[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 135 (Tuesday, July 15, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41872-41900]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-17854]



[[Page 41871]]

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

Part III





Federal Trade Commission





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



16 CFR Part 460



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

  Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 135 / Tuesday, July 15, 2003 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 41872]]


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

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 460


Labeling and Advertising of Home Insulation: Trade Regulation 
Rule

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission (``Commission'' or ``we'') 
proposes to amend its Trade Regulation Rule Concerning the Labeling and 
Advertising of Home Insulation (``R-value Rule'' or ``Rule'') 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 heat and cool. This document provides 
background on the R-value Rule and this proceeding; proposes amendments 
to recognize technological advances in R-value testing and specimen 
preparation procedures, and to clarify, streamline, and improve the 
Rule's requirements; and discusses public comments received by the 
Commission and solicits further comments on the proposed amendments and 
additional issues.

DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before September 22, 
2003. Because written comments appear adequate to present the views of 
all interested parties, neither a public workshop nor a hearing has 
been scheduled. If interested parties request the opportunity to 
present views orally, the Commission will publish a document in the 
Federal Register, stating the time and place at which the hearing or 
workshop will be held and describing the procedures that will be 
followed. In addition to submitting a request to present views orally, 
interested parties who wish to appear must submit, on or before 
September 22, 2003, a written comment or statement that describes the 
issues on which the party wishes to speak. If there is no interest in a 
hearing or workshop, the Commission will base its decision on the 
written rulemaking record.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Secretary, Federal Trade 
Commission, Room H-159, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 
20580. All written comments should be captioned ``16 CFR Part 460--
Labeling and Advertising of Home Insulation'' and ``16 CFR Part 460 
Request to Testify--Labeling and Advertising of Home Insulation,'' 
respectively. As discussed in the Dates section of this document, a 
public workshop has not been scheduled. However, individuals who would 
like to submit oral views should submit their request to the address 
noted in this section. To encourage prompt and efficient review and 
dissemination of the comments to the public, all comments should also 
be submitted, if possible, in electronic form. Comments or requests in 
electronic form should be sent, if possible, to: [email protected]. 
The Commission will make this document and, to the extent possible, all 
comments received in electronic form in response to this document, 
available to the public through the Internet at the following address: 
www.ftc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hampton Newsome, (202) 326-2889, 
Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade 
Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. Overview of the Rule
A. Products Covered
B. Parties Covered
C. Basis for the Rule
D. Requirements of the Rule
III. Procedural History
A. The 1995 Initial Regulatory Review (``the 1995 Notice'')
B. The 1996 Notice of Continuing Need and Technical Amendments 
(``the 1996 Notice'')
C. The 1999 Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (``the ANPR'')
IV. Section-by-Section Description of Proposed Amendments
V. Discussion of Comments and Proposed Amendments
A. Disclosing Thermal Performance of Additional Products
1. Residential Pipe and Duct Insulations
2. Non-residential Insulations
B. Disclosing In-Use Thermal Performance Values
1. Performance of Insulations in Actual Use
2. Performance of Building System Components That Include Insulation
C. Disclosing R-Values That Account for Factors Affecting R-Value
1. Aging
a. Cellular Plastics Insulation
b. Reflective Insulations
2. Settling
a. Loose-fill and Stabilized Insulations in Attics
b. Loose-fill and Self-Supported Insulations in Walls
3. Density Variations
4. Installations in Closed Cavities of Variable Thickness
D. Other Testing Requirements
1. Accreditation of Testing Laboratories
2. Test Temperature Requirements
a. Mean Temperature
b. Temperature Differential
3. Tolerance
4. Use of Current Test Data
5. Determining the Thermal Performance of Reflective Insulations
a. Traditional Reflective Insulations
b. Radiant Barrier Products
6. Additional Laboratory Procedures for Testing Loose-Fill 
Insulations
E. Other Disclosure Issues
1. Disclosures on Labels and Fact Sheets
a. ``What You Should Know About R-values''
b. Disclosures for Batt, Blanket, and Boardstock Insulations
c. Required Disclosures for Loose-fill Insulations
i. R-value Disclosures
ii. Initial Installed Thickness
iii. Additional Loose-Fill Insulation
d. Disclosures for Urea-based Foam Insulations
2. Disclosures in Advertising and Other Promotional Materials
a. Disclosures Required
b. Advertising on Radio (and Television)
c. Initial Installed Thickness
3. Disclosures by Installers or New Home Sellers
a. Fact Sheets
b. Attic Cards and Certifications, and Attic Rulers
4. Disclosures by Retailers
F. Minor Corrections and Amendments to Update References ASTM 
Standards
VI. Rulemaking Procedures
VII. Requests for Public Hearings
VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Act
IX. Paperwork Reduction Act
X. Additional Information for Interested Persons
XI. Invitation to Comment and Questions for Comment
XII. Proposed Rule Language

I. Introduction

    The R-value Rule specifies substantiation and disclosure 
requirements for thermal insulation products used in the residential 
market, and prohibits certain claims unless they are true.\1\ The 
primary 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--the higher the R-value, the better the product's 
insulating ability. 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, before retail sale, based on uniform, 
industry-adopted standards.\2\ This information

[[Page 41873]]

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-benefit based purchasing 
decisions among competing products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Commission promulgated the R-value Rule on August 29, 
1979 under section 18 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (``FTC 
Act''), 15 U.S.C. 57a. The Rule became effective on September 30, 
1980. See Final Trade Regulation Rule (``Statement of Basis and 
Purpose'' or ``SBP''), 44 FR 50218 (1979).
    \2\ Home insulation sellers should be aware 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; 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Overview of the Rule

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 a cooler area, for example, from the 
heated inside of a house to the outside 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 
the Rule specifically refers to them. 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 ``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 when installed facing an airspace by increasing 
the thermal resistance of the airspace by reducing heat transfer by 
radiation through it. 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 Rule 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. 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; (2) the failure to disclose R-
values, which varied 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, (3) sellers 
had exaggerated R-values, often failing to take into account factors 
(e.g., aging, settling) known to reduce thermal performance; (4) 
sellers had failed to inform consumers about the meaning and importance 
of R-value; (5) sellers had exaggerated the amount of savings on fuel 
bills that consumers could expect, and often failed to disclose that 
savings will vary depending on the consumer's particular circumstances; 
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. 44 FR at 
50222-24.

D. 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.\3\ Mass insulation products may be tested 
under any of the test methods. The tests on mass insulation products 
must be conducted on the insulation material alone (excluding any 
airspace). Reflective insulation products must be tested according to 
either ASTM C 236-89 (1993) or ASTM C 976-90, which can determine the 
R-values of insulation systems (such as those that include one or more 
air spaces).\4\ The tests must be conducted at a mean temperature of 
75[deg] F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Section 460.5 of the Rule requires that the R-values of home 
insulation products be based on one of the test procedures specified 
in the Rule. Most of the test procedures in the Rule specify 
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards. 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 the 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.
    \4\ The R-value of a single-sheet reflective insulation product 
must be tested under ASTM E408 or another test method that provides 
comparable results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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, and for loose-fill insulation 
products on test specimens that fully reflect the effect of settling.
    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

[[Page 41874]]

installers, and retailers in advertising and other promotional 
materials (including those on the Internet) that contain an R-value, 
price, thickness, or energy-saving claim, or compare one type of 
insulation to another. Manufacturers and other sellers must have a 
``reasonable basis'' for any energy-saving claims they make.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Although the Rule does not specify how energy saving 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 50233-34. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Procedural History

A. The 1995 Initial Regulatory Review (``the 1995 Notice'')

    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.\6\ 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 Systems, 
Inc. (which operated Oak Ridge National Laboratory (``ORNL'') for the 
U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'')). The Petition requested that the 
Commission approve an additional (fifth) ASTM R-value test procedure as 
an optional test procedure for determining the R-value of home 
insulation under the Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. The 1996 Notice of Continuing Need and Technical Amendments (``the 
1996 Notice'')

    Based on the comments in response to the 1995 Notice, the 
Commission determined that there was 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.\7\ 61 
FR 13659, at 13659-62, 13665 (March 28, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. The 1999 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (``the ANPR'')

    In 1999, based on the comments received in response to the 1995 
Notice (that were not otherwise addressed in the 1996 notice), the 
Commission published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (64 FR 
48024 (Sept. 1, 1999)). In the ANPR, the Commission proposed limited 
amendments that were 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 those issues, the Commission 
believed that there was sufficient information to propose amendments. 
The Commission also requested comments on whether to revise the Rule 
to: cover additional products; require the disclosure of in-use 
performance values (as opposed to laboratory tests that are conducted 
under static, uniform conditions); require the disclosure of the 
performance of building systems; 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 change the disclosure 
requirements for manufacturers' labels and fact sheets, advertisements 
and other promotional materials, and for professional installers, new 
home sellers, and retailers. The comments filed in response to the ANPR 
are discussed in depth at section V of this document following the 
brief section-by-section description of the proposed amendments.

IV. Section-by-Section Description of Proposed Amendments

    The following is a brief summary of the amendments the Commission 
is proposing for the R-value Rule in response to the comments received. 
These proposed changes are addressed in more detail in section V of 
this document. Section V also contains a detailed discussion of other 
issues raised in the 1999 ANPR that are not the subject of a proposed 
amendment.

Section 460.1 (What This regulation does)

    The Commission proposes to amend the monetary penalty reference 
from $10,000 to $11,000 to reflect the current requirements of section 
1.98 of the Commission's regulations. This is a technical, conforming 
change.

Section 460.5(a) (R-value Tests)

    Temperature Differential: The Commission proposes to amend section 
460.5, R-value Tests, to specify that tests conducted under section 
460.5(a) must be done with a temperature differential of 50[deg] F plus 
or minus 10[deg] F in addition to the mean temperature requirement 
currently in the Rule [see section V.D.2.b. of this document].
    Update Test Procedure: The Commission proposes to update the 
reference for ASTM C 739-91 to reflect the most recent version of the 
procedure (ASTM C 739-97). The reference to ASTM C 236-89 and ASTM C 
976-90 would be eliminated and replaced with ASTM C 1363-97, ``Standard 
Test Method for the Thermal Performance of Building Assemblies by Means 
of a Hot Box Apparatus'' [see section V.F. of this document].

Section 460.5(a)(1) (R-value Tests)

    Aging of Cellular Plastics: Section 460.5(a)(1) would also be 
amended under the proposal to require the use of several recent ASTM 
test procedures to take into account the effects of aging on cellular 
plastics insulation. These test procedures include ASTM C 578-95, 
``Standard Specification for Rigid, Cellular Polystyrene Thermal 
Insulation,'' ASTM C 1029-96, ``Standard Specification for Spray-
Applied Rigid Cellular Polyurethane Thermal Insulation,'' and ASTM C 
591-94, ``Standard Specification for Unfaced Preformed Rigid Cellular 
Polyisocyanurate Thermal Insulation'' [see section V.C.1.a. of this 
document]

Section 460.5(a)(3) (R-value Tests)

    Loose-Fill Settling: The Commission proposes to amend section 
460.5(a)(3) to eliminate the reference to the GSA specifications for 
measuring the settling

[[Page 41875]]

of loose fill insulation and insert language indicating that industry 
members must take into account the effects of settling on the product's 
R-value for spray-applied cellulose and stabilized cellulose [see 
section V.C.2. of this document].

Section 460.5(a)(4) (R-value Tests)

    Test for Spray-Applied Cellulose Insulation: The Commission 
proposes to add a new paragraph, section 460.5(a)(4), which would 
require that tests for self-supported spray-applied cellulose be 
conducted at the settled density determined pursuant to ASTM C 1149-97 
(``Self-supported Spray Applied Cellulosic Thermal Insulation'') [see 
section V.C.2. of this document].

Section 460.5(a)(5) (R-value Tests)

    Loose-Fill Initial Installed Thickness: For loose-fill insulations, 
the proposed amendment would require that manufacturers determine 
initial installed thickness for their product pursuant to ASTM C 1374, 
``Determination of Installed Thickness of Pneumatically Applied Loose-
Fill Building Insulation,'' for R-values of 11, 13, 19, 22, 24, 32, and 
40 and any other R-values provided on the product's label pursuant to 
Sec.  460.12 [see section V.E.1.c.ii. of this document].

Section 460.5(b) and Section 460.5(c) (R-value Tests)

    These sections applicable to aluminum foil systems would be 
reorganized and amended as follows:
    Tests for Single Sheet Aluminum Foil Systems: Section 460.5(c) 
would be redesignated as Section 460.5(b) and would be amended to 
require that single sheet systems of aluminum foil be tested under ASTM 
C 1371-98 [see section V.D.5.a. of this document].
    Test for Multiple Sheet Aluminum Foil Systems: Section 460.5(b) 
would be moved to Section 460.5(c) and would be amended to indicate 
that aluminum foil systems with more than one sheet, and single sheet 
systems of aluminum foil that are intended for applications that do not 
meet the conditions specified in the tables in the most recent edition 
of the ASHRAE Handbook, must be tested with ASTM C 1363-97, ``Standard 
Test Method for the Thermal Performance of Building Assemblies by Means 
of a Hot Box Apparatus,'' in a test panel constructed according to ASTM 
C 1224-99, ``Standard Specification for Reflective Insulation for 
Building Applications,'' and under the test conditions specified in 
ASTM C 1224-99. To get the R-value from the results of those tests, use 
the formula specified in ASTM C 1224-99. The tests must be done at a 
mean temperature of 75[deg] F, with a temperature differential of 
30[deg] F. This amendment would eliminate the references to ASTM C 236-
89 and ASTM C 976-90 that are currently applicable to these products 
[see section V.D.5.a. of this document].

Section 460.5(d) (R-value Tests)

    Insulation Material With Foil Facings and Air Space: Section 
460.5(d)(1) would be amended to eliminate reference to ASTM C 236-89 
and ASTM C 976-90 and replace them with ASTM C 1363-97, ``Standard Test 
Method for the Thermal Performance of Building Assemblies by Means of a 
Hot Box Apparatus'' [see section V.D.5.a. of this document].

Section 460.5(e) (R-value Tests)

    Incorporation by Reference: A new paragraph (e) would be added to 
consolidate information regarding incorporation by reference approvals 
provided by the Office of the Federal Register [see section V.E. of 
this document].

Section 460.8

    R-Value Tolerances for Manufacturers: The Rule's tolerance 
provision would be amended to clarify that, if you are a manufacturer 
of home insulation, the mean R-value of sampled specimens of a 
production lot of insulation you sell must meet or exceed the R-value 
shown in a label, fact sheet, ad, or other promotional material for 
that insulation. The Rule also would prohibit an individual specimen of 
that insulation from having an R-value more than 10% below the R-value 
shown in a label, fact sheet, ad, or other promotional material for 
that insulation [see section V.D.3. of this document].

Section 460.12 (Labels)

    Labels for Batts and Blankets: The Commission proposes to amend the 
paragraph at Sec.  460.12(b)(1) to indicate the requirement applies to 
batts and blankets of any type, not just to those made of mineral fiber 
[see section V.E.1.b. of this document].
    Loose-Fill Labels: The Commission also proposes to amend section 
460.12 to eliminate certain information requirements on charts for 
loose-fill cellulose insulation. The proposed amendment would instead 
require charts for all forms of loose-fill insulation to show the 
minimum thickness, maximum net coverage area, number of bags per 1,000 
square feet, and minimum weight per square foot at R-values of 11, 13, 
19, 22, 24, 32, and 40. The amendment also would require the labels for 
loose-fill insulation to display initial installed thickness 
information determined pursuant to ASTM C 1374, ``Standard Test Method 
for Determination of Installed Thickness of Pneumatically Applied 
Loose-Fill Building Insulation'' and the blowing machine specifications 
that installers must use for loose-fill products [see section V.E.1.c. 
of this document].

Section 460.13 (Fact Sheets)

    Urea-based Foam Insulation: The Commission proposes to eliminate 
the requirements in paragraph (d) of this section related to urea-based 
foam insulation [see section V.E.1.d. of this document].

Section 460.14 (How retailers must handle fact sheets)

    Retailers Responsibilities for Fact Sheets: The Commission proposes 
to amend this section to exempt retailers from making fact sheets 
available to customers, if they display insulation packages (containing 
the same information required in fact sheets) on the sales floor where 
insulation customers are likely to notice them [see section V.E.4. of 
this document].

Section 460.18 (Insulation ads) and 460.19 (Savings Claims)

    Affirmative Disclosures for Radio Ads: The Commission proposes to 
eliminate the affirmative disclosure requirements for radio ads in 
sections 460.18 and 460.19 [see section V.E.2.b. of this document].
    Advertising for Urea-based Foam Insulation: The Commission proposes 
to amend this section to eliminate paragraph (e) in section 460.18, 
which addresses urea-based foam insulation [see section V.E.1.d. of 
this document].

Section 460.23(a) (Other Laws, rules, and orders)

    The Commission plans to amend paragraph (a) to correct a 
typographical error.

