[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 14 (Monday, January 22, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2934-2952]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-26569]


 ========================================================================
 Proposed Rules
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
 the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
 notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
 the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 14 / Monday, January 22, 2018 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 2934]]



FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 460

[RIN 3084-AB40]


Labeling and Advertising of Home Insulation: Trade Regulation 
Rule

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission (``Commission'') seeks comments 
on proposed amendments to its Trade Regulation Rule Concerning the 
Labeling and Advertising of Home Insulation (``R-value Rule'' or 
``Rule''). This document provides background on the R-value Rule and 
this proceeding; and discusses public comments received by the 
Commission and solicits further comments on the proposed amendments to 
clarify, streamline, and improve the Rule's requirements.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before March 23, 2018. 
Parties interested in an opportunity to present views orally, should 
submit a request to do so as explained below, and such requests must be 
received on or before March 23, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by 
following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. Write ``R-value Rule (No. 
R811001)'' on your comment, and file your comment online at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/R-value, by following the instructions 
on the web-based form. If you prefer to file your comment on paper, 
mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, 
Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite CC-5610 
(Annex E), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the 
following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 
Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW, 5th Floor, Suite 5610, 
Washington, DC 20024.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background

    The Commission promulgated the R-value Rule in 1979 to address the 
failure of the home insulation marketplace to provide essential pre-
purchase information to consumers, primarily an insulation product's 
``R-value.'' \1\ An insulation product's ``R-value'' rates the 
product's ability to restrict heat flow and, therefore, reduce energy 
costs. The higher the R-value, the better the product's insulating 
ability. R-value ratings vary among types and forms of home insulations 
and even among products of the same type and form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Commission promulgated the R-value Rule pursuant to 
section 18 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (``FTC Act''), 15 
U.S.C. 57a. The Rule became effective on September 30, 1980. See 44 
FR 50218 (Aug. 27, 1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For insulation marketed for use in residential structures, the Rule 
requires R-value disclosures, directs manufacturers to substantiate the 
claims made in these disclosures, and prohibits certain claims unless 
they are true and non-misleading. Specifically, the Rule requires 
insulation sellers to disclose the insulation product's R-value and 
related information based on uniform, industry-adopted test 
procedures.\2\ This information enables consumers to evaluate the 
performance and cost-effectiveness of competing products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Additional Commission rules or guides may also apply to home 
insulation sellers. See, e.g., 16 CFR parts 701 and 702 (warranty-
related rules), and 16 CFR part 260 (Guides for the Use of 
Environmental Marketing Claims). Further, Section 5 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, appended to Cliffdale 
Assoc., Inc., 103 FTC 110, 174 (1984); and FTC Policy Statement on 
Unfairness, appended to International Harvester Co., 104 F.T.C. 949 
(1984); and Policy Statement Regarding Advertising Substantiation, 
49 FR 30999 (1984), reprinted in Thompson Medical Co., 104 F.T.C. 
839 (1984).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Products Covered

    The R-value Rule covers all ``home insulation products.'' Under the 
Rule, the term ``insulation'' includes any product ``mainly used to 
slow down heat flow'' from, for example, a heated interior through 
exterior walls to the outside.\3\ The Rule covers most types of 
insulation marketed for use in residential structures.\4\ It does not 
cover insulation marketed for use in commercial (including industrial) 
buildings. In addition, it generally does not apply to non-insulation 
products with insulating characteristics, such as storm windows or 
storm doors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 16 CFR 460.2.
    \4\ The Rule does not cover pipe insulation or any type of duct 
insulation except for duct wrap. See 44 FR at 50238, n. 170 (the 
Commission explained that pipe insulation is used primarily to 
reduce condensation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Home insulation falls into two basic categories: ``mass'' and 
``reflective.'' Mass insulations reduce heat transfer by conduction 
(through the insulation's mass), convection (air movement within, and 
through, the air spaces inside the insulation), and radiation. 
Reflective insulations (primarily aluminum foils) reduce heat transfer 
by radiation, when the insulation is installed facing an airspace. 
Within these basic categories, home insulation is made from various 
materials (e.g., fiberglass, cellulose, polyurethane, aluminum foil) 
and forms (e.g., batt, dry-applied loose-fill, spray-applied, board 
stock, multi-sheet reflective).

B. Covered Parties

    The Rule applies to home insulation manufacturers, professional 
installers, retailers who sell insulation for do-it-yourself 
installation, and new home sellers, including sellers of manufactured 
housing (``covered entities''). It also applies to laboratories that 
conduct R-value tests for those who base their R-value claims on these 
test results.

C. The Rule's Basis

    The Commission first issued the R-value Rule in response to a 
variety of unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the insulation 
industry. Specifically, the Commission found that many sellers: (1) 
Failed to disclose R-values, impeding informed purchasing decisions and 
misleading consumers who based their purchases on price or thickness 
alone; (2) exaggerated R-value disclosures and often failed to account 
for material factors (e.g., aging, settling) that reduce thermal 
performance; (3) failed to inform consumers about an R-value's meaning 
and importance; (4) exaggerated fuel bill savings and failed

[[Page 2935]]

to disclose that savings vary depending on consumers' particular 
circumstances; or (5) falsely claimed that consumers' insulation 
purchases would qualify for tax credits, or that products had been 
``certified'' or ``favored'' by federal agencies.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 44 FR at 50222-24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. The Rule's Requirements

