products. All home 
insulation products are covered by the Rule, regardless of whether they 
are specifically referred to in the test specimen preparation 
requirements or other provisions of the Rule. That is, they must be 
tested for R-value under the test procedures specified in section 460.5 
of the Rule and the R-value results of those tests must be disclosed to 
consumers. In some instances the Rule specifies how test specimens must 
be prepared for R-value tests. In other instances it does not, either 
because the Commission determined it was not necessary to specify R-
value test specimen preparation requirements, or because those products 
were not being sold when the Commission conducted the original 
rulemaking. These comments suggested adopting updated test specimen 
preparation requirements or specifying test specimen preparation 
requirements not currently required by the Rule.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ In some instances, comments suggested that a specific test 
specimen preparation procedure, although appropriate for the most 
products of a certain type and form, might not be appropriate for a 
specific product, for example, a loose-fill cellulose insulation 
product with a lower than normal initial density. In such instances, 
these comments suggested that use of in situ data to determine test 
specimen preparation might be preferable to the specific procedure 
designated in the Rule. Although the Commission is not proposing to 
amend specific test specimen preparation requirements in the Rule to 
include such a provision, manufacturers may file petitions for 
exemption from the Rule's test specimen preparation requirements 
under section 18(g) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a(g). Petitioners 
should submit evidence substantiating why the test specimen 
preparation procedure required by the Rule is not appropriate for a 
particular product and why an alternative procedure or method would 
be appropriate. The Commission will determine whether to grant an 
exemption based on the petition, substantiating evidence submitted 
with the petition, and public comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Aging

a. Cellular Plastics Insulations

    Certain types of cellular plastics insulations (polyurethane, 
polyisocyanurate, extruded polystyrene boardstock insulations) are 
manufactured in a process that results in a gas other than normal air 
being incorporated into the voids in the products. This gives the 
product an initial R-value higher than it would have if it contained 
normal air (as do other types of insulations). A chemical process, 
known as aging, causes the R-value of these insulations to decrease 
over time as the gas is replaced by normal air. 44 FR at 50219-20. The 
length of this aging process, which may continue over several years, 
depends on whether the product is faced or unfaced, the permeability of 
the facing, how well the facing adheres to the product, and other 
factors.
    The Rule addresses this aging process by requiring that R-value 
tests be performed on specimens that ``fully reflect the effect of 
aging on the product's R-value.'' Section 460.5(a)(1) of the Rule 
accepts the use of the ``accelerated aging'' procedure in General 
Services Administration (``GSA'') purchase Specification HH-I-530A 
(which was in effect at the time the Commission promulgated the Rule) 
as a permissible ``safe harbor'' procedure, but also allows 
manufacturers to use ``another reliable procedure.'' 44 FR at 50227-28. 
The ``accelerated'' procedure was designed to age these insulations in 
a shorter period than they would age under normal usage conditions. 
Under the ``accelerated aging'' method in the GSA specification, test 
specimens are aged for 90 days at 140  deg.F dry heat.
    GSA amended its specification in 1982 to allow the use of an 
optional aging procedure (in addition to the ``accelerated'' method) 
under which test specimens are aged for six months at 73 
deg.F 4  deg.F and 50 percent 5 percent 
relative humidity (with air circulation to expose all surfaces to the 
surrounding environmental conditions). An industry group, the Roof 
Insulation Committee of the Thermal Insulation Manufacturers 
Association (``RIC/TIMA''), specified the use of similar conditions in 
a technical bulletin it adopted at about the same time. In response to 
adoption of the alternative aging procedure by GSA and RIC/TIMA, the 
Commission's staff advised home insulation sellers that the alternative 
procedure appeared to be reliable and could be used to age cellular 
plastics insulations. The staff cautioned, however, the manufacturers 
of insulations faced with materials that significantly retard aging may 
need to age test specimens for a longer period of time, and that the 
staff would consider whether the alternative procedure was acceptable 
for specific products on a case-by-case basis.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See, e.g., staff opinion letter dated May 5, 1983, to 
Manville Corporation. GSA thereafter rescinded its specification 
(along with other insulation specifications) and now requires that 
insulations purchased by the federal government comply with ASTM 
insulation material specifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments Regarding Which Aging Procedures Should Be Required

    Ten comments addressed how the Rule should treat the reduction in 
R-values that occurs when cellular plastics insulation products 
age.\32\ Two recommended requiring the use of aging procedures in 
current ASTM specifications; one recommended requiring the use of a 
different method being developed by ASTM; and one association 
(representing 37 manufacturers) and two manufacturers appear to 
question the accuracy of current aging procedures in determining long-
term performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Plymouth, #01, at 1; Big Sky, #05, at 1; Anderson, #08, at 
2-3; EPSMA, #13, at 1; Western, #14, at 1-2; NAIMA, #24, at 2, 
Celotex, #25, at 4; ORNL/Wilkes, #29, at 3-4; PIMA, #30, at 5-6; 
AFM, #35, at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Celotex and PIMA \33\ recommended deleting the reference to the 
aging procedures in former GSA Specification HH-I-530A and instead 
requiring the use of the aging procedures in ASTM C 1289-95 (for faced 
polyisocyanurate and faced polyurethane),\34\ ASTM C 591-85 (for 
unfaced polyisocyanurate and unfaced polyurethane),\35\ and ASTM C 578-
92 (for polystyrene).\36\ The aging procedures in these ASTM 
specifications are essentially the same as the optional procedures 
contained in the revised GSA specification, although ASTM C 591-94 
specifies that aging must be conducted according to the 180-day 
procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Celotex, #25, at 4; PIMA, #30, at 5-6.
    \34\ Standard Specification for Faced Rigid Cellular 
Polyisocyanurate Thermal Insulation Board (``ASTM C 1289-95'').
    \35\ Standard Specification for Unfaced Preformed Rigid Cellular 
Polyisocyanurate Thermal Insulation (``ASTM C 591-94''). This is the 
current version of the specification cited by Celotex and PIMA.
    \36\ Standard Specification for Rigid, Cellular Polystyrene 
Thermal Insulation (``ASTM C 578-92'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dr. Wilkes, for ORNL, stated that the Rule's aging requirement 
should be improved and modified to account for technological changes. 
He reported that ASTM was developing a new method of determining the 
aged R-value of unfaced cellular plastics board stock insulations and 
those with permeable facings based on R-value tests of thin samples 
sliced from the center of the boards (which ASTM has now adopted as 
ASTM C 1303-95).\37\ Under this method, a thin

[[Page 48031]]

test specimen is sliced from close to the center of the insulation 
board. R-value measurements are taken over time, normally a 180-day 
period, and the test specimen is kept in an environmental chamber when 
R-value tests are not being conducted. The resulting R-values over time 
are converted into an average value according to a specific 
mathematical formula. Dr. Wilkes recommended that the Commission adopt 
this ASTM method as the required procedure for deriving aged R-values 
for these insulation products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Standard Test Method for Estimating the Long-Term Change in 
the Thermal Resistance of Unfaced Rigid Closed Cell Plastic Foams by 
Slicing and Scaling Under Controlled Laboratory Conditions (``ASTM C 
1303-95'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dr. Wilkes asserted that a satisfactory aging method for these 
boardstock insulations with impermeable facers (e.g., aluminum) has not 
yet been developed. He recommended that the Rule state this fact and 
require ``direct'' aging of products with impermeable facers (i.e., 
aging over time of samples as they are produced--at full thickness and 
with facers attached). Finally, Dr. Wilkes recommended that the 
Commission delete the phrase ``or another reliable procedure'' because 
of its lack of specificity.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ ORNL/Wilkes, #29, at 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AMF, for itself and its 37 manufacturing partners, stated that the 
reporting of different R-values for insulations that use gases, and 
that are known to lose R-value over time as those gases diffuse, has 
frustrated the original objective of the Rule to provide, a ``level 
playing field.'' \39\ Plymouth Foam Products complained that ``[s]ome 
[cellular plastics] foam insulation manufacturers are allowed to 
represent their products with installed R-values of as high as eight 
per inch, when, in fact, that value will reduce substantially over the 
life of the product/structure.'' \40\ These comments recommended that 
the Rule require testing and disclosure of R-values that more 
accurately reflect the effect of aging on the R-value of cellular 
plastics insulation products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ AFM, #38, at 1.
    \40\ Plymouth, #01, at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Big Sky and Western contended that the practice of aging a test 
specimen for six months, even at an elevated temperature, does not 
provide a true picture of the R-value a consumer can expect over the 
full life of the product.\41\ Big Sky suggested three options: (1) A 
six-month accelerated aging process, with an additional 18-month hold 
on the test specimens before they are tested for R-value; (2) 
accelerated aging for 18 months; or (3) holding the test specimens for 
three years. Western suggested that the Commission adopt an accelerated 
aging test either from ASTM methods or the Corps of Engineers System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Big Sky, #05 (many manufacturers advertise what they call 
an aged R-value, when in fact it is only an R-value for insulation 
aged for six months at elevated temperatures; this R-value is not a 
true indication of the in-service R-value, which can drop over 30% 
within three years); Western, #14, at 1-2 (because polyisocyanurate 
insulation has been sold based on R-values derived after six months 
of aging under RIC/TIMA 281 or PIMA 100, consumers have been duped 
into believing they are purchasing insulation that will deliver an 
R-value of 7.2 per inch for the duration of its service; although 
the true aged R-value of polyisocyanurate cannot be agreed upon, 
5.56 per inch is often used and would be a more realistic figure).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion Regarding Which Aging Procedures Should Be Required

    Requiring manufacturers to age their insulation products for 
several years before being able to test and market them would impose a 
significant burden. Instead, the Rule allows the use of the GSA 
``accelerated aging'' procedure, or another reliable procedure. Because 
some of the comments question whether the GSA accelerated aging 
procedure or the procedures in ASTM specifications are adequate for all 
types of cellular plastics insulation products (particularly those with 
less permeable facers), the Commission solicits comments regarding the 
length of time over which specific types and forms of cellular plastics 
insulations age (including both unfaced products and those with 
different kinds of facings); the effect of the aging process on 
specific types and forms of cellular plastics insulations (i.e., the 
overall reduction of R-value over time); the accuracy of different 
aging procedures to reflect long-term aging of specific types and forms 
of cellular plastics insulation products; which aging procedures the 
Commission should require for which types of cellular plastics 
insulation products; the burdens that would be imposed on manufacturers 
and other sellers by requiring the use of specific aging procedures; 
and how the Commission should deal with products for which adequate 
aging procedures do not currently exist (e.g., those with relatively 
non-permeable facings).

Comments Regarding Which Cellular Plastics Insulations Should Be Aged 
for R-value Testing

    NAIMA recommended requiring R-value testing on aged samples of 
``other foam plastic insulation'' products (in addition to the types 
currently enumerated) and recordkeeping of the age of the test 
specimen. NAIMA asserted that present and future foam insulations not 
currently covered by the aging requirement should be tested and labeled 
to reflect the effects of aging, but did not submit data to demonstrate 
whether other existing cellular plastics, or foam, insulations are 
subject to aging. According to NAIMA, the requirement would impose no 
extra testing or labeling burdens on manufacturers of insulations that 
are not subject to aging.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ NAIMA, #24, at 2, 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion Regarding Which Cellular Plastics Insulations Should Be Aged 
for R-value Testing

    The Commission required R-value testing of aged specimens only for 
extruded polystyrene, polyurethane, and polyisocyanurate insulations 
because these were the only types of insulations discussed during the 
rulemaking proceeding that included blowing agents subject to the aging 
process. The Commission agrees that manufacturers of additional types 
of cellular plastics, or foam, insulations that are subject to the 
aging process should be required to test aged specimens and disclose 
aged R-values, and to maintain testing records identifying the aging 
procedure used. The Commission, therefore, solicits comments on what 
additional types or forms of insulations are subject to the aging 
process.

b. Reflective Insulations

Comments

    NAIMA recommended that the Commission require that reflective 
(aluminum foil) insulation products be tested for emissivity and R-
value ``using samples that fully reflect the effect of aging'' on the 
product's emissivity and R-value. NAIMA asserted that thermal 
performance claims for reflective insulations, as for cellular plastics 
insulations, should reflect the effects of aging (in this case, the 
accumulation of dust or corrosion of the foil). NAIMA did not submit 
evidence that dusting or corrosion is a problem that degrades the R-
value of reflective insulations in actual applications, and did not 
suggest a specific test method or procedure that should be used to 
determine the effects of this type of aging on reflective 
insulations.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Id. at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion

    The Commission believes that claims for all types of home 
insulation products should take into account factors that affect the 
products' thermal performance. The Commission, therefore, invites 
interested parties to comment on whether dusting or

[[Page 48032]]

corrosion of reflective insulations in actual applications is a problem 
resulting in lower R-values than claimed, the extent of any degradation 
of R-value, and how the effect of dusting or corrosion on R-value could 
most accurately be determined.
2. Settling

a. Loose-fill and Stabilized Insulations in Attics

    In the original rulemaking proceeding, the Commission determined 
that all dry-applied loose-fill insulation products tend to settle 
after being installed in open (or unconfined) areas such as attics. 
Settling lowers the product's thickness, increases its density, and 
affects its total R-value.\44\ The amount of settling depends on 
several factors, including the raw materials and manufacturing process 
used, and the installer's application techniques (which affect the 
insulation's initial thickness and density).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Settling of loose-fill cellulose insulation reduces the 
product's total R-value, often decreasing it proportionate to the 
amount of settling. Settling of loose-fill mineral fiber insulation 
also affects the product's total R-value, but the reduction in total 
R-value may be less than the reduction in thickness. E.g., ORNL/
Yarbrough, #28, at References 1, 2; ORNL/Wilkes, #29, at References 
9, 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To ensure that claims made to consumers are based on long-term 
thickness and density after settling, the Rule requires that the R-
value of each dry-applied loose-fill home insulation product for these 
applications be determined at its ``settled density.'' The Rule 
requires that manufacturers of dry-applied loose-fill cellulose 
insulation for attic applications test and disclose the R-value (as 
well as coverage area and related information) at the long-term, 
settled density determined according to paragraph 8 of ASTM C 739-91, 
commonly referred to as the ``Blower Cyclone Shaker'' (``BCS'') 
test.\45\ Because a consensus-based test procedure had not been adopted 
for determining the long-term, settled density of dry-applied loose-
fill mineral-fiber insulation for this type of application, the Rule 
does not specify the procedure for determining the density of the R-
value test specimen, but it requires that R-values claimed to consumers 
be based on long-term thickness and density after settling.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ Standard Specification for Cellulosic Fiber (Wood-Base) 
Loose-Fill Thermal Insulation (``ASTM C 739-91'').
    \46\ At the time the Commission promulgated the Rule, GSA had 
proposed adopting a settled density test procedure for loose-fill 
mineral fiber insulation products similar to the one it had adopted 
for loose-fill cellulose insulation products. Mineral fiber 
manufacturers contended, however, that they took settling into 
account in their coverage charts, and that if their insulations were 
installed according to their coverage charts, consumers would 
receive the R-values they claimed. The Commission imposed a general 
requirement that R-values of dry-applied loose-fill mineral fiber 
insulations be based on tests that take the adverse effects of 
settling into account, but did not specify how the settled density 
was to be determined. 44 FR at 50228. GSA never adopted a procedure 
for determining the settled density of mineral fiber insulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the Commission promulgated the Rule, new forms of loose-fill-
type home insulation products have been introduced for use in attic 
applications, including ``stabilized'' cellulose. ``Stabilized'' 
cellulose refers to a form of loose-fill cellulose insulation that 
contains a glue binder and is applied on attic floors with a small 
amount of liquid. Application of the insulation with the glue binder 
and liquid purportedly results in lower-density cellulose insulations 
that do not settle like dry-applied loose-fill cellulose insulations. 
The Rule does not currently specify a procedure for determining the 
long-term, settled density of stabilized cellulose insulation.