V. Discussion of Comments and Proposed Amendments

    The Commission received 21 comments in response to the ANPR.\8\

[[Page 41876]]

Most of these came from industry members, trade associations or 
consultants, with three comments from federal governmental agencies 
(one from the Department of Energy and two from its contractor, Oak 
Ridge National Laboratory).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Adrian D. Troutman, Jr. for TFoil Enterprises (``TFoil''), 
(Comment 1); Adrian D. Troutman, Jr. for A&J Insulation 
Construction (``A&J''), (2); The Polyisocyanurate Insulation 
Manufacturers Association (``PIMA''), (3); The Cellulose Insulation 
Manufacturers Association (``CIMA''), (4); The Insulation 
Contractors Association of America (``ICAA''), (5); The Expanded 
Polystyrene Molders Association (``EPSMA''), (6); Celotex 
Corporation (``Celotex''), (7); The Foamed Polystyrene Alliance 
(``FPSA''), (8); The North American Insulation Manufacturers 
Association (``NAIMA'') (9); Elastizell Corporation of America 
(``Elastizell''), (10); Uniwood/Fome-Cor Business Unit of 
International Paper (``Uniwood''), (11); ConsultMort, Inc. 
(``ConsultMORT''), (12); AFM Corporation (``AFM''), (13); Advanced 
Foil Systems, Inc. (``AFS''), (14); Carlton Fields for Cellucrete 
Corporation (``Cellucrete''), (15); Tenneco Building Products 
(``Tenneco''), (16); Therese K. Stovall for Oak Ridge National 
Laboratory (``ORNL-1''), (17); The Polyurethane Foam Alliance 
(``SPFA''), (18); The Reflective Insulation Manufacturers 
Association (``RIMA''), (19); Dan Reicher, Assistant Secretary for 
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, for the United States 
Department of Energy (``DOE''), (20); Therese K. Stovall for Oak 
Ridge National Laboratory (``ORNL-2''), (21). The comments are on 
the public record and are available for public inspection in 
accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, and 
the Commission's Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 4.11, at the Consumer 
Response Center, Public Reference Section, Room 130, Federal Trade 
Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. The 
comments are organized under the Labeling and Advertising of Home 
Insulation Rule (``The R-value Rule''), Matter No. R811001, under 
the category: ``ANPR Comments, R-value Rule, 16 CFR Part 460.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Disclosing Thermal Performance of Additional Products

1. Residential Pipe and Duct Insulations
Background
    In the ANPR, the Commission asked whether it should amend the Rule 
to cover residential pipe and duct insulations. Currently, the Rule 
does not cover these types of insulations, but does cover duct wrap. 
See section 460.2. The Commission stated that unless interested parties 
have information that sellers are misrepresenting the thermal 
performance of these products to consumers, it would not propose 
extending the Rule to cover them.
Comments
    DOE stated that flexible duct, which includes an integral 
insulation jacket and does not require a separate duct wrap, has become 
much more common in residential applications since the Rule's 
inception. DOE maintained that this type of duct is often marked with 
an ``Average R-value'' rating, although, according to DOE, the basis 
for this rating is unclear. DOE also pointed out that the Council of 
American Building Officials (``CABO'') Model Energy Code (``MEC'') and 
many state codes require an R-value rating for duct insulation. DOE 
concluded that, although there may be no evidence that the R-value of 
duct insulation is being misrepresented, consumers and inspectors 
nevertheless need these R-values to be stated in a uniform manner. DOE 
acknowledged that it is unclear how the R-value on duct insulation 
(duct wrap or flex duct) should actually be reported to the 
consumer.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ DOE (20), p. 2; DOE also recommended that the FTC consider 
the issue of competitive advantage of installations using duct wrap 
(which must show an R-value) vs. flex duct (with integral insulation 
that is not covered by the Rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NAIMA supported revising the Rule to cover the newer forms of duct 
insulation that are now sold to consumers in retail stores and building 
supply outlets. It contended that duct insulations--rigid air ducts, 
flexible air ducts, and radiant ``bubble packs''--are promoted through 
use of R-value claims and that requiring these products to comply with 
the Rule may be achieved with little additional burden upon the 
Commission. NAIMA recommended that the Commission require testing of 
duct insulations, including radiant ``bubble packs,'' under ASTM C 1363 
because it would benefit retail consumers. If all claims were judged by 
the same method, consumers would have greater confidence in R-value 
performance and protection against fraudulent claims.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ NAIMA (9), pp. 6-7, Appendices 8-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NAIMA agreed that the Commission should not apply the Rule to pipe 
insulations because: (1) pipe products are not readily available at 
retail stores, so consumers do not require protection; (2) the nature 
of pipe insulation makes required disclosures of R-value difficult--for 
example, R-values for pipe insulations vary with every gradation of 
pipe size; (3) the assignment of pipe R-values is based on technical 
principles so complex and complicated that the average consumer could 
not begin to comprehend the nuances differentiating the R-value of one 
pipe insulation from another; and, (4) pipe insulation is not marketed 
in terms of thermal performance. NAIMA maintained, moreover, that it 
was not aware of any misrepresentations of R-values for pipe insulation 
in the marketplace.\11\ Without elaboration, Elastizell opposed any 
change to the Rule in this regard.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Id. p. 7.
    \12\ Elastizell (10), p. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion
    As explained in the ANPR, the Commission excluded pipe insulation 
from the original Rule's coverage based on uncontroverted evidence that 
it was used primarily to prevent moisture condensation on low 
temperature pipes, rather than 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. Similarly, it excluded duct insulations other 
than duct wrap because only duct wrap was used extensively in the 
residential setting. The Commission explained that, since the original 
proceeding, the staff had reviewed consumer advertising for these 
products and found no information to indicate that these facts have 
changed. The Commission concluded that, unless interested parties 
presented information that sellers are misrepresenting the thermal 
performance of these products to consumers, the Commission would not 
propose extending the Rule to cover them. 64 FR at 48027.
    Although DOE and NAIMA maintained that the use of flexible duct 
insulation has become much more common in residential applications than 
it was when the Rule originally was promulgated, no commenters 
indicated that sellers are misrepresenting the thermal performance of 
pipe or duct insulation products to consumers. In addition, although 
DOE raised doubt concerning the basis for the labeled R-value of these 
products, NAIMA indicated that its members base their thermal 
performance claims for all residential rigid and flexible duct products 
on ASTM test methods referenced in the Commission's Rule. The 
Commission recognizes that including these products under the Rule may 
provide some benefit to consumers. Absent evidence of widespread 
deception, however, it is difficult to conclude that such benefits 
would be significant enough to support a change to the Rule. 
Accordingly, the Commission is not proposing amendments on this issue 
but seeks additional comment including any additional information on 
industry practice for testing and labeling these products and the costs 
new FTC testing and labeling requirements would impose in this area.
2. Non-residential Insulations
Background
    In the ANPR, the Commission indicated that it did not plan to 
extend the Rule to cover sales to the commercial market. The Commission 
did, however, request information about whether sellers in this market 
are misrepresenting the thermal performance of insulation products or 
are engaging in other unfair or deceptive practices.
Comments
    The Commission received ten comments regarding the extension of the 
R-value Rule to insulation products used in commercial buildings. PIMA,

[[Page 41877]]

Tenneco, and NAIMA agreed with the Commission's preliminary position 
stated in the ANPR.\13\ NAIMA and Tenneco maintained that commercial 
buyers generally possess greater knowledge about products used in the 
regular course of business and are less vulnerable to deceit and 
confusion. Tenneco explained that commercial professionals must possess 
working knowledge of thermal properties of entire building systems, 
well beyond simple R-values, and that they often rely on independent 
large-scale performance testing or calculations at specific conditions. 
Tenneco contended that it would be difficult to craft Rule provisions 
that would adequately address these multiple performance scenarios. 
PIMA and NAIMA maintained that there is no evidence that manufacturers 
have engaged in improper marketing claims to commercial or industrial 
audiences. Finally, NAIMA and its members provide educational materials 
to commercial and industrial customers that, in their opinion, offer 
technical detail and comprehensive assessments on topics exclusively 
pertinent to commercial and industrial interests. NAIMA contended that 
these materials exceed the information the Rule requires be given to 
consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ PIMA (3), pp. 2, 9; Tenneco (16), p. 1; NAIMA (9), pp. 7-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Seven comments supported extension of the Rule to cover commercial 
applications.\14\ Celotex stated that, while there is no evidence of 
misrepresentation, design professionals rely heavily on manufacturers 
for information and training, and an extension of the Rule's coverage 
would standardize and simplify the specification process for 
architects.\15\ Information FPSA had gathered suggests a lack of 
knowledge among architects and specifiers about the proper methods for 
comparing insulation types.\16\ Both Elastizell and Cellucrete, which 
offered similar comments, stated that competitors had engaged in 
deceptive advertising of the thermal performance of cellular concrete 
products.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ EPSMA (6), p. 2; Celotex (7), pp. 1-2; FPSA (8), p. 2; 
Elastizell (10), pp.1-4, passim; AFM (13), pp. 1-2; Cellucrete (15), 
pp. 2-4; SPFA (18), p. 1.
    \15\ Celotex (7), pp. 1-2.
    \16\ FPSA (8), p. 2.
    \17\ Elastizell (10), pp.1-4, passim; Cellucrete (15), pp. 2-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion
    As discussed in the ANPR, the Commission recognizes that 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. In addition, 
commenters have identified at least one example where sellers of 
commercial insulations may be engaged in unfair or deceptive practices. 
There is no indication from the comments, however, that such practices 
are widespread. Furthermore, as discussed in the ANPR, thermal 
insulation purchasing decisions for commercial building applications 
are made by architects or engineers in many instances. These 
professionals may require R-value and other performance information 
based on circumstances different from the uniform approach the 
Commission has determined necessary to provide accurate and 
understandable information to individual consumers. See discussion at 
64 FR at 48027.
    As several comments suggest, these architects and engineers may not 
always have the information or time necessary to consider these matters 
fully. According to some comments, an extension of the Rule would 
standardize and simplify the specification process for these 
professionals. At the same time, however, the Commission recognizes 
that extending the Rule would impose additional compliance burdens on 
industry members. Because professionals in the commercial field have 
greater knowledge compared to residential customers and the lack of 
evidence indicating unfair and deceptive practices are prevalent, the 
Commission finds that the potential benefits to commercial users would 
not justify the additional burdens that an extension of the Rule would 
impose. Accordingly, the Commission is not proposing to extend the Rule 
to cover sales to the commercial market. The Commission will continue 
to address concerns in this area as they arise pursuant to its general 
authority under section five of the FTC Act.

B. Disclosing In-Use Thermal Performance Values

1. Performance of Insulations in Actual Use
Background
    In the ANPR, the Commission discussed earlier comments relating to 
seasonal factors and other variables that can affect the R-value of 
insulation products in actual use. 64 FR at 48027. Specifically, 
previous commenters identified factors that affect performance in 
attics during winter conditions and factors that affect performance 
under winter versus summer conditions and stated that the Rule does not 
sufficiently account for these factors. Some of the comments addressing 
this issue pointed to ORNL research that demonstrates a reduction in R-
value of very low-density fibrous insulations installed in open or 
vented attics when the temperature difference between the heated area 
of a home and its cold attic becomes particularly great. This can occur 
during the most severe winter conditions in some portions of the United 
States.
    An ORNL representative explained that ASTM was developing a method 
of determining the thermal performance of attic insulations during 
winter conditions, ASTM C 1373,\18\ and suggested that the Commission 
incorporate it into the Rule when it is adopted. As discussed in the 
ANPR, one commenter maintained 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. The commenter contended that a measurement known as the 
Rayleigh number 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. This commenter suggested that the 
Commission require the Rayleigh number on packages and promotional 
materials of insulation products.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Standard Practice for Determination of Thermal Resistance 
of Attic Insulation Systems Under Simulated Winter Conditions 
(``ASTM C 1373'').
    \19\ 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. 64 FR 48028, 
n. 22 (1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission requested comment on alternatives to steady-state R-
values, and specifically asked that commenters address six areas: (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; (3) whether 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

[[Page 41878]]

use make on the consumer's annual fuel bill); (4) whether accepted test 
methods are available to measure in situ performance; (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. 64 FR 48027-29 (discussion of comments from Greenstone/
Tranmer).
Comments
    Two commenters supported no change to the Rule. PIMA asserted that 
there are no test procedures currently available for in situ 
applications. It pointed out that ASTM C 236, C 96 and C 1363 (a new 
standard that combines 236 and 976) are lab methods that require 
steady-state conditions and are not appropriate for in situ 
measurements. PIMA maintained that, while ASTM C 1041 and C 1046 apply 
to field use, they are used to measure heat flux on buildings, 
complicated calculations are necessary to extrapolate R-values, and the 
results are intended for use by skilled industry practitioners.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ PIMA (3), pp. 9-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NAIMA contended that it would be impossible to determine new R-
value requirements to take these factors into account and that, in the 
end, such disclosures would create consumer confusion rather than 
clarity. NAIMA asserted that once results of in situ performance of 
many fibrous insulations over a range of temperature conditions were 
analyzed, initial concerns raised by the cold-temperature effects 
abated because these temperatures rarely lasted long enough to result 
in significant energy loss or economic cost.\21\ NAIMA also maintained 
that no one term fully explains all aspects of performance. In its 
view, many consumers would be confused by the use of other terms like 
the Rayleigh number, and the explanations that would be needed if other 
factors were included in the Rule would be cumbersome and confusing. 
NAIMA explained that, even though extreme temperature differentials are 
a potential problem in a limited part of the country, consumers 
throughout the country would be exposed to the concern through national 
marketing programs. NAIMA echoed PIMA's concern that ASTM C 1363 lacks 
application to a real home setting where conditions are variable and 
unpredictable. NAIMA maintained that, in light of such variables, the 
likelihood of obtaining dependable and authoritative in situ R-values 
remains a distant possibility, and any attempt to explain the myriad of 
factors would overwhelm consumers and defeat the purpose behind the 
Rule's disclosure requirements.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See NAIMA (9), Appendix 14.
    \22\ NAIMA (9), pp. 9-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two commenters supported a change to the Rule in this regard. CIMA 
noted that, for dry-applied loose-fill cellulose insulation, large 
temperature differentials may in fact increase the material's R-value. 
It referred to tests conducted at ORNL on loose-fill fiberglass 
insulation that showed a 40% to 50% decrease in R-value in simulated 
extremely cold climates, while identical tests on dry-applied loose-
fill cellulose insulation showed that the R-value actually increased 
from R-18 at 40[deg] F to R-20.3 at 18[deg]. CIMA maintained that this 
difference in performance at cold conditions must be addressed in the 
Rule for competitive fairness and to protect consumers in cold 
climates. To accomplish this, CIMA recommended that the Commission 
expand the Rule to cover the airflow resistance of insulation 
(determined at the insulation's settled density) as well as the 
laboratory-determined R-value.
    CIMA explained that airflow resistance can be determined in the 
laboratory by measuring simultaneously the pressure difference and 
airflow rate across a test specimen of known dimensions. This yields 
the airflow permeability, which can be used to calculate the Airflow 
Resistence Index (``ARI''), a scale from near zero to approximately 100 
that CIMA maintained could provide a simple way for consumers to 
compare products. CIMA contended that it is possible to calculate the 
impact of convection on R-value using published technical information, 
and maintained that a newly adopted ASTM standard (ASTM C 1373) 
contains a method for measuring the effect of free convection on 
thermal resistance. CIMA recommended amending the Rule to require 
disclosure of the ARI-value in labels, fact sheets and ads.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ CIMA (4), pp. 3-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Uniwood supported the development of an alternative method of 
measuring the relative insulating performance because, it maintained, 
the R-value alone ignores cost considerations and, as such, is 
misleading to consumers (a goal of the Rule is ``meaningful, cost-based 
purchasing decisions''). It suggested that the Commission convene an 
advisory panel to recommend alternative methods that would account for 
all variables, including air permeability and temperature difference. 
Until the results of such a panel are implemented, Uniwood suggested 
that the Rule require the disclosure of Rayleigh numbers.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Uniwood (11), pp. 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion
    As the Commission explained in the ANPR, 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, which do not take into account transient environmental 
factors (like circulation) that can affect insulation performance in 
actual use. Past evidence on the rulemaking record indicates that, 
although environmental conditions may affect the R-value number 
determined in steady-state tests, these conditions will affect 
competing home insulation products in approximately the same manner. 
See 64 FR 48027-28. Thus, the Commission continues to believe that the 
ASTM steady-state R-value test methods permit fair comparisons of 
product R-values on a standardized basis and provide consumers with a 
reliable, uniform, and comparative basis for their purchasing 
decisions. See discussion at 64 FR 48028-29.
    As CIMA asserted, more recent information may indicate differences 
in the performance of various home insulation products at very low 
temperatures. The Commission understands that there are variables for 
which the uniform test methods specified in the Rule may not account, 
such as the design characteristics and geographical location of the 
building, the specific application in which the product is installed, 
outside and inside temperatures, air and moisture movement, 
installation technique, and others. The Commission believes that any 
effort to reflect these variables in the Rule's requirements would 
significantly complicate both compliance and communication to 
consumers, without a commensurate level of benefit. Accordingly, the 
Commission is not proposing to expand the Rule's requirements at this 
time to cover variables that might affect insulation performance in 
actual use.
    Manufacturers and other sellers, however, may provide additional, 
truthful, substantiated information voluntarily to consumers about the 
manner in which their products perform in actual use. For example, if a 
product exhibits increased performance at high temperature 
differentials and such performance is not reflected by the disclosure 
requirements of the R-value Rule, the manufacturer may provide that

[[Page 41879]]

information voluntarily to consumers as long as the claims are truthful 
and substantiated.
2. Performance of Building System Components That Include Insulation
Background
    In the ANPR, the Commission sought comments on whether the Rule 
should require disclosure of thermal performance values of building 
system components that include insulation. Such systems generally 
involve structural insulation panels, which are building systems 
products that include insulation as a major component.
Comments
    Three comments opposed requiring the thermal efficiency testing of 
insulation systems. PIMA asserted that the necessary information is not 
available to include testing requirements for these systems in the 
Rule. It contended that a great deal of testing and research would be 
needed to develop the necessary system evaluation methods.\25\ EPSMA 
maintained that it would be difficult to draft testing and disclosure 
requirements that would be meaningful to consumers.\26\ NAIMA adamantly 
opposed requiring disclosure of the overall thermal efficiency of 
building components because in its view, there is no consensus standard 
or test procedure capable of quantifying the overall thermal 
performance of structural insulation panels. NAIMA maintained that even 
the manufacturers of such products recognize that additional research 
and development would be necessary before requiring such disclosures. 
NAIMA explained that the performance of these systems is highly 
dependent on factors not under the control of the manufacturer, such as 
air-tightness of joints between the components and other parts of the 
building envelope (like windows and doors). In NAIMA's view, these 
factors are extremely difficult, if not impossible, to quantify in a 
fair and easy-to-understand disclosure that would benefit the general 
public. Finally, NAIMA pointed out that the Rule does not prevent 
manufacturers from providing additional information about their 
products' performance due to factors other than R-value.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ PIMA (3), p. 10.
    \26\ EPSMA (6), p. 3.
    \27\ NAIMA (9), p. 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE stated that thermal bridging (particularly due to steel studs), 
other wall elements (windows, doors, and corners), and other 
construction details all have major effects on actual thermal 
performance. The Department suggested that the Commission address these 
issues by requiring additional disclosures. DOE recommended that the 
Commission adopt the whole wall rating system developed by ORNL.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ DOE (20), p.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion
    The Commission continues to believe 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 the performance of their products when used in 
various types of construction. Even if such procedures were developed, 
as a practical matter, it might be very difficult to draft testing and 
disclosure requirements that could take the multiple variables involved 
into account in a manner that would result in a disclosure that would 
be meaningful to consumers. In addition, it would be difficult to 
ensure that the benefits from such procedures (e.g., better information 
for consumers) outweighed the additional costs that would be imposed on 
industry members (e.g., for additional testing and disclosures). See 64 
FR 48029-30.
    Accordingly, the Commission is not proposing to amend the Rule at 
this time to require the disclosure of insulation performance based on 
testing of home insulation products in different types of applications. 
Manufacturers and sellers may voluntarily provide additional 
information about how their products perform in actual use, if they 
substantiate their claims.