    The Rule requires covered entities to disclose R-value and related 
information (e.g., thickness, coverage area per package) on package 
labels and manufacturers' fact sheets. Covered entities must derive 
these disclosures from tests conducted according to one of four 
specified American Society of Testing and Materials (``ASTM'') test 
procedures that measure thermal performance under ``steady-state'' 
(i.e., static) conditions.\6\ Industry members must conduct tests for 
mass insulation products on the insulation material alone (excluding 
any airspace) at a mean temperature of 75 [deg]F. The Rule requires 
testing for reflective insulation products according to either ASTM C 
236 or ASTM C 976, which generate R-values for insulation systems (such 
as those that include one or more air spaces).\7\ The Rule's R-value 
tests account for factors that can affect insulation's thermal 
performance. For example, tests for polyurethane, polyisocyanurate, and 
extruded polystyrene insulation account for aging, and tests for loose-
fill insulation products reflect the effect of settling.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Rule (Section 450.5) incorporates by reference ASTM test 
procedures, which ASTM reviews and revises periodically. For mass 
insulations, the required tests are ASTM C177, C236, C518, and C976. 
44 FR at 50226, n. 189.
    \7\ The Rule requires that the R-value of a single-sheet 
reflective insulation product be tested under ASTM E408 or another 
test method that provides comparable results.
    \8\ 44 FR at 50219-20, 50227-28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Rule also requires specific disclosures on manufacturer product 
labels and fact sheets, installer receipts, and new home seller 
contracts. For example, insulation labels must display the product's R-
value and the statement ``R means resistance to heat flow. The higher 
the R-value, the greater the insulating power.'' \9\ The Rule also 
requires that certain affirmative disclosures appear in advertising and 
other promotional materials (including those on the internet) 
containing an R-value, price, thickness, or energy-saving claim, or 
comparing one type of insulation to another. For example, if an 
advertisement contains an R-value, it must disclose the type of 
insulation being sold and the thickness needed to obtain that R-value, 
as well as the statement: ``The higher the R-value, the greater the 
insulating power. Ask your seller for the fact sheet on R-values.'' In 
addition, if an advertisement contains an energy saving claim, it must 
disclose: ``Savings vary. Find out why in the seller's fact sheet on R-
values. Higher R-values mean greater insulating power.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 16 CFR 460.12(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Rule also requires manufacturers and other sellers to have a 
``reasonable basis'' for any energy-saving claims they make on labels 
or in advertising.\10\ Although the Rule does not specify how they must 
substantiate such claims, the Commission explained when issuing the 
Rule 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.\11\ Sellers 
other than manufacturers can rely on the manufacturer's claims unless 
they know, or should know, that the manufacturer lacks a reasonable 
basis for their claims.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Section 16 CFR 460.19.
    \11\ 44 FR at 50233-34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Regulatory Review

    The Commission reviews its rules and guides periodically to 
ascertain their costs and benefits, regulatory and economic impact, and 
general effectiveness in protecting consumers and helping industry 
avoid deceptive claims. These reviews assist the Commission in 
identifying rules and guides that warrant modification or rescission. 
As part of its last review in 2005, the Commission issued several 
amendments to update and improve the Rule. For example, the Commission 
added a temperature differential requirement for testing, updated tests 
for reflective insulation, and required new initial installed thickness 
disclosures for loose-fill insulation.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 70 FR 31258 (May 31, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2016, the Commission initiated this regulatory review through 
the publication of an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR).\13\ 
In that Notice, the Commission sought comments on, among other things, 
the economic impact of, and the continuing need for, the Rule; the 
Rule's benefits to consumers; and the burdens it places on industry 
members, including small businesses, subject to its requirements. The 
Commission received 16 comments in response.\14\ In the present Notice, 
the Commission discusses those comments and proposes several related 
amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 81 FR 35661 (June 3, 2016).
    \14\ The comments are located at: https://www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments/initiative-649. American Chemistry Council (ACC) 
(#00016 and #00006); EPS Industry Alliance (#00017); North American 
Insulation Manufacturers Association (NAIMA) (#00011 and #00018); 
Icynene Corporation (#00019); Conner (#00022); Polyisocyanurate 
Insulation Manufacturers Association (PIMA) (#00015); Insulation 
Contractors Association of America (ICAA) (#00013); Vinyl Siding 
Institute (VSI) (#00014); Extruded Polystyrene Foam Association 
(XPSA) (#00012); California Investor Owned Utilities (CA IOUs) 
(#00009); AFM Corp. (#00010); EPS Industry Alliance (#00011); 
Strauch (#00007); Turk (#00004); and Graen (#00003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Commission proposes to: (1) Clarify that the Rule 
covers products marketed for residential applications, even if those 
products are originally developed for the commercial market; (2) 
require marketers to use the Rule's testing requirements to 
substantiate any R-value claims for non-insulation products; (3) add 
information about air sealing and installation to fact sheets; (4) 
clarify that online retailers must provide labels and fact sheets; (5) 
eliminate reference to an outdated aging specification; (6) revise the 
Rule's provisions addressing the incorporation by reference of ASTM 
test procedures; (7) eliminate a Rule provision that automatically 
updates ASTM test procedures; and (8) exempt space-constrained 
advertising from certain affirmative disclosures.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The amendments also make a non-substantive change to 
section 460.2 (i.e., changing the term ``slow down'' to ``slow'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Issues Raised by Commenters

A. Need for and Costs and Benefits of the Rule

    Background: In the ANPR, the Commission sought comment on the 
continuing need for the Rule and its benefits and costs to consumers as 
well as industry members (including small businesses).
    Comments: As detailed below, the commenters generally identified a 
continuing need for the Rule and urged the Commission to retain it. No 
commenter advocated its repeal. The commenters also described several 
benefits from the Rule. Finally, though commenters acknowledged that 
the Rule imposes some costs on industry and recommended several 
improvements, no commenter argued that these costs outweigh the Rule's 
benefits.
    Most commenters supported retaining the Rule. For example, XPSA 
stated that the Rule ``protects consumers by setting an even playing 
field'' for insulation advertising claims. The ACC added that the Rule 
``helps protect consumers from misleading advertising claims and 
promotes fair competition among manufacturers of residential insulation 
products.'' Others expressed similar views. According to commenter 
Craig

[[Page 2936]]