Comments

    Dry-applied Loose-Fill Cellulose. Dr. Wilkes, for ORNL, stated that 
settling decreases the R-value obtained when a loose-fill insulation 
product is applied, although limited information exists about the 
amount of settling that occurs. Dr. Wilkes supported use of the BCS 
test procedures to determine the settled density of dry-applied loose-
fill cellulose insulation. He suggested that the BCS procedure may be 
inappropriate for new products such as those with initial densities as 
low as 1.0 to 1.5 pounds per cubic foot. For such products, Dr. Wilkes 
stated that in situ data would be more appropriate than the BCS 
procedure in determining long-term, settled density, and recommended 
that the Commission permit manufacturers to submit in-situ data to 
demonstrate the actual settled density of their products.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ ORNL/Wilkes, #29, at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dry-applied Loose-Fill Mineral Fiber. Eleven comments addressed how 
the settled density of dry-applied loose-fill mineral fiber insulation 
products in open attic applications should be determined for R-value 
testing.\48\ Regal contended that the Rule's objective of creating a 
level playing field has been compromised because of the failure of GSA, 
ASTM, and the mineral fiber industry to develop a uniform standard for 
determining the settled density of dry-applied loose-fill mineral fiber 
insulations.\49\ Other comments agreed.\50\ Three stated that this 
uneven playing field (i.e., requiring cellulose manufacturers, but not 
mineral fiber manufacturers, to use a specific test procedure) imposes 
a competitive disadvantage for the cellulose industry.\51\ CIMA, for 
example, stated that the BCS test typically produces 30% settling for 
loose-fill cellulose, while long-term studies of actual installations 
rarely find cellulose settling as much as 20%. CIMA asserted that the 
Rule places the cellulose industry at a competitive disadvantage of as 
much as 10% to 15% compared to loose-fill fiberglass, and that, if this 
discrimination has affected the cellulose market share by as little as 
5%, it has resulted in an annual revenue loss of approximately $50 
million for cellulose producers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\Regal #16, at 1-2; England, #18, at 3; CIMA, #19, at 2-3; 
GreenStone/Tranmer, #20, at 2-3; Hamilton, #22, at 3; NAIMA, #24, at 
2; TN Tech/Yarbrugh, #26, at 4-5; ORNL/Wilkes, #29, at 4; 
GreenStone/Smith, #32, at 2; Clayville, #34, at 1-2; Tascon, #35, at 
1.
    \49\ Regal, #16, at 1-2.
    \50\ England, #18, at 3 1-2; CIMA, #19, at 2-3; GreenStone/
Tranmer, #20, at 2-3; Hamilton, #22, at 3; GreenStone/Smith, #32, at 
2; Clayville, #34, at 1-2; Tascon, #35, at 1.
    \51\ CIMA, #19, at 2-3; GreenStone/Tranmer, #20, at 2-3; 
Clayville, #34, at 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Four comments stated this uneven treatment is unfair to 
consumers.\52\ GreenStone/Smith, for example, stated that mineral fiber 
manufacturers have not developed a standard test method to measure the 
settling of loose-fill mineral fiber insulations, but instead claim 
that if their products are installed at the density they recommend, the 
amount of settling will be minimal (less than 5%). He asserted that the 
mineral fiber manufacturers construct coverage charts at this density 
and represent to consumers that no settling is expected. According to 
GreenStone/Smith, installers who desire to minimize costs can install 
loose-fill mineral fiber insulations at less than the density claimed 
by manufacturers (and at a lower total R-value than claimed), without 
consumers' knowledge, and thereby save time and material and defraud 
consumers of the energy savings they anticipate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ GreenStone/Tranmer, #20, at 2-3; Hamilton, #22, at 3; 
GreenStone/Smith, #32, at 2; Clayville, #34, at 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a short-term solution, five comments recommended that the 
Commission impose a settlement factor of up to 10% or more for dry-
applied loose-fill mineral insulation products, pending the adoption of 
a suitable industry standard to address how much these products 
settle.\53\ Dr. Yarbrough,

[[Page 48033]]

for TN Tech., and Dr. Wilkes, for ORNL, suggested that, until a uniform 
test procedure is developed, manufacturers should determine settled 
density based on in situ data.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ Regal, #16, at 1-2; England, #18, at 3; CIMA, #19, at 2-3 
(impute 10% settling for all loose-fill insulations for which there 
is no standard settled density methodology published by a 
recognized, independent materials-standards organization); 
GreenStone/Tranmer, #20, at 2 (impute 5% to 10% settling); 
GreenStone/Smith, #32, at 2-3 (absent a standard test method, 
require disclosures based on at least 10% settling; if a product has 
been determined not to settle, require disclosure of that fact as an 
assurance to consumers); Tascon, #35, at 1 (impute settlement not 
less than 10% if a technically supportable method of determining 
settlement has not been established within a reasonable time, e.g., 
5 years).
    \54\ TN Tech/Yarbrough, #26, at 4-5; ORNL/Wilkes, #29, at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Stablized Cellulose. Dr. Wilkes, for ORNL,\55\ and Dr. Yarbrough, 
for TN Tech., \56\ stated that the BCS test is inappropriate for 
determining the settled density of stabilized cellulose insulation. Dr. 
Yarbrough explained that ``stabilized'' cellulose insulation contains a 
binder, or other means, for bonding particles in the insulation to 
reduce settling, and that the fan used in the BCS test breaks the bond. 
Dr. Wilkes and Dr. Yarbrough recommended allowing the use of in situ 
observations of the degree of settling to establish the settled density 
at which the R-value of a stabilized cellulose product must be 
determined. Dr. Yarbrough stated that a methodology for obtaining in 
situ data is available.\57\ He explained that an ASTM task group is 
working on a material specification for stabilized cellulose insulation 
that he expects will include a method for determining settled density, 
and recommended that the Commission consider requiring the use of the 
ASTM standard when it has been adopted by ASTM.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ ORNL/Wilkes, #29, at 3.
    \56\ TN Tech/Yarbrough, #26, at 2.
    \57\ Id. at 2, references 1, 2.
    \58\ Id. at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NAIMA recommended requiring that R-value tests on stabilized 
cellulose insulations be ``done on samples that fully reflect the 
effect of settling on the product's R-value.'' NAIMA stated that ASTM C 
1149 \59\ has been modified to include products containing an adhesive 
that is mixed with water during installation and is intended for use in 
attic applications. NAIMA stated that a task group is developing a 
method to determine and quantify the amount of settling.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ ASTM C 1149-90: Standard Specification for Self-Supported 
Spray Applied Cellulosic Thermal/Acoustical Insulation (``ASTM C 
1149'').
    \60\ NAIMA, #24, at 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion

    Dry-applied Loose-fill Cellulose. Although the rule requires 
manufacturers of dry-applied loose-fill cellulose to determine the R-
values and coverage of their products at the settled density determined 
according to the BCS procedure, manufacturers who can demonstrate that 
the BCS procedure is inappropriate for their products can petition the 
Commission for an exemption that would allow them to determine the 
settled density of their products according to a more appropriate 
methods. See note 30, above.
    Dry-Applied Loose-fill Mineral Fiber. The Rule specifies the 
procedures to be used in determining the settled density only for 
cellulosic, and not mineral fiber, insulation products. When the 
Commission promulgated the Rule in 1979, it expected that GSA soon 
would adopt a specific test procedure for determining the settled 
density of dry-applied loose-fill mineral fiber insulation products. 44 
FR at 50228, 50239 n.239. GSA did not do so, and now accepts the use of 
ASTM standards, which do not specify procedures for determining the 
settled density of dry-applied loose-fill mineral fiber insulations.
    Reports of studies conducted by Oak Ridge National Laboratory 
during the 1980s demonstrate that certain loose-fill mineral fiber 
insulation products can settle following installation, resulting in a 
reduction of R-value.\61\The results differed in the amount of 
settling, and the effect of settling on the R-values of the specific 
insulation products studied, depending on the type of mineral fiber 
insulations studied (fiberglass versus rock wool products) due to 
differences in density.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ ORNL/Yarbrough, #28, at Refs. 1, 2; ORNL/Wilkes, #29, at 
Refs. 9, 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission agrees that it would be preferable to specify a 
uniform procedure for determining the long-term, settled density of 
dry-applied loose-fill mineral fiber insulation products. 
Unfortunately, none of the comments suggested a specific procedure that 
the Commission could adopt at this time. In addition, the comments that 
suggested requiring an across-the-board settlement factor of 10% have 
not submitted documentation that would justify the Commission imposing 
it on all dry-applied loose-fill mineral fiber insulation products.
    The Commission, therefore, solicits comments on specific reliable 
and uniform procedures that would be appropriate for determining the 
long-term, settled density of dry-applied loose-fill mineral fiber 
insulation products, and the submission of data to demonstrate that 
those procedures will result in uniform and accurate results. For 
example, the Commission requests any data that demonstrate that any of 
the following, currently available test procedures, or others, would 
produce accurate and reliable, long-term settled density results for 
mineral fiber insulation products in attic applications: the BCS test 
procedure in ASTM C 739-91 (which currently is required for dry-
applied, loose-fill cellulose insulation products); the ``Canadian drop 
box procedure,'' which previously was proposed by GSA for loose-fill 
mineral fiber insulations under Federal Specification HH-I-1030B; \62\ 
the British Standard Vibration Test; and the procedure developed in 
Scandinavia by Dr. Svennerstedt. In the meantime, the Commission will 
continue to examine the data specific manufacturers use to substantiate 
their R-value, long-term settled density, and coverage claims.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ See 44 FR at 50228, 50239 n.239.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Stabilized Cellulose. Because of the manner in which stabilized 
cellulose insulation is installed, the Commission agrees that the BCS 
test procedure may not be appropriate for determining its long-term, 
settled density. Further, the Commission does not believe that the 
procedure for determining density in ASTM C 1149, which NAIMA 
suggested, is the appropriate measure of the long-term, settled density 
of stabilized cellulose insulations installed in attic applications. 
ASTM C 1149 is designed for insulations sprayed onto walls (most often 
being applied to metal walls in commercial buildings, where they are 
left exposed, without being covered by an internal wall), and requires 
that these insulations be able to support themselves in that type of 
application. The settling characteristics of stabilized cellulose 
insulations in attic applications are different from those of self-
supported insulations sprayed onto walls. ASTM has not yet adopted a 
specific method for determining the long-term density of stabilized 
cellulose insulation for attic applications. When ASTM, or others, 
adopt an appropriate procedure, the Commission will consider whether to 
require its use. In the meantime, under section 5 of the FTC Act, 
manufacturers must have a reasonable basis for the density at which 
they conduct the R-value tests required by the Rule and make R-value 
claims to consumers.
    Loose-fill and Stabilized Insulations Used in Manufactured Housing 
Attics. No comments addressed whether the procedures currently used to 
determine the settled density of dry-applied loose-fill insulations or 
stabilized insulations when they are used in attics of site-built homes 
are appropriate for determining

[[Page 48034]]

their settled density when they are used in attics of manufactured 
housing. Industry members have raised this question separately, 
however, with the Commission's staff. At issue is whether these 
insulations, which are installed in attic assemblies in a factory and 
then transported to the site where the manufactured home will be 
located, settle more, or differently, than those used in site-built 
homes because of additional vibrations and other factors during 
transportation. The Commission solicits comments regarding the extent 
of settling of dry-applied loose-fill insulations and stabilized 
insulations when they are used in attics of manufactured housing, the 
density at which the R-value of these insulations should be determined 
for use in attics of manufactured housing, and how that density should 
be determined.

b. Loose-fill and Self-supported Insulations in Walls

    Dry-applied loose-fill insulations and spray-applied, self, 
supported insulations can be installed in walls in residential 
applications. Dry-applied loose-fill insulations normally can only be 
applied to existing wall cavities (primarily in retrofit applications). 
Spray-applied, self-supported insulations can be applied to open wall 
cavities before installation of internal walls.
    Dry-applied loose-fill insulations may settle when blown into a 
confined area, such as an enclosed wall cavity, leaving a gap at the 
top of the wall cavity if they are not sufficiently compressed during 
installation. Manufacturers who claim an R-value for a dry-applied 
loose-fill insulation must disclose the R-value at the applied density, 
determined according to the R-value test procedures specified in the 
Rule. The Rule, however, does not specify how manufacturers must 
determine that density because there was no standard procedure for 
measuring the applied density in wall applications for all products at 
the time the Commission promulgated the Rule. Because dry-applied 
loose-fill insulations installed in closed wall cavities must be 
compressed during application to ensure that they do not settle, the 
applied density in wall applications is likely to be greater than the 
settled density of the product when it is installed in an open attic.
    Self-supported, spray-applied insulations, mixed with water and 
adhesives (also referred to as ``wet-spray'' insulations), are 
installed pneumatically on-site by professional installers. They may be 
made of either cellulose or mineral fiber. When applied, this form of 
insulation requires no support other than the insulation itself or the 
substrate to which it is attached. These products most often are used 
in walls in commercial applications, where they may be left exposed 
after they are installed. They are rarely used in residences, primarily 
because this application requires the use of more insulation material 
for a given thickness (i.e. the insulation is installed at a higher 
density and cost), often without any increase in total R-value, and 
sometimes at a reduced R-value. They are not used in attics because of 
their additional weight (and cost). Because these products are applied 
at a greater density than either dry-applied loose-fill or stabilized 
insulations, they are not likely to settle. Although this form of 
insulation was not discussed during the original rulemaking proceeding 
and the Rule does not specify how R-value these specimens must be 
prepared, it is covered by the Rule if it is sold for use in the 
residential market. Because the density at which these insulations are 
applied affects their R-values, the Commission's staff has advised 
industry members that they should prepare test specimens according to 
the manufacturer's installation instructions, using equipment, 
materials, and procedures representative of the manner in which the 
insulation is applied in the field.