C. Disclosing R-Values That Account for Factors Affecting R-Value

1. Aging
a. Cellular Plastics Insulations
Background
    Certain types of cellular plastics insulations (polyurethane, 
polyisocyanurate, and 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 that is higher than it would have if it 
contained normal air. 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. How long the aging process lasts 
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. 64 FR 48024 at 48030-31.
    The current 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.'' See discussion at 
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 (``180 days'') at 
73[deg] F +/- 4[deg] F and 50 % +/- 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 180-day 
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, that 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.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 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 
federally purchased insulations comply with ASTM insulation material 
specifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission in the ANPR indicated that Dr. Wilkes from ORNL 
reported that ASTM was developing a new method of determining the aged 
R-value of unfaced cellular plastics board stock insulations based on 
R-value tests of thin samples sliced from the center of the boards. 
This test procedure has since been published as ASTM C 1303-95. 64 FR 
at 48031.

[[Page 41880]]

Comments
    The comments highlighted the differences of opinion about the 
appropriate test procedure to account for the aging of cellular 
plastics. In large part, the primary issue was whether the Commission 
should amend the Rule to include a relatively new standard, ASTM C 
1303-95 (``Estimating the Long-Term Change in the Thermal Resistance of 
Unfaced Rigid Closed Cell Plastic Foams by Slicing and Scaling Under 
Controlled Laboratory Conditions''). Comments also addressed the need 
for the Commission to adopt additional test procedures for the 
measurement of other materials.
    NAIMA stated that the cellular plastics industry has struggled for 
many years over what methodology should be used to determine the long-
term in-service thermal performance of cellular plastics 
insulations.\30\ In NAIMA's view, none of the available methods has 
been agreeable to all industry sectors. Because of this lack of 
agreement, NAIMA recommended that the Commission adopt aging methods 
already accepted by the majority of industry representatives and 
formally approved by ASTM: (1) ASTM C 1289 for polyisocyanurate; (2) 
ASTM C 578 for extruded polystyrene; and (3) ASTM C 1029 for 
polyurethane. NAIMA noted, however, that there is currently no 
acceptable procedure for determining long-term thermal performance of 
impermeably faced cellular foam insulations. Until a level playing 
field can be established, NAIMA recommended maintaining and reporting 
R-values based on aging for the currently accepted 180-day period. 
NAIMA also indicated that, although the 180-day value does not in its 
view provide ``real design'' (actual performance) information, it is a 
value with which the consumer is familiar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ NAIMA (9), pp. 10-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PIMA generally supported the adoption of ASTM standards, except C 
1303. It opposed the incorporation of C 1303 into the Rule because, in 
its view, the standard does not address the effect of facings and the 
test's precision for cellular plastics was developed on a limited set 
of samples, in some cases consisting of experimental products. PIMA 
maintained that the standard is intended as a laboratory research tool 
to evaluate chemical changes and should not be used as a test for 
making R-value claims under the FTC's Rule. In addition, PIMA contended 
that the codification of C 1303 would impose on manufacturers a 
significant additional testing cost of $25,000-30,000 per product and 
stated that only a limited number of testing labs perform the test. 
PIMA asserted that the reason for this high test cost is the level of 
detail required in C 1303 to provide technical measurements of blowing 
agent diffusion coefficients and the damaged surface layer caused by 
slicing.
    PIMA did, however, recommend that the Commission adopt C 1289 (for 
faced rigid cellular polyisocyanurate board); C 1029 (for extruded 
polystyrene); and C 591 (for polyurethane). PIMA maintained that, for 
products ``with relatively non-permeable facings,'' the Rule's current 
aging procedures are adequate. PIMA also suggested that expanded 
polystyrene insulation products should be required to be tested for 
aging under suitable procedures similar to those in ASTM C 578. PIMA 
stated that, as a general matter, ASTM standards should be adopted 
because they represent the best available techniques developed by 
industry consensus and they take into account variations in materials 
and manufacturing as well as the numerous factors that can affect the 
aging process.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ PIMA (3), pp. 2-6, 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ConsultMORTinc also opposed adoption of ASTM C 1303, suggesting 
that C 518 is an appropriate test for plastic foams at full product 
thickness if 180-day lab-conditioned (six-month lab aged) values are 
used. ConsultMORTinc contended that the ASTM C 1303 test method is only 
an ``estimate'' and should not be used for appraising performance in 
actual use, and stated that the procedure does not address the effects 
of ``manufactured thickness.'' ConsultMORTinc maintained that its own 
studies demonstrate that thicker polyurethane foams are protected from 
gas permeation for one year or more, which suggests that the C 1303 
slicing method is inaccurate for thicker foams.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ ConsultMORTinc (12), pp. 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SPFA supported full product thickness testing at industry-accepted 
180-day lab-conditioned aging, based on ConsultMORTinc data. It advised 
against the improper use of ASTM C 1303, maintaining that the standard 
does not account for the effect of extra thickness in protecting the 
product from outside air infiltration, and does not account for the 
fact that spray polyurethane foam is applied in several layers, or 
``lifts,'' that are surfaced with denser polymer skin, or for substrate 
or covering in roofing applications.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ SPFA (18), p. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tenneco opposed adoption of ASTM C 1303 for aging foam plastic 
insulations, emphasizing that the test method itself indicates that its 
precision and accuracy are not yet established, and pointing out that 
its reproducibility is not yet understood. In addition, Tenneco 
contended that the test does not accurately reflect long-term aging 
because it does not account for the effect of skin surface or facings 
and fails to account for the fact that gas diffusion is multi-
dimensional. Speaking as a member of the ASTM C 1303 Task Group, 
Tenneco maintained that the standard was intended primarily to estimate 
R-values of core material for purposes of new product development, and 
stated that concern was expressed during the test's development that it 
might inappropriately be used as a regulatory tool.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Tenneco (16), pp. 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ESPMA supported a combination of accelerated aging tests and 
mandatory disclosures about R-values declining significantly with age 
beyond that indicated by tests. In its view, an accelerated aging test 
alone does not ``fully reflect'' the effects of aging. ESPMA pointed 
out that, according to RIC/TIMA, tests alone are meant to give a 
standard basis for comparison, not to predict long-term R-values 
accurately. It also supported exploration and use of limited aging 
procedures to predict long-term R-values as well as requirements for 
disclosures when accelerated aging procedures are used. EPSMA suggested 
that an appropriate R-value aging disclosure can be accomplished either 
through qualitative disclosure or quantitative disclosure. For 
instance, EPSMA suggested that one possible qualitative R-value 
disclosure could read: ``The R-value of this insulation has been 
established using a [identify test procedure] accelerated aging 
procedure. Because of aging, the longer term R-value of this insulation 
in your home may be significantly lower than the R-value stated.''\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ EPSMA (6), pp. 3-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Celotex supported the use of ASTM C 1303 to predict the effects of 
aging in permeable-faced cellular plastics (polyisocyanurate and 
polystyrene) blown with a non-air agent, and the use of ASTM C 1289 for 
impermeable-faced boards. Celotex recommended the implementation of a 
two-year phase-in period to allow time for industry members to conduct 
appropriate testing. It contended that the accuracy of the ASTM C 1303 
test is demonstrated by consistency with the American Society of 
Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. 
(``ASHRAE'') Handbook. In addition, Celotex stated that it had run 
multiple

[[Page 41881]]

test programs that indicated that ASTM C 1289 is the most reliable 
aging method for cellular plastic insulation with impermeable facings 
blown with non-air agents.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Celotex (7), p. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FPSA also supported adoption of ASTM C 1303 for unfaced and 
permeable faced products. FPSA recommended the use of a five-year aged 
value disclosure, which has been given serious consideration in Canada. 
It urged that a substantively comparable consensus standard should be 
adopted for faced products. FPSA suggested that the Commission retain 
currently acceptable tests (such as the 180-day value) for comparison 
purposes. It also pointed out that ASTM C 591 is outdated and reflects 
the current FTC guideline for long-term aging. FPSA also noted that 
expanded polystyrene products are not subject to aging. Finally, FPSA 
maintained that the 180-day value is not an accurate reflection of 
long-term aging of polyisocyanurate products, although it is acceptable 
for polystyrene because of the different aging curves pertaining to the 
two products.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ FPSA (8), pp. 2-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ORNL and DOE supported the adoption of ASTM C 1303 because, 
according to ORNL, it represents a clear, specific, industry consensus 
standard for unfaced foam products, to the exclusion of the unspecific 
``or another reliable procedure'' the Rule now allows. Alternative 
methods are inadequate according to ORNL, because it contends the 
elevated temperature method, which is not correlated to results in 
normal use, and the 180-day method ignores long-term aging that occurs 
in all but the thinnest products. ORNL supported direct aging of 
impermeable-faced foam products because, it maintained, no satisfactory 
aging method exists, and tests show that some products age at the same 
rate as unfaced products while others show little aging.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ ORNL-1 (17), p. 1; USDOE (20), p. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ORNL also indicated, in a late comment filed in response to 
statements made in other comments regarding the C 1303 test and the 
thickness of specimens, that the C 1303 test had been revised and 
significantly improved. ORNL challenged the assertion that C 1303 
cannot account for foam products of different thicknesses. According to 
ORNL, variation in aging behavior with foam thickness is the very basis 
for the test procedure's methodology. ORNL also argued that the 180-day 
full-thickness R-value fails to provide necessary information to 
building designers and should not be compared to the R-value of 
competing products that do not undergo the aging process. ORNL 
contended that, in contrast, C 1303 provides the product's time-
averaged R-value over the product's lifetime, and accurately credits 
both the high thermal resistance during early years of product use and 
the lower values during later years.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ ORNL-2 (21), pp. 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion
    In considering amendments to the R-value Rule, the Commission, 
among other things, looks to ensure that consumers receive, wherever 
possible, the most accurate, dependable information that is reasonably 
available for residential insulation products. Generally, the Rule 
requires the use of certain standards to ensure that industry members 
take into account factors such as aging or settling that can affect the 
R-value of material. Even if there are no standards for a particular 
home insulation product, that product is still covered by the Rule and 
manufacturers and sellers must use a reliable method that will provide 
a reasonable basis for their R-value claims. If the method used is 
unreliable and their claims are thus unsubstantiated, they could be 
subject to enforcement action by the Commission. The Commission does 
not develop the technical standards for determining the R-value for 
various types of residential insulations. Instead, it generally looks 
to those tests that are considered to be reasonable by industry 
members, academicians, government experts, and others in the technical 
community.
    The comments discussed above suggest industry concerns that the 
incorporation of new consensus standards may create a real or perceived 
disadvantage for manufacturers of certain types of insulation. For 
example, there is disagreement regarding the application of ASTM C 1303 
to insulation subject to the effects of aging. Some critics of the 
standard emphasize the relatively narrow scope of the test, while 
others maintain that it should not be incorporated into the Rule at 
all. In contrast, those who endorse the standard believe it would 
improve the accuracy of the R-values calculated for the products. There 
is also a Canadian standard (Can/ULC-S 770 ``Standard for Determination 
of Long Term Thermal Resistance of Closed Cell Thermal Insulating 
Foams'') that is designed to account for the effects of aging on the R-
value of cellular plastic insulation. Work is ongoing to improve both 
ASTM C 1303 and S 770 and reconcile some of the differences in the two 
approaches.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See Stovall et al., ``A Comparison of Accelerated Aging 
Test Protocols for Cellular Foam Insulation,'' in Insulation 
Materials: Testing and Applications: 4th Volume, ASTM International 
(2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission recognizes the need to amend the Rule, when 
necessary, so that it reflects testing improvements that will provide 
more accurate information for consumers. The Commission, however, does 
not propose to amend section 460.5(a)(1) of the Rule to require the use 
of ASTM C 1303 for homogeneous, unfaced, rigid closed cell 
polyurethane, polyisocyanurate, and extruded polystyrene insulations. 
As discussed above, ASTM C 1303 has limited applicability because it 
only applies to unfaced, homogeneous material. If the FTC adopted this 
procedure, it is likely very similar products (e.g., insulation boards 
with paper facing) would continue to be tested under the older approach 
(the ``180-day'' accelerated aging test). The Commission is reluctant 
to incorporate the C 1303 procedure into the Rule at this time because 
it is unclear whether it is sufficiently broad and adequately developed 
to warrant its incorporation as a legal requirement for all 
manufacturers of cellular plastic insulation.
    Nevertheless, the Commission is interested in seeking comments on 
this evolving issue and may reconsider its views if warranted by the 
comments. The Commission seeks comment on whether the new standards 
(ASTM C 1303 and Canadian S 770) are sufficiently developed to be 
imposed on all industry members as a legal requirement in the R-value 
Rule. In particular, the Commission requests more information regarding 
the scope of applicability of C 1303 (e.g., for faced and unfaced 
boards) and likely changes to the procedures in the future. In 
addition, the Commission also requests comment on whether the 
differences in results achieved by C 1303 as compared to the current 
procedure (180-day test) are significant at smaller board thicknesses 
and whether such thicknesses are prevalent in the residential 
insulation market. The Commission also would appreciate information 
about the expected impact that the use of this procedure would have on 
consumer buying decisions.
    If the comments provide new and significant information clearly 
indicating that ASTM C 1303 should be incorporated into the Rule, the 
Commission may consider amending the Rule to require use of C 1303 (or 
perhaps S 770) for those products

[[Page 41882]]

covered by the test procedure.\41\ It is likely that such an amendment 
would displace the 180-day test that is generally used currently for 
such products. Accordingly, commenters who oppose the incorporation of 
C 1303 into the Rule and believe that the 180-day test is adequate 
should submit their views to the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ The text of such an amendment would appear in section 
460.5(a)(1) of the Rule and would likely read: ``For polyurethane, 
polyisocyanurate, and extruded polystyrene, the tests must be done 
on samples that fully reflect the effect of aging on the product's 
R-value. To measure the effect of aging for unfaced homogeneous 
rigid closed cell plastic foams, follow the procedure in ASTM C 
1303-95 (``Estimating the Long-Term Change in the Thermal Resistance 
of Unfaced Rigid Closed Cell Plastic Foams by Slicing and Scaling 
Under Controlled Laboratory Conditions'').'' The Commission may also 
consider adopting Can/ULC-S 770 in lieu of C 1303.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the Commission is not proposing to incorporate ASTM C 1303 
into the Rule at this time, it is proposing to amend the Rule to 
require that other types of polyurethane, polyisocyanurate, and 
extruded polystyrene insulation be aged using, where appropriate, ASTM 
C 1029-96 (``Standard Specification for Spray-Applied Rigid Cellular 
Polyurethane Thermal Insulation''), ASTM C 591-94 (``Unfaced Preformed 
Rigid Cellular Polyisocyanurate Thermal Insulation''), and ASTM C 578-
95 (``Standard Specification for Rigid, Cellular Polystyrene Thermal 
Insulation'').\42\ For all other polyurethane, polyisocyanurate, and 
extruded polystyrene insulation subject to aging but not specifically 
covered by one of the procedures listed above, industry members must 
use the procedure in paragraph 4.6.4 of GSA Specification HH-I-530A or 
another reliable procedure. The Commission seeks comment on whether the 
incorporation of these procedures into the Rule would be appropriate 
and whether these procedures raise the same or similar types of 
concerns associated with ASTM C 1303 as discussed above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ The Commission is not proposing to require ASTM C 1289 
(``Faced Rigid Cellular Polyisocyanurate Thermal Insulation Board'') 
as suggested by some commenters. The current version of this test 
procedure, ASTM C 1289-02, requires the use of the Canadian test 
procedure for aging (S 770) which appears in C 1289 as an annex. 
Because the Commission has decided not to include C 1303 (or S 770) 
in the Rule at this time, the Commission is not going to require the 
same or equivalent aging procedure through C 1289.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Reflective Insulations
Background
    In the ANPR, the Commission discussed whether the Rule should 
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. In 
particular, the Commission raised concerns about the effects of the 
accumulation of dust or corrosion on the foil. Because the claims for 
all types of home insulation products should take into account factors 
that affect the products' thermal performance, the ANPR invited comment 
on whether dusting or corrosion of reflective insulations in actual 
applications is a problem resulting in lower R-values than claimed, on 
the extent of any degradation of R-value, and on how the effect of 
dusting or corrosion on R-value could most accurately be determined.
Comments
    Several comments suggested that the collection of dust on foil can 
significantly decrease the material's thermal performance. NAIMA 
maintained that evidence supports that dusting and corrosion on 
reflective insulations have a detrimental effect on the product's R-
value. NAIMA stated that a satisfactory test method for determining the 
R-value of reflective insulation must be able to account for the 
debilitating effect of dust and corrosion on the performance capacity 
of the insulation.\43\ According to NAIMA, DOE's Radiant Barrier Attic 
Fact Sheet (June 1991) reported laboratory measurements verifying that 
dust on the surface of aluminum foil increases the product's emissivity 
and decreases its reflectivity. NAIMA stated that DOE concluded that 
dust or other particles on the exposed surface of a radiant barrier 
will reduce its effectiveness and, therefore, reflective insulations 
installed in locations that collect dust or other surface contaminant 
will have a decreasing benefit over time. NAIMA asserted that when DOE 
monitored reflective insulations installed in a dusty attic, DOE 
observed that 50% of the insulation's effectiveness dissipated after 
the first year of installation.\44\ According to NAIMA, DOE's findings 
have been repeated in other studies.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ NAIMA (9), pp.11-12. AFS echoed NAIMA's concerns, 
contending that dust can create emittance problems for foil in laid 
down, face-up attic applications, but not in face-down applications. 
AFS (14), p. 1.
    \44\ Id. at Appendix 15.
    \45\ Id. at Appendix 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    RIMA contended that foil is not subject to significant aging due to 
corrosion because it oxidizes naturally, providing corrosion 
protection. RIMA asserted furthermore that ASTM C 1224 (``Standard 
Specification for Reflective Insulation for Building Applications'') 
requires testing for corrosion. RIMA maintained that dust was not a 
great concern for foil because, pursuant to C 1224, these materials are 
installed in closed-cell cavities regardless of orientation, thus 
preventing or minimizing dust.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ RIMA (19), p. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion
    The Commission recognizes that the accumulation of dust or 
corrosion on foil can be significant enough to affect performance. 
However, as RIMA pointed out, the degree to which performance is 
affected will depend on the foil's application. As a general matter, 
reflective insulations installed in locations that collect dust or 
experience surface contamination will have a decreasing benefit over 
time. Claims for all types of home insulation products should take into 
account factors that affect the products' thermal performance. 
Accordingly, while the Commission does not believe an amendment to the 
Rule is warranted, it notes that manufacturers should always take into 
account factors that affect their products' thermal performance when 
making performance claims for foil products, especially when there is a 
reasonable expectation that the products will be installed in locations 
associated with significant dust accumulation. The same holds true for 
any effects that corrosion may have on the long-term performance of 
reflective insulations.
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 reduces the product's thickness, increases its density, and 
affects its total R-value. 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 FR at 50228.
    To ensure that claims made to consumers are based on long-term 
thickness and density after settling, section 460.5(a)(2) of the Rule 
requires that the R-value of each dry-applied loose-fill home 
insulation product 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,