Conner, the Rule helps consumers compare products and predict energy 
savings, and, without the requirements, ``exaggerated and 
inconsistent'' claims would be common. EPS Industry Alliance remarked 
that the Rule ``is essential to the competitive marketplace'' because 
it ensures uniform and accurate information for consumers and industry 
members.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See also ICAA comments. AFM added that the Rule has been 
instrumental in ``providing consumers a simple and effective means 
to compare the R-value of insulations under . . . standard 
conditions.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NAIMA asserted that the Rule may be even more important today than 
when initially promulgated given record installation numbers; the 
emergence of new, inexperienced, or irresponsible advertisers; and the 
growing emphasis on environmental responsibility, energy savings, and 
pollution reduction. NAIMA warned that, in the Rule's absence, 
problematic claims would decrease consumer trust in insulation products 
and potentially decrease their use. Similarly, the EPS Industry 
Alliance explained that, with residential and commercial buildings 
consuming 40% of the country's energy, the Rule helps ensure consumers 
use the right insulation amounts to meet energy efficiency and comfort 
targets.
    Commenters also noted the Rule's requirements have broader 
implications. XPSA and the California IOUs explained the Rule's 
provisions are commonly used in the commercial market, and its required 
disclosures help ensure compliance. XPSA even noted that the Rule is 
referenced in the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC), the 
model energy code adopted by most states.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Commenter Strauch observed that the Rule ``has provided 
very good benefit to consumers in their selection of insulation.'' 
Though Strauch questioned whether manufacturers would continue to 
provide R-value information in the Rule's absence, the commenters 
did not specifically recommend eliminating the Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters also identified many consumer benefits. According to the 
California IOUs, clearly marked R-values help consumers make educated 
purchasing decisions, taking into account energy savings and increased 
home comfort from insulation.\18\ EPS Industry Alliance added that the 
Rule's enforceable and uniform baseline helps consumers make energy 
decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ NAIMA similarly asserted the Rule helps consumers by 
allowing competitors to easily challenge deceptive claims. The 
California IOUs cited to Department of Energy estimates regarding 
residential energy costs and potential consumer savings from 
insulation and home sealing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters pointed to several specific industry benefits. According 
to NAIMA, the Rule creates a level playing field and promotes industry 
self-regulation measures.\19\ NAIMA also argued that the Rule defines 
``the standard of conduct without debate or uncertainty.'' While 
describing the Rule's benefits, commenters did not identify any 
significant or unwarranted costs imposed by the Rule on industry. 
NAIMA, for example, concluded that the Rule does not impose 
``significant costs on business unless the business violates the Rule 
and is fined.'' \20\ It added that, while legal reviews necessary to 
ensure compliant advertising impose some costs, they save costs 
associated with violations and litigation. AFM added that compliance 
costs are ``low in proportion to sales revenue and thus do not impose 
significant cost on either manufacturers or consumers.'' PIMA also 
observed that the Rule imposes ``little or no cost to the suppliers of 
home insulation or to consumers themselves.'' Additionally, XPSA 
asserted that the Rule's compliance costs outweigh its benefits and 
that its testing and labeling requirements are ``fair and reasonable.'' 
It also noted that the absence of uniform disclosures would increase 
industry costs significantly.\21\ While commenters did not identify any 
significant costs for consumers, XPSA stated that even if some 
manufacturers pass compliance costs onto consumers, such costs are 
small compared to the cost to consumers associated with deceptive 
claims in the absence of the Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ NAIMA also stated that the Rule provides ``an effective 
tool for leveling the playing field.''
    \20\ ICAA, representing insulation installers, explained that it 
has not seen ``any significant'' compliance costs associated with 
the requirements.
    \21\ XPSA added that, for small businesses, the Rule clearly 
defines conditions on participating in the residential market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Discussion: As the commenters indicated, the Rule benefits 
consumers and industry members by combating deceptive and unfair 
practices, creating a level playing field that promotes competition, 
helping create a marketplace in which industry can more easily self-
regulate,\22\ furnishing guidelines to industry for product testing and 
evaluation, and promoting consumer confidence. Commenters also 
indicated the Rule does not impose significant, unwarranted costs on 
industry members or consumers. Given these benefits and apparent 
minimal costs, the Commission has determined to retain the Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See section III.B. of this Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Prevalence of Misleading Claims

    Background and Comments: In response to the ANPR, several comments 
addressed the prevalence of false or misleading claims in the 
marketplace. For example, XPSA stated there is a ``great deal of 
compliance'' with the Rule, and PIMA added that the Rule has 
``generated a high degree of industry compliance.'' Though the comments 
noted general compliance with the Rule, NAIMA indicated that the Rule 
also provides an effective tool for industry self-regulation to address 
those deceptive practices still appearing in the market.\23\ NAIMA 
noted its monitoring of potential compliance problems has revealed some 
sellers who promote and compare insulation using unlawful or inaccurate 
claims. NAIMA frequently challenges claims identified through 
monitoring by sending letters to companies and other entities promoting 
insulation. According to NAIMA, these warnings have been effective in 
bringing many claims into compliance. Such efforts, in NAIMA's opinion, 
``would likely be meaningless if there were not an R-value Rule in 
place with enforcement provisions behind it.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Commenter Turk also mentioned experiences with a contractor 
that did not provide the Rule's required disclosures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NAIMA discussed some of the issues revealed by its monitoring. For 
instance, certain industry segments rely on ``outdated studies'' or 
analysis that may not apply to their product. NAIMA also mentioned 
other problems, including marketers who fail to provide required 
disclosures (e.g., ``savings vary'' for savings claims), omitting the 
basis for comparative claims, and disseminating exaggerated savings 
claims. NAIMA also noted that some sellers falsely claim their products 
are tested, approved, and even endorsed by government agencies, such as 
the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the Occupational Safety and 
Health Administration. Finally, NAIMA asserted that some industry 
members provide R-value per inch of thickness claims, thus falsely 
implying that their product's R-value is linear (e.g., the R-value of 
4-inches of insulation is twice that of 2-inches).\24\ NAIMA stressed 
that these practices can erode public trust and confidence and reduce 
consumer investments in these energy-savings products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ The California IOUs urged FTC to coordinate with insulation 
manufacturers ``on a regular basis to ensure compliance'' with the 
Rule's labeling requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter, Conner, identified additional issues. Conner 
provided testing data for batt insulation purchased on the open market 
that, in his view, suggest the labeled R-values were overstated. The 
measured R-value for all six samples ranged between 92% and 98% of the 
stated R-values. Though he acknowledged the results might be