Comments Regarding the Use of Dry-applied Loose-fill Insulations in 
Wall Cavities

    Two comments recommended requiring the disclosure of R-values and 
related information for loose-fill insulations intended in walls or 
other enclosed cavities. NAIMA recommended requiring that coverage 
charts for these products include R-values maximum net coverage area, 
and minimum weight per square foot for the thicknesses of common 
cavities (e.g. 3\1/2\''). NAIMA asserted that separate disclosures for 
installations of these insulation products in enclosed cavities is 
necessary to provide guidance about the proper amount of material that 
must be installed.\63\ Mr. Smith, for GreenStone, agreed and suggested 
requiring disclosure of a coverage chart for ``Gross Coverage,'' for 
cavities using 2x4 and 2x6 on 16'' center construction. He recommended 
requiring the disclosure of the density at which the loose-fill 
insulation should be installed, along with a statement that 
applications below this density may be subject to settling and may 
create gaps at the top of or within wall cavities that may 
significantly reduce the insulating value of the product. Lastly, he 
stated that the R-value for each of the wall thicknesses claimed must 
be determined at the applied density the manufacturer recommends.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ NAIMA, #24, at 5.
    \64\ GreenStone/Smith, #32, at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion Regarding the Use of Dry-applied Loose-fill Insulations in 
Wall Cavities

    The Commission agrees that specific requirements for determining 
the appropriate density for the R-value test specimen and for 
disclosures on coverage charts for applications in enclosed wall 
cavities would be appropriate and desirable. GreenStone's suggestion of 
requiring a statement of ``applied density'' could provide helpful 
information to installers in determining whether they have installed 
the requisite amount of insulation material, but it does not address 
how that density should be determined. The Commission, therefore, 
solicits comments on whether there are reliable procedures that could 
be used to determine the density of dry-applied loose-fill insulations 
when installed in enclosed wall cavities, and the specific disclosures 
that should be required (e.g., how coverage area for enclosed wall 
cavities should be described).

Comments Regarding the Use of Self-Supported Insulations in Wall 
Cavities

    ECI recommended adopting the test specimen preparation procedures 
in ASTM C 1149 when testing insulations that are sprayed into wall 
cavities.\65\ England recommended requiring use of either HUD UM-80 
\66\ or ASTM C 1149, both of which apply to spray-applied cellulose 
insulation, to ensure that R-value and related information is 
accurate.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ ECI, #23, at 1.
    \66\ U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Materials 
Bulletin No. 80 (``HUD UM-80''), dated October 31, 1979. This 
specification includes additional requirements, e.g., the surface to 
which the specimen is to be applied, and post-preparation 
conditioning.
    \67\ England, #18, at 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion Regarding the Use of Self-supported Insulations in Wall 
Cavities

    The procedures in paragraph 5.1 of ASTM C 1149-90 and in paragraph 
9.1.1 of HUD UM-80, which require the R-value test specimens be 
prepared using the maufacturer's recommended equipment and procedures 
and at the manufacturer's maximum recommended thickness, appear to be 
appropriate procedures for preparing R-value test specimens of self-
supported, spray-applied cellulose insulation products.

[[Page 48035]]

Accordingly, the Commission proposes amending the Rule to require 
preparation of R-value test specimens of self-supported, spray-applied 
cellulose insulation products according to either of these 
specifications. The Commission solicits public comments regarding the 
accuracy and reliability of the two procedures, whether the Commission 
should allow use of either procedure or only one, how the Commission 
should define specifically the products to which the procedures apply, 
and whether the same procedures (or others) should be required for 
other types of spray-applied insulations (e.g., mineral fiber 
insulations) that are used in residential applications.

Discussion Regarding the Use of Loose-fill Insulations and Self-
supported Insulations in Wall Cavities of Manufactured Housing

    No comment addressed whether the procedures currently used to 
determine the settled density of dry-applied loose-fill insulations or 
self-supported insulations when they are used in wall cavities of site-
built homes are appropriate for determining their settled density when 
they are used in wall cavities of manufactured housing. Industry 
members have raised this question separately, however, with the 
Commission's staff. At issue is whether the settling of these 
insulations, which are installed in wall assemblies in a factory and 
then transported to the site where the manufactured home will be 
located, settled more, or differently, than those used in site-built 
homes because of additional vibrations and other factors during 
transportation. The Commission solicits comments regarding the extent 
of settling of dry-applied loose-fill insulations and self-supported 
insulations when they are used in wall cavities of manufactured 
housing, the density at which the R-value of these insulations should 
be determined for use in wall cavities of manufactured housing, and how 
that density should be determined.
3. Density Variations
    The Rule's testing and labeling requirements assume that the long-
term settled density of a dry-applied loose-fill insulation product 
does not change with variations in thickness. The Rule, therefore, 
simply requires that manufacturers of dry-applied loose-fill cellulose 
insulation determine the settled density of each product according to 
the BCS test procedure and test it for R-value at that density, and 
that manufacturers of dry-applied loose-fill mineral fiber insulation 
determine the R-value of each product on samples that fully reflect the 
effect of settling on R-value. As long as the R-value test has been 
conducted at that density and at the product's ``representative 
thickness,'' \68\ the manufacturer can construct the required coverage 
chart for various total R-value levels based on the R-value result at 
the tested density.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ The mathematical extrapolation of R-value for a mass 
insulation product from thin-sample tests can be misleading because 
it fails to recognize that, up to at least some thickness, R-value 
does not increase linearly with increases in thickness. This is 
referred to as the ``thickness effect.'' To account for the 
thickness effect, section 460.6 requires that R-value tests of mass 
insulations be conducted at the product's ``representative 
thickness,'' which it defines as the thickness at which the R-value 
per unit will vary no more than plus or minus two percent with 
increases in thickness. For thicknesses less than the representative 
thickness, however, the R-value claimed may be based on testing at 
the claimed thickness. 44 FR at 50226.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments

    Ivan Smith, for GreenStone, recommended revising section 460.6 of 
the Rule to require testing of loose-fill insulations at each thickness 
shown on a label unless there is a limitation caused by the physical 
constraints of the test equipment. Mr. Smith believes it is likely that 
density will be different at each different thickness of loose-fill 
material, and that this variation of density potentially affects the 
thickness necessary to obtain the claimed total R-value. He contended 
that this requirement would not result in a substantial expense to the 
manufacturer.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ GreenStone/Smith, #32, at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion

    The Commission cannot determine whether it would be appropriate to 
propose amending the Rule as Mr. Smith recommended without specific 
data to demonstrate whether or how much the density of particular types 
of loose-fill insulations varies with differences in thickness. The 
Commission solicits comments and data, therefore, on whether, and how 
much, the density of specific loose-fill insulations varies with 
thickness, the effect of any such variations on the total R-value at 
different thickness, and how the Commission should amend the Rule to 
ensure that R-values and related claims for loose-fill insulation 
products are accurate.
4. Installation in Closed Cavities of Variable Thickness

Comments

    Dr. Yarbrough, for TN Tech, stated that the evaluation of the 
thermal performance of insulations used in attics of manufactured 
housing represents a special challenge because, in some cases, the roof 
cavity (and the insulation installed in it) varies in thickness and 
density. For example, these roof cavities often slope to the edge of 
the roof assembly, where the cavity may be only 1\1/2\'' to 2'' thick. 
Any insulation (whether it is a batt or blanket, dry-applied loose-
fill, or stabilized product) installed in such an application can vary 
in thickness across the cavity, and may be compressed more than normal 
in the thinnest portions of the cavity. These factors result in 
different total R-values at different places. Dr. Yarbrough recommended 
specifying how R-values for such variable thickness and density 
applications should be calculated, and suggested using a method such as 
the one he and others have described in a paper published by the 
American Society of Mechanical Engineers.\70\ He stated that the manner 
in which R-values are expressed for this type of application could 
affect a major portion of new manufactured homes and could determine 
whether insulations installed in these applications achieve the total 
R-values claimed.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ D.W. Yarbrough, R.S. Graves, and D.L. McElroy, 
Effectiveness of Thermal Insulation in Attic Spaces of Manufactured 
Homes, Collected Papers in Heat Transfer 1988, K.J. Yang, Ed., The 
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, HTD-Vol. 104 (1988), at 
71-80.
    \71\ TN Tech/Yarbrough, #26, at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion

    The Commission agrees that it is important to address how R-values 
should be determined and disclosed to consumers where the insulation 
varies in thickness and/or density in particular applications, so that 
R-values claimed to consumers under these circumstances will be 
accurate and determined according to a uniform standard. The Commission 
solicits comments, therefore, regarding the method (such as that 
recommended by Dr. Yarbrough) that should be used to determine and 
disclose R-values under these circumstances, and how different 
variables (e.g., thickness, density) should be accounted for in the 
determination.

D. Other Testing Requirements

1. Accreditation of Testing Laboratories

Comments

    The Celotex Corporation recommended requiring that testing 
laboratories either be accredited by the National Voluntary Laboratory 
Accreditation Program (``NCLAP''), administered by the U.S. Department 
of Commerce's National Institute of

[[Page 48036]]

Standards and Technology (``NIST''), for the specific test methods 
listed in the Rule, or by the International Organization for 
Standardization (``ISO'') as an ISO/IEC Guide 25 Testing Laboratory. 
Further, Celotex stated that accreditation as an ISO/IEC Guide 25 
Laboratory provides global acceptance of a laboratory's test 
results.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ Celotex, #25, at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion

    Although accreditation of testing laboratories by a qualified, 
professional accreditation program generally is useful and important, 
the Commission is not aware of any significant testing problems with 
unaccredited laboratories that would justify the Commission's imposing 
this additional burden under the Rule. Further, to the extent that 
accreditation of a laboratory provides either domestic or global 
acceptance of that laboratory's test results, manufacturers and other 
sellers should already have sufficient incentive to use accredited 
laboratories, and testing laboratories should have sufficient incentive 
to seek accreditation, without the Commission imposing an accreditation 
requirement.
    The Rule already includes several interrelated safeguards to ensure 
testing integrity that make a separate accreditation requirement 
unnecessary, absent evidence of testing abuse. First, the Rule requires 
manufacturers to test or have their products tested to substantiate the 
R-values they claim, and to maintain specific records concerning the 
testing methods and results. Second, it enables the Commission to 
analyze the substantiation tests by evaluating the required testing 
records. Third, it includes a quality control requirement, under which 
industry members must ensure that the R-value of the insulation they 
sell is not more than 10% below the R-value they claim. Thus, even if 
the manufacturer or other covered party has a test result that purports 
to verify the claimed R-value, the Commission can obtain samples and 
conduct its own testing to ensure that accurate, properly determined R-
values are being disclosed to consumers.
    Although the Commission is not proposing to require laboratory 
accreditation at this time, it solicits comments on the extent to which 
manufacturers presently use accredited versus nonaccredited labs. In 
addition, the Commission seeks comments on whether it should require 
additional recordkeeping to make the records more clearly demonstrate 
whether the tests have been conducted accurately and in accordance with 
the required procedures.
2. Test Temperature Requirements
    Several test temperature parameters are involved in R-value 
testing: (1) The temperature on the cold side of the testing apparatus; 
(2) the temperature on the hot side of the testing apparatus; (3) the 
mean (or average) test temperature within the test chamber; and (4) the 
temperature differential (i.e., the temperature spread between the cold 
and hot sides). The record in the original rulemaking proceeding 
indicated that variations in these test parameters affected the ASTM 
steady-state R-value results for mass insulations and reflective 
insulations differently.
    For mass insulations, the record indicated that R-values decreased 
as the mean test temperature rose, and that this inverse relationship 
between R-value and mean test temperature was approximately the same 
for all mass insulations. On the other hand, the record indicated that 
variations in the temperature differential between the hot and cold 
sides did not significantly affect the R-value results. For these 
reasons and other explained below, the Commission determined the R-
value tests of mass insulations should be conducted at a mean test 
temperature of 75  deg.F, but that it was not necessary to specify a 
required test temperature differential for testing mass insulations.
    For traditional reflective foil insulations, on the other hand, the 
record indicated that variations in mean test temperature did not 
affect the R-value results, but that variations in the temperature 
differential between the hot and cold sides did affect the R-value 
results. At least at smaller temperature differentials, the record 
indicated that there was an inverse relationship between R-value and 
the temperature differential, as the temperature differential 
increased, the R-value result went down. The Commission determined, 
therefore, that it was necessary to specify both the mean test 
temperature and the temperature differential for R-value testing of 
reflective insulations.
    The R-value of a reflective insulation is related to its 
emissivity.\73\ Based on evidence that single-sheet reflective foil 
insulation products with a given emissivity installed in an airspace of 
the same thickness and configuration will have the same R-value, the 
Commission minimized manufacturers' testing burdens by allowing them to 
use the R-values for those products listed in a specific table 
published by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
Conditioning Engineers, Inc. (``ASHRAE''). Thus, manufacturers of 
single-sheet reflective insulation products need only to measure the 
product's emissivity according to a specific ASTM test procedure (or an 
alternative procedure that provides comparable results) \74\ and find 
the appropriate R-value in the ASHRAE table for that emissivity.\75\ 
The ASHRAE table contained R-values for only certain mean test 
temperatures and temperature differentials. To ensure that claims were 
based, to the extent possible, on a standard that would allow 
comparison on a uniform basis of R-values for single-sheet reflective 
insulations and mass insulations, the Commission specified that single-
sheet reflective insulation manufacturers must use the R-value in the 
ASHRAE table for a mean test temperature of 50  deg.F (the table did 
not include a mean test temperature of 75  deg.F, so the Commission 
selected the mean test temperature closest to 75  deg.F) and a 
temperature differential of 30  deg.F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ See note 25, supra.
    \74\ See Part IV.D.5.a.i., infra
    \75\ The values in the table apply only to air spaces of uniform 
thickness bounded by plane, smooth, parallel surfaces with no 
leakage of air to or from the space. Further, the table lists only 
certain emissivities and airspace thicknesses. The Rule specifies 
that the emissivity must be determined according to ASTM E 408, or 
another test method that provides comparable results. The R-value of 
a traditional single-sheet reflective foil insulation product that 
will be installed in an air space that is not of uniform thickness 
bounded by plane, smooth, parallel surfaces with no leakage of air 
to or from the space should be tested according to the Rule's 
requirements for traditional multi-sheet reflective foil 
insulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For multi-sheet reflective foil insulations (used to create 
multiple airspaces), the record indicated that extrapolation of a total 
R-value from the ASHRAE R-value for a single airspace was unreliable. 
44 FR at 50228. The Commission, therefore, required that R-values be 
determined through R-value testing according to specific ASTM 
procedures. So that the results of these tests would be comparable to 
those for single-sheet insulations and for mass insulations, the 
Commission determined that the tests must be conducted at a mean test 
temperature of 75  deg.F and a temperature differential of 30  deg.F.

a. Mean Temperature

Comments

    Plymouth Foam Products asserted that a mean test temperature of 40 
deg.F would more accurately represent the climate(s) for the majority 
of the United

[[Page 48037]]

Sates than the required 75  deg.F mean test temperature.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ Plymouth, #01, at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion

    The Commission addressed this issue when it originally promulgated 
the Rule.\77\ To ensure that R-values claimed to consumers are made on 
a uniform basis, the Commission required that R-values disclosed to 
consumers be based on steady-state ASTM R-value tests conducted at a 
mean temperature of 75  deg.F. The Commission concluded that 75  deg.F 
(which was incorporated in many voluntary industry standards and 
federal procurement specifications) would be as effective as any other 
mean temperature in providing a standard mean test temperature for R-
value comparison purposes, although it otherwise had not particular 
advantage over any other temperature. By requiring that R-value testing 
be conducted at this mean test temperature, the Commission did not 
intend to specify a mean test temperature that would be representative 
of any particular geographical region, or particular season or of 
actual performance conditions. Indeed the Commission concluded that 
requiring sellers to test and disclose R-values at a mean temperature 
representative of any specific geographical region, or season of the 
year, would yield R-value results that would be inappropriate for other 
regions or seasons. Further, it concluded that requiring sellers to 
test and disclose R-values separately for different regions of seasons 
would yield multiple disclosures that could confuse consumers and 
discourage them from using R-values in making purchasing decisions. 
Thus, the Commission selected a single mean test temperature to 
establish a uniform standard for disclosing R-values. Although the 
Commission received no new information that would indicate that any 
other single mean test temperature would be preferable to 75  deg.F, 
the Commission invites public comments on this issue, along with 
comments regarding the testing and the disclosure of in situ 
performance information. See also the discussion in Part IV.B.1, above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ 44 FR at 50219, 50227.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Temperature Differential

Comments

    One comment recommended amending the Rule to specify the 
temperature differential. NAIMA recommended requiring not only that R-
value tests be preformed at the mean temperature of 75  deg.F, but also 
requiring a test temperature differential of ``50  deg.F 10 
 deg.F.'' NAIMA explained that the thermal properties of a specimen may 
change both with mean temperature and with the temperature difference 
across the test specimen, and that data and information at standard 
temperatures are therefore necessary for valid comparison of thermal 
properties. NAIMA stated that ASTM C 1058 \78\ specifies a temperature 
difference of 50  deg.F #10  deg.F when conducting tests at 
a mean temperature of 75  deg.F according to ASTM test methods C 177, C 
236, C 581, and C 1114.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ Standard Practice for Selecting Temperatures for Evaluating 
and Reporting Thermal Properties of Thermal Insulation (``ASTM C 
1058-92'').
    \79\ NAIMA, #24, at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion

    The Commission agrees that, if current evidence demonstrates that 
different test temperature differentials affect R-value results, it may 
be appropriate to consider specifying a test temperature differential 
in the Rule to ensure the comparability of R-value claims for competing 
home insulation products. The Commission, therefore, solicits comments 
on whether, to what extent, and for what types and forms of insulation, 
variations in the test temperature differential affect R-value results; 
and what specific test temperature differential(s) the Commission 
should impose for tests conducted according to each of the R-value test 
procedures cited in the Rule. See also the discussion in Part IV.B.1, 
above.
3. Tolerance

Comments Regarding Responsibilities of Manufacturers Versus Installers

    NAIMA \80\ and ICAA \81\ proposed limiting application of the 
Rule's 10% tolerance limit to manufacturers by replacing the words 
``industry member'' with ``manufacturer.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ Id. at 4.
    \81\ ICCA/1, #17, at 8. See also Rock Wool Mfg./1, #06 (fully 
supports ICAA's submittal).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion Regarding Responsibilities of Manufacturers Versus 
Installers

    The Commission designed the tolerance limit provision to apply to 
the manufacturer. Strictly speaking, the tolerance does not apply to 
professional installers or new home sellers. The Rule requires that 
professional installers and new home sellers apply loose-fill 
insulations according to the manufacturer's installation instructions, 
but allows them to rely on the accuracy of the manufacturer's R-value 
and installation instructions. Installers and new home sellers 
therefore have the benefit of the 10% tolerance limit for variances 
occurring in the manufacturing process. But the tolerance is not 
intended to allow installers or new home sellers to deviate from the 
manufacturer's installation instructions. Consequently, the Commission 
proposes amending the Rule to clarify that the tolerance provision 
applies solely to claims made by manufacturers.

Comments Regarding How the Tolerance Limit Will Be Applied

    NAIMA and Dow suggested clarifying the Rule to state more precisely 
how the tolerance limit would be applied. NAIMA suggested specifically 
requiring manufacturers to design their products to 100% of the claimed 
R-value, rather than aiming at the tolerance. NAIMA further recommended 
that the section require that the R-value of home insulation to be no 
more than 5% below the listed R-value for the average of four randomly 
selected samples, and that the R-value of any single sample to be no 
more than 10% below the listed R-value. NAIMA explained that limiting 
the tolerance to the average of four samples would make this section of 
the Rule consistent with current ASTM material standards. Dow asked 
that the Commission clarify the intent of Sec. 460.8, and suggested the 
following language to allow some variability in a production lot 
(rather than simply permitting an R-value of up to 10% below the 
claimed value):

    The mean R-value of sampled specimens of a production lot must 
meet or exceed the R-Value shown in a label, fact sheet, ad or other 
promotional material. No individual specimen can have an R-Value 
more than 10% below the claimed R-Value.\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ Dow, #37, at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion Regarding How the Tolerance Limit Will Be Applied

    The tolerance limit provision was designed to give manufacturers 
the flexibility to use the most effective and least burdensome or 
costly quality control procedures necessary to maintain each product's 
R-value (and the density necessary to obtain the claimed R-value) 
within an acceptable limit. At this time, however, the Commission 
agrees that it would be appropriate to consider whether the Commission 
should include in the Rule additional, more specific, guidance about 
how manufacturers should apply the tolerance limit. Possible 
alternatives include the suggestions made by NAIMA and Dow. 
Consequently, the

[[Page 48038]]

Commission solicits comments on whether and how it should propose 
amending the tolerance provision, and the benefits and burdens such an 
amendment would confer on consumers and insulation sellers.

Comments Regarding Sampling Procedures for the Tolerance Limit

    NAIMA recommended amending Sec. 460.8 to require manufacturers to 
select test specimens in accordance with ASTM C 390-79 \83\ which is 
the sampling procedure required by all ASTM thermal insulation 
standards.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ The current version of this specification is ASTM C 390-79 
(Reapproved 1995): Standard Criteria for Sampling and Acceptance of 
Preformed Thermal Insulation Lots (``ASTM C 390-79 (1995)'').
    \84\ NAIMA, #24, at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion Regarding Sampling Procedures for the Tolerance Limit

    In the original rulemaking proceeding, the Commission concluded 
that the available sampling standards--specifically ASTM C 390 and 
Military Standard 105 \85\--were not suitable for inclusion as 
requirements of the Rule because they were extremely complex and were 
not designed for sampling from a continual production process but, 
instead, were ``lot'' sampling procedures designed for use in 
individual transactions. Accordingly, the Commission left the choice of 
specific sampling methods to the manufacturer's discretion. Likewise, 
paragraph 3.1.6 of the current ASTM sampling specification, ASTM C 390-
79 (1995), establishes sampling standards applicable to a specific 
``lot'' or ``batch'' (which is defined as ``a definite quantity of some 
product manufactured under conditions of production that are considered 
uniform''). Although the Rule does not require specific sampling 
procedures, it requires that manufacturers be able to prove that test 
samples they select are representative of ongoing production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ The version of the military standard in effect at that time 
was: Sampling Procedures and Tables for Inspection by Attributes, 
MIL-STD-105D (``Military Standard 105'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To address this issue, the Commission solicits comments on whether 
manufacturers currently use sampling procedures that do not result in 
the selection of test specimens that are representative of ongoing 
production; which specific procedures currently are available for use 
in sampling from continuing production (or how sampling procedures 
designed for specific lots could be used to select samples from 
continuing production); and whether the Commission should require the 
use of specific sampling procedures.
4. Use of Current Test Data

Comments

    Dr. Yarbrough, for TN Tech, asserted that required R-Value 
disclosures should be based on test data no more than two years old. He 
contended that normal quality control activities should require more 
frequent thermal tests than are currently performed, and that this 
would not unduly burden the industry. He also recommended that, because 
the properties of thermal insulation can change when the manufacturing 
process changes, thermal test data should be based on the current 
manufacturing process and equipment being used.\86\ Dr. Yarbrough would 
exclude reflective insulations from this requirement because the 
thermal measurements for these products are much more expensive than 
tests for mass insulations. He recommended that a test on a reflective 
insulation be considered current if it conforms to ASTM C 1224 and the 
measurements were made on the product being marketed.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ TN Tech/Yarbrough, #26, at 2.
    \87\ Id. at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion

    When the Commission promulgated the Rule, it considered, but 
rejected, a recommendation in the Staff Report that the Commission 
require manufacturers to repeat their R-value substantiation tests 
every 60 days, coupled with a 5% tolerance limit. The Commission 
explained that the rulemaking record pointed no single retesting 
frequency that would be superior for all manufacturers, regardless of 
the type and amount of insulation they produce and sell and regardless 
of the variables that might affect the production of each type of 
insulation product. In addition, the record indicated that there was a 
limited availability of testing laboratories and testing equipment at 
that time to conduct the required testing for all manufacturers on a 
frequent basis.
    Instead, the Commission determined to rely on a tolerance limit 
provision as the governing quality control mechanism.\88\ It specified 
10% as the acceptable tolerance limit, and required manufacturers to 
institute in-plant quality control procedures necessary to stay within 
that tolerance limit. This mechanism was designed to give manufacturers 
the flexibility to use whatever quality control procedures are 
necessary to ensure the accuracy of their R-value claims, using the 
most effective and efficient, but the least burdensome or costly, means 
possible within their technical expertise. If the manufacturer changed 
the raw materials used or the manufacturing process, however, the 
resulting insulation product would be a new home insulation product. 
The Rule requires manufacturers to conduct a new R-value test on each 
new home insulation product, and to disclose the R-value (and related 
information) of each new product based on the new test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ 44 FR at 50229.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission agrees that it is appropriate to consider whether 
current conditions would justify the Commission's requiring a more 
specific retesting quality control mechanism. In this regard, the 
Commission is interested in comments regarding how frequently 
manufacturers currently test their insulation products, how much the R-
value of current production varies,\89\ how frequently manufacturers 
change their products, whether they retest products that have changed, 
and what retesting schedule would be most appropriate to ensure the 
accuracy of R-value claims made to consumers. After considering the 
comments, the Commission will determine whether it should propose 
requiring a specific retesting schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ For example, is the R-value of the insulation being 
produced consistently below the R-value claimed and previously 
determined, even if it is within the Rule's 10% tolerance?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Determining the Thermal Performance of Reflective Insulations
    Two basic forms of reflective insulation products are marketed for 
use in the residential market: (1) Traditional single-sheet and multi-
sheet reflective insulations; and (2) single-sheet radiant barrier 
reflective insulations. Traditional reflective insulation products 
normally are installed in closed cavities, such as walls. As explained 
in Part IV.D.2, above, the Rule requires that manufacturers of 
traditional reflective insulation products use specific test procedures 
to determine the R-values of their products, and that manufacturers and 
other sellers disclose R-values to consumers for specific applications.
    Radiant barrier reflective insulations, on the other hand, are 
installed in attics facing the attic's open airspace. Although radiant 
barrier reflective insulations are covered by the R-value Rule, R-value 
claims are not appropriate for them because no generally accepted test 
procedure exists to determine the R-value of a radiant barrier 
reflective insulation in an open attic. Sellers who make energy savings 
claims for radiant barrier insulations, however, must have

[[Page 48039]]

a reasonable basis for the claims under Section 460.19(a) of the Rule.

a. Traditional Reflective Insulations

i. Single-sheet Products

Comments

    Three comments recommended allowing the use of updated or 
alternative test procedures to measure the emissivity of traditional 
single-sheet reflective insulations.\90\ Celotex and PIMA \91\ 
recommended requiring that emissivity be determined under ASTM E 408-71 
(1990),\92\ ASTM C 835-82 (1988),\93\ or another method that provides 
comparable results. Dr. Wilkes, for ORNL, reported that ASTM is in the 
final stages of developing a procedure to measure the emittance of foil 
sheets with a portable Emissometer, and recommended that the Commission 
include this procedure in section 460.5(c) when ASTM adopts it.\94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ NAIMA, #24, at 3; Celotex, #25, at 4; PIMA, #30, at 6-7. 
See Part IV.D.2, supra, for a discussion regarding the use of 
emissivity in determining the R-value of a single-sheet reflective 
insulation product.
    \91\ Celotex, #25, at 4; PIMA, #30, at 6-7.
    \92\ The current version of this specification is ASTM E 408-71 
(Reapproved 1996): Standard Test Methods for Total Normal Emittance 
of Surfaces Using Inspection Meter Techniques (``ASTM E 408-71 
(1996)'').
    \93\ The current version of this specification is ASTM C 835-95: 
Standard Test Method for Total Hemispherical Emittance of Surfaces 
from 20 to 1400 deg. C (``ASTM C 835-95'').
    \94\ ORNL/Wilkes, #29, at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion

    ASTM now has adopted the procedure (ASTM 1371-97) \95\ that Dr. 
Wilkes recommended Dr. Wilkes informed the Commission's staff that the 
procedure is a very simple, quick measurement, using an instrument that 
costs about $1,000. He also informed the staff that, while there is no 
meaningful statistical difference between the results of measurements 
under ASTM C 1371-97 and ASTM C 835-95, the ASTM C 835-95 procedure is 
considerably more complicated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ Standard Test Method for Determination of Emittance of 
Materials Near Room Temperature Using Portable Emissometers (``ASTM 
C 1371-97'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission solicits comments on the accuracy, reliability, and 
consistency of each of these procedures in measuring emissivity; the 
costs of conducting the procedures; and whether the Commission should 
require the emissivity be measured by only one procedure to ensure that 
measurements of emissivity are accurate and reliable.

ii. Multi-sheet Products

Comments

    The five comments that addressed the Rule's R-value testing 
requirements for traditional multi-sheet reflective foil insulations 
recommended requiring that R-values be determined according to the 
procedures specified in ASTM C 1224-93, either in addition to or 
instead of the two ASTM R-value test procedures specified in the 
Rule.\96\ Dr. Wilkes, for ORNL, explained that ASTM C 1224-93 requires 
R-value testing according to ASTM C 236 or ASTM C 976, but specifies 
additional instrumentation for the tests and a method of calculating R-
values based on the R-value test procedure measurements. He further 
recommended requiring that the tests be conducted at the mean test 
temperature and temperature differential specified in ASTM C 1224-
93.\97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ NAIMA, #24, at 3 (ASTM C 1224-93 was not developed when the 
Rule was issued; reference in the Rule to C 236 and C 976 is 
unnecessary because those standards are incorporated into C 1224); 
Celotex, #25, at 4; TN Tech, #26, at 3; ORNL/Wilkes, #29, at 6; 
PIMA, #30, at 6.
    \97\ ORNL/Wilkes, #29, at 6. ASTM C 1224-93 requires testing at 
a cavity mean test temperature of 754  deg.F 
(242  deg.C) with a temperature difference across the 
insulated cavity of 302  deg.F (16.51 
deg.C). These temperature requirements are similar to those 
currently required by the Rule, but ASTM C 1224-93 specifies that 
the temperatures are those within the cavity (not including the 
cavity walls, or the air temperatures inside or outside the house) 
and incorporates tolerances to allow minor temperature variations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion

    Traditional multi-sheet reflective insulations must be tested in an 
enclosed cavity system that includes air spaces. Testing such a system 
requires the construction of a test panel to contain the reflective 
insulation. R-values determined in these systems tests may vary 
depending on the size and configuration of the test panel, the 
materials used to construct the test panel, how mean temperature and 
temperature differential are measured, and the corrections for 
components such as framing members used in the test panel that are made 
in the calculation of R-values based on the test results. ASTM C 1224-
93 includes requirements concerning the construction of the test panel, 
verification of the R-value measurement, and calculation of the R-value 
of the reflective insulation from the R-value measurement of the entire 
system. The Commission concludes that requiring standardization of 
these variables would be comparable to the Rule's requirements that 
test specimens of certain mass insulation products be prepared 
according to specified procedures and that R-values determined under 
ASTM C 177-85 (1993) or ASTM C 518-91 be reported in accordance with 
the requirements of ASTM C 1045-90, and would benefit consumers by 
making R-value claims for these products more accurate and reliable.
    For these reasons, the Commission proposes requiring that R-values 
for reflective insulations be tested according to ASTM C 236-89 (1993) 
or ASTM C 976-90 in a test panel constructed according to ASTM C 1224-
93, and under the test conditions specified in ASTM C 1224-93, and that 
the R-values be calculated according to the formula specified in ASTM C 
1224-93, from the results of those R-value tests. The Commission 
solicits comments on this proposal.

b. Radiant Barrier Products

Comments

    Dr. Wilkes, for ORNL, states that ASTM is developing a method for 
evaluating the thermal performance of low-emittance foils used in 
residential attics to reduce radiative transport across the attic air 
space. He recommended that the Commission incorporate this method into 
the Rule once ASTM adopts it.\98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ Id. at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion

    ASTM has now adopted the standard referred to by Dr. Wilkes. The 
standard, ASTM C 1340-96,\99\ incorporates a complicated calculation 
(and computer program) to determine the heat flux through an attic 
containing a radiant barrier. The results do not determine an R-value 
rating, but instead a performance value that might serve as a 
reasonable basis for energy savings claims (and related performance 
claims) made about radiant barrier insulations. The Commission solicits 
comments concerning the specific type of performance the standard 
measures, how the standard may be used to substantiate energy savings 
claims or other performance claims for radiant barrier insulations, the 
types of installations of radiant barrier insulations for which the 
standard may be used, the accuracy of the determinations made under the 
standard, and whether the Commission should require that energy savings 
or other performance claims for radiant

[[Page 48040]]

barrier insulations be based on the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ Standard Practice for Estimation of Heat Gain or Loss 
through Ceilings Under Attics Containing Radiant Barriers by Use of 
Computer Program (ASTM C 1340-96'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Additional Laboratory Procedures for Testing Loose-fill Insulations

Comments

    NAIMA recommended that the Commission require testing of loose-fill 
insulations ``in full conformance with ASTM C 687-93.'' \100\ NAIMA 
explained that C 687 has been significantly improved since the Rule 
became effective and that it now deals more specifically with test 
specimen preparation techniques, stabilization times, and measurement 
of the specimen density in the test area, resulting in a significant 
improvement in test precision.\101\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ The current specification is: Standard Practice for 
Determination of Thermal Resistance of Loose-fill Building 
Insulation (``ASTM C 687-95'').
    \101\ NAIMA, #24, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion

    ASTM C 687-95 (the current ASTM specification) is a standard 
practice, rather than a test procedure. It specifies procedures to be 
followed in testing a variety of loose-fill insulations to be used in 
other than enclosed applications. It is a detailed laboratory 
procedures guide that appears to be both comprehensive and complicated. 
In an attempt to minimize burdens imposed by the rule, the Commission 
limited its testing requirements to the minimums necessary to ensure 
the accuracy and reliability of test results. The Rule, therefore, 
specifies only the basic R-value test procedures and test specimen 
preparation procedures for certain products that are necessary to 
account for factors that can significantly affect R-value results 
(e.g., aging, settling). In the original rulemaking proceeding, the 
Commission considered, but rejected as unnecessary, requiring adherence 
to more detailed standard practice or standard guide specifications, 
such as ASTM C 687. Without data substantiating the need to specify 
detailed laboratory operating procedures, for these insulations or 
others, the Commission is reluctant to consider imposing additional 
requirements. The Commission invites public comments, however, on 
whether and why there is a need to specify in more detail the 
laboratory procedures that should be followed in preparing test 
specimens and conducting R-value test procedures, for loose-fill 
insulations as well as other forms of insulations, and the benefits and 
burdens from such additional requirements.

E. Other Disclosure Issues

1. Disclosures on Labels and Fact Sheets

a. ``What You Should Know About R-values''

Comments

    The Rule requires the manufacturer's fact sheet to include a 
specific statement entitled ``What You Should Know About R-values'' 
that explains the meaning of R-value and lists factors consumers should 
consider when purchasing insulation.\102\ Regal suggested that this 
statement should be more specific in explaining how consumers can 
determine the amount of insulation they need. Regal commended the 
Insulation Fact Sheet published by the DOE for providing the best such 
information for consumers, but contended that it is not readily 
available in the marketplace. Regal also explained that the DOE ZIP 
Computer Program can be used to make a cost-benefit analysis for 
specific insulation products based on their cost per R-value and 
expected benefits.\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ The required statement is:
    READ THIS BEFORE YOU BUY
    What You Should Know About R-values.
    The chart shows the R-value of this insulation, R means 
resistance to heat flow. The higher the R-value, the greater the 
insulating power. Compare insulation R-values before you buy.
    There are other factors to consider. The amount of insulation 
you need depends mainly on the climate you live in. Also, your fuel 
savings from insulation will depend upon the climate, the type and 
size of your house, the amount of insulation already in your house, 
and your fuel use patterns and family size. If you buy too much 
insulation, it will cost you more than what you'll save on fuel.
    To get the marked R-value, it is essential that this insulation 
be installed properly.
    \103\ Regal, #16, at 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Corbond suggested that the current Rule has four negative effects 
that the Commission should address: (1) The Rule codifies the least 
effective measure of insulation performance, conductivity, as the sole 
measure widely used for comparing insulation value; (2) the Rule's 
emphasis on a product's R-value, as opposed to factors that affect 
installed performance, retards the development and acceptance of new 
products that perform better than fiberglass insulations because their 
performance appears the same when measured by R-value alone; (3) energy 
codes that require the installation of specific R-values favor products 
such as fiberglass insulations because the code requirements do not 
recognize the superior performance of insulations that are not subject 
to degradation of R-value in actual use due to factors such as venting, 
wind, convection, and moisture accumulation; and (4) the Rule 
perpetuates the use of an obsolete product, fiberglass insulation, 
which requires supplementation by other products and techniques (e.g., 
foam caulk, house-wrap, sheet vapor barriers, foam insulation 
sheathing, and venting) to help it do the job it should be able to do 
on its own.\104\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ Carbond, #41, at 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CIMA and Corbond recommended that the Commission add language to 
the required statement to address these concerns. CIMA recommended the 
following statement: \105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \105\ CIMA, #19, 4-5.

    R-value is important, but it is only one of many factors that 
affect the actual performance of insulation as installed. Other 
important factors to consider include air permeability, ability of 
the insulation to ``tighten'' the building against air infiltration, 
susceptibility to convective heat loss under cold conditions, and 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
proper installation.

    Corbond supported CIMA's suggestion, but recommended the use of an 
expanded version of the statement:

    R-value is important, but it is only one of the many factors 
that affect the actual performance of insulation as installed. Other 
important factors to consider include air permeability, ability of 
the insulation to ``tighten'' the building against air infiltration, 
susceptibility to convective heat loss under cold conditions, the 
potential for moisture permeation and accumulation and its 
deteriorating effects, and proper installation. Consult your 
insulation manufacturer for information regarding the true 
performance efficiency of the insulation under conditions 
appropriate to your climate.

Discussion

    The original purpose of the required explanation in fact sheets was 
to minimize disclosure burdens on industry members who advertise energy 
or fuel savings. Instead of requiring them to provide lengthy 
disclosures in ads that claim energy savings, the ad simply could refer 
consumers to information in the manufacturer's fact sheet.\106\ This 
approach would ensure that the explanatory information would be made 
available to consumers, while keeping advertisements less cluttered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \106\ 44 FR at 50233-34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission recognizes that, as the comments have indicated, 
more information could be provided in the explanation about how 
consumers can purchase the most cost-effective amount of insulation, 
and that there are additional factors that can affect R-value and 
performance in actual use. The Commission drafted the statement to 
balance consumers' need for information against keeping the statement 
simple enough to be useful and not detract from its basic purpose--
making consumers aware that there are

[[Page 48041]]

various factors they should consider when purchasing products to make 
their homes more energy efficient.
    Because new information may be available about the factors that 
affect insulation performance, the Commission is willing to consider 
revising the explanation. The Commission is concerned, however, that 
many consumers would not understand the meaning or impact of a general 
cautionary statement that contains terms such as ``air permeability,'' 
``susceptibility to convective heat loss under cold conditions,'' ``the 
potential for moisture permeation and accumulation and its 
deteriorating effects.'' The Commission, therefore, solicits comments 
regarding how the explanation could be revised to provide the most 
useful information to assist consumers in making purchasing decisions. 
In particular, the Commission is interested in receiving information 
about the factors that should be included, why those factors are 
important, how the information could be explained in a meaningful and 
helpful manner, and how the information would assist consumers in 
making purchasing decisions. Among other things, commenters are 
requested to include data such as consumer perception studies that 
demonstrate whether suggested alternative disclosures would be 
meaningful to consumers.

b. Disclosures for Batt, Blanket, and Boardstock Insulations

    Subsections 460.12(b)(1) and 460.12(B)(4) of the Rule require that 
manufacturers label all packages of batt/blanket insulations and 
boardstock insulations, respectively, with a chart showing the R-value, 
length, width, thickness, and square feet of insulation in the package, 
and 460.13(c)(1) requires that they include the chart on the 
manufacturer's fact sheets.

Comments Regarding Batt and Blanket Insulations

    NAIMA recommended amending 460.12(b)(1) to apply to all batt and 
blanket insulation products by deleting the reference to ``mineral 
fiber.'' NAIMA asserted that batts and blankets made of other 
materials, such as cotton, other cellulosic materials, and plastic 
fiber, have been introduced into the marketplace and that the Rule 
should specify labeling requirements for these new batt and blanket 
products.\107\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ NAIMA, #24, at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion Regarding Batt and Blanket Insulations

    The Commission agrees that all types of batt and blanket 
insulations should be labeled with the same basic R-value and coverage 
area information, and that manufactures' fact sheets for these 
insulation products should include these disclosures. Like other basic 
coverage chart disclosure requirements in section 460.12(b), the 
Commission designed this coverage chart disclosure requirement to apply 
to the form of the product (batt or blanket), not the type (e.g., 
mineral fiber). The Rule refers to ``mineral fiber'' batts and blankets 
because when the Rule was promulgated the batt and blanket insulation 
products being sold in the residential market were mineral fiber 
insulation products, primarily fiberglass. The Commission, therefore, 
proposes amending the Rule to clarify the requirement by deleting the 
phrase ``mineral fiber'' from section 460.12(b)(1), and solicits 
comments on this proposal.

Comments Regarding Disclosures to Assist Installers and Post-
Installation Inspectors

    ICAA recommended that the Commission require manufacturers of batt 
and blanket insulations to mark their products with the R-value in 
numerical terms only. ICAA contended that the method some manufacturers 
use of applying stripes on unfaced batt and blanket products to 
indicate the product's R-value is not understood by installers, code 
compliance officials, and others in the building inspection 
community.\108\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \108\ ICAA/1, #17, at 3. ICAA provided an article from 
Insulation Contractors Monthly (Appendix A to the comment) 
describing guidelines, issued by NAIMA, for identifying, by means of 
stripes, the R-values of unfaced fiberglass insulation. See also 
NAIMA, #24m at 6-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To assist building code officials and others who perform post-
installation inspections in determining whether the correct R-value has 
been installed, ICAA also recommended that the Commission require 
manufacturers of unfaced batt and blanket insulation products to 
include the following statement on their product packages:
    The unfaced batt should be installed so that the R-value 
identification is visible for inspection. ICAA reported that the 1955 
version of the Model Energy Code (``CABO/MEC''), issued by the Council 
of American Building Officials (``CABO''), recommends that insulation 
be installed in a manner that will permit inspection of the 
manufacturer's R-value identification mark. ICAA asserted that that is 
important that contractors who install unfaced batts and blanket do so 
in a way that will make it possible to verify R-value quickly and 
easily.\109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ ICAA/1, #17, at 2. See also Rock Wool Mfg./1, #06, at 1 
(fully supportin ICAA's submittal).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion Regarding Disclosures To Assist Installers and Post-
Installation Inspectors

    The R-value Rule does not require that individual pieces of 
insulation be marked, but instead requires point-of-sale disclosures to 
consumers prior to purchase on manufacturers' package labels and fact 
sheets, and on receipts or contracts professional installers and new 
home sellers must give to consumers. These prepurchase disclosures 
enable consumers to compare competing insulation products and make 
purchasing decisions. As ICAA's comment suggests, however, many 
manufacturers also mark individual insulation products such as faced or 
unfaced batts and blankets and boardstock products in some way to 
identify their R-value.
    Under provisions of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1992, 
DOE, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (``HUD''), 
and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (``USDA'') have adopted the 
CABO/MEC for federal residential buildings or federally insured 
residential housing, and 33 states have adopted, at some level, some 
version of the CABO/MEC, or its equivalent. The CABO/MEC (including the 
1995 version) requires for new residential construction (including new 
additions to existing residential buildings), that, among other things: 
(1) An R-value identification mark appear on each piece of insulation 
that is 12 inches wide or greater; and (2) individual pieces of 
insulation be installed in attics, floors, and wall cavities in a 
manner that permits post-installation inspection of the manufacturer's 
R-value identification mark. These requirements assist building 
inspectors in determining, after installation, whether the proper 
amount of insulation has been installed to meet the minimum thermal 
performance requirements of the CABO/MEC.
    Marking individual batt, blanket, and boardstock insulation 
products with R-values would not provide additional prepurchase 
information to consumers (beyond the required disclosures on product 
packages, manufacturers' fact sheets, and in contracts or receipts). It 
would, however, facilitate R-value verification. But, the CABO/MEC 
already requires such marking and it has

[[Page 48042]]

been adopted for new residential construction by other agencies of the 
federal government and the majority of states. Thus, it does not appear 
necessary for the Commission to amend the Rule to require that 
individual batts, blankets, or other insulation products be marked. The 
Commission solicits comments, however, regarding whether this 
additional disclosure requirement in the Rule would assist consumers in 
making purchasing decisions, whether (and why) CABO/MEC requirements 
are insufficient to provide this information to building inspectors, 
and whether (and to what extent) there currently are abuses in the sale 
and installation of home insulation that could be remedied by 
duplicating the CABO/MEC requirements in the R-value Rule, as well as 
the costs that such an amendment would impose on manufacturers.