[[Page 41883]]

settled density determined according to paragraph 8 of ASTM C 739-91, 
commonly referred to as the ``Blower Cyclone Shaker'' (``BCS'') 
test.\47\ 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 
only requires that R-values be based on long-term thickness and density 
after settling, and does not specify how to determine a specimen's 
density.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ Standard Specification for Cellulosic Fiber (Wood-Base) 
Loose-Fill Thermal Insulation (``ASTM C 739-91'').
    \48\ When 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. 
See 64 FR 48032, n.46 (1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the Commission promulgated the Rule, new forms of loose-fill 
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. In 
addition, questions have been raised regarding the settling of loose-
fill insulations in the walls of site-built housing and in both the 
attics and walls of manufactured housing. 64 FR 48032.
i. Dry-applied Loose-fill Cellulose in Site-Built \49\ Attics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ The term ``site-built'' differentiates attics in 
manufactured housing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments on Dry-applied, Loose-fill Cellulose Insulations for Use in 
Site-Built Home Attics
    Two commenters addressed the issue of dry-applied loose-fill 
cellulose in attics. NAIMA supported the current design density test 
(ASTM C 739-91) (``Standard Specification for Cellulosic Fiber (Wood-
Base) Loose-Fill Thermal Insulation'') required by the Rule for loose-
fill cellulose. NAIMA urged the Commission to revise the Rule to 
require use of sample preparation techniques, stabilization times, and 
guidance on gauging the specimen's density in the test area according 
to ASTM C 687 for all types of loose-fill insulations, pointing out 
that ASTM C 739 already requires cellulose insulation manufacturers to 
conduct testing as prescribed in C 687. NAIMA also recommended that the 
Commission require, on dry-applied loose-fill cellulose bags, an 
installed thickness column that reflects the magnitude of settling and 
loss of thickness that can be expected.\50\ It cited a Swedish long-
term study that showed average settling of 16% to 21% of loose-fill 
insulation in attics in two test houses studied for up to seven 
years.\51\ The study documented that certain variations in cellulose 
material directly affect settling. The study suggested that cardboard 
based cellulose seems to settle more than newsprint and that the degree 
of grinding also affects settling. The study also suggested that 
humidity variations, density, and vibration affected settling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ NAIMA (9), pp. 12-13.
    \51\ Id., Appendix 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CIMA contended that the BCS test was promulgated about 20 years ago 
and is probably no longer appropriate for determining the settled 
density of dry-applied loose-fill insulation. CIMA stated that current 
studies of actual installations indicate that settlement of loose-fill 
cellulose insulation is typically between 12% and 20% in residential 
applications, while the BCS test results suggest a settlement of 30% or 
more. By specifying a test that significantly overstates cellulose 
settlement, the Rule, in CIMA's view, places dry-applied loose-fill 
cellulose insulation at a competitive disadvantage (compared to 
fiberglass) that may result in an annual loss of 50 million dollars in 
revenues to cellulose insulation manufacturers.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ CIMA (4), p. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion of Dry Applied Loose Cellulose in Site-Built Attics
    In the absence of an accepted alternative to the test procedures in 
ASTM C 739, the Commission is reluctant to amend the Rule to eliminate 
the established BCS test. Moreover, the Commission does not believe 
that further prescriptive requirements, as suggested by NAIMA, are 
warranted and is thus not proposing the use of sample preparation 
techniques, stabilization times, and guidance on gauging the specimen's 
density in the test area according to ASTM C 687 for all types of 
loose-fill insulations. This standard practice is already required for 
loose-fill cellulose insulation through the requirements in ASTM C 739 
(currently required by the Rule). It is unclear whether the application 
of this technique would significantly improve the accuracy of R-value 
claims for other loose-fill materials. The Commission does propose, 
however, to update the current reference to the ASTM C 739 in section 
460.5(a)(2) to reflect the most current version (1997). The Commission 
also proposes to address the issue of installed thickness as suggested 
by NAIMA (see Sec.  V.E.1.c.ii. of this document).
    Although the Rule requires manufacturers of dry-applied loose-fill 
cellulose to determine the R-value and coverage 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 method. See 64 FR 48033.
ii. Dry-Applied Loose-Fill Mineral Fiber in Site-Built Attics
    Section 460.5(a)(2) of 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. 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. 64 FR at 48033.
    The Commission indicated in the ANPR that it would be preferable to 
specify a uniform procedure for determining the long-term, settled 
density of dry-applied loose-fill mineral

[[Page 41884]]

fiber insulation products, and solicited comments for this purpose. The 
Commission specifically requested any data that demonstrate whether 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 GSA previously proposed for loose-fill mineral 
fiber insulations under Federal Specification HH-I-1030B;\53\ the 
British Standard Vibration Test; and the procedure developed in 
Scandinavia by Dr. Svennerstedt. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ See 44 FR at 50228, 50239 n.239.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments on Dry-applied, Loose-fill Mineral Fiber Insulations for Use 
in Site-Built Home Attics
    NAIMA commented that field measurements of the thickness of loose-
fill mineral fiber insulation in open-blown attic applications show 
little or no settling. For example, according to NAIMA, the Mineral 
Insulation Manufacturers Association (``MIMA'') concluded, with ORNL 
concurring, that tests demonstrated that settling of loose-fill mineral 
fiber in attics is a minor factor in the final installed R-value 
delivered to the customer when the thickness and amount of material 
required by the bag label is installed. For insulation installed at or 
above label density and thickness, the calculated final R-values of 
loose-fill mineral fiber products were always at or above the labeled 
R-value. NAIMA contended that, because these materials do not settle 
significantly, no predictive settling method has been validated for 
these products. NAIMA argued that identical tests should not be 
required for both cellulose and mineral fiber because such an approach 
would yield meaningless results from duplicate tests on distinctly 
different substances, and would not create an even playing field.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ NAIMA (9), pp. 1-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CIMA commented that, because there is no specific test for 
determining the settled densities of dry-applied loose-fill mineral 
fiber insulation, such materials may have labeled densities that are 
lower than actual settled densities, thereby depriving consumers of the 
amount of insulation they think they are purchasing. According to CIMA, 
recent independent third-party testing confirms that this is the case. 
CIMA recommended specific Rule language that would require that all 
dry-applied loose-fill insulation be subjected to the ASTM C 739-97 
test for settled density.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ CIMA (4), p. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion of Dry-applied, Loose-fill Mineral Fiber Insulations for Use 
in Site-Built Home Attics
    The Commission recognizes that there is no consensus standard 
currently available to measure the settling of loose-fill mineral fiber 
insulations for use in site-built attics. In addition, on its face, 
ASTM C 739 applies to cellulosic fiber only. Thus, it would seem 
inappropriate for the Rule to require the application of that test 
procedure to loose-fill mineral fiber insulation. The Commission 
emphasizes that industry members must have a reasonable basis for their 
R-value claims that takes into account the effects of settling. In 
addition, the Commission proposes to amend the Rule to eliminate the 
reference to the GSA procedure because, as discussed earlier, it is no 
longer applicable. The Commission seeks further comments on this issue, 
including whether it would be appropriate to apply the test procedure 
in ASTM C 739-97 to mineral fiber.
iii. Stabilized Cellulose in Site-Built Attics
    In the ANPR, the Commission acknowledged that, due to the manner in 
which stabilized cellulose insulation is installed, the BCS test 
procedure may not be appropriate for determining its long-term, settled 
density. 64 FR at 48033-34. The Commission did not agree with NAIMA, 
however, that the procedure for determining density in ASTM C 1149 is 
the appropriate measure of the long-term, settled density of stabilized 
cellulose insulations installed in attic applications. The Commission 
explained that ASTM C 1149 is designed for insulations that are sprayed 
onto walls, and able to support themselves as applied. Such insulations 
are most often applied to metal walls in commercial buildings, where 
they are left exposed. The Commission stated that when ASTM, or others, 
adopt a specific method for determining the long-term density of 
stabilized cellulose insulation for attic applications the Commission 
will consider whether to require its use. The Commission reminded 
manufacturers that, in the meantime, under section 5 of the FTC Act, 
they must have a reasonable basis for the density at which they conduct 
the R-value tests required by the Rule and for the R-value claims they 
make to consumers. 64 FR 48033.
Comments on Stabilized Cellulose Insulations for Use in Site-Built Home 
Attics
    The Commission received one comment, from NAIMA, on the issue of 
stabilized cellulose insulations. NAIMA stated that there is little 
information on long-term thermal effectiveness and overall performance 
of wet-spray cellulose insulations, that no material specification 
exists to cover this product, and that there is no standard protocol 
for determining appropriate test density for labeling purposes. NAIMA 
reported that ongoing work on a proposed specification has relied on a 
drop box method under fixed laboratory conditions, but, in NAIMA's 
view, data has not been presented suggesting at what level of 
settlement a product is considered to be stabilized.
    NAIMA further contended that the tests do not necessarily represent 
the material in actual field installations. NAIMA indicated that the 
product's settling and shrinkage varies with temperature and humidity 
and that data supports significant shrinkage at elevated temperatures 
and increased moisture levels. It is very difficult, in NAIMA's 
opinion, to maintain consistent density due to variations in the amount 
of water used when the product is installed, noting that many 
contractors say that they have no clear guidelines on drying of wet-
spray cellulose. This is particularly significant in new construction 
where the wet spray insulation may not dry ``before the building is 
completed and the attic is closed up.'' NAIMA also stated that it was 
not aware of any testing conducted by the cellulose industry to provide 
consumers and installers with useful information and guidance on drying 
times. It advised the Commission, in light of what it characterized as 
``this serious variable threatening to degrade the settled density of 
the cellulose insulation,'' to require each manufacturer to provide 
consumers and customers with reliable guidelines to ensure that the 
insulation has dried before construction is completed. NAIMA contended 
that this measure is particularly crucial because there is no approved 
test method for determining settled density. Pending the development of 
an accepted standard protocol (which it maintained the Commission 
should then require), NAIMA urged the Commission to require producers 
of stabilized cellulose to disclose to consumers and installers 
settlement and shrinkage data as a function of moisture application 
levels

[[Page 41885]]

and provide a recommended temperature to guide installers in proper 
application.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ NAIMA (9), pp. 14-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion of Stabilized Insulations for Use in Site-Built Home Attics
    Because there is no consensus standard to apply to the testing of 
stabilized cellulose, the Commission does not plan to prescribe one in 
the Rule. The Commission is proposing, however, to amend the Rule to 
clarify that industry members must take settling into account in making 
their R-value claims for stabilized insulation. The Commission notes 
that industry members must have a reasonable basis for their claims. It 
is generally accepted that some settling occurs with these materials. 
Even though there is no consensus standard for measuring it, 
manufacturers must take settling into account and use reliable tests to 
back up their claims. Finally, the Commission notes that if there is 
information, such as drying times, that are important to the proper 
installation of the material in question, manufacturers should disclose 
that information. The Commission seeks comment on this issue.
iv. Loose-fill and Stabilized Insulations Used in Manufactured Housing 
Attics
    The Commission's ANPR also asked 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 their settled density 
when they are used in attics of manufactured housing. 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, from those used in site-
built homes because of additional vibrations and other factors during 
transportation. The Commission solicited 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. 64 FR at 48033-34.
Comments on Dry-applied Loose-fill and Stabilized Insulations for Use 
in Manufactured Housing Attics
    NAIMA urged the Commission to adopt testing guidelines similar to 
the Department of Housing and Urban Development Code and require over-
the-road testing for all insulations installed in attics of 
manufactured homes. NAIMA doubted the accuracy of current methods used 
by the cellulose industry to judge the amount of settling of stabilized 
cellulose in attics of manufactured homes. NAIMA explained that the 
point of testing is the manufactured housing plant, before the fully 
constructed home is transported via truck or train to its final 
destination, and that the disturbances inherent in such transportation 
tend to alter the level of the cellulose, and thus its R-value.
    According to NAIMA, rock wool and slag wool manufacturers rely for 
their claims on independently conducted third-party-witnessed over-the-
road evaluations designed to measure the impact of the effects of 
transportation on installed rock wool and slag wool insulations. NAIMA 
contended that cellulose manufacturers did not conduct such over-the-
road tests until 1997, when HUD required them to do so. NAIMA stated 
that, although CIMA has been working with HUD to resolve the issue, 
NAIMA cannot find evidence that CIMA and its members have rectified the 
alleged deficiencies in their testing approach to HUD's satisfaction. 
Accordingly, in NAIMA's view, the durability of thermal performance 
claims of stabilized cellulose in manufacturing home attics remains 
unsubstantiated.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ NAIMA (9), pp. 16-17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion of Dry-applied Loose-fill and Stabilized Insulations for Use 
in Manufactured Housing Attics
    The Commission does not propose to amend the Rule to address the 
particular settling issues associated with loose-fill and stabilized 
insulation in manufactured housing attics because, at this time, no 
industry consensus procedure exists. Nevertheless, the Commission 
reminds industry members that they must substantiate their product 
performance claims. Accordingly, all manufacturers of loose-fill and 
stabilized insulation in manufactured housing attics must take into 
account, as accurately as possible, any significant effects associated 
with transporting units from the manufacturing plant to the home site. 
The Commission's staff is aware that HUD has raised issues concerning 
these materials with industry members as part of that agency's 
regulatory program for manufactured housing. No specific HUD code or 
standard has been identified that would be appropriate for 
incorporation into the R-value Rule in this context.
b. Loose-Fill and Self-Supported Insulations in Walls
    The ANPR explained that 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 in existing wall cavities (primarily in retrofit 
applications). If they are not sufficiently compressed during 
installation, these 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. 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 in wall applications because there was no 
standard procedure for measuring the applied density for all product in 
that context when the Commission promulgated the Rule.
    Self-supported, spray-applied insulations, mixed with water and 
adhesives, 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.
    The Commission explained that, although self-supported, spray 
applied insulation was not discussed during the original rulemaking 
proceeding and the Rule does not specify how R-value test 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

[[Page 41886]]

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. In the ANPR, the 
Commission indicated that the procedures in paragraph 5.1 of ASTM C 
1149 (``Self-Supported Spray Applied Cellulosic Thermal Insulation'') 
appear to be appropriate for preparing R-value test specimens of self-
supported, spray-applied cellulose insulation products. The Commission 
proposed to amend the Rule to incorporate this test and solicited 
comments on the proposal. 64 FR at 48034.
Comments on Loose-Fill Insulations in Walls
    NAIMA suggested that the Rule require manufacturers to demonstrate 
that their products do not settle in wall installations or to disclose 
the amount of any expected settling on Fact Sheets along with wall 
coverage charts similar to those required for attic installations. 
NAIMA recommended that wall coverage charts require R-values, 
coverages, bag counts, and area weights at standard wall cavity depths 
for at least 2x4 and 2x6 framing. Acknowledging that no validated test 
method exists to predict the settling of loose-fill insulations, NAIMA 
nevertheless maintained that settling in walls is more critical than 
settling in attics because settling in walls creates uninsulated voids 
at the top of wall cavities, while settling in attics does not create 
uninsulated areas. NAIMA claimed that wall insulation settling of 5% 
can reduce overall wall R-value by 15%.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ NAIMA (9), p. 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion of Loose-fill Insulation in Walls
    The Commission understands 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 may provide some benefits to consumers. However, there does 
not appear to be any generally accepted procedure to determine the 
density of dry-applied loose-fill insulations when it is installed in 
enclosed wall cavities. Accordingly, at this time, the Commission is 
not proposing an amendment to the Rule in this regard, but reminds 
manufacturers to be careful and cautious about their claims for loose-
fill insulation in walls.
Comments on Self-Supported Insulation in Walls
    NAIMA encouraged an amendment to the Rule that would require the 
preparation of R-value test specimens of self-supported spray cellulose 
according to ASTM C 1149-97. NAIMA maintained that this standard 
provides adequate test specimen procedures.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion of Self-Supported Insulation in Walls
    For self-supported spray-applied cellulose insulation, the 
Commission proposes to amend the Rule to require the use of ASTM C 
1149-97. The procedures in paragraph 5.1 of ASTM C 1149-97, which 
require that R-value test specimens be prepared using the 
manufacturer'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. The Commission solicits 
comment regarding the accuracy and reliability of this procedure, how 
to define 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. If comments indicate that this 
product is rarely used in the residential market, the Commission will 
reconsider the need for a specific requirement. The Commission also 
proposes to indicate that manufacturers must take into account the 
settling of self-supported insulation in determining the R-value of 
their products. The Commission accordingly seeks comments regarding the 
extent to which this insulation is used in the residential market. If 
the material is not used widely in the residential market, the 
Commission requests views on whether it is necessary to amend the Rule 
to specifically address this product.
    In the ANPR, the Commission also proposed the incorporation of a 
portion of HUD UM-80 into the Rule.\60\ The HUD bulletin has not been 
reviewed or amended since its publication in 1979. To avoid any 
confusion that may result from requiring two procedures, the Commission 
does not propose to require HUD UM-80.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Materials 
Bulletin No. 80 (``HUD UM-80''), dated October 31, 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion regarding the Use of Loose-fill Insulations and Self-
supported Insulations in Wall Cavities of Manufactured Housing
    As indicated in the ANPR (64 FR at 48035), industry members have 
raised questions regarding the current procedures for determining the 
settled density of dry-applied loose-fill insulations or self-supported 
insulations when they are used in wall cavities of site-built homes. 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, settle more, or differently, 
than those used in site-built homes because of additional vibrations 
and other factors during transportation. Because no comments addressed 
this issue, the Commission is not proposing any amendments to the Rule 
in this regard.
3. Density Variations
    The ANPR asked whether the Rule should require R-value testing of 
loose-fill insulations at each thickness claimed in order to take into 
account the density variations that may occur with variations in 
thickness. 64 FR at 48035. NAIMA recommended that the Commission revise 
the Rule to require manufacturers to consider density variations in 
preparing coverage charts.\61\ However, without specific data to 
demonstrate whether or how much the density of particular types of 
loose-fill varies with differences in thickness, the Commission does 
not believe that changes to the Rule on this issue would be 
appropriate. For this issue, the Commission is not proposing any 
amendments to the Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ NAIMA (9), p. 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Installations in Closed Cavities of Variable Thickness
    The ANPR asked whether the Rule should specify how to determine and 
disclose R-values for insulation installed in cavities of variable 
thickness and density (e.g., in manufactured housing attics). 64 FR at 
48035. NAIMA opposed a change to the Rule because it would 
unnecessarily confuse this issue, and venture into system performance 
and building design.\62\ No other significant comments were received on 
this issue. Accordingly, the Commission is not proposing any amendments 
to the Rule regarding this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ Id.