[[Page 2937]]

anomalies, he argued that was improbable. ``It is more likely,'' he 
asserted ``that testing products `off the shelf' gives different 
results [than labeled R-values] for some reason.'' Conner noted that 
other studies have demonstrated similar results. The ``Thermal Metric 
Project'' conducted six tests of fiberglass insulation and found that 
the measured R-value averaged about 97% of the labeled R-value. In that 
study, manufacturers provided the tested samples. The commenter raised 
several possibilities for these results, including compression in the 
packaging and the selection of better samples by manufacturers for 
studies. Conner urged the Commission to conduct additional testing of 
samples for fiberglass and other insulation types.\25\ If the testing 
demonstrates that compression affects the results, the commenter 
recommended the Rule require that test results reflect the R-value of 
products ``that reach the market.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Conner's results do not necessarily identify Rule 
violations; the R-values appear to meet the Rule's tolerance 
provision. See Section 460.8 (``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''). Nevertheless, the results suggest that the stated R-
values for the tested products may be consistently low. The 
Commission invites further comments on these issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Discussion: The comments suggest that, while compliance is 
generally high, the Rule and associated enforcement efforts help to 
address violations still occurring in the marketplace. Since the last 
regulatory review, the Commission has brought enforcement action under 
the Rule.\26\ The FTC also prepares consumer and business education 
materials to help consumers with their purchasing decisions and aid 
businesses with their compliance efforts.\27\ In addition, as the 
commenters indicated, industry members currently use the Rule to help 
identify and address violations. Finally, some competitors have 
resolved advertising disputes through the National Advertising Division 
of the Better Business Bureau.\28\ The Commission therefore plans to 
retain the Rule and continue to promote compliance through enforcement 
and business education.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See, e.g., United States v. Enviromate, LLC, No. 09-CV-
00386 (N.D. Ala. Mar. 2, 2009); United States v. Meyer Enters., LLC, 
No. 09-CV-1074 (C.D. Ill. Mar. 2, 2009); and United States v. Edward 
Sumpolec, No. 6:09-cv-378-ORL-36KRS (M.D. Fla. Jan. 9, 2013).
    \27\ See, e.g., https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0107-home-insulation-its-all-about-r-value.
    \28\ See, e.g., Applegate Insulation (Cellulose Insulation 
Products), Case #5961, NAD/CARY Case reports (June 2016) (press 
release at http://www.asrcreviews.org/nad-recommends-applegate-discontinue-certain-claims-for-cellulose-insulation-finds-company-can-support-certain-claims).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Coverage

    Background: The R-value Rule covers all ``home insulation 
products.'' The term ``insulation'' includes any product ``mainly used 
to slow down heat flow'' from, for example, a heated interior through 
exterior walls to the outside.\29\ The Rule covers most types or forms 
of insulation marketed for use in residential structures. It also 
applies to insulation sold for use in all types of residential 
structures, including old or new houses, condominiums, cooperatives, 
apartments, modular homes, and mobile homes. It does not cover 
insulation sold for use in commercial (including industrial) buildings; 
nor does it apply to non-insulation products with insulating 
characteristics, such as storm windows and doors, caulking, weather 
stripping, garage doors, or draperies.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See 16 CFR 460.2.
    \30\ See, e.g., 45 FR 68920 (Oct. 17, 1980) (staff guidance).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: In response to the ANPR, several commenters suggested the 
Commission expand the Rule's coverage. First, the Vinyl Siding 
Institute (VSI) recommended broadening the Rule's coverage to include 
insulated siding. VSI explained that builders commonly use insulated 
siding in the residential market to improve energy performance and to 
comply with the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC). 
According to VSI, the IECC recognizes insulated siding as a ``form of 
continuous insulation.'' VSI recommended the Commission adopt ASTM 
C1363-97, ``Standard Test Method for the Thermal Performance of 
Building Assemblies by Means of Hot Box Apparatus'' for testing the 
thermal performance of siding. It also offered specific Rule language 
for testing, representative thickness (``R-values . . . must be 
established for the specific siding profiles using typical installation 
configuration''), and disclosures on labels.
    Second, XPSA and ICAA recommended the Rule cover insulation sold in 
the commercial market. Supporting expansion, ICAA noted that commercial 
building energy use represents 19% of all U.S. consumption. XPSA added 
that expanded coverage ``would not add cost or burden'' because the 
commercial market already generally follows the R-value Rule 
requirements.
    NAIMA also addressed this issue but did not advocate wholesale 
expansion into the commercial market. Instead, it urged the Commission 
to clarify that the Rule covers traditional commercial and industrial 
products to the extent such products are used in residential 
applications. According to NAIMA, the traditional line between 
residential and commercial products has blurred. NAIMA's members have 
reported that certain rigid board products previously reserved 
exclusively for commercial and industrial applications appear with 
greater frequency in residential construction. According to NAIMA, some 
industry members selling such products in the residential market do not 
follow the R-value Rule, claiming their products are commercial or 
industrial products. To address such practices, NAIMA urged the 
Commission to clarify that ``if a product is used in residential 
insulation applications, there must be compliance with the Rule, even 
if the lion share of the product's use is in the commercial and 
industrial market.''
    Discussion: Based on the record, the Commission proposes two Rule 
coverage amendments. First, it proposes to amend the Rule to apply the 
testing requirements to R-value claims made for any product marketed to 
reduce energy use by slowing heat flow in residential buildings. The 
current Rule only applies to products marketed primarily as insulation. 
However, the Commission has challenged R-value claims under the FTC Act 
based on false or unsubstantiated R-value claims for products sold 
primarily for reasons other than insulation and thus not covered by the 
Rule.\31\ These cases suggest there is a pattern of false or 
unsubstantiated R-value claims for products other than insulation, such 
as coatings, siding, and housewrap. The amendment should provide a more 
effective means to reduce deceptive claims. Marketers acting in good 
faith will have clear notice of the test procedures they should use to 
substantiate their R-value claims. At the same time, the amendment will 
provide the FTC with a more efficient and direct means to challenge R-
value claims based on inadequate substantiation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ United States v. Edward Sumpolec, No. 6:09-cv-378-ORL-36KRS 
(M.D. Fla. Jan. 9, 2013); In the Matter of Kryton Coatings 
International, Inc. and Procraft, Inc., FTC Matter/File Number: 012 
3060. Docket Number: C-4052 (June 18, 2002); and Federal Trade 
Commission v. Innovative Designs, Inc., 2:16-cv-01669-NBF (W.D. Pa. 
Nov. 4, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This amendment would not impose any disclosure, labeling, or 
additional requirements for non-insulation products beyond the testing