Comments Regarding Disclosure of Thickness

    Celotex and PIMA recommended requiring the disclosure, on the 
required coverage charts on manufacturer's package labels and fact 
sheets for boardstock insulations, of the ``nominal thickness'' of the 
boards in the package. The comments asserted that boardstock 
insulations are produced in nominal (or average) thicknesses and 
expressed concern that the current wording of the section implies exact 
thickness.\110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \110\ Celotex, #25, at 5; PIMA, #30, at 7. The Commission 
understands that, by ``nominal thickness,'' the comments mean the 
``average thickness'' of each board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion Regarding Disclosure of Thickness

    Subsections 460.12(b)(1) and 460.12(b)(4) of the Rule require the 
disclosure of ``thickness'' for batts, blankets, and boardstock 
products, without defining whether the thickness disclosed must be the 
actual, minimum, nominal, or average thickness.\111\ Although 
variations in the manufacturing process may make it difficult for 
manufacturers to ensure that they produce products of exact thickness, 
it is essential that the thickness delivered to consumers be within a 
reasonable tolerance because the total R-value of a batt, blanket or 
boardstock insulation product is directly related to its thickness. In 
order to provide guidance to sellers, the Commission solicits comments 
on: (1) Whether it should propose amending the Rule to specify 
individual tolerances for the required thickness disclosure (as well as 
required disclosures of net weight and other dimensions of packaged 
insulation products) and procedures for determining whether products 
are within those tolerances; (2) what tolerances and procedures it 
should consider, for example, the procedures and tolerances adopted by 
the National Conference of Weights and Measures (``NCMW'');\112\ and 
(3) the benefits and burdens to consumers and sellers of specifying 
individual tolerances and procedures for these measurements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \111\ The Commission, on the other hand, required the disclosure 
of ``minimum thickness'' for loose-fill insulations in subsections 
460.12(b)(2)-(3) to address the issue of settling, which is 
discussed supra.
    \112\ See ``Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods,'' NBS/
NIST Handbook 133, Third Edition (including Supplements 1, 2, and 3) 
(Sept. 1998), and ``Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods,'' 
NIST Handbook 133, Third Edition, Supplement 4 (Oct. 1994). The NCWM 
procedures provide mean and maximum allowable variations for the net 
contents of packaged items, including weight, dimensions, and other 
measurements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Disclosures for Loose-fill Insulations

    Section 460.12(b) of the rule requires that labels on loose-fill 
insulation packages disclose the minimum net weight of the insulation 
in the package and include a coverage chart disclosing minimum 
thickness (after settling), maximum net coverage area, minimum weight 
per square foot, and (for loose-fill cellulose insulation only) number 
of bags per 1,000 square feet for each of several specified total R-
values for installation in open attics. The Rule currently specifies 
different total R-values for which the disclosures must be made for 
loose-fill cellulose insulations and other types of loose-fill 
insulations. The rule requires professional installers to calculate the 
number of square feet to be insulated and to install the number of bags 
indicated on the manufacturer's coverage chart that are necessary for 
the desired R-value (commonly referred to as ``bag count'').

Comments Regarding Required Disclosures

    Four comments recommended that the Commission amend section 
460.12(b) to require the same total R-value and other disclosures for 
all types of loose-fill insulations.\113\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \113\ Hamilton, #22, at 2 (recommending disclosures at R-13, R-
19, R-30, R-38, and R-42, and recommending that the combined 
subsection require that mineral fiber loose-fill coverage charts 
list number of bags per 1000 square feet); ICAA/1, #17, at 9 (R-11, 
R-19, R-30, and R-38); NAIMA, #24, at 5 (recommending disclosures at 
R-13, R-19, R-30, R-38--these are the common R-values typically 
installed to satisfy the roof/ceiling requirements of the CABO/MEC 
and many state energy codes; also recommending disclosures at all 
other R-values listed on the chart); GreenStone/Smith, #32, at 3 
(recommending disclosures at R-11, R-13, R-19, R-22, R-24, R-30, R-
32, R-38, and R-40). See also Rock Wool Mfg./1, #06 (fully 
supporting ICAA's submittal).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion Regarding Required Disclosures

    The Commission agrees that it would be appropriate to require the 
same disclosures for all types of loose-fill insulations for 
application in attics or other open areas. The Commission originally 
prescribed separate disclosure requirements for loose-fill cellulose 
insulations and other types of loose-fill insulations (primarily 
material fiber loose-fill insulations) in response to requests that the 
Rule, where possible, apply labeling requirements consistent with GSA's 
purchasing specifications. 44 FR at 50230. GSA's specifications at that 
time required that labels for loose-fill cellulose insulation disclose 
the number of bags required to cover 1,000 square feet, but did not 
require this disclosure on labels for loose-fill mineral fiber 
insulation, and it required that the mandatory disclosures be made at 
different total R-values for the two types of loose-fill 
insulations.114 After the Commission promulgated the Rule, 
GSA eliminated its own specifications and now uses ASTM material 
specifications for determining which insulation products may be 
purchased by the federal government (or in connection with programs 
operated by the federal government).115 The Commission 
believes that there no longer is any justification for requiring 
different disclosures for different types of loose-fill insulations for 
application in attics or other open areas, and proposes to apply a 
single set of disclosures requirements for all types. The Commission 
solicits comments regarding this proposal, including the total R-values 
for which it would be most appropriate to require the disclosures, and 
whether the same disclosures should apply to both dry-applied loose-
fill insulations and stabilized insulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \114\ Consistent with the GSA specification, subsection 
460.12(b)(2) requires that the disclosures be made at R-values of 
11, 19, and 22 and all loose-fill insulation except cellulose, and 
subsection 460.12(b)(3) requires the disclosures at R-values of 13, 
19, 24, 32, and 40 for loose-file cellulose insulation.
    \115\ In its compliance guidelines published in 1980, the 
Commission's staff explained that GSA had eliminated its own 
specifications and recommended that manufacturers of mineral fiber 
and other loose-file insulations other than cellulose include a 
column disclosing number of bags per 1,000 square feet in their 
coverage charts. Staff compliance guidelines, 45 FR 68920, at 68923-
24 (1980). The Commission believes that virtually all manufacturers 
of loose-file insulation currently includes this information.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 48043]]

Comments Regarding Disclosure of ``Minimum Net Weight''

    One comment recommended requiring the disclosure of ``net weight'' 
on loose-fill insulation packages, instead of ``minimum net weight.'' 
116
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \116\ GreenStone/Smith, #32, at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion Regarding Disclosure of ``Minimum Net Weight''

    Subsections 460.12(b)(2) and 460.12(b)(3) require that ``minimum 
net weight'' be disclosed on package labels of all types of loose-fill 
insulations, but do not require all the disclosure be made in those 
exact words. Some state weights and measures regulations, on the other 
hand, require the disclosure of ``net weight'' or ``nominal net 
weight,'' using specific words. To ensure that manufacturers and other 
sellers can conform to the requirements of both the Rule and the 
states' regulations, the Commission's staff had advised home insulation 
manufacturers that the Rule does not require that the word ``minimum'' 
appear in the disclosure, and that they can use the terms required by 
the state regulations. The Commission affirms the staff's advice.
    Further, the Commission intended the term ``minimum net weight'' in 
the Rule to mean that the package contains at least the weight claimed, 
because the accuracy of the information in the coverage chart depends 
on the package containing that amount of insulation material. Terms 
such as ``net weight'' or ``nominal net weight'' in state weights and 
measures regulations, on the other hand, have been interpreted to mean 
average weight per package, within a specific tolerance, over a given 
lot of packages or production runs. As with the thickness of batt, 
blanket, and boardstock insulations, discussed in Part IV.E.1.b, above 
variations in the manufacturing process may make it difficult for 
manufacturers to ensure that they produce loose-fill insulation 
packages filled with an exact weight of material; but it is essential 
that sufficient loose-fill insulation material be installed for 
consumers to received the total R-value they are purchasing. If an 
insufficient amount of material is contained in the packages used to 
install insulation in a particular consumer's home, even if the average 
weight is correct over the sampling lot considered, that consumer will 
receive less insulation R-value than promised.
    The Commission is committed to ensuring that consumers receive what 
they are promised, while also minimizing unnecessary burdens and costs 
on sellers. The Commission, therefore, solicits comments on: (1) 
Whether it should propose amending the Rule to specify individual 
tolerances for the required net weight disclosure for loose-fill 
insulation and procedures for determining whether packages are within 
those tolerances; (2) what tolerances and procedures it should 
consider, for example, the tolerances and procedures adopted by the 
NCWN;117 and (3) the benefits and burdens to consumers and 
sellers of specifying individual tolerances and procedures for the 
measurement of net weight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \117\ See note 112, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments Regarding Disclosure of ``Minimum Thickness''

    Seven comments discussed issues relating to the requirement in 
subsections 460.12(b)(2)-(3) that labels include a coverage chart 
disclosing, among other information, the ``minimum thickness'' \118\ of 
loose-fill insulations for application in attics and other open 
areas.\119\ ICAA proposed that the Commission amend the Rule to require 
that manufacturers of loose-fill cellulose insulations disclose 
``minimum initially installed thickness'' in addition to ``minimum 
thickness.'' ICAA contended that this additional information would 
assist installers by preventing them from mistakenly initially 
installing loose fill cellulose insulation only to the ``minimum 
thickness'' currently shown on the coverage chart (that is, the minimum 
thickness required to obtain the claimed total R-value after the 
product has settled). ICAA believes that is a long-standing industry 
practice that violates the Rule. ICAA asserted that CIMA agrees that 
this additional information would result in a marked improvement in 
consumer protection. ICAA contended that manufacturers' failure to 
provide this information on coverage charts effectively results in the 
installation of loose-fill insulation at total R-values below what is 
claimed.\116\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \118\ The term ``minimum thickness'' in subsections 
460.12(b)(2)-(3) refers to the thickness of installed loose-fill 
insulation after settling, not to the thickness of a packaged 
product. The discussion in the text of tolerances and procedures for 
measuring the thickness of packaged products, therefore, does not 
apply to the discussion of ``minimum thickness'' in subsections 
460.12(b)(2)-(3).
    \119\ ICAA/1, #17, at 3-4; Hamilton, #22, at 2-3; NAIMA, #24, at 
5: GreeneStone/Smith, #32, at 2; Clayville, #34, at 2-3; Tascon, 
#35, at 2; Rock Wool Mfg./2, #39, at 1-3.
    \116\ ICAA/1, #17, at 3-4. See also Rock Wool Mfg./1, #, #06 
(fully supporting ICAA's submittal.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NAIMA supported ICAA's proposal and recommended requiring 
disclosures on coverage charts of the ``minimum initial installed 
thickness,'' in addition to ``minimum settled thickness,'' for products 
that settle enough to reduce the total R-value by more than five 
percent. NAIMA reported that ICAA has requested that loose-fill 
cellulose insulation manufacturers include ``initial installed 
thickness'' disclosures on coverage charts, that several manufacturers 
currently put this information on their coverage charts, and that ASTM 
has developed a test method to determine initial installed thickness to 
support ICAA's initiative.\117\ Mr. Smith, for GreenStone, similarly 
recommended requiring the disclosure of both ``minimum settled 
thickness' and ``approximate initial installed thickness'' on coverage 
charts of loose-fill insulations.\118\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \117\ NAIMA, #24, at 5. NAIMA stated that the ASTM C 16 
committee has developed a test method to determine initial installed 
thickness, and that ASTM C 16.23 has developed a draft standard 
guide for development of coverage charts for loose-fill insulation 
that includes the initial installed thickness language NAIMA 
recommended
    \118\ GreenStone/Smith #32, at 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two comments specifically opposed requiring the disclosure of 
initial installed thickness. Hamilton contended that it is very 
difficult to arrive at a single thickness that will apply to all 
installation blowing equipment and installers' application techniques, 
and suggested that manufacturers should place more emphasis on training 
and instructions for professional installers instead of emphasizing an 
initially installed thickness.\119\ Clayville commented that the issue 
of disclosing an initial installed thickness has been raised primarily 
by ICAA, whose members installed predominantly mineral fiber 
insulation, and that the proposal appears calculated to take advantage 
of the lack of a recognized test procedure to determine the settlement 
of (dry-applied) loose-fill mineral fiber insulations after 
installation. Clayville contended that requiring the addition of an 
initial installed thickness column would create even more confusion in 
the industry and would not benefit consumers.\120\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \119\ Hamilton, #22, at 2-3.
    \120\ Clayville, #34, at 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tascon stated that the thickness of loose-fill insulation does not 
accurately determine its total R-value because there are different 
types of installation equipment and application techniques, including 
some that deliberately ``fluff'' (dry-applied) loose-fill insulation 
products; that is, that increase a product's thickness (by applying it 
with more air at a lower density) at the expense of its density and 
total R-value. Tascon recommended that the Commission continue to 
emphasize bag

[[Page 48044]]

account to ensure that installers apply the necessary amount of loose-
fill insulation in attics to attain the desired total R-value.\121\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \121\ Tascon, #35, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an alternative to disclosing minimum installed thickness for 
their products, several manufacturers now guarantee that the installer 
will attain the claimed total R-value (and the weight per square foot 
and density necessary for that R-value) by initially applying at least 
a specific ``guaranteed thickness.'' ICAA proposed requiring 
manufacturers who offer this guarantee to add a ``Guaranteed 
Thickness'' column to the required coverage charts.\122\ Rock Wool Mfg. 
supported ICAA's proposal as one method of assuring that consumers 
receive the total R-value claimed for (dry-applied) loose-fill 
insulations in attics and other open areas.\123\ ICAA also proposed 
adding the following language to section 460.8 to spell out the 
obligations of manufacturers and installers regarding how the Rule's 
tolerance provision applies where manufacturers guarantee that the 
claimed R-value will be obtained when the installer applies at least 
the ``guaranteed thickness'':

    \122\ ICAA/1, #17, at 9.
    \123\ Rock Wool Mfg./2, #39, at 1-3. Seel also Rock Wool 
Manufacturing's comments concerning bag tabs, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If you are a manufacturer of loose-fill insulation and you 
guarantee R-value based upon thickness, your ``guaranteed 
thickness'' must be an installed thickness that will result in at 
least the minimum weight per square foot indicated on your label.
    If you are an installer, you must install at least the minimum 
thickness and the minimum weight per square foot as indicated on the 
manufacturer's label. If you install a ``Guaranteed Inches equal R-
value'' loose-fill insulation product, you must install at least the 
minimum thickness for the corresponding R-value as indicated of the 
manufacturer's label.