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

[[Page 41887]]

D. Other Testing Requirements

1. Accreditation of Testing Laboratories
    The ANPR solicited comments on whether the Rule should require 
accreditation of testing laboratories that are used to substantiate R-
value and related claims. 64 FR at 48035-36. The Commission received no 
comments in support of such a change, and the Commission has decided 
not to propose any amendments to the Rule regarding this issue.
2. Test Temperature Requirements
a. Mean Temperature
    The ANPR asked whether the Rule should require a mean test 
temperature of other than 75[deg] F for R-value tests. One commenter 
suggested that all products be tested with the cold side at 25[deg] and 
the hot side at 75[deg].\63\ Five other commenters, however, opposed 
any change to the Rule's mean temperature requirement.\64\ NAIMA stated 
that the current requirement reflects the most appropriate mean 
temperature for comparison purposes. As explained in the ANPR, the 
75[deg] F mean temperature requirement is an appropriate uniform 
standard. 64 FR at 48036-37. The Commission believes that there is no 
compelling need to change the current requirement, and is not proposing 
any amendments to the Rule regarding this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ Troutman/T-Foil (1).
    \64\ PIMA (3), p.11; FPSA (8), p.7; Elastizell (10), pp. 3-4; 
Tenneco (16), p.2; and NAIMA (9), p.19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Temperature Differential
Background
    The current Rule does not require the use of a specific temperature 
differential (i.e., the difference in temperature between the hot and 
cold surface during testing) in conducting the test procedures dictated 
by section 460.5(a). The ANPR indicated that if evidence demonstrates 
that different test temperature differentials affect R-value results, 
then 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, 
solicited 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. 64 
FR at 48037.
Comments
    PIMA, FPSA, and NAIMA supported the adoption of a differential of 
50[deg] F plus or minus 10 degrees for tests at a mean temperature of 
75[deg] for all products, as specified in ASTM C 1058.\65\ The 
Commission did not receive any comments opposing such a change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ PIMA (3), pp. 11-12, FPSA (8), p. 7, and NAIMA (9), pp. 19-
20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion
    The Commission proposes to amend the Rule at section 460.5(a) to 
require that tests be conducted with a temperature differential of 
50[deg] F plus or minus 10[deg] F. The Rule would continue to require a 
mean temperature of 75[deg] F. The Commission believes that this 
amendment will help to ensure comparability of R-value claims for 
competing home insulations. The thermal properties of a specimen may 
change both with mean temperature and with the temperature difference 
across the test specimen. Data and information at standard temperatures 
are important for valid comparison of thermal properties. The 
Commission solicits comment on this proposal, including whether the 
proposed amendment generally is consistent with current industry 
practice.
3. Tolerance
Background
    In the ANPR, the Commission proposed to clarify that the 10% 
tolerance provision in section 460.8 applies primarily to claims made 
by manufacturers and not to other sellers or installers who rely on R-
value data provided by the manufacturer. The tolerance provision states 
that the actual R-value of any insulation sold to consumers cannot be 
more than 10 percent below the R-value shown on a label, fact sheet, 
ad, or other promotional material for the product. The Commission 
solicited 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. In addition, the 
Commission sought comments on whether manufacturers currently use 
sampling procedures that do not result in the selection of test 
specimens that are representative of ongoing production; on which 
specific procedures 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 on whether 
the Commission should require the use of specific sampling procedures. 
64 FR at 48037-38.
Comments
    NAIMA supported amending the tolerance provision of the Rule to 
clarify that manufacturers are the only parties responsible for 
complying with the Rule's 10% tolerance provision.\66\ PIMA indicated 
that the tolerance provision is well understood and that altering it 
could cause confusion.\67\ T-Foil urged that the Commission eliminate 
the tolerance provision entirely because it misleads consumers.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ PIMA (3), p. 12. and NAIMA (9), p. 20.
    \67\ PIMA (3), p. 12.
    \68\ T-Foil (1), p. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other commenters, however, supported changes to the Rule to provide 
greater specificity for determining compliance with the 10% tolerance 
limit. Celotex, for example, suggested a requirement that manufacturers 
design products to meet 100% of claimed R-value for each thickness 
marketed.\69\ NAIMA contended that the suggested wording in the ANPR 
offers clarity,\70\ and would be likely to prevent misinterpretation of 
the 10% tolerance. NAIMA recommended adopting language that captures 
the following concepts: ``The product must always be produced to the 
label R-value. The R-value for any four randomly selected samples shall 
not be more than 5 percent below the listed R-value nor shall any 
single specimen be more than 10 percent below the listed R-value.''\71\ 
According to NAIMA, this clarification would be consistent with ASTM C 
665 and C 764, and would benefit consumers because there would be no 
room for misinterpretation of the 10% tolerance. In NAIMA's view, this 
approach also presents a greater probability that the product would be 
produced to the labeled R-value, and it would impose no burden on 
consumers or sellers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ Celotex (7), p. 3.
    \70\ We assume that NAIMA refers to language suggested by DOW 
and quoted in the ANPR (64 FR at 48037): ``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.''
    \71\ NAIMA (9), p. 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On the issue of sampling procedures, most commenters did not 
support amending the Rule. PIMA argued that current manufacturer 
sampling and quality control procedures are sufficient and that changes 
to the Rule are unnecessary because manufacturers continuously test new 
and existing products for R-value because it is the

[[Page 41888]]

most important property of insulation.\72\ Celotex argued that a change 
in the Rule would be burdensome to manufacturers. Instead, it 
recommended that the Commission require that sampling techniques ``used 
to determine the Design R-value for an insulation must determine the 
average Design R-value for a full-size board unit.''\73\ FPSA also did 
not support the addition of sampling procedures to the Rule.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ PIMA (3), pp. 12-13.
    \73\ Celotex (7), p. 3.
    \74\ FPSA (8), pp. 6-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NAIMA agreed that no amendment to the Rule is warranted for 
sampling procedures. NAIMA stated that manufacturers generally test R-
value every shift in the production process, and that this is certainly 
``representative of ongoing production,'' so no specific sampling 
procedures should be required.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ NAIMA (9), p. 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    T-Foil recommended that the Commission establish a complaint center 
for ASTM testing errors to prevent companies from ``shopping'' 
different labs for test results. T-Foil also recommended a disclosure 
on labels stating that actual values may differ up to 10% from the 
stated value, and specifying whether testing was done for summer or 
winter use (i.e., direction of heat).\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ T-Foil (1), pp. 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion
    The Commission proposes to amend Sec.  460.8 of the Rule to clarify 
that the tolerance limit applies to manufacturers and the manufacturing 
process (not to installation). The Rule will continue to require that 
professional installers and new home sellers apply loose-fill 
insulations according to the manufacturer's installation instructions. 
It also will continue to allow them to rely on the accuracy of the 
manufacturer's R-value and installation instructions, unless they have 
reason to believe that the instructions are inaccurate or not based on 
the proper tests. By specifying that the tolerance provision applies to 
manufacturers, the amendment would clarify that the tolerance is not 
intended to allow installers or new home sellers to deviate from the 
manufacturer's installation instructions. For instance, the 10% 
tolerance provision does not apply to the thickness at which loose-fill 
insulation is installed. Under the current Rule, loose-fill insulation 
must be installed at a settled thickness equal to or greater than the 
minimum settled thickness specified by the manufacturer.
    The Commission also proposes to amend section 460.8 of the Rule to 
require that the mean R-value of sampled specimens of a production lot 
meet or exceed the R-value shown in a label, fact sheet, ad or other 
promotional material for that insulation. For the purposes of this 
amendment, the term ``production lot'' means a definite quantity of the 
product manufactured under uniform conditions of production. In 
addition, under the amendment, no individual specimen of that 
insulation may have an R-value more than 10% below the R-value shown in 
a label, fact sheet, ad, or other promotional material for that 
insulation. The Commission believes that this change would clarify 
existing requirements and foster consistency in the application of the 
tolerance provision. While this procedure appears to be generally 
consistent with current industry practice and thus would not impose a 
significant burden, the Commission seeks comments regarding the impact 
that the amendment may cause.
    The Commission is not proposing a specific sampling procedure. 
There does not seem to be any clear indication to suggest that 
manufacturers' implementation of the tolerance provision results in the 
selection of test specimens that are not representative of ongoing 
production. The Commission believes that continued flexibility in that 
area is appropriate.
4. Use of Current Test Data
Background
    The ANPR considered whether current conditions would justify a 
requirement for a more specific retesting quality control mechanism. In 
this regard, the Commission solicited comments on how often 
manufacturers test their insulation products, how much the R-value of 
current production varies (for example, whether the R-value of the 
insulation being produced is consistently below the R-value claimed and 
previously determined, even if it is within the Rule's 10% tolerance), 
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.
Comments
    NAIMA opposed adding requirements to the Rule related to test data. 
NAIMA maintained that, as a matter of practice, manufacturers should 
test their products much more frequently than every two or three years 
to insure compliance with the 10% R-value tolerance. NAIMA stated that 
some of its members measure their products' thermal resistance on a 
daily basis, while others check this attribute monthly. NAIMA contended 
that this type of testing should be conducted regularly as part of a 
company's quality-control procedure. According to NAIMA, the three-year 
test record retention period is sufficient. NAIMA further maintained 
that, when a manufacturer makes a significant change in a product, the 
product should undergo testing, and then the three-year cycle should 
begin again. NAIMA suggested that the Rule require thermal testing at 
least annually for all insulations covered by the Rule.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ NAIMA (9), pp. 20-21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion
    The ANPR noted that the Commission originally considered, but 
rejected, a staff recommendation to require manufacturers to repeat 
their R-value substantiation tests every 60 days because no single 
retesting frequency would be appropriate for all manufacturers, 
regardless of the type and amount of insulation they market. 64 FR at 
48038. Instead, the Commission crafted the Rule to rely on a tolerance 
limit provision as the governing quality control mechanism, specifying 
10% as the acceptable range of deviation, and requiring manufacturers 
to institute in-plant quality control procedures to stay within that 
tolerance. 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. 64 
FR at 48038. The Commission does not believe that existing practices 
justify the imposition of a new requirement for a specific retesting 
schedule. There is not enough information available to suggest that 
this issue constitutes a significant problem that warrants a new 
requirement in the Rule. Accordingly, the Commission is not proposing a 
Rule amendment in this area.
5. Determining the Thermal Performance of Reflective Insulations
a. Traditional Reflective Insulations
Background
    There are two basic forms of reflective insulation products 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

[[Page 41889]]

installed in closed cavities, such as walls. Sections 460.5(b), (c), 
and (d) of the Rule require 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. 
64 FR at 48038-39. Section 460.5(c) of the Rule requires the use of 
ASTM E 408 for single sheet systems. For reflective systems with more 
than one sheet, section 460.5(b) requires ASTM C 236 and ASTM C 976.
    A relatively new ASTM procedure (ASTM C 1371-97, ``Determination of 
Emittance of Materials Near Room Temperature Using Portable 
Emissometers'') can be used to measure the emissivity (i.e., its power 
to radiate heat) of single-sheet reflective insulations. The ANPR 
solicited comments on this and other tests for single-sheet products, 
and asked whether it should require industry members to measure the 
emissivity by only one procedure to ensure that emissivity measurements 
are accurate and reliable.
    The Commission indicated that it planned to amend the Rule to 
require that R-values for traditional multi-sheet 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. Id. at 48039.
Comments
    Most of the comments supported the Commission's proposed changes. 
For determining single sheet emissivity, PIMA supported C 1371 as 
discussed by the Commission and suggested that the Rule incorporate 
ASTM C 835.\78\ NAIMA stated that ASTM E 408, which is currently 
required by the Rule, provides accurate emissivity results, but 
recommended that the sample tested reveal the effect of aging on the 
product's emissivity. NAIMA indicated that it would not oppose adoption 
of alternative tests so long as they were as accurate as E 408. It 
maintained that the proposed tests are necessary because the results 
reflect the impact of aging, dusting, and corrosion.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ PIMA (3), p. 7. ``Standard Test Method for Total 
Hemispherical Emittance of Surfaces From 20 to 1400 Degrees C'' (ATM 
C 835-95).
    \79\ NAIMA (9), p. 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PIMA supported the Commission's proposal for determining the R-
value of multi-sheet reflective insulations.\80\ AFS pointed out that 
ASTM C 1363, ``Test Method for Thermal Performance of Building 
Assemblies by Means of a Hot Box Apparatus'' has replaced C 236, C 976, 
C 177, and C 518 mentioned currently in C 1224.\81\ NAIMA further 
explained that ASTM C 1363 was developed to combine the requirements of 
ASTM C 236 and C 976 into a common test procedure. NAIMA indicated that 
any test apparatus meeting the existing C 236 and C 976 standards could 
meet the new standard. NAIMA also stated that ASTM C 1363 includes 
information from the applicable International Organization for 
Standardization (``ISO'') standard so that conforming to ASTM C 1363 
also conforms to the ISO Hot Box standard.\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ PIMA (3), p. 7.
    \81\ AFS (14), p. 1.
    \82\ NAIMA (9), pp. 21-22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion
    To reflect new procedures as discussed above, the Commission 
proposes to amend the Rule to reorganize sections 460.5(b), (c), and 
(d) to require in proposed section 460.5(b) that single sheet systems 
of aluminum foil (i.e., reflective material) be tested with ASTM C 
1371-98, ``Standard Test Method for Determination of Emittance of 
Materials Near Room Temperature Using Portable Emissometers'' or E 408 
(as currently required). ASTM C 1371 tests the emissivity of the foil. 
To get the R-value for a specific emissivity level, air space, and 
direction of heat flow, the amendment would direct industry members to 
use the tables in the most recent edition of the American Society of 
Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers' (``ASHRAE'') 
Handbook, if the product is intended for applications that meet the 
conditions specified in the tables. Industry members would have to use 
the R-value for 50[deg] F , with a temperature differential of 30[deg] 
F.
    In proposed section 460.5(c), the Commission proposes to state that 
aluminum foil systems with more than one sheet, and single sheet 
systems of aluminum foil (i.e., reflective insulation) that are 
intended for applications that do not meet the conditions specified in 
the tables in the most recent edition of the ASHRAE Handbook, must be 
tested with ASTM C 1363-97, ``Standard Test Method for the Thermal 
Performance of Building Assemblies by Means of a Hot Box Apparatus,'' 
in a test panel constructed according to ASTM C 1224-99, ``Standard 
Specification for Reflective Insulation for Building Applications,'' 
and under the test conditions specified in ASTM C 1224-99. To get the 
R-value from the results of those tests, the amendment would require 
the use of the formula specified in ASTM C 1224-99. The tests must be 
done at a mean temperature of 75[deg] F , with a temperature 
differential of 30[deg] F.
    Finally, the Commission plans to amend section 460.5(d)(1) to 
insert a reference to ASTM C 1363-97, ``Standard Test Method for the 
Thermal Performance of Building Assemblies by Means of a Hot Box,'' in 
place of ASTM C 236-89 (Reapproved 1993), ``Standard Test Method for 
Steady-State Thermal Performance of Building Assemblies by Means of a 
Guarded Hot Box,'' and ASTM C 976-90, ``Standard Test Method for 
Steady-State Thermal Performance of Building Assemblies by Means of a 
Calibrated Hot Box.''
    The Commission believes that these changes are appropriate because 
they account for recent improvements in the applicable test procedures. 
The Commission solicits comments on this proposal, particularly on any 
issues related to the accuracy, reliability, and consistency of the 
procedures for measuring emissivity; the costs of conducting the 
procedures; and whether the Commission should require that emissivity 
be measured by only one procedure to ensure that measurements of 
emissivity are accurate and reliable.
b. Radiant Barrier Products
Background
    Radiant barrier reflective insulations are installed in attics 
facing the attic's open airspace. Although they are covered by the 
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 installed in an open attic. Sellers who 
make energy-saving claims for radiant barrier insulations must 
nevertheless have a reasonable basis for the claims under section 
460.19(a) of the Rule.
    The ANPR noted that ASTM had issued a new standard--ASTM C 1340-
96--for evaluating the thermal performance of low-emittance foils used 
in residential attics to reduce radiative transport across the attic 
air space. The Commission solicited comments concerning the specific 
type of performance for radiant barrier products that the standard 
measures; how the standard may be used to substantiate energy-saving or 
other performance claims for radiant barrier insulations; the types of 
installations of radiant

[[Page 41890]]

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-saving or other performance claims for 
radiant barrier insulations be based on the standard. 64 FR at 48039-
40.
Comments
    NAIMA asserted that the elusive quality of radiant barrier 
insulation's varying characteristics makes assigning an R-value rating 
nearly impossible. NAIMA stated that tests conducted at DOE and other 
labs demonstrate an ability to predict certain energy savings only when 
no variables interfere with the product's performance. Unfortunately, 
according to NAIMA, the DOE study shows that the product is vulnerable 
to numerous factors that can diminish its effectiveness. NAIMA 
contended that no single protocol or method currently exists that is 
capable of consistently rating the thermal performance of radiant 
barrier insulations. It maintained that, until such a test becomes 
available, the Commission should prohibit thermal performance claims 
for these products. NAIMA argued that such a restriction may provide an 
incentive for radiant barrier producers to develop the standard needed 
for supporting thermal performance claims.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ NAIMA (9), p. 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    RIMA opposed adoption of ASTM C 1340-96. RIMA contended that, while 
the standard is a useful tool and a good starting point for calculating 
savings from radiant barriers, it does not account for the presence of 
air conditioning ducts in attics, which can significantly affect heat 
gain and overall savings. Without being specific, RIMA suggested that 
the Commission consider other programs that are more comprehensive in 
energy-saving determinations.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ RIMA (19), p. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion
    The Commission continues to find that R-value claims are not 
appropriate for radiant barrier reflective insulations because there is 
no generally accepted test procedure to determine the R-value of such 
insulations installed in an open attic or elsewhere. Sellers who make 
energy-saving claims for radiant barrier insulations, however, must 
have a reasonable basis for the claims under Section 460.19(a) of the 
Rule. It should be noted that ASTM C 1340-96 enables a determination of 
the heat flux through an attic containing a radiant barrier. The 
results do not provide an R-value rating, but do yield a performance 
value that may aid industry members in developing support for their 
energy-saving claims (and related performance claims) made about 
radiant barrier insulations. The Commission does not propose any 
amendments to the Rule on this subject.
6. Additional Laboratory Procedures for Testing Loose-Fill Insulations
    The Rule currently 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). The ANPR asked whether 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. The Commission explained that ASTM C 687 (``Standard 
Practice for Determination of Thermal Resistance of Loose-Fill Building 
Insulation'') is a detailed standard practice, rather than a test 
procedure, and that it specifies procedures to be followed in testing a 
variety of loose-fill insulations for use in non-enclosed applications. 
The Commission considered it unnecessary to require adherence to more 
detailed standard practice or standard guide specifications, such as 
ASTM C 687. The Commission did not receive any comments in response to 
the ANPR supporting a requirement for detailed laboratory operating 
procedures for these insulations. Accordingly, the Commission is not 
proposing any amendments to the Rule.