[[Page 2938]]

requirements.\32\ Instead, it would simply require that any voluntary 
R-value claim made in advertising for a non-insulation product be based 
on the appropriate tests referenced in section 460.5 of the Rule (i.e., 
the standard ASTM tests incorporated into the Rule and currently 
applicable to R-value disclosures for insulation). The Commission can 
challenge false or unsubstantiated energy efficiency claims as 
violating Section 5 of the FTC Act. In particular, the Commission has 
already challenged energy savings claims as unsubstantiated where 
marketers did not have competent and reliable scientific evidence to 
support those claims. Accordingly, the Commission expects that most 
marketers who choose to make R-value claims for various non-insulation 
products already rely on the appropriate ASTM testing standards. As a 
result, the Commission anticipates that this amendment would pose 
little or no additional burden. However, the amendment would promote 
clarity for marketers regarding their obligation to substantiate R-
value claims and provide a check on unscrupulous sellers who seek to 
gain an unfair advantage by exaggerating their product's R-value based 
on faulty tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Specifically, as indicated in the proposed amendment to the 
Rule's Appendix, the requirements of sections 460.6 through 460.21 
would not apply to R-value claims for such products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission seeks comment on various issues related to this 
proposal, including whether deceptive R-value claims outside of the 
Rule's current product scope are prevalent (i.e., widespread) (see 15 
U.S.C. 57a(b)(3)), whether such an amendment is necessary to address 
deceptive and unfair practices, whether the test procedures listed in 
the Rule are applicable and adequate for such claims, whether the 
proposal would create conflicts with how R-values are generally derived 
for certain products, and whether such a requirement would impose undue 
burdens on marketers.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ The proposal excludes fenestration and fenestration 
attachments because these products are covered under the rating and 
certification activities of entities such as the National 
Fenestration Rating Council (NFRC) and DOE. See Energy Policy Act of 
1992 (Section 121 of Pub. L. 102-486).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, in response to NAIMA's concerns about commercial insulation 
in the residential market, the Commission proposes to amend the Rule to 
clarify that products marketed for residential applications are subject 
to the Rule's requirement. The comments suggest that some products 
developed and marketed primarily for commercial or industrial 
structures are also being marketed for residential applications. Such 
products already fall within the Rule's existing coverage of ``home 
insulation.'' However, the proposed amendments would clarify this fact 
to ensure that industry members understand their compliance 
obligations. The Commission seeks comments on this proposal.
    The Commission does not propose extending the Rule to cover 
insulation marketed and sold solely in the commercial or industrial 
market because the Commission lacks sufficient evidence of widespread 
deception to warrant proposing such an expansion.

D. Additional R-Value Disclosures

    Background and Comments: Some commenters argued that the Rule fails 
to adequately inform consumers and industry of factors important to 
insulation performance, particularly air infiltration and installation. 
As discussed below, some urged additional explanatory information on 
required labels and fact sheets to ensure consumers understand the 
impacts of these additional factors. Others expressed support for the 
current disclosures.
    Two commenters claimed the Rule emphasizes R-value to the detriment 
of other factors. ACC, representing spray foam manufacturers, argued 
that too much focus on R-value can ``inhibit the public's understanding 
of building energy efficiency.'' ACC also asserted that industry has 
generally assumed that a higher R-value is better, believing, for 
instance, that a perception exists that ``twice the amount of 
insulation will deliver twice the energy savings.'' According to ACC, 
such ``thinking is outdated and incorrect'' because building codes now 
recognize that wall and roof assembly performance can be as important 
as the amount of insulation installed.
    Icynene, a foam manufacturer, added that, ``by focusing on the 
limited metric of R-value, the Rule's disclosures give the impression 
that this metric alone is enough to gauge energy efficiency, thermal 
performance, and building comfort.'' Icynene explained that, although 
R-value provides a good comparative metric among similar product 
categories (e.g., batt to batt, board product to board product), it is 
inadequate for comparing different product types because a number of 
``off the page'' assumptions are necessary to make such 
comparisons.\34\ In its view, ``the attempt to force all product types 
to compete solely on the basis of R-value is itself a deceptive 
practice.'' \35\ Specifically, Icynene contended that R-value 
comparisons among different product categories mislead consumers 
because some products with low R-values provide adequate energy 
performance through other attributes, such as reduced thermal bridging 
and air sealing.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Icynene noted that DOE has funded the development of the 
``Thermal Metric,'' which is designed to convey the thermal 
performance of wall assemblies. In addition, the National Research 
Council of Canada (NRCC) funded the development of the Wall Energy 
Rating (WER), a similar method used to illustrate the R-value 
metric's shortcoming, and ways in which it could be adapted to 
better simulate ``real-world'' energy performance.
    \35\ Icynene also noted that R-values are put to a variety of 
uses, including in building energy codes and computer modeling for 
energy performance. It expressed concern that the R-value Rule 
unduly affects construction industry practices, to the detriment of 
other factors that are important to thermal performance.
    \36\ Icynene referenced technical documents purporting to show 
that: (1) Air leakage can cause as much as a 70% reduction in R-
value performance in full thermal testing of wall assemblies; (2) it 
is unlikely batt-type insulation products will be installed properly 
and perform anywhere near the rated performance; and (3) even if air 
permeable insulation products are of a high density, and well 
installed with a proper air barrier, but are not enclosed on the 
interior, their performance will decrease by 25-40%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Icynene and ACC also argued that the Rule's disclosures do not 
adequately address air infiltration. Icynene contended that laboratory-
derived R-values fail to take into account ``real world'' (i.e., 
installed) performance impacted by factors such as air leakage or 
convection. According to Icynene, improper air sealing is often the 
biggest single cost or lost opportunity associated with construction or 
renovations.\37\ Thus, in its view, the ``focus on R-value alone leads 
to product selections that hurt the consumer.'' ACC added that an 
insulation's air sealing properties can dramatically impact energy 
savings by reducing or eliminating convective heat transfer (air flow) 
through walls and roof assemblies. Citing to studies, ACC noted 
inherent differences in air sealing performance among various 
insulations.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Icynene further asserted the term ``Insulating Power,'' 
used in the Rule's disclosures, is ``extremely misleading'' for it 
assumes that a continuous air barrier exists and that air permeable 
materials are fully encapsulated and will yield stated R-value.
    \38\ ACC asserted ``the use of spray foam insulation (and other 
air impermeable foam insulations) can lead to greater energy savings 
by eliminating air leakage in parts of the home where the insulation 
is installed.'' ACC cited to the Building Science Corporation's 
Thermal Metric project, which is available at: http://buildingscienceconsulting.com/project/thermal-metric-project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To address these shortcomings, ACC and Icynene urged the Commission 
to amend the Rule to provide additional information about R-value, 
insulation,