Disussion Regarding Disclosure of ``Minimum Thickness''

    ICAA has long taken the position that installers have difficulty 
using bag count (or weight of insulation material installed) as the 
measure of their compliance with the Rule (and of whether they have 
installed the required amount of insulation material). ICAA contends 
that the reason for this problem is that the person applying loose-fill 
insulation through a blowing hose in the attic has no way of knowing at 
any given point how many bags have been loaded into the hopper of the 
blowing machine located in the truck outside. Requiring manufacturers 
to add a disclosure of ``initial installed thickness'' to coverage 
charts would give installers an additional tool to help them when they 
are applying dry-applied loose-fill insulation products. This 
additional information would not, however, allow installers to comply 
with the Rule simply by installing the claimed initial installed 
thickness, without having to count the number of bags they have 
installed (or otherwise ensure they have applied the required amount of 
insulation material) that is necessary, along with thickness, to 
achieve the claimed total R-value. Because dry-applied loose-fill 
insulation products normally settle after installation, the Rule 
requires: (1) That each manufacturer determine the R-value of its home 
insulation product at settled density and construct coverage charts 
showing the minimum settled thickness, minimum weight per square foot, 
and coverage area per bag for various total R-values; and (2) that 
installers measure the area to be covered and install the number of 
bags (and weight of insulation material) indicated on the insulation 
product's coverage chart for the total R-value desired. These 
requirements are necessary because the claimed total R-value for a 
specific dry-applied loose-fill insulation can be attained only when 
the requisite amount of insulation material in both thickness and 
density has been installed.
    Further, it does not appear that recognized procedures are 
currently available that could be used to determine, on a uniform 
basis, a required initial thickness for all types of dry-applied loose-
fill insulations. The settled density test procedure in ASTM C 739-91, 
which is required for determining the R-value test specimen density for 
dry-applied cellulose insulation, includes an initial blown step that 
could serve as the basis for determining an initial installed thickness 
for cellulose; but ASTM has not adopted a similar test procedure for 
dry-applied loose-fill mineral fiber insulations. Without reliable 
procedures to determine initial installed thickness, claims on coverage 
charts of competing insulations might not be consistent, and could be 
misleading. Further, because the initial thickness applied may vary 
with the blowing equipment and application technique used, even for 
cellulose (where a standardized test procedure is available to use in 
determining an initial installed thickness), an installer who applied 
the initial thickness determined under the required settled density 
test procedure would still have to ensure that he had applied the 
necessary amount of insulation material.
    Requiring (or allowing) manufacturers who claim a ``guaranteed 
thickness'' for their dry-applied loose-fill insulations to include a 
``guaranteed thickness'' column in their coverage charts on labels and 
fact sheets required by the Rule, as suggested by ICAA and Rock Wool 
Mfg., raises similar, but even more complicated, issues. Adding this 
disclosure might provide useful information. Without a uniform, 
verifiable means of determining an initial thickness that will achieve 
the claimed total R-value in all applications,\124\ however, the 
Commission does not believe it would be appropriate to require, or 
allow, manufacturers to add this information to the required 
manufacturers' coverage charts, or to allow installers to rely on the 
``guaranteed thickness'' alone (and not also on bag count) in 
determining the amount of insulation to apply to achieve the claimed 
total R-value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \124\ From a practical standpoint, providing a ``guaranteed 
thickness'' may make many insulation products less competitive. 
Because of variabilities in blowing equipment and application 
techniques among installers, manufacturers making such a guarantee 
may have to claim on their coverage chart that a considerably 
greater thickness (and more insulation material) than normal is 
necessary to guarantee that if the installer applies the 
``guaranteed thickness,'' the claimed total R-value will be achieved 
under all possible circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, the Commission does not propose amending the 
Rule to require the disclosure of an ``initial installed thickness'' or 
of a manufacturer's voluntary ``guaranteed thickness'' at this time. 
The Commission, however, solicits comments regarding how manufacturers 
of all types of dry-applied loose-fill insulations and stabilized 
insulations could determine an initial installed thickness, or a 
guaranteed thickness, for each total R-value claimed, whether the 
Commission should require the addition of this information to the 
required coverage chart for either dry-applied loose-fill insulations 
or stabilized insulations, and under what circumstances installing the 
``initial installed thickness'' or ``guaranteed thickness'' of 
insulation could be a sufficient basis alone for installers to ensure 
that they have applied the requisite amount of insulation material.

Comments Regarding the Use of Tabs or Seals on Packages

    NAIMA recommended requiring manufacturers to attach to or print on 
each bag of loose-fill insulation a single, unique tab or seal 
identifying the product, and that installers clip the tabs from each 
bag used and attach them to the customer's receipt. \125\ Tascon 
asserted that requiring installers to give the consumer the tabs or 
labels from

[[Page 48045]]

each bag installed would be an effective way to prevent cheating. \126\ 
Rock Wool Mfg. and ICAA opposed requiring the use of bag tabs. \127\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \125\ NAIMA, #24, at 5-7.
    \126\ Tascon, #35, at 2.
    \127\ ICAA/2, #40, at 1; Rock Wool Mfg./2, 39, at 1-3 
(any method of R-value verification dependent on an installer 
correctly measuring the dimensions of a house and calculating the 
attic's square footage to be insulated with loose-fill insulation is 
inherently flawed because even the best installers make errors in 
measuring and arithmetic, suggested alternatives it considered 
superior for assuring the accuracy of R-value representations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion Regarding the Use of Tabs or Seals on Packages

    The Commission does not believe that sufficient evidence has been 
presented that requiring the use of bag tabs would add materially to 
the Rule's existing requirements that installers install the 
appropriate amount the insulation and disclose, in receipt to 
customers, the number of bags of loose-fill insulation installed. The 
Commission, therefore, does not propose amending the Rule to require 
the use of tabs.

Comments Regarding Advising Consumers How To Verify R-value Installed

    ICAA recommended that the Commission amend the Rule to include a 
statement in fact sheets for loose-fill insulations advising consumers 
that ICAA can provide them with information about how they can verify 
the total R-value of loose-fill insulations installed in attics of new 
homes or added to existing attics. \128\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \128\ ICAA/1, #17, at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion Regarding Advising Consumers How To Verify R-value Installed

    To the extent that the CABO/MEC already includes requirements and 
procedures for building inspectors to determine whether the required 
amount of insulation has been installed in new construction, it may not 
be necessary or appropriate for the Commission to require additional 
disclosures in manufacturers' fact sheets or elsewhere. For this 
reason, the Commission does not propose amending the Rule to require 
this additional disclosure, although this information may be provided 
voluntarily in other promotional materials. The Commission solicits 
comments, however, regarding whether (and in what manner) the proposed 
disclosure would provide benefits beyond the CABO/MEC requirements and 
procedures relating to building inspections, and whether (and to what 
extent) there currently are abuses in the sale and installation of home 
insulation that could be remedied by requiring this additional 
disclosure, and the costs of manufacturers that would be imposed by a 
requirement that they include this disclosure on labels or in fact 
sheets.

d. Disclosures for Urea-based Foam Insulations

Comments

    In the original rulemaking proceeding, the Commission determined 
that the inherent qualities of urea-formaldehyde (``UF'') foam 
insulations, which were being installed at that time in wall cavities 
only by professional installers, would cause the products to lose 
volume, or ``shrink.'' This shrinkage caused the insulation to pull 
away from the wall cavity in all three directions after installation, 
leaving the wall partially uninsulated and resulting in a lower than 
claimed R-value. Although both the rate and extent of shrinkage 
depended somewhat on the the quality of the chemicals and the product's 
on-site formulation and application, even if a UF insulation product 
was installed perfectly, it would shrink and its R-value would 
decrease. To address this problem, the Rule requires that 
manufacturers' disclosure the product's R-value in a manner that 
accounts for the product's shrinkage, or include a specific disclosure 
about the effect of shrinkage on R-value. 44 FR at 50220, 50231.
    Celotex and PIMA recommended that the Commission revise the 
statement to refer to ``urea-based form insulation,'' because the 
reference to ``foam insulation'' implies that all foam-type insulation 
products (including other types of cellular plastics insulations) 
shrink after installation, resulting in lower R-values than claimed. 
\129\ PIMA stated that UF insulation is no longer sold, and that this 
disclosure is unnecessary and may cause consumer confusion about other 
foam-type insulations. \130\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \129\ Celotex, #25, at 5; PIMA, 30, at 7-8.
    \130\ PIMA, #30, AT 8 n.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion

    The Commission intended to limit this disclosure to UF insulations. 
Because it appears that UF foam insulation no longer is being sold, 
however, instead of clarifying this reference, the Commission proposes 
amending the Rule to delete this obsolete requirement. The Commission 
solicits commends on this proposal, especially regarding whether any UF 
insulation products are still being sold, and whether there are other 
insulation products currently on the market that may be subject to 
shrinkage that affects R-value.
2. Disclosures in Advertising and Other Promotional Materials

1. Disclosures Required

Background

    Sections 460.18 and 460.19 of the Rule specify disclosure 
requirements for advertisements and other promotional materials 
(including those on the Internet) for home insulation products aimed at 
consumers that are distributed by manufactures, professional 
installers, or retailers. They require disclosures only if the 
advertisement or other promotional material includes certain claims 
about a specific insulation product. The disclosure requirements do not 
apply to advertisements on television. In general, any advertisement or 
other promotional material that includes an R-value, thickness, or 
price must disclose the type of insulation, the product's R-value and 
the thickness needed to get that R-value, and the following R-value 
explanatory statement: ``The higher the R-value, the greater the 
insulating power. Ask your seller for the fact sheet on R-values.\131\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \131\ All labels and fact sheets must include a version of the 
R-value explanatory statement, specifically: ``R means resistance to 
heat flow. The higher the R-value, the greater the insulating 
power.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Advertisements and other promotional materials that state a price 
also must include the coverage area at the stated thickness. Those that 
state the price per square foot need not disclose the coverage area. If 
the advertisement or other promotional material compares one type of 
insulation to another, the comparison must be based on the same 
coverage area and the R-value of each at a specific thickness must be 
disclosed. It it includes the price of each insulation, it must include 
the coverage area for the price and thickness claimed. If it claims 
only price per square foot, it need not disclose coverage area.
    Advertisements, labels, and other promotional materials that 
contain an energy savings claim for an insulation product (e.g., ``save 
25% on heating bills'') must include the following energy savings 
explanatory statement: ``Savings vary. Find out why in the seller's 
fact sheet on R-values. Higher R-values mean greater insulating 
power.'' When both the energy savings explanatory statement and the R-
value explanatory statement are triggered by the claims, the seller 
need only include the energy savings explanatory statement.
    Advertisements, labels and other promotional materials that contain 
a

[[Page 48046]]

claim that a combination of products including insulation can cut fuel 
bills or fuel use must also list the products used and state how much 
of the savings comes from each product, in addition to giving the 
energy savings explanatory statement. If the advertiser cannot give 
exact or approximate figures, it must give a ranking of the products.

Discussion

    No comment addressed the required disclosures for advertisements 
and other promotional materials or suggested amending the rule to 
eliminate any of them. The Commission, however, wants to ensure that 
the rule does not impose unnecessary burdens on advertising and other 
promotional materials. When the Commission promulgated the Rule, it 
considered but rejected a proposal that it limit the required 
disclosure of the R-value explanatory statement to a specific period of 
time following the rule's effective date. Because insulation is a very 
infrequently purchased commodity, the Commission was uncertain that the 
R-value concept would become widely and permanently understood in a 
short period of time. The Commission stated it would reexamine in the 
future the need to continue requiring the R-value explanatory statement 
in advertisements. 44 FR at 50233. The Commission, therefore, solicits 
comments on whether it should propose amending the rule to eliminate 
the requirement that advertisements and other promotional materials 
that include the triggering claims specified in the Rule include the R-
value explanatory statement, or the portion of the savings explanatory 
statement that explains the meaning of R-value.
    In raising this issue for comment, the Commission is not 
considering eliminating the other disclosures for advertisements and 
other promotional materials that include an R-value, thickness, price, 
comparison claim, or energy savings claim. Those required disclosures 
are necessary to prevent the triggering claims from being unfair or 
deceptive. Further, the Commission is not considering eliminating the 
required disclosure of the meaning of R-value from labels or 
manufacturers' fact sheets. The disclosure on labels and fact sheets is 
necessary to ensure that consumers have the information they need to 
understand the R-value information contained on labels, fact sheets, 
and in advertising and other promotional materials; but the definition 
on labels and fact sheets that are available to consumers at the point 
of purchase may make the additional disclosure in advertisements and 
other promotional materials unnecessary.
    Comments should address specifically the current need for the 
definition of R-value in advertisements and other promotional 
materials, the current state of consumers' understanding of the term R-
value, and whether the availability of the meaning of R-value on labels 
and manufacturers' fact sheets is sufficient to provide this necessary 
information to consumers prior to purchase. Commenters are requested to 
include data such as consumer perception studies that are relevant to 
these questions.

b. Advertising on Radio

Comments

    NAIMA recommended that the Commission exclude radio ads from the 
Rule's disclosure requirements for advertisements. NAIMA contended that 
radio advertisements are similar to television advertisements, which 
the Rule excludes from any disclosure requirements.\132\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \132\ NAIMA, #24, at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion

    The Rule originally applied the advertising disclosure 
requirements, which require disclosures only in advertisements that 
contain specific triggering claims, to television advertisements as 
well as all other types of advertising and promotional materials. 
Unlike other types of advertising, which simply must include the 
required disclosures ``clearly and conspicuously,'' the Rule as 
originally promulgated included very specific requirements regarding 
the manner in which required disclosures would have to be made in 
television advertising.\133\ Four insulation manufacturers appealed the 
disclosure requirements for television advertising, asserting that the 
requirements, particularly in light of the manner in which the 
disclosures would have to be made, were particularly burdensome for 
short television ads. The Commission settled the appeal by agreeing not 
to impose disclosure requirements on television ads without conducting 
further rulemaking proceedings, and rescinded the requirements without 
conducting further proceedings.\134\ No evidence was presented in the 
original rulemaking or in the appeal concerning any similar burdens 
that the disclosure requirements would impose on radio ads. 
Accordingly, the Commission does not propose revising the Rule to 
exempt radio ads from making these important disclosures, but will 
accept comments on how the costs of making the required disclosures in 
radio ads compare to the benefits the disclosures provide to consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \133\ 44 FR at 5045 Appendix B (1979). For example, TV ads 
containing triggering claims would have been required to make the 
disclosures simultaneously in both the audio and video portions of 
the ad, the video portion of the disclosure would have to have 
appeared in letters of sufficient size to be easily seen and read on 
television sets of all sizes, and the disclosures would have been 
required each time a triggering claim was made. The Rule also would 
have restricted the video background and other sounds during the 
audio disclosures. The Rule contains no similar restrictions 
concerning the manner in which disclosures must be made in radio 
advertising, as long as they are made clearly and conspicuously.
    \134\ Final rule, 51 FR 39650 (1986).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Disclosures by Installers or New Home Sellers

a. Fact Sheets

Comments

    Celotex and PIMA recommended that the Commission require that 
professional installers (under section 460.15) give a copy of the 
manufacturer's fact sheet to consumers upon completion of the 
installation, and that new home sellers (under section 460.16) give a 
copy of the fact sheet to new home buyers.\135\ Celotex and PIMA 
asserted that these requirements would ensure the dissemination of fact 
sheets to consumers and promote the purpose of the Rule--that consumers 
receive accurate and meaningful information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \135\ Celotex, #25, at 2; PIMA, #30, at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion

    The Commission required fact sheets to provide pre-purchase 
information to consumers who otherwise probably would not see the 
information on package labels. Moreover, to minimize the burdens that 
the Rule imposes on industry members, the Commission required only that 
installers show the fact sheets to consumers prior to purchase and give 
them specific disclosures in contracts or receipts about the insulation 
installed. Similarly, it required new home sellers to disclose in the 
sales contract, prior to purchase, specific information about the 
insulation installed (or to be installed) in the new home. The 
Commission has received no evidence that would justify requiring that 
installers or new home sellers provide fact sheets, after the purchase, 
that disclosure R-value information other than for the insulation the 
consumer has purchased. Accordingly, the Commission does not propose 
amending the Rule to require that the additional information suggested 
by the comments be provided.