E. Other Disclosure Issues

1. Disclosures on Labels and Fact Sheets
a. ``What You Should Know About R-values''
    The ANPR sought comment on whether the Rule should require 
disclosure in fact sheets of additional or different information for 
consumers to consider when purchasing insulation. Several commenters 
suggested additional disclosures on fact sheets, including noting that 
R-values may decrease when insulation material is installed between 
structural members (e.g., wall studs, floor joists, etc.),\85\ 
information regarding the impact of long-term aging on material,\86\ 
and disclosures regarding moisture content.\87\ Both PIMA and NAIMA 
opposed changes to the Rule in this regard. PIMA stated that the 
inclusion of additional factors may create some confusion with 
consumers. NAIMA indicated that the current requirements are 
understandable to most consumers and that manufacturers are free to 
supplement required disclosures with additional fact sheets and 
materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ Troutman/T-Foil, (1).
    \86\ FPSA (8), pp. 7-8.
    \87\ DOE (20), p.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission understands that there are additional disclosures 
that could be added to fact sheets; however, we are not convinced that 
the additional burdens imposed by new disclosure requirements would be 
outweighed by increased consumer benefits. 64 FR at 48041. Thus, the 
Commission is not proposing any amendments to the Rule regarding this 
issue.
b. Disclosures for Batt, Blanket, and Boardstock Insulations
Background
    Subsections 460.12(b)(1) and (b)(4) of the Rule require 
manufacturers to label all packages of ``mineral fiber batts and 
blankets'' and all board stock insulations with a chart showing the R-
value, length, width, thickness, and square feet of insulation in the 
package, and section 460.13(c)(1) requires that they include the chart 
on the manufacturer fact sheets. As indicated in the ANPR, NAIMA 
recommended amending section 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. 64 FR at 48041.
Comments
    In its ANPR comments, NAIMA reiterated its view indicating, among 
other things, that there is no valid argument to exempt any particular 
type of batt or blanket.\88\ PIMA also supported deleting the phrase 
``mineral fiber'' to ensure that all types of batt/blanket insulation 
are consistently covered.\89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ NAIMA (9), p. 23.
    \89\ PIMA (3), p. 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion
    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 manufacturers' fact sheets for these 
insulation products should include these disclosures. Section 460.12(b) 
refers to ``mineral fiber'' batts and blankets because, when the Rule 
was

[[Page 41891]]

promulgated, the batt and blanket insulation products being sold in the 
residential market were mineral fiber insulation products, primarily 
fiberglass. The Commission, therefore, proposes deleting the phrase 
``mineral fiber'' from section 460.12(b)(1) to clarify that the 
coverage chart disclosure requirement applies to all types of batt and 
blanket insulations, and solicits comments on this proposal.
    The ANPR discussion of ``Disclosures for Batt, Blanket, and 
Boardstock Insulations'' included two other issues regarding whether 
the Rule should require: (1) manufacturers to mark unfaced batt/blanket 
insulations with R-value and require installers to apply the products 
so the marking is visible for post-installation inspections; and (2) 
disclosure, for batt/blanket and boardstock insulations, of ``nominal 
thickness'' instead of ``thickness'' (which implies exact thickness). 
The Commission continues to believe, as explained in the ANPR, that it 
is not necessary to require manufacturers to mark unfaced batt/blanket 
insulations with R-value and require installers to apply the products 
so the marking is visible for post-installation inspections. 62 FR 
48043. The Commission did not receive any adverse comments on this 
view. Both NAIMA and PIMA supported an amendment that would require the 
disclosure of ``nominal thickness'' for batt/blanket and boardstock 
insulations instead of ``thickness.''\90\ The Commission, however, does 
not believe this is needed since it is unclear whether such a change 
would provide a significant benefit to consumers. The Commission is not 
proposing any amendments to the Rule regarding these issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ PIMA (3), p. 13-14 and NAIMA (9), p.24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Required Disclosures for Loose-fill Insulations
i. R-value Disclosures
Background
    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. To install an adequate amount of insulation, professional 
installers must calculate the number of square feet to be insulated and 
install the number of bags indicated on the manufacturer's coverage 
chart that are necessary for the desired R-value (commonly referred to 
as the ``bag count'').
    In the ANPR, the Commission indicated that there is no longer any 
justification for requiring different disclosures for different types 
of loose-fill insulations for application in attics or other open 
areas, and proposed a single set of disclosure requirements for all 
types. The Commission solicited 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.
Comments on R-value Disclosures:
    The Commission received one comment on this issue. NAIMA fully 
supported requiring manufacturers of all loose-fill insulations to 
disclose minimum settled thickness, maximum net coverage area, and 
minimum weight per square foot at any R-value listed on the charts 
required for their products. NAIMA concurred with the Commission that 
there is no longer a justification for different disclosure 
requirements for different loose-fill insulations.\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ NAIMA (9), p. 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion of R-value Disclosures:
    The Commission continues to believe 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.\92\ The Commission 
believes that there no longer is any justification for these different 
disclosures, and accordingly proposes to amend sections 460.12(a)(2) 
and (3) to require the same coverage charts for all types of loose-fill 
insulation at R-values of 11, 13, 19, 22, 24, 32, and 40. The 
Commission solicits comments on this proposal, including comments 
addressing any additional compliance costs associated with the proposed 
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ As explained in the ANPR, the Commission originally 
prescribed separate disclosure requirements for loose-fill cellulose 
insulations and other types of loose-fill insulations (primarily 
mineral fiber loose-fill insulations) in response to requests that 
the Rule, where possible, apply labeling requirements consistent 
with GSA's purchasing specifications. 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. Consistent with the GSA specification, section 
460.12(b)(2) of the Rule requires that the disclosures be made at R-
values of 11, 19, and 22 for all loose-fill insulation except 
cellulose, and section 460.12(b)(3) requires the disclosures at R-
values of 13, 19, 24, 32, and 40 for loose-fill cellulose 
insulation. 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). See discussion at 64 FR at 
48042.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. ``Initial Installed Thickness''
Background
    For loose-fill insulations, 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 have been 
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.
Comments
    Two commenters addressed the issue of ``minimum thickness.'' The 
Insulation Contractors Association of America (``ICAA'') supported an 
amendment requiring a label disclosure of minimum initial installed 
thickness applicable to all types of loose-fill insulation, including 
dry-applied mineral fiber. ICAA indicated that a new test method, ASTM 
C 1374-97 (``Standard Test Method for Determination of Installed 
Thickness of Pneumatically Applied Loose-Fill Building Insulation'') 
offers a reliable and uniform procedure to determine initial installed 
thickness levels (``minimum initially installed thickness'') for each 
total R-value claimed on the coverage charts for all loose-fill 
insulations, including dry-applied loose-fill mineral fiber 
insulations. ICAA contended that this information would help consumers 
achieve stated R-values by correct installation, and allow more 
accurate price comparisons. ICAA maintained that some manufacturers 
voluntarily include this information now, but that others do not.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ ICAA (5), pp. 3-4.

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

[[Page 41892]]

    NAIMA recommended that the Commission require that dry-applied 
loose-fill cellulose bags include an installed thickness column that 
reflects the magnitude of settling and loss of thickness that can be 
expected.\94\ In addition, NAIMA strongly opposed characterizing 
``initial installed thickness'' or ``guaranteed thickness'' as the only 
qualities pertinent in determining whether the quantity of insulation 
blown in meets or exceeds labeled R-value.\95\ NAIMA maintained that, 
due to inherent variability of the installation process for loose-fill 
insulations, the Rule's present requirements for the disclosure of 
minimum thickness should be retained. In NAIMA's view, the only 
practical way to ensure that the minimum, long-term thickness and 
weight per square foot are achieved is to be sure to install at least 
the minimum number of bags per 1,000 square feet as specified on the 
bag label coverage chart. The number of bags per 1,000 square feet is 
based upon net area, which is the total area minus the area covered by 
framing members and other obstructions, while job size is usually 
figured as total (or gross) area. Because the net area will always be 
smaller than the gross, the number of bags per 1,000 square foot of 
gross area may be reduced slightly, generally 3% to 8%, from the number 
on the label. NAIMA provides installation guidelines for professional 
installers. Contractors who follow these and other recommended 
practices deliver to their customers the appropriate R-value. NAIMA 
also suggested that references should not be made to R-value for a one-
inch thickness because it would encourage consumers to multiply the 
one-inch R-value by the desired number of inches to attain the total R-
value throughout the entire space even though but R-value per inch is 
not always constant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ NAIMA (9), p. 13.
    \95\ NAIMA (9), pp. 25-26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion
    As discussed in the ANPR (64 FR at 48044), the ICAA has long taken 
the position that the current requirements of the Rule make it very 
difficult for installers to ensure that they have installed the correct 
amount of insulation. The requirement to use bag count (i.e., the 
weight of insulation material installed) as the measure of their 
compliance with the Rule creates complications for the installer. 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. This may 
make it difficult to uniformly distribute within the attic the 
requisite number of bags for the job. In addition, ICAA has indicated 
in past comments that initial installed thickness information would 
help prevent their members from installing insulation only to the 
``minimum thickness'' currently required on coverage charts. This 
``minimum thickness'' information refers to the final settled 
thickness, not the material's thickness immediately after installation. 
ICAA believes that many installers mistakenly use this information for 
installation purposes and, as a result, provide inadequate amounts of 
material. 64 FR at 48043. In addition, the Commission recognizes that 
the Rule's bag count provisions require installers to make accurate 
attic measurements to determine the correct number of bags to use. It 
is possible that irregular attic configurations in many newer homes 
have made it more difficult to calculate accurate attic coverage areas.
    The Commission recognizes that concerns persist about the 
installation of loose-fill. In some cases, installers fail to install 
sufficient insulation either because they apply material at the minimum 
settled thickness by mistake or they simply cheat consumers by 
providing inadequate amounts. In other instances, some installers 
inappropriately ``fluff'' their loose fill material by applying it with 
more air at a lower density. This practice increases thickness, at 
least initially, but reduces the density and total R-value. Under the 
current process, it is difficult for consumers to determine whether the 
correct insulation amount has been installed because they cannot rely 
on the installed thickness alone. Accordingly, the Commission believes 
that it is desirable to consider approaches that would allow consumers 
to determine, for themselves, whether adequate insulation has been 
installed. Requiring manufacturers to add a disclosure of ``initial 
installed thickness'' to coverage charts would address many of these 
problems.
    In the past, the Commission has declined to require initial 
installed thickness on labels because there were no recognized 
procedures available to determine, on a uniform basis, a required 
initial thickness for all types of dry-applied loose-fill insulations. 
In addition, it has been unclear whether information about initial 
installed thickness, alone, would allow installers to provide the 
correct amount of material without having to count the number of bags 
they have installed or otherwise ensuring they have applied the 
required amount of insulation material.
    As ICAA indicated in its ANPR comments,\96\ a relatively new 
procedure, ASTM C 1374 (``Standard Test Method for Determination of 
Installed Thickness of Pneumatically Applied Loose-Fill Building 
Insulation''), has been specifically developed to aid manufacturers in 
determining an initial installed thickness for their products. The 
Commission is now proposing to incorporate this procedure into the Rule 
and is seeking comments on whether this procedure will address the 
concerns that have been raised about loose-fill insulation. 
Specifically, the Commission is proposing to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ ICAA (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [sbull] Amend section 460.5(b) to add a new subsection (5) that 
would require manufacturers of loose-fill insulation to determine the 
initial installed thickness of their product at R-Values of 11, 13, 19, 
24, 32, and 40 using ASTM C 1374-97 (``Standard Test Method for 
Determination of Installed Thickness of Pneumatically Applied Loose-
Fill Building Insulation'').
    [sbull] Amend section 460.12 (Labels) to require this initial 
installed thickness information on product labels.
    [sbull] Amend section 460.5(b) to require manufacturers of loose-
fill insulation to determine the blowing machine adjustments and feed 
rates necessary to achieve the initial installed thicknesses and 
indicate such information on the product label.
    [sbull] Amend section 460.17 to require installers to comply with 
the initial installed thickness directions on product labels and to use 
the blowing machine adjustments and feed rates specified by the 
manufacturer.
    Under the proposal, manufacturers would provide initial installed 
thickness information on labels and fact sheets pursuant to sections 
460.12 and 460.13. Pursuant to section 460.17, installers would have to 
follow the initial installed thickness information on the label to 
determine whether the appropriate amount of insulation has been 
installed. They also would have to follow the manufacturer's 
instructions for blowing machine settings. The Rule would continue to 
require installers to show fact sheets to consumers (section 460.15) 
and also provide the consumer with initial installed thickness and R-
value information for specific jobs (section 460.17).
    Under the Rule's current requirements, it is difficult for

[[Page 41893]]

consumers to verify for themselves that the correct amount of 
insulation has been installed. In addition to considering final settled 
thickness, they must perform calculations regarding coverage area and 
bag count to determine if the proper weight per square foot has been 
applied. The proposed initial installed thickness information should 
allow consumers, armed with a ruler, to determine whether the 
sufficient thickness of insulation has been installed. It should also 
provide installers with more straight-forward instructions for 
providing consumers with adequate amounts of insulation. In addition, 
the specific reference to initial installed thickness should reduce the 
probability that installers will mistakenly follow the settled 
thickness information on the labels in their initial application of 
material.\97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ To improve the clarity of existing language in the Rule, 
the Commission may consider changing the term ``minimum thickness'' 
in Sec.  460.12(b)(2) to ``minium settled thickness.'' The 
Commission seeks comment on such an amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although we propose to add disclosure requirements for initial 
installed thickness information, the Commission does not propose to 
eliminate any of the existing disclosure requirements related to loose-
fill such as bag count. Manufacturers would continue to provide 
information currently required on loose-fill labels such as minimum 
settled thickness, maximum new coverage area, number of bags per 1,000 
square feet, and minimum weight per square foot at various R-values as 
general guidance for the installer and the consumer. Installers would 
continue to be required to disclose to customers the number of bags 
used and the coverage area. This information will provide consumers and 
inspectors with an additional means to verify that installers have 
provided an appropriate amount of material. It may discourage 
unscrupulous installers from intentionally altering the settings on 
blowing machines to ``fluff'' material (i.e., increase thickness at the 
expense of density and total R-value). In addition, it is likely that 
most contractors would continue to need information about area and bag 
count for billing purposes.
    The Rule would continue to require manufacturers of loose-fill 
cellulose insulation to conduct their R-value tests at the settled 
density using ASTM C 739-91 as specified by section 460.5(a)(2). 
Manufacturers of other loose-fill material also would have to continue 
to conduct R-value tests based on samples that fully reflect the effect 
of settling on the product's R-value (see Sec.  460.5(a)(3)). 
Manufacturers would have to use this settling information in 
determining the initial installed thickness for their products.
    The Commission has prepared the following questions to facilitate 
comment on this proposal. Commenters need not limit their comments to 
the issues raised by the questions:
    [sbull] Would the information derived from ASTM C 1374 allow 
installers to provide the appropriate amount of insulation solely 
through the use of the manufacturer's specified blowing machine 
settings and the installation of the initial installed thickness 
specified on the bag label?
    [sbull] Is ASTM C 1374 an appropriate procedure for determining the 
initial installed thickness for all loose-fill products?
    [sbull] Are there other test procedures that should be incorporated 
into the Rule in lieu of (or in addition to) ASTM C 1374?
    [sbull] Is it possible for manufacturers to provide information on 
labels about the appropriate blowing machine adjustments and feed rates 
required to achieve the initial installed thickness derived from ASTM C 
1374?
    [sbull] Should the Rule specify procedures that installers must 
follow to measure the thickness of the installed material? If so, what 
should those procedures be (e.g., one measurement for every 100 square 
feet)?
    [sbull] Is it possible for manufacturers to provide information on 
labels about the appropriate blowing machine adjustments and feed rates 
required to achieve the initial installed thickness derived from ASTM C 
1374?
    [sbull] Is there any specific rule language that would best achieve 
the proposal discussed here?
    [sbull] Would incorporation of ASTM C 1374 significantly change the 
costs consumers would pay for loose-fill insulation? Are any increased 
costs offset by benefits?
    [sbull] If installers follow initial installed thickness 
information for installation purposes, will it be difficult to provide 
consumers information on coverage area as required by the Rule? Will 
installers continue to measure coverage area to estimate the volume and 
cost associated with a particular job?
iii. Additional Loose-Fill Insulation Issues
    In the ANPR, the section on ``Disclosures for Loose-fill 
Insulations'' included three other issues: (1) whether the Rule should 
require disclosure on packages of loose-fill insulations of ``net 
weight'' instead of ``minimum net weight;'' (2) whether the Rule should 
require manufacturers of loose-fill insulations to include unique tabs 
on packages and require installers to attach the tabs to consumer 
receipts to ensure installation of the proper amount of loose-fill 
insulations; and (3) whether the Rule should require manufacturers to 
include, in fact sheets, information on how consumers can verify the 
total R-value of loose-fill insulations installed in their attics.
    The Commission did not receive any comments in support of a change 
to require disclosure of ``net weight'' instead of ``minimum net 
weight.'' NAIMA indicated that the use of unique tabs on packages of 
loose fill would provide a significant benefit to consumers and urged 
the Commission to impose such a requirement on a trial basis.\98\ The 
Commission continues to believe that there is insufficient evidence to 
suggest that requiring the use of bag tabs would add materially to the 
benefits conferred by the Rule. Finally, the Commission does not 
propose to require manufacturers to include, in fact sheets, 
information on how consumers can verify the total R-value of loose-fill 
insulations installed in their attics. The installed thickness 
requirements proposed in this document combined with information 
already required by the Rule (e.g., bag count, coverage area, and R-
value) should provide consumers with adequate information. For these 
issues, the Commission is not proposing any amendments to the Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ NAIMA (9), p.26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Disclosures for Urea-based Foam Insulations
Background
    In the original 1979 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 after installation, leaving the wall 
partially uninsulated and resulting in a lower-than-claimed R-
value.\99\ To address this problem, the Rule requires that 
manufacturers disclose 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 (see section 460.13(d) for fact