[[Page 2939]]

and air infiltration. To combat R-value misperceptions, ACC recommended 
the Rule clarify that increasing insulation yields diminishing returns 
and that R-value is only one ``way to quantify one physical property'' 
of insulation products.\39\ Specifically, ACC suggested the Commission 
change the label statement ``The higher the R-value, the greater the 
insulating power'' to read: ``R means resistance to heat flow in 
laboratory testing. Higher R-values can result in greater insulating 
power. As installed, other physical properties of insulation like air 
permeance, air sealing and quality of installation will impact 
performance.'' ACC also recommended the Rule's disclosures inform 
consumers that R-value comparisons for dissimilar materials are ``less 
useful.'' Icynene suggested that the Rule's statement be removed 
altogether.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Icynene also argued that packaging for most products should 
provide a date of manufacture, lot number for traceability, and 
shelf life. Such disclosures would, for example, allow consumers to 
determine the age of batt insulation. According to Icynene, this 
insulation does not expand to full thickness if compressed for 
transport for more than three months. Icynene, however, did not 
provide any information about whether existing practices are 
widespread or otherwise unfair or deceptive. Absent such evidence, 
the Commission declines to increase the Rule's regulatory burden to 
require the disclosure of such information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Icynene recommended new (or revised) consumer Rule disclosures 
regarding air sealing to ensure that designers, contractors, and others 
can ``take appropriate action on specification of products, air 
sealing, and encapsulation of materials to get required performance.'' 
In its view, labeling that ``goes beyond R-value'' would inform 
consumers about important issues such as ``continuity of insulation, 
air tightness and moisture control.'' It urged suitable disclaimers for 
various energy efficiency characteristics of insulation products such 
as air impermeability, vapor impermeability, or solar reflectance. 
Icynene also recommended the Commission establish ``categories of 
performance'' for characteristics such as air impermeability and vapor 
permeability to ensure consumers know that attributes other than R-
value ``are important to energy efficient and durable construction.'' 
\40\ It also suggested the Rule require sellers to disclose the 
conditions necessary to achieve the stated R-value or thermal 
performance, such as whether an air space is required on one or more 
sides or whether air sealing is necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Icynene noted that the International Residential Code (IRC) 
and the International Building Code (IBC) have already identified 
categories for air impermeability and vapor permeability. Icynene 
suggested the Commission reference these Code requirements to 
determine if products perform as Code-compliant air impermeable 
materials. For instance, ``Class A: Air Impermeable'' would include 
``air impermeable'' products used to bridge gaps between other 
materials; ``Class B: Air Impermeable'' would include boardstock 
products that would contribute to air barrier systems; and ``Class 
C: Air Permeable'' would include products that must rely on other 
elements for air sealing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Not all commenters advocated for additional disclosures. Several 
supported the Rule's current focus on R-value. EPS Industry Alliance, 
for example, explained that ``[a]lthough there is much more information 
necessary for a fully informed choice, thermal resistance [R-value] is 
a start and is a valuable common denominator.'' XPSA recommended the 
current affirmative disclosures remain in place and explained that R-
values ``offer product comparison and quality control measures'' and 
``should not be used to predict building performance.'' In fact, it 
observed that testing standards often clearly state that they do ``not 
purport to address all possible end-use concerns.''
    NAIMA, which represents both fiberglass and foam manufacturers, 
argued against any amendment on this issue. NAIMA complained that some 
industry members overemphasize insulation's air infiltration 
performance and therefore these claims can be misleading. For example, 
it asserted that various manufacturers claim that ``stopping air 
infiltration with insulation'' is ``what really matters.'' Some also 
claim that their insulation will seal entire buildings. In addition, 
marketers often use the terms ``effective R-value'' or ``real world R-
value,'' which, according to NAIMA, are purportedly based on ``some ad 
hoc and unscientific method that somehow combines insulation and air 
sealing in a single value.'' NAIMA stated that these claims incorrectly 
imply that a product's ability to block air infiltration, and not its 
R-value, is paramount and that insulation that limits air infiltration 
performs better overall than other insulations.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ According to NAIMA, some advertisements wrongly ``dismiss 
R-value as a reliable indicator of thermal performance'' and 
encourage consumers to rely on air infiltration performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In fact, according to NAIMA, the air blocking benefits of 
particular insulations are often overstated. It cited to a recent study 
indicating that ``sealed walls of the same R-value perform equally well 
regardless of the type of insulation used.'' In addition, the research 
indicated that no tested wall assemblies, regardless of the insulation 
type used, acted as a complete air barrier.\42\ Furthermore, according 
to NAIMA, no elements of a building's thermal envelope--whether walls, 
attic, foundation, and insulation--``can deliver the desired thermal 
performance on its own'' despite what some advertisements claim. NAIMA 
stated that insulation cannot solve all air infiltration problems 
because it is never applied in a way to halt all possible air leakage. 
Indeed, according to NAIMA, ``insulation plays no major role in 
blocking total air infiltration in a home.'' Instead, other materials 
such as ``gypsum board, sheathing, house wrap, and sealing of joints 
and holes'' usually accomplish that function. NAIMA further observed 
that the FTC has declined to incorporate air infiltration or air 
leakage into the R-value Rule because of the absence of a reliable, 
uniform means to measure air leakage, and the fact that thermal 
performance cannot be measured by leakage alone.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ Citing to Thermal Metric Summary Report, Building Science 
Corporation (September 23, 2013) (http://buildingscienceconsulting.com/project/thermal-metric-project).
    \43\ Citing to 70 FR at 31262.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to air infiltration, commenters discussed the 
relationship between insulation performance and installation. ACC, for 
instance, argued that inadequate installation can significantly affect 
performance. For example, compression of fibrous insulation can reduce 
its effectiveness, and improper depths or failure to ensure contact 
with proper surfaces can impact spray foam performance. The California 
IOUs added that installation problems, such as ``missing insulation, 
gaps, or compression,'' can lead to lower R-value, and thus higher 
energy costs and lower home comfort. For instance, failure to cover 
even small gaps will have a disproportionate effect on thermal envelope 
performance.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ The California IOUs also noted that installation 
inconsistent with manufacturer's instructions violates building 
codes. In addition, both the California IOUs and Conner noted that 
the Residential Energy Services Network (RESNET) has a grading scale 
to help identify the quality of insulation installation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Conner also emphasized the importance of proper installation 
instructions, particularly for ``do it yourself'' users. He noted a 
recent DOE field study conducted in six states demonstrating that about 
45% of insulation was poorly installed. He also specifically addressed 
R-19 fiberglass insulation batts, which are generally 6.25 inches thick 
and commonly installed in wall cavities measuring 2 x 6 inches. Conner 
stated that installers must compress these batts to 5.5 inches to fit 
them into these wall spaces, thus reducing the R-value by one. Conner