[[Page 48047]]

b. Attic Cards and Certificates

Comments

    ICAA proposed that the Commission require new home sellers to make 
disclosures to purchasers in attic cards signed by the new home seller, 
builder, and/or building inspector. These attic cards would be used 
only to make disclosures concerning the insulation installed in the 
attic of the new home, would include the information required on the 
package label of the insulation, and would be posted adjacent to the 
attic access or scuttle. ICAA contended that attic cards would provide 
consumers with pertinent information at no significant cost to industry 
members, would reduce confusion for building inspectors and homeowners, 
and would be a constructive tool to help ensure that installers meet 
specifications. ICAA stated that attic cards have been required by the 
State of Florida since 1991, by the Bonneville Power Administration, by 
Georgia Power Company's energy efficiency program, and by several other 
jurisdictions throughout the country. ICAA also stated that the 1995 
CABO/MEC recommends that the installer provide a signed, dated, and 
posted certification for insulation installed in each element of the 
building envelope, listing the type of insulation, the manufacturer, 
and the R-value.\136\ NAIMA similarly recommended that the Commission 
amend the Rule to add language, similar to that in the 1995 CABO/MEC, 
to require professional installers to provide certification of the 
insulation installed and to post the certification in a conspicuous 
place on the job site.\137\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \136\ ICAA/1, #17, at 7-10, See also Rock Wool Mfg./1, #06 
(fully supporting ICAA's submittal).
    \137\ NAIMA, #24, at 6-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion

    Although the Commission's staff in the original rulemaking 
recommended that the Commission require the use of attic cards to make 
disclosures to consumers,\138\ the Commission determined that such a 
requirement was not necessary in light of the Rule's requirement that 
new home sellers and installers give consumers written disclosures in 
contracts or written receipts. Attic cards are usually posted in the 
attic near the access opening, for later reference by building code 
inspectors and future owners of the home (as well as the original 
purchaser), or by the homeowner who has insulation added to an existing 
home. The Rule, on the other hand, already requires installers and new 
home sellers to provide consumers with the same information in 
contracts that would be disclosed on an attic card or in a 
certification. If the seller or consumer prefers, the contract or 
receipt can be posted in the form on an attic card after the seller has 
given the written disclosures to the consumer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \138\ Staff Report at 237-38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, for insulations installed in attics of new residential 
construction, the CABO/MEC requires that installers provide a signed 
and dated certification for the insulation installed in each part of 
the home, listing the type of insulation, the insulation manufacturer, 
and the total R-value, and post the certification in a conspicuous 
place on the job site.\139\ These requirements have been adopted for 
use in federal government programs covering new residential 
construction and by 33 states, at some level.\140\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \139\ For blown or sprayed insulation, the installer must also 
provide the initial installed thickness, the settled thickness, the 
coverage area, and the number of bags installed.
    \140\ See Part III.E.1.b, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, the Commission does not propose amending the 
Rule to require additional certification or the use of attic cards. The 
Commission solicits comments, however, regarding whether (and in what 
manner, and to what extent) amending the Rule to require that 
disclosures be made in certifications or attic cards would provide 
benefits beyond those currently required by the Rule or the CABO/MEC 
for consumers or building inspectors, and whether (and to what extent) 
there currently are abuses in the sale and installation of home 
insulation that could be remedied by including these additional 
disclosure requirements in the Rule, and the costs to installers and 
new home sellers of providing the disclosures in certifications and 
attic cards.

c. Attic Rulers

Comments

    ICAA recommended that the Commission require that new home sellers 
and professional installers apply attic rulers (or thickness markers) 
for every 500 square feet of attic space, with a minimum of three 
rulers, when loose-fill insulation is installed in the attics of new or 
existing homes. ICAA asserted that, like attic cards, attic rulers have 
been required by the State of Florida since 1991, and are required 
under the Georgia Power Company's program to encourage energy efficient 
homes. ICAA contended that the rulers would assist inspectors and 
consumers in evaluating settled thickness levels and determining 
whether consumers received the R-value of loose-fill insulation 
claimed. According to ICAA, the 1995 CABO/MEC proposes the use of attic 
rulers, installed at least one for every 300 square feet in the attic, 
and requires that they be affixed to the attic trusses or joists, be 
marked with minimum initial thickness and minimum settled thickness, 
and face the attic access.\141\ NAIMA similarly recommended that the 
Commission amend the Rule to require that blown-in loose-fill and 
spray-applied attic insulations be installed in a manner that would 
permit verification that the necessary thickness of insulation was 
installed; specifically, by requiring that thickness markers or attic 
rulers labeled in inches be installed at least one for every 300 square 
feet. NAIMA stated that this requirement is similar to requirements in 
the 1995 CABO/MEC and to requirements of some states.\142\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \141\ ICAA/1, #17, at 4-5, 10. See also Rock Wool Mfg./1, #06 
(fully supporting ICAA's submittal).
    \142\ NAIMA, #, at 6-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion

    It is essential that both the required density (and weight per 
square foot) and thickness of loose-fill insulations and stabilized 
insulations be installed to attain a specific total R-value. The use of 
attic rulers could help installers apply a sufficient thickness to 
achieve a specific total R-value, and to apply it in a level and 
consistent manner (although they still would have to ensure that they 
apply the required number of bags and weight of insulation material). 
The use of attic rulers could be particularly beneficial if 
manufacturers included a verified initial installed thickness 
disclosure or a guaranteed thickness disclosure on the bag label 
coverage chart.\143\ Attic rulers also could give consumers a ready 
means of determining, both initially and over time, whether the 
required minimum thickness has been installed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \143\ See Part III.E.1.c, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CABO/MEC already requires, for new residential construction, 
that installers apply blown loose-fill or sprayed (e.g., stabilized) 
insulation in atticks with the use of thickness markers labeled in 
inches, attached to the trusses or joists at least one for every 300 
square feet (28 m\2\), marked with the minimum initial installed 
thickness and minimum settled thickness, and installed facing the attic 
access. Because the CABO/MEC requires the use of attic rulers in new 
construction, the Commission does not propose amending the Rule to 
require their use. The Commission solicts comments, however, regarding 
whether (and in what manner, and to what

[[Page 48048]]

extent) amending the Rule to require the use of thickness markers would 
provide benefits beyond those currently required by the CABO/MEC for 
consumers or building inspectors, whether (and to what extent) there 
currently are abuses in the sale and installation of home insulation 
that could be remedied by amending the Rule to require the use of 
thickness markers, and the costs to installers and new home sellers of 
installing and using thickness markers.
4. Disclosures by Retailers

Background

    Section 460.14 of the Rule requires retailers who sell insulation 
to do-it-yourself consumers to make the manufacturers' fact sheets for 
the home insulation they sell available to consumers prior to purchase. 
The retailer can decide how to do so, as long as consumers are likely 
to notice the fact sheets. For example, the retailer can put them in 
displays and let consumers take copies, or can keep them in a binder 
and have a sign telling consumers where the fact sheets are. The 
purpose of this requirement is to ensure that consumers have the 
information they need about home insulation prior to purchase to enable 
them to make cost-based purchasing decisions. When the Commission 
promulgated the Rule, bulky insulation packages were not normally 
available on the retailer's sales floor, so the consumer would not see 
the disclosures on labels prior to purchase. In addition, the fact 
sheets contain additional information about energy savings and other 
factors the consumer should consider when purchasing home insulation. 
See Part IV.E.1.a, above.

Discussion

    No comment addressed the requirement that retailers make the 
manufacturers' fact sheets available to consumers. In the years since 
the Commission promulgated the Rule, however, the nature of retail 
sales of home insulation to do-it-yourself consumers has changed. 
Today, retailers often sell home insulation directly from warehouse-
type sales floors where consumers select the packages of insulation 
they want. Therefore, the R-value and related information on the 
packages is available to consumers prior to purchase. In response to 
questions from retailers, the Commission's staff has advised that 
retailers need not make separate fact sheets available at the point of 
purchase if all the required fact sheet disclosures are made on the 
insulation package and if the insulation packages are available on the 
sales floor for the consumer to inspect prior to purchase. The 
Commission affirms the staff's advice, proposes amending the Rule to 
codify this option, and solicits comments on the proposal.

V. Questions for Comment

    Members of the public are invited to comment on any issues or 
concerns they believe are relevant or appropriate to the Commission's 
consideration of the proposed amendments to the R-value Rule, or about 
other issues and questions the Commission raises in the discussion in 
Part IV, above. The Commission requests that factual data, including 
consumer perception or survey data, upon which the comments are based 
be submitted with the comments.
    To assist commenters, the Commission provides the following list of 
proposed amendments. The proposed amendments would: (1) Clarify 
specific provisions of the Rule (Parts IV.D.3 and IV.E.1.b); (2) 
require disclosure of the same R-value information for competing types 
of loose-fill insulation products (Part IV.E.1.c); (3) specify the use 
of current ASTM or other recognized procedures for preparing R-value 
test specimens of spray-applied insulations (Part IV.C.2.b) and for 
conducting R-value tests of multi-sheet reflective insulation products 
(Part IV.D.5.a.ii); (4) delete specific disclosure requirements for 
urea formaldehyde insulation, which no longer is sold (Part IV.E.1.d); 
and (5) excuse retailers from making available to consumers separate 
manufacturers' fact sheets under certain circumstances (Part IV.E.4).
    The Commission also requests comments on whether the Commission 
should propose amendments to: (1) Cover additional products (i.e., 
residential pipe and duct insulations, and insulation sold for use in 
commercial buildings) (Part IV.A); (2) require the disclosure of in-use 
performance values, as opposed to laboratory tests under static, 
uniform conditions, or of the performance of building systems (Part 
IV.B); (3) adopt additional test specimen preparation requirements to 
account for various factors that affect R-values (Part IV.C); (4) adopt 
additional or updated testing requirements (Part IV.D); and (5) revise 
the disclosure requirements for manufacturers' labels and fact sheets, 
advertisements and other promotional materials, and for professional 
installers, new home sellers, and retailers (Part IV.E).
    In addition to the specific questions regarding each of these 
issues raised in the cited portions of this notice, the Commission 
solicits comments on the questions below. The questions are designed to 
assist the public and should not be construed as a limitation on the 
issues on which public comments may be submitted.
    To maximize the benefits and minimize the costs for consumers and 
sellers (including specifically small businesses), for each amendment 
proposed by the Commission, and by comments filed in response to this 
notice, the Commission in general solicits views and data on the 
following questions:
    (1) What benefits would the proposed requirements confer, and on 
whom?
    (2) What paperwork burdens would the proposed requirements impose, 
and on whom?
    (3) What other costs or burdens would the proposed requirements 
impose, and on whom?
    (4) What regulatory alternatives to the proposed requirements are 
available that would reduce the burdens of the proposed requirements, 
while providing the same benefits?
    (5) What impact, either positive or negative, would the proposed 
requirements likely have on the environment?

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 460

    Advertising, Insulation, Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Trade practices.

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 41-58.

    By direction of the Commission.
Benjamin I. Berman,
Acting Secretary.

Appendix--List of Comments

Name, Symbol, and Number

AFM Corporation (AFM)--# 38
Advanced Foil Systems (AFS)--# 02
Matt Anderson (Anderson)--# 08
BASF Corporation (BASF)--# 21
Benchmark Foam, Inc. (Benchmark)--# 04
Big Sky Insulations, Inc. (Big Sky)--# 05
The Celotex Corporation (Celotex)--# 25
Cellulose Insulation Manufacturers Association (CIMA)--# 19
Clayville Insulation (Clayville)--# 34
Corbond Corp (Corbond)--# 41
Dow Chemical Canada Inc. (Dow)--# 37
Energy Control, Inc. (ECI)--# 23
England & Associates (England)--# 18
EPS Molders Association (EPSMA)--# 13
Fi-Foil Co., Inc., by William Lippy (Fi-Foil/Lippy)--# 42
Fi-Foil Co., Inc., by Ed Nowman (Fi-Foil/Nowman)--# 15
FischerSips Inc. (FischerSips)--# 36
GreenStone Industries, by Ivan T. Smith (GreenStone/Smith)--# 32
GreenStone Industries, by Joel Tranmer (GreenStone/Tranmer)--# 20

[[Page 48049]]

Hamilton Mfg., Inc. (Hamilton)--# 22
Insulation Contractors Association of America (ICAA/1)--# 17
Insulation Contractors Association of America (ICAA/2)--# 40
Insulspan, Inc. (Insulspan)--# 33
Rose E. Kettering (Kettering)--# 07
James A. McGarry (McGarry)--# 10
Midwest Roofing Contractors Association (MRCA)--# 31
North American Insulation Manufacturers Association (NAIMA)--# 24
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, by Kenneth E. Wilkes, PhD, PE (ORNL/
Wilkes)--# 29
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, by David W. Yarbrough, PhD, PE (ORNL/
Yarbrough)--# 28
Polyisocyanurate Insulation Manufacturers Association (PIMA)--# 30
Plymouth Foam Products (Plymouth)--# 01
W.H. Porter, Inc. (Porter)--# 03
Marilyn Raeth (Raeth)--# 09
Regal Industries, Inc. (Regal)--# 16
Rock Wool Manufacturing Co. (Rock Wool Mfg./1)--# 06
Rock Wool Manufacturing Co. (Rock Wool Mfg./2)--# 39
Structural Insulated Panel Association (SIPA)--# 11
Superior Aluminum Insulation Inc. (Superior)--# 27
Tascon, Inc. (Tascon)--# 35
Tierra Consulting Group (Tierra)--# 12
Tennessee Technological University, by David W. Yarbrough, PhD, PE (TN 
Tech/Yarbrough)--# 26
Western Insulfoam, Division of Premier Industries, Inc. (Western)--# 14

[FR Doc. 99-22577 Filed 8-31-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-M