[[Page 41894]]

sheets and section 460.18(e) for insulation ads). 44 FR at 50220, 
50231.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ Although both the rate and extent of shrinkage depended 
somewhat on 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Earlier comments recommended that the Commission revise the 
statement to refer to ``urea-based foam 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. 
One commenter stated that UF insulation is no longer sold, and that the 
disclosure requirement is unnecessary and may cause consumer confusion 
about other foam-type insulations. Because UF insulation is no longer 
sold, the Commission proposed to eliminate the provision altogether (64 
FR at 48045).
Comments
    In response to the ANPR, PIMA supported the Commission's proposal 
to delete required shrinkage disclosures for foam insulation, but 
recommended that the Commission include procedures to reinstate 
requirements if the product reappears on the market.\100\ NAIMA also 
supported the proposal, indicating that it did not know of any UF 
insulation products still being sold or of any insulation products that 
may be subject to shrinkage.\101\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ PIMA (3), p. 7.
    \101\ NAIMA (9), p. 27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion
    Because it appears that UF foam insulation no longer is sold, the 
Commission proposes to delete the obsolete shrinkage disclosure 
requirements in Sec. Sec.  460.13(d) and 460.18(e). The Commission 
solicits comments on this proposal and, in particular, information 
regarding the likelihood that UF foam insulation products may be sold 
again in the future. If a significant possibility exists, the 
Commission may decide to retain the disclosure requirement in the Rule 
but amend it to clarify that it applies only to urea-based foam 
insulation.
2. Disclosures in Advertising and Other Promotional Materials
a. Disclosures Required
    In the ANPR, the Commission asked whether the Rule should be 
amended to delete the required R-value disclosure in advertisements and 
other promotional materials that contain triggering claims (see 
sections 460.19 and 460.18). One commenter urged the Commission to 
retain the requirement because it helps avoid confusion.\102\ The 
Commission is not proposing any amendments to the Rule regarding this 
issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Advertising on Radio and Television
Background
    The Rule as originally promulgated applied affirmative disclosure 
requirements to television advertisements as well as all other types of 
advertising and promotional materials (including radio). Unlike other 
types of advertising, which simply must include the required 
disclosures ``clearly and conspicuously,'' the Rule included very 
specific requirements regarding how required disclosures must be made 
in television advertising. Four insulation manufacturers appealed the 
disclosure requirements for television advertising, asserting that the 
requirements 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 in 1986 without conducting 
further proceedings. 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. In the ANPR, the 
Commission solicited comments on how the costs of making the required 
disclosures in radio ads compare to the benefits the disclosures 
provide to consumers. 64 FR at 48046.
Comments
    NAIMA maintained that radio ads are similar to television ads 
because they both strive for pithy and concise messages and, since ads 
in both broadcast media are relatively expensive compared to those in 
other media, a disclosure requirement is particularly burdensome. NAIMA 
pointed out that television ads may provide printed disclosures without 
interrupting their oral or visual messages, which cannot be done on 
radio, so the impact of required disclosures is greater on radio ads 
than it is on television ads.
    NAIMA suggested that the Commission amend the Rule to require that 
all radio and television ads for insulation products notify audiences 
that disclosure information required by the Federal Trade Commission 
may be obtained via a toll-free number. As an alternative, NAIMA 
suggested that the Commission amend the Rule to remove specific 
requirements for radio ad disclosures and instead allow radio and 
television ads simply to note that additional information is available 
that is relevant to buying decisions. A third alternative, according to 
NAIMA, would be to offer radio and television advertisers a 
significantly condensed version of the disclosure, such as ``Ask your 
seller for all the facts on R-values before making a purchase.'' NAIMA 
contended that this approach would allow for the full benefit of 
television and radio advertising while protecting consumers by 
notifying them about relevant information too lengthy for electronic 
media.\103\ In contrast, PIMA did not support a change to the Rule in 
this regard.\104\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ NAIMA (9), p. 27-8.
    \104\ PIMA (3), p. 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion
    The Commission proposes to eliminate current disclosure 
requirements for radio ads. Such an amendment would treat radio and 
television ads equally under the Rule. There is no indication that the 
absence of an affirmative disclosure requirement applicable to 
television ads has harmed consumers over the years. As NAIMA suggests, 
the lengthy disclosures required by sections 460.18 and 460.19 are 
arguably more burdensome for radio than television because the 
disclosures must necessarily displace significant portions of the ad's 
message or increase the duration of the ad and hence the advertiser's 
cost. Given the absence of any indication that consumers have been 
harmed because the Rule does not require disclosures in television ads, 
the Commission expects that the elimination of radio disclosure 
requirements will have little impact on consumers. Required information 
on fact sheets, labels, and print ads will continue to provide 
consumers with critical performance information when they shop for 
insulation or use installers. The absence of disclosures in radio ads 
is not likely to impact their buying decisions adversely. The 
Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
3. Disclosures by Installers or New Home Sellers
a. Fact Sheets
    The Commission asked whether the Rule should require installers and 
new home sellers to give copies of manufacturers' fact sheets to 
consumers after purchase. The Rule already requires installers to show 
fact sheets to customers before customers agree to buy insulation. In 
addition, installers and new home sellers must provide insulation 
information to customers through receipts or contracts. In light of 
these existing requirements, the

[[Page 41895]]

Commission believes that requiring these entities to provide copies of 
fact sheets after purchase would not provide significant benefits to 
consumers. 64 FR at 48046. Two commenters likewise opposed amending the 
Rule with regard to this issue.\105\ Thus, the Commission is not 
proposing any amendments to the Rule regarding this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \105\ PIMA (3), pp. 8, 14; NAIMA (9), p. 28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Attic Cards and Certifications, and Attic Rulers
Background
    The ANPR asked whether there is a need to amend the Rule to require 
the use of attic cards and attic rulers by installers.
    Attic Cards and Certificates. Attic cards are usually posted in the 
attic near the access opening, for later reference by building code 
inspectors and homeowners. The ANPR explained that, in the original R-
value rulemaking, the Commission determined that a requirement for 
attic cards was unnecessary in light of the Rule's requirement that new 
home sellers and retrofit installers give consumers written disclosures 
in contracts or written receipts. These documents provide the same 
information that would be disclosed on an attic card or certification. 
If the seller or consumer prefers, the contract or receipt can be 
posted in the form of an attic card after the seller has given the 
written disclosures to the consumer. Moreover, for insulations 
installed in attics of new residential construction, the CABO/MEC 
(Model Energy Code) 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, as well as other information, and post the certification 
in a conspicuous place. These requirements have been adopted in some 
form for use in federal government programs covering new residential 
construction and by 33 states. For these reasons, the Commission did 
not propose amending the Rule to require additional certification or 
the use of attic cards.
    The Commission solicited comments, however, about (i) whether 
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, (ii) 
whether 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 (iii) the costs to installers 
and new home sellers of providing the disclosures in certifications and 
attic cards. 64 FR at 48047.
    Attic Rulers. Both the required density (and weight per square 
foot) and thickness of loose-fill and stabilized insulations must be 
installed to attain a specific R-value. The use of attic rulers could 
help installers apply a sufficient thickness to achieve a specific 
total R-value, and apply the insulation in a more level and consistent 
manner. However, installers would still have to ensure that they apply 
the required number of bags and weight of insulation material. The 
Commission suggested in the ANPR that 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. Attic rulers also could give consumers a 
ready means of determining, both initially and over time, whether the 
required minimum thickness has been installed.
    The Commission pointed out that the CABO/MEC already requires, for 
new residential construction, that installers apply blown loose-fill or 
sprayed (e.g., stabilized) insulations in attics with the use of 
thickness markers labeled in inches, attached to the trusses or joists 
at least every 300 square feet (28 m2), 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 did not propose amending the Rule 
to require their use. Nevertheless, the Commission solicited comments 
on this issue.
Comments
    NAIMA suggests that the Commission mandate the use of CABO/MEC 
guidelines on attic cards, certificates, and rulers by including in the 
Rule the same language relied upon by these code bodies to encourage 
utilization of attic cards, rulers, and certificates. NAIMA states that 
not all jurisdictions are subject to CABO/MEC or any energy code. 
Further, unlike the Commission, which has responsibility to protect 
consumers and enforcement power, CABO/MEC owes no duty to act as 
consumers' guardian and is not empowered to wield the sword of 
enforcement and issue fines and penalties for failure to comply. 
Requiring use of attic rulers would deter installers who might consider 
cheating, which many believe is a widespread problem.\106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \106\ NAIMA (9), pp. 28-29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion
    The Commission continues to believe that an amendment to the Rule 
to require attic cards and attic rulers is not warranted at this time. 
The Rule requirements already in place prohibit installers from 
engaging in practices that mislead consumers about the amount of 
insulation installed. The CABO/MEC attic card and ruler requirements 
augment the current provisions in the R-value rule by imposing 
additional requirements for new home construction in many 
jurisdictions. Although insulation added to existing homes is not 
covered by CABO/MEC, the Commission is not convinced that additional 
requirements will necessarily address the concerns raised. The existing 
requirements applicable to installers and new home sellers already make 
unlawful the practices that deny customers the proper amount of 
insulation. While additional disclosure requirements will increase the 
burden on those industry members that are already complying with the 
Rule, it is not clear that such changes will yield any greater 
deterrence to those companies that are violating the law by installing 
inadequate amounts of insulation.
    A more direct solution to the problem may be, as the Commission is 
proposing, to require manufacturers to list an initial installed 
thickness column on their label that installers must in turn follow as 
the Commission is proposing. The Commission understands that there is 
continuing concern surrounding these issues. Therefore, the Commission 
solicits additional comments on these issues including whether there 
are other possible Rule changes that would provide additional 
deterrence against violations of the Rule with respect to the 
installation of loose-fill material.
c. Initial Installed Thickness
    As discussed in detail in section V.E.1.c. above, the Commission 
proposes to amend Sec.  460.17 to require loose-fill installers to 
comply with the initial installed thickness instructions provided by 
manufacturers on their labels. In addition, under this amendment, 
installers would have to comply with the manufacturers' instructions 
for blowing machine settings when loose-fill insulation is installed.

[[Page 41896]]

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 
available to consumers before purchase in any manner the retailer 
chooses, as long as consumers are likely to notice the fact sheets. The 
ANPR explained that the purpose of this requirement is to ensure that 
consumers have the information about home insulation they need to make 
cost-based purchasing decisions. When the Commission promulgated the 
Rule, bulky insulation packages were not normally available on the 
retail sales floor, so the consumer would not see the disclosures on 
labels before purchase. In addition, the fact sheets contain 
information about energy savings and other factors the consumer should 
consider when purchasing home insulation that is required on labels. 64 
FR at 48048.
    The ANPR solicited comments on whether the Rule should be amended 
to excuse retailers from making 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 before purchase. Id.
Comments
    PIMA opposed the Commission's proposal. It indicated that retailers 
should continue to supply fact sheets or at least make them available 
to consumers at point of purchase. PIMA maintained that it is 
inappropriate as well as burdensome to require retailers to determine 
whether the labels adequately disclose information. PIMA asserted that 
retailers often open bundles or packages in order to sell individual 
boards, and packaging labels may be missing or damaged.\107\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ PIMA (3), p. 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NAIMA supported an amendment that would relieve retailers of 
responsibility to provide fact sheets when the same information is on 
the bag label. NAIMA recommended that the Commission add a provision 
requiring manufacturers to supply retailers with relevant fact sheets 
providing the facts omitted from the label in cases in which the labels 
lack the data required on fact sheets. NAIMA cautioned that, if such a 
requirement is not in the Rule, some manufacturers may see profit in 
limiting the amount of information disclosed to their customers.\108\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \108\ NAIMA (9), p. 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion
    In the years since the Commission promulgated the Rule, the nature 
of retail sales to do-it-yourself home insulation 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 before purchase. In response to 
questions from retailers, the Commission's staff has advised informally 
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. As it 
did in the ANPR, the Commission proposes to amend the Rule to codify 
this option. The Commission does not believe, as PIMA asserts, that 
this would impose an additional burden on retailers. The Commission 
believes that, to the contrary, this amendment would provide retailers 
with an additional option for ensuring that the appropriate information 
is available to consumers. In exercising this option, the retailers 
would have to ensure the labels contain the information provided on the 
fact sheets. If a retailer does not want to take the time to perform 
such a comparison, however, it can always use the fact sheets as 
provided now by the Rule. Retailers could exercise this option only if 
the package labels are in fact displayed in a way that customers can 
obtain the required information. As PIMA suggests, if package labels 
are discarded or damaged due to practices of the retailer, then the 
retailer would not be able to use this alternative and would have to 
make the fact sheets available to consumers. The Commission seeks 
comments on this proposal.

F. Amendments to Update References to ASTM Standards

    In addition to the substantive amendments discussed herein, the 
Commission also proposes to amend certain provisions of the Rule in 
order to update those referenced ASTM Standards that have been reviewed 
and updated since the Rule was last amended in 1996. In section 
460.5(a), the Commission proposes to update references to: ASTM C 177-
85, ``Standard Test Method for Steady-State Heat Flux Measurements and 
Thermal Transmission Properties by Means of the Guarded-Hot-Plate 
Apparatus'' (to C 177-97); ASTM C 518-91, ``Standard Test Method for 
Steady-State Thermal Transmission Properties by Means of the Heat Flow 
Meter Apparatus'' (to C 518-98); ASTM C 1045-90, ``Standard Practice 
for Calculating Thermal Transmission Properties Under Steady-State 
Conditions'' (to C 1045-97); and ASTM C 1114-95, ``Standard Test Method 
for Steady-State Thermal Transmission Properties by Means of the Thin-
Heater Apparatus'' (to C 1114-98), to reflect the most recent versions 
of those standards. In 460.5(a)(2), the Commission proposes to update 
the reference to ASTM C 739-91, ``Standard Specification for Cellulosic 
Fiber (Wood-Base) Loose-Fill Thermal Insulation'' (to C 739-97). 
Further, the Commission proposes to add a reference to ASTM C 1363-97, 
``Standard Test Method for the Thermal Performance of Building 
Assemblies by Means of a Hot Box,'' in place of ASTM C 236-89 
(Reapproved 1993), ``Standard Test Method for Steady-State Thermal 
Performance of Building Assemblies by Means of a Guarded Hot Box,'' and 
ASTM C 976-90, ``Standard Test Method for Steady-State Thermal 
Performance of Building Assemblies by Means of a Calibrated Hot Box'' 
in section 460.5(a) and, as discussed earlier, section 460.5(d)(1). The 
Commission also proposes to add new paragraph (e) in section 460.5 to 
consolidate information regarding incorporation by reference approvals 
by the Office of the Federal Register.

VI. Rulemaking Procedures

    The Commission finds that the public interest will be served by 
using expedited procedures in this proceeding. Using expedited 
procedures will support the Commission's goals of clarifying existing 
regulations, when necessary, and eliminating obsolete or unnecessary 
regulation without an undue expenditure of resources, while ensuring 
that the public has an opportunity to submit data, views and arguments 
on whether the Commission should amend the Rule. The Commission, 
therefore, has determined, pursuant to 16 CFR 1.20, to use the 
procedures set forth in this document. These procedures include: (1) 
publishing this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; (2) soliciting written 
comments on the Commission's proposals to amend the Rule; (3) holding 
an informal hearing (such as workshop), if requested by interested 
parties; (4) obtaining a final recommendation from staff; and (5) 
announcing final Commission action in a notice published in the Federal 
Register.

[[Page 41897]]

VII. Requests for Public Hearings

    Because written comments appear adequate to present the views of 
all interested parties, neither a public hearing nor a workshop has 
been scheduled. As stated earlier in this document, the Commission does 
not believe that a public workshop or hearing is needed to address the 
issues raised in this proposed rule. However, if any person would like 
to present views orally he or she should follow the procedures set 
forth in the DATES and ADDRESSES sections of this document.

VIII. Preliminary Regulatory Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Act 
Requirements

    Under section 22 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 57b, the Commission must 
issue a preliminary regulatory analysis for a proceeding to amend a 
rule only when it (1) estimates that the amendment will have an annual 
effect on the national economy of $100,000,000 or more; (2) estimates 
that the amendment will cause a substantial change in the cost or price 
of certain categories of goods or services; or (3) otherwise determines 
that the amendment will have a significant effect upon covered entities 
or upon consumers. The Commission has preliminarily determined that the 
proposed amendments to the Rule will not have such effects on the 
national economy, on the cost of home insulation products, or on 
covered parties or consumers. The Commission, however, requests comment 
on the economic effects of the proposed amendments.
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (``RFA''), 5 U.S.C. 601-12, requires 
that the agency conduct an analysis of the anticipated economic impact 
of the proposed amendments on small businesses. The purpose of a 
regulatory flexibility analysis is to ensure that the agency considers 
impact on small entities and examines regulatory alternatives that 
could achieve the regulatory purpose while minimizing burdens on small 
entities. Section 605 of the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 605, provides that such an 
analysis is not required if the agency head certifies that the 
regulatory action will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.
    Because the R-value Rule covers home insulation manufacturers and 
retailers, professional installers, new home sellers, and testing 
laboratories, the Commission believes that any amendments to the Rule 
may affect a substantial number of small businesses. Nevertheless, the 
proposed amendments would not appear to have a significant economic 
impact upon such entities. Specifically, the Commission is proposing 
only a few limited amendments that are designed to clarify the Rule, 
make disclosure requirements consistent for competing types of loose-
fill insulation products as well as batt and blanket insulation 
products, require the most current procedures for preparing R-value 
test specimens and conducting R-value tests, provide consumers with 
information about the initial installed thickness of loose-fill 
insulation, delete disclosures for a type of insulation that no longer 
is sold, and provide retailers with an optional method for satisfying 
the Rule's fact sheet disclosure requirement. In the Commission's view, 
the proposed amendments should not have a significant or 
disproportionate impact on the costs of small manufacturers, retailers, 
installers, new home sellers, and testers of home insulation products.
    Based on available information, therefore, the Commission certifies 
that amending the R-Value Rule as proposed will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses. To ensure 
that no significant economic impact is being overlooked, however, the 
Commission requests comments on this issue. The Commission also seeks 
comments on possible alternatives to the proposed amendments to 
accomplish the stated objectives. After reviewing any comments 
received, the Commission will determine whether a final regulatory 
flexibility analysis is appropriate.