[[Page 2940]]

also noted that, because manufacturers disclose this fact on their 
packaging in much ``smaller print,'' consumers are not likely to notice 
them.
    These commenters therefore urged the Commission to require 
disclosures about the need for proper installation. The California IOUs 
recommended labels state: ``Consumers should be aware that insulation 
must be installed properly to maintain its rated performance; poorly 
installed insulation will reduce the rated R-value and negatively 
impact the thermal performance of the building.'' Finally, to address 
issues with R19 batts, Conner recommended the FTC require both R18 and 
R19 to appear equally prominently on the label (e.g., ``R19 in floors/
R18 in 2 x 6 wall cavities'').\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ Alternatively, Conner recommended that manufacturers 
produce R-19 batts that fit in a 2 x 6-inch cavity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Discussion: Based on the record, the Commission proposes changing 
the Rule's fact sheet disclosures to better alert consumers to factors 
that may affect their heating and cooling costs. The current fact 
sheets generally advise consumers that their fuel savings depend on a 
variety of factors, including their climate, type of house, fuel use, 
and family size. Commenters, however, emphasized that proper insulation 
installation and home air sealing can also affect fuel costs. 
Accordingly, the Commission proposes to amend the fact sheets to 
specifically address these two factors. The Commission, however, does 
not propose adding this information to product labels because such 
details would significantly increase the label's scope and size, 
potentially decreasing its effectiveness and increasing its burden. The 
Commission seeks comment on the proposed fact sheet changes, including 
the amount of time manufacturers would require to make such changes.
    The Commission also seeks comment on whether the Rule should 
require specific disclosures for R-19 batt insulation, as suggested by 
the comments. Specifically, commenters should address whether labels 
for these products should disclose that the product's rating is R-18 
when installed in typical wall cavities. Alternatively, commenters 
should address whether such disclosures should appear on fact sheets 
instead, or whether any additional disclosures are necessary at all.
    The Commission does not propose addressing the air infiltration 
performance of insulation products. In addition, the Commission does 
not propose amending label and fact sheet disclosures stating ``The 
higher the R-value, the greater the insulating power.'' The Commission 
has long recognized that the Rule's uniform R-value test methods do not 
account for all variables applicable to insulation performance. Despite 
the R-value rating's limitations, it provides an important baseline 
from which consumers can compare various insulation products. The 
Commission has addressed these and related concerns repeatedly since it 
first issued the Rule in 1979. Indeed, there are a variety of factors 
not accounted for in R-value tests, such as the design characteristics 
and geographic 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.\46\ However, 
quantifying and providing uniform comparative ratings to reflect these 
various factors would significantly complicate the Rule's disclosures 
and likely confuse consumers, without providing commensurate benefits. 
Furthermore, commenters expressed significant disagreement regarding 
air infiltration disclosures.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See 44 FR at 50226; and 68 FR 41872, 41877-41879.
    \47\ DOE's Oak Ridge National Laboratory provides the following, 
which also raises questions about the importance of insulation's 
ability to limit air movement: ``The ability of insulation to limit 
air movement should not be confused with ``air sealing.'' The 
insulation reduces air movement only within the space it occupies. 
It will not reduce air movement through other cracks between 
building parts. For example, controlling air movement within a wall 
cavity will not stop air that leaks between the foundation and the 
sill plate or between the wall joists and a window frame.'' See 
http://web.ornl.gov/sci/buildings/tools/insulation/r-value/intro.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the Commission declines to propose mandatory label or fact 
sheet disclosures, industry members may voluntarily provide additional 
information in their advertising about the manner in which their 
products (or their competitors' products) perform so long as the 
information is truthful and non-misleading. For example, if a 
manufacturer's product performs better under specific, on-site 
conditions compared to competing products, the manufacturer may convey 
that fact in its advertising.
    Finally, the Commission proposes to amend section 305.14 to clarify 
that online insulation sellers must post labels and fact sheets for 
covered insulation products they sell directly to consumers. Large 
retailers commonly offer insulation for purchase through their 
websites. Though the Rule requires retailers to ``make fact sheets 
available to your customers,'' it does not specify that fact sheets 
must be provided for online sales. This amendment will simply 
effectuate the Rule's original intent by ensuring online shoppers have 
access to the same information (both fact sheets and labels) as 
shoppers in stores. Retailers can make these disclosures through a 
variety of means, such as by providing information with expandable 
thumbnail images of package labels and fact sheets or conspicuous links 
directly to the information. The Commission seeks comment on this 
change, including on the prevalence of online insulation sales, any 
burdens associated with providing such information online, and any 
other associated issues.

E. Aging of Cellular Plastics

    Background: The ANPR solicited comments on whether to update the 
Rule's requirements for testing aging cellular plastics. Specifically, 
the Commission asked whether it should amend the Rule to require 
industry to estimate the long-term R-value of these products using ASTM 
C1303 (``Standard Test Method for Predicting Long-Term Thermal 
Resistance of Closed-Cell Foam'').
    Certain types of cellular plastics insulations (e.g., polyurethane, 
polyisocyanurate, and extruded polystyrene boardstock insulations) 
contain gas that gives them an initial R-value, which decreases over 
time as the gas diffuses from the material. The length of this aging 
process depends on factors such as whether the product is faced or 
unfaced, the permeability of the facing, and the product's 
thickness.\48\ The current Rule addresses this process by requiring R-
value tests on specimens that ``fully reflect the effect of aging on 
the product's R-value.'' In addition, section 460.5(a)(1) directs 
industry members to use a portion of the ``accelerated aging'' 
procedure in the Government Services Administration (GSA) Purchase 
Specification HH-I-530A or ``another reliable procedure.'' However, GSA 
has rescinded its specification, rendering the reference obsolete.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ The EPS Industry Alliance indicated that aging for closed-
cell foam insulation is defined as, ``the change in thermophysical 
properties of rigid closed-cell foam plastic with time.''
    \49\ See 44 FR at 50227-50228. The GSA ``accelerated'' procedure 
was designed to age these insulations in a shorter period than under 
real-time conditions. GSA rescinded the specification (along with 
other insulation specifications) and then required that federally 
purchased insulations comply with ASTM insulation standards. 68 FR 
at 41879.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the 1990's, joint industry and government research efforts 
generated new test methods (ASTM C1303 and CAN/ULC S770) for estimating 
aging,