IX. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The R-Value Rule contains various information collection 
requirements for which the Commission has obtained clearance under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., Office of Management 
and Budget (``OMB'') Control Number 3084-0109.\109\ As discussed in 
this document, the Commission is proposing a limited number of 
amendments that are designed to 1) clarify the Rule; 2) make disclosure 
requirements consistent for competing types of loose-fill insulation 
products and batt and blanket insulation products; 3) require the most 
current procedures for preparing R-value test specimens and conducting 
R-value tests; 4)improve installation instructions for loose-fill 
material; 5) delete disclosures for urea-based foam insulation, a type 
of insulation that no longer is sold; 6) delete mandatory disclosures 
for radio ads; and 7) provide retailers with an optional method for 
satisfying the Rule's fact sheet disclosure requirement. In the 
Commission's view, the proposed rule changes will not substantially or 
materially modify the collection of information and related burden 
estimates submitted to OMB when the Commission last sought renewed 
clearance for the Rule. See 67 FR 45734 (July 10, 2002).\110\ To ensure 
that no significant paperwork burden is being overlooked, the 
Commission requests comments on this issue, and they should be faxed to 
OMB (Records Management Center, ATTN: Desk Officer for the FTC, OMB, 
Room 10102 NEOB, fax: 202/395-6566) and sent to the FTC Secretary at 
the address stated in the Addresses section of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ See 64 FR 36877 (July 8, 1999).
    \110\ The Commission received renewed clearance for the Rule on 
August 2, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

X. Additional Information for Interested Persons

1. Motions or Petitions
    Any motions or petitions in connection with this proceeding must be 
filed with the Secretary of the Commission.
2. Communications by Outside Parties to Commissioners or Their Advisors
    Pursuant to Commission Rule 1.18(c)(1), 16 CFR 1.18(c)(1), the 
Commission has determined that communications with respect to the 
merits of this proceeding from any outside party to any Commissioner or 
Commissioner advisor shall be subject to the following treatment. 
Written communications and summaries or transcripts of oral 
communications shall be placed on the rulemaking record if the 
communication is received before the end of the comment period. They 
shall be placed on the public record if the communication is received 
later. Unless the outside party making an oral communication is a 
member of Congress, such communications are permitted only if advance 
notice is published in the Weekly Calendar and Notice of ``Sunshine'' 
Meetings.\111\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \111\ See 15 U.S.C. 57a(i)(2)(A); 45 FR 50814 (1980); 45 FR 
78626 (1980).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

XI. Invitation to Comment and 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 proposed amendments to the R-value Rule. The 
Commission requests that factual data upon which the comments are based 
be submitted with the comments. In addition to the issues raised above, 
the Commission solicits public comment on the costs and

[[Page 41898]]

benefits to industry members and consumers of each of the proposals, as 
well as the specific questions identified below. These questions are 
designed to assist the public and should not be construed as a 
limitation on the issues on which public comment may be submitted.
    The written comments submitted will be available for public 
inspection in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 
552, and Commission regulations, on normal business days between the 
hours of 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at the Federal Trade Commission, 600 
Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Room 130, Washington, D.C. 20580, (202) 326-
2222.
Questions
    The Commission seeks comments on all proposed changes to the Rule 
indicated at the end of this document and listed in the section-by-
section description at part IV of this document (above). The Commission 
has sought comments on a variety of issues discussed elsewhere in this 
document. In addition, the Commission seeks input on the following 
specific questions:
    (1) Should the Commission amend section 460.5(a)(1) of the Rule to 
require the use of ASTM C 1303-95 for homogeneous, unfaced, rigid 
closed cell polyurethane, polyisocyanurate, and extruded polystyrene 
insulations? What market share do unfaced products hold relative to 
other rigid cellular insulations (such as faced products)? Does C 1303 
adequately account for variations in the thickness of the insulations 
covered? What would be the cost of applying ASTM C 1303 as proposed by 
the Commission?
    (2) Should the Commission require the use of ASTM C 1149 for 
determining the settled density of self-supported, spray applied 
cellulose insulation?
    (3) Should the Commission amend sections 460.12(a)(2) and (3) to 
require the same coverage charts for all types of loose-fill insulation 
at R-values of 11, 13, 19, 22, 24, 32, and 40? Are there any 
additional, significant compliance costs associated with the proposed 
change?
    (4) Should the Commission amend the testing and labeling provisions 
of the Rule to require the use of ASTM C-1374 for determining the 
initial installed thickness of loose-fill insulation (see section 
V.E.1.c.ii. for additional questions on this subject)?
    (5) Are there additional changes to the Rule that have not been 
addressed the would help to ensure that installers apply the proper 
amount of insulation, particularly loose-fill?
    (6) General Questions: To maximize the benefits and minimize the 
costs for consumers and sellers (including specifically small 
businesses), the Commission seeks views and data on the following 
general questions for all the proposed changes described in this 
document:
    (a) What benefits would the proposed requirements confer, and on 
whom?
    (b) What paperwork burdens would the proposed requirements impose, 
and on whom?
    (c) What other costs or burdens would the proposed requirements 
impose, and on whom?
    (d) What regulatory alternatives to the proposed requirements are 
available that would reduce the burdens of the proposed requirements, 
while providing the same benefits?
    (e) 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.

XII. Proposed Rule Language

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Commission proposes to 
amend 16 CFR part 460 as follows:

PART 460--LABELING AND ADVERTISING OF HOME INSULATION

    1. The authority citation for Part 460 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: Authority: 38 Stat. 717, as amended (15 U.S.C. 41 et 
seq.).

    2. Revise Sec.  460.1 to read as follows:


Sec.  460.1  What this regulation does.

    This regulation deals with home insulation labels, fact sheets, 
ads, and other promotional materials in or affecting commerce, as 
``commerce'' is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act. If you are 
covered by this regulation, breaking any of its rules is an unfair and 
deceptive act or practice or an unfair method of competition under 
section 5 of that Act. You can be fined heavily (up to $11,000 plus an 
adjustment for inflation, under Sec.  1.98 of this chapter) each time 
you break a rule.
    3. Revise Sec.  460.5 to read as follows:


Sec.  460.5  R-value tests.

    R-value measures resistance to heat flow. R-values given in labels, 
fact sheets, ads, or other promotional materials must be based on tests 
done under the methods listed below. They were designed by the American 
Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM). The test methods are:
    (a) All types of insulation except aluminum foil must be tested 
with ASTM C 177-97, ``Standard Test Method for Steady-State Heat Flux 
Measurements and Thermal Transmission Properties by Means of the 
Guarded-Hot-Plate Apparatus;'' ASTM C 518-98, ``Standard Test Method 
for Steady-State Heat Flux Measurements and Thermal Transmission 
Properties by Means of the Heat Flow Meter Apparatus;'' ASTM C 1363-
97,``Standard Test Method for the Thermal Performance of Building 
Assemblies by Means of a Hot Box Apparatus'' or ASTM C 1114-98, 
``Standard Test Method for Steady-State Thermal Transmission Properties 
by Means of the Thin-Heater Apparatus.'' The tests must be done at a 
mean temperature of 75 degrees Fahrenheit and with a temperature 
differential of 50 degrees Fahrenheit plus or minus 10 degrees 
Fahrenheit. The tests must be done on the insulation material alone 
(excluding any airspace). R-values (``thermal resistance'') based upon 
heat flux measurements according to ASTM C 177-97 or ASTM C 518-98 must 
be reported only in accordance with the requirements and restrictions 
of ASTM C 1045-97, ``Standard Practice for Calculating Thermal 
Transmission Properties from Steady-State Heat Flux Measurements.''
    (1) For polyurethane, polyisocyanurate, and extruded polystyrene, 
the tests must be done on samples that fully reflect the effect of 
aging on the product's R-value. To age a sample of polyurethane, 
polyisocyanurate, or extruded polystyrene insulation, follow, where 
applicable, ASTM C 578-95, ``Standard Specification for Rigid, Cellular 
Polystyrene Thermal Insulation,'' ASTM C 1029-96, ``Standard 
Specification for Spray-Applied Rigid Cellular Polyurethane Thermal 
Insulation,'' and ASTM C 591-94, ``Standard Specification for Unfaced 
Preformed Rigid Cellular Polyisocyanurate Thermal Insulation.'' If 
these tests are not applicable to your product, you must follow the 
procedure in paragraph 4.6.4 of GSA Specification HH-I-530A or another 
reliable procedure.
    (2) For loose-fill cellulose, the tests must be done at the settled 
density determined under paragraph 8 of ASTM C 739-97, ``Standard 
Specification for Cellulosic Fiber (Wood-Base) Loose-Fill Thermal 
Insulation.''
    (3) For loose-fill mineral wool, self-supported, spray-applied 
cellulose, and stabilized cellulose, the tests must be done on samples 
that fully reflect the effect of settling on the product's R-value.

[[Page 41899]]

    (4) For self-supported spray-applied cellulose, the tests must be 
done at the settled density determined pursuant to ASTM C 1149-97, 
``Standard Specification for Self-Supported Spray Applied Cellulosic 
Thermal Insulation.''
    (5) For loose-fill insulations, the initial installed thickness for 
the product must be determined pursuant to ASTM C 1374-97, 
``Determination of Installed Thickness of Pneumatically Applied Loose-
Fill Building Insulation,'' for R-values of 11, 13, 19, 22, 24, 32, 40 
and any other R-values provided on the product's label pursuant to 
Sec.  460.12.
    (b) Single sheet systems of aluminum foil must be tested with ASTM 
E 408-71 (Reapproved 1996), ``Standard Test Methods for Total Normal 
Emittance of Surfaces Using Inspection-Meter Techniques,'' or ASTM C 
1371-98, ``Standard Test Method for Determination of Emittance of 
Materials Near Room Temperature Using Portable Emissometers.'' This 
tests the emissivity of the foil--its power to radiate heat. To get the 
R-value for a specific emissivity level, air space, and direction of 
heat flow, use the tables in the most recent edition of the American 
Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers' 
(ASHRAE) Fundamentals Handbook, if the product is intended for 
applications that meet the conditions specified in the tables. You must 
use the R-value shown for 50 degrees Fahrenheit, with a temperature 
differential of 30 degrees Fahrenheit.
    (c) Aluminum foil systems with more than one sheet, and single 
sheet systems of aluminum foil that are intended for applications that 
do not meet the conditions specified in the tables in the most recent 
edition of the ASHRAE Fundamentals Handbook, must be tested with ASTM C 
1363-97, ``Standard Test Method for the Thermal Performance of Building 
Assemblies by Means of a Hot Box Apparatus,'' in a test panel 
constructed according to ASTM C 1224-99, ``Standard Specification for 
Reflective Insulation for Building Applications,'' and under the test 
conditions specified in ASTM C 1224-99. To get the R-value from the 
results of those tests, use the formula specified in ASTM C 1224-99.
    (d) For insulation materials with foil facings, you must test the 
R-value of the material alone (excluding any air spaces) under the 
methods listed in paragraph (a) of this section. You can also determine 
the R-value of the material in conjunction with an air space. You can 
use one of two methods to do this:
    (1) You can test the system, with its air space, under ASTM C 1363-
97, ``Standard Test Method for the Thermal Performance of Building 
Assemblies by Means of a Hot Box Apparatus,'' which is incorporated by 
reference in paragraph (a) of this section. If you do this, you must 
follow the rules in paragraph (a) of this section on temperature, aging 
and settled density.
    (2) You can add up the tested R-value of the material and the R-
value of the air space. To get the R-value for the air space, you must 
follow the rules in paragraph (b) of this section.
    (e) The standards listed above are incorporated by reference into 
this section. These standards were approved by the Director of the 
Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. 
Copies may be inspected at the Federal Trade Commission, Consumer 
Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 
20580, or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol 
Street, NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC. Copies of materials and 
standards incorporated by reference may be obtained from the issuing 
organizations listed in this section.
    (1) The American Society of Testing and Materials, 1916 Race 
Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
    (i) ASTM C 177-97 (Reapproved 1993), ``Standard Test Method for 
Steady-State Heat Flux Measurements and Thermal Transmission Properties 
by Means of the Guarded-Hot-Plate Apparatus.''
    (ii) ASTM C 236-89 (Reapproved 1993), ``Standard Test Method for 
Steady-State Thermal Performance of Building Assemblies by Means of a 
Guarded Hot Box.''
    (iii) ASTM C 518-95, ``Standard Test Method for Steady-State Heat 
Flux Measurements and Thermal Transmission Properties by Means of the 
Heat Flow Meter Apparatus.''
    (iv) ASTM C 578-95, ``Standard Specification for Rigid, Cellular 
Polystyrene Thermal Insulation.''
    (v) ASTM C 591-94, ``Standard Specification for Unfaced Preformed 
Rigid Cellular Polyisocyanurate Thermal Insulation.''
    (vi) ASTM C 739-97, ``Standard Specification for Cellulosic Fiber 
(Wood-Base) Loose-Fill Thermal Insulation.''
    (vii) ASTM C 1029-96, ``Standard Specification for Spray-Applied 
Rigid Cellular Polyurethane Thermal Insulation.''
    (viii) ASTM C 1045-97, ``Standard Practice for Calculating Thermal 
Transmission Properties from Steady-State Heat Flux Measurements.''
    (ix) ASTM C 1114-98, ``Standard Test Method for Steady-State 
Thermal Transmission Properties by Means of the Thin-Heater 
Apparatus.''
    (x) ASTM C 1149-97, ``Standard Specification for Self-Supported 
Spray Applied Cellulosic Thermal Insulation.''
    (xi) ASTM C 1224-99, ``Standard Specification for Reflective 
Insulation for Building Applications.''
    (xii) ASTM C 1363-97,``Standard Test Method for the Thermal 
Performance of Building Assemblies by Means of a Hot Box Apparatus.''
    (xiii) ASTM C 1371-98, ``Standard Test Method for Determination of 
Emittance of Materials Near Room Temperature Using Portable 
Emissometers.''
    (xiv) ASTM C 1374-97, ``Determination of Installed Thickness of 
Pneumatically Applied Loose-Fill Building Insulation.''
    (xv) ASTM E 408-71 (Reapproved 1996), ``Standard Test Methods for 
Total Normal Emittance of Surfaces Using Inspection-Meter Techniques.''
    (2) The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-
Conditioning Engineers' (ASHRAE), 1791 Tullie Circle, N.E., Atlanta, 
Georgia 30329. ASHRAE Fundamentals Handbook (2001 edition).
    (3) U.S. General Services Administration (GSA),1800 F Street, NW 
Washington, DC 20405. GSA Specification HH-I-530A.
    4. Revise Sec.  460.8 to read as follows:


Sec.  460.8  R-value tolerances.

    If you are a manufacturer of home insulation, the mean R-value of 
sampled specimens of a production lot of insulation you sell must meet 
or exceed the R-value shown in a label, fact sheet, ad, or other 
promotional material for that insulation. A production lot for the 
purposes of this section means a definite quantity of the product 
manufactured under uniform conditions of production. No individual 
specimen of the insulation you sell can have an R-value more than 10% 
below the R-value shown in a label, fact sheet, ad, or other 
promotional material for that insulation. If you are not a 
manufacturer, you can rely on the R-value data given to you by the 
manufacturer, unless you know or should know that the data is false or 
not based on the proper tests.
    5. Revise Sec.  460.12 to read as follows:


Sec.  460.12  Labels.

    If you are a manufacturer, you must label all packages of your 
insulation. The labels must contain:
    (a) The type of insulation.
    (b) A chart showing these items:
    (1) For batts and blankets of any type: the R-value, length, width, 
thickness, and square feet of insulation in the package.

[[Page 41900]]

    (2) For all loose-fill insulation: The minimum settled thickness, 
initial installed thickness, maximum net coverage area, number of bags 
per 1,000 square feet, and minimum weight per square foot at R-values 
of 11, 13, 19, 22, 24, 32 and 40. You must also give this information 
for any additional R-values you list on the chart. Labels for these 
products must state the minimum net weight of the insulation in the 
package. You must also provide the appropriate blowing machine settings 
necessary to achieve the initial installed thicknesses listed on your 
label.
    (3) For boardstock: the R-value, length, width, and thickness of 
the boards in the package, and the square feet of insulation in the 
package.
    (4) For aluminum foil: the number of foil sheets; the number and 
thickness of the air spaces; and the R-value provided by that system 
when the direction of heat flow is up, down, and horizontal. You can 
show the R-value for only one direction of heat flow if you clearly and 
conspicuously state that the foil can only be used in that application.
    (5) For insulation materials with foil facings, you must follow the 
rule that applies to the material itself. For example, if you 
manufacture boardstock with a foil facing, follow paragraph (b)(3) of 
this section. You can also show the R-value of the insulation when it 
is installed in conjunction with an air space. This is its ``system R-
value.'' If you do this, you must clearly and conspicuously state the 
conditions under which the system R-value can be attained.
    (6) For air duct insulation: The R-value, length, width, thickness, 
and square feet of insulation in the package.
    (c) The following statement: ``R means resistance to heat flow. The 
higher the R-value, the greater the insulating power.''
    (d) If installation instructions are included on the label or with 
the package, add this statement: ``To get the marked R-value, it is 
essential that this insulation be installed properly. If you do it 
yourself, follow the instructions carefully.''
    (e) If no instructions are included, add this statement: ``To get 
the marked R-value, it is essential that this insulation be installed 
properly. If you do it yourself, get instructions and follow them 
carefully. Instructions do not come with this package.''
    6. In Sec.  460.13, remove paragraph (d) and redesignate paragraphs 
(e) and (f) as paragraphs (d) and (e) respectively.
    7. Revise Sec.  460.14 to read as follows:


Sec.  460.14  How retailers must handle fact sheets.

    If you sell insulation to do-it-yourself customers, you must have 
fact sheets for the insulation products you sell. You must make the 
fact sheets available to your customers. You can decide how to do this, 
as long as your insulation customers are likely to notice them. For 
example, you can put them in a display, and let customers take copies 
of them. You can keep them in a binder at a counter or service desk, 
and have a sign telling customers where the fact sheets are. You need 
not make the fact sheets available to customers if you display 
insulation packages on the sales floor where your insulation customers 
are likely to notice them and each individual insulation package 
offered for sale contains all package label and fact sheet disclosures 
required by Sec.  Sec.  460.12 and 460.13.
    8. Section 460.17 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  460.17  What installers must tell their customers.

    If you are an installer, you must give your customers a contract or 
receipt for the insulation you install. For all insulation except 
loose-fill and aluminum foil, the receipt must show the coverage area, 
thickness, and R-value of the insulation you installed. The receipt 
must be dated and signed by the installer. To figure out the R-value of 
the insulation, use the data that the manufacturer gives you. If you 
put insulation in more than one part of the house, put the data for 
each part on the receipt. You can do this on one receipt, as long as 
you do not add up the coverage areas or R-values for different parts of 
the house. Do not multiply the R-value for one inch by the number of 
inches you installed. For loose-fill, you must follow the 
manufacturer's label instructions for initial installed thickness and 
blowing machine settings. For loose-fill, the receipt must show the 
coverage area, initial installed thickness, R-value, and the number of 
bags used. For aluminum foil, the receipt must show the number and 
thickness of the air spaces, the direction of heat flow, and the R-
value.
    9. In Sec.  460.18, paragraph (e) is removed, and paragraph (f) is 
redesignated as paragraph (e) and revised to read as follows:


Sec.  460.18  Insulation ads.

* * * * *
    (e) The affirmative disclosure requirements in Sec.  460.18 do not 
apply to ads on television or radio.
    10. In Sec.  460.19, paragraph (g) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  460.19  Savings claims.

* * * * *
    (g) The affirmative disclosure requirements in Sec.  460.19 do not 
apply to ads on television or radio.
    11. In Sec.  460.23, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  460.23  Other laws, rules, and orders.

    (a) If an outstanding FTC Cease and Desist Order applies to you but 
differs from the rules given here, you can petition to amend the order.
* * * * *

    By direction of the Commission.
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 03-17854 Filed 7-14-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-S