[[Page 2941]]

often collectively referred to as the LTTR (``long-term thermal 
resistance'') or the ``slicing and scaling'' method.\50\ Unlike the 
older tests, the LTTR method measures the R-value of thin slices of 
material. These results are then adjusted with a scaling factor to 
estimate the R-value of full thickness boards. The test avoids problems 
with the accelerated aging tests, such as high temperature damage to 
specimens, but is limited in scope. Specifically, the LTTR method 
generally applies only to unfaced or permeably-faced polyisocyanurate 
(polyiso), polyurethane, and extruded polystyrene foam plastic 
insulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ ASTM C1303, ``Standard Test Method for Predicting Long-Term 
Thermal Resistance of Closed-Cell Foam Insulation''); and CAN/ULC 
S770, ``Standard Test Method for Determination of Long-Term Thermal 
Resistance of Closed-Cell Thermal Insulating Foams.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the 2005 regulatory review, the Commission considered 
whether to amend the Rule to require the LTTR method.\51\ Ultimately, 
the Commission declined to do so because commenters significantly 
disagreed on the adequacy of these tests and the need for additional 
development. The Commission concluded it was premature to mandate the 
tests but indicated it had no objection to the voluntary use of these 
tests to estimate long-term R-values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ 70 FR at 31262-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: Several commenters addressed whether the Commission 
should amend the Rule to include the LTTR method. Like the 2005 review, 
the comments split, with some urging incorporation and others opposing 
such a change due to issues with the test procedures.
    Several commenters urged the Commission to adopt the LTTR method 
because, in their view, the test is now well-established and would 
ensure that R-value disclosures for cellular plastic insulations 
accurately reflect aging effects. For instance, the EPS Industry 
Alliance acknowledged the Commission's past concerns about the LTTR 
method, but explained that the method is now ``widely accepted and 
referenced by the consensus standard authorities in the United States 
and Canada.'' \52\ Others (e.g., PIMA, AFM) argued that earlier 
objections to the method's adoption no longer hold because the method 
has undergone, as AFM put it, ``continuous improvement'' since its 
initial introduction. In May 2012, for example, ASTM published an 
interlaboratory research report (RR:C16-1038), which has been used to 
update ASTM C1303. Several ASTM specifications now reference C1303 
(e.g., ASTM C578, ASTM C591, ASTM C1029, ASTM C1126, ASTM C1289, ASTM 
C1427). Similarly, PIMA explained that Oak Ridge National Laboratory 
(ORNL) conducted a ``ruggedness'' study of the test procedure between 
2007 and 2012, which led to ``a few minor changes in sampling 
procedures,'' increasing consistency and reliability. PIMA asserted 
that, in the wake of this activity, the test is now ``recognized 
throughout North America as the best and most reliable measure of the 
long-term thermal performance of closed cell foam insulation.'' EPS 
Industry Alliance further explained that, since the LTTR method's 
introduction more than 20 years ago, ASTM committees have met twice 
annually to ``share data, propose modifications, increase accuracy and 
generally improve and verify the test method.'' In addition, experts 
have compared test data against both predictive mathematical models and 
long-term verification. Given these improvements, commenters urged the 
Commission to require ASTM C1303 for determining the R-value for 
products covered by the test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ According to EPS Industry Alliance, ASTM C1303 is now well-
established as the test method for predicting long-term thermal 
resistance of rigid board insulation incorporating blowing agents 
other than air. The test is administered by an adequate number of 
laboratories, and has been incorporated into several other 
standards, including ASTM C578, ASTM C591, ASTM C1029, ASTM C1126, 
ASTM C1289, as well as several CAN/ULC Standards (e.g., CAN/ULC 
S701; CAN/ULC S704, CAN/ULC S705.1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Others, however, opposed incorporating the LTTR method into the 
Rule, questioning the method's R-value results, coverage, and 
timeframe. ACC, for example, stated that the spray polyurethane foam 
(SPF) industry continues to doubt the accuracy of R-value results 
derived from the method for its products due to faulty assumptions 
underlying the procedure.\53\ Specifically, SPF manufacturers have 
hypothesized that ``the skin formed on the surface of closed-cell spray 
polyurethane foam acts as an impermeable facer'' that increases (or 
enhances) the product's long-term thermal performance. Further, these 
commenters suspect that specimen preparation under ASTM C1303 may 
destroy this skin, eliminating its benefits. Accordingly, in ACC's 
view, the test method may underestimate SPF's long-term thermal 
performance. To test this hypothesis, industry members have initiated a 
five-year research project to measure long-term thermal performance. 
According to the comments, interim study results presented in 2015 
suggest discrepancies between values generated by ASTM C1303 and real-
time thermal performance measurements. Given these preliminary 
findings, ACC argued against adopting the test.\54\ XPSA added that 
since ``the standard deviation around the various iterations of the 
test method is significant,'' the method has not been demonstrated to 
provide ``a uniform means of accurately comparing different cellular 
plastic thermal insulations.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ ACC expressed concern ``that insufficient data has been 
generated to demonstrate that ASTM C1303 is an appropriate method 
for estimating long-term thermal performance for all closed-cell 
insulation products.''
    \54\ ACC offered to provide updates on this research as it nears 
completion. Icynene, which also noted that HH-I-530A1 is obsolete, 
suggested the use of ASTM E1029 or ICC-ES Evaluation Criteria AC377 
for spray polyurethane products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters also discussed the procedure's limited coverage. As 
noted above, ASTM C1303 and CAN/ULC S770 applies only to unfaced or 
permeably-faced, materials.\55\ PIMA, an advocate of ASTM C1303's 
adoption, explained that because the impermeable, or gas-tight, nature 
of aluminum foil significantly restricts the diffusion of blowing agent 
gasses from the product over time, ASTM C1303 is not an appropriate 
test for measuring long-term R-value for such products. Advocates of 
the method's adoption acknowledged limitations in its coverage, but 
recommended the Commission tailor the Rule's scope by product type.\56\ 
However, XPSA reported that confusion persists in the industry about 
the LTTR method's scope. Despite longstanding efforts within ASTM and 
CAN/ULC standards

[[Page 2942]]

committees, XPSA indicated that no clear consensus has emerged about 
the procedures' appropriate coverage, and industry members have been 
unable to agree on a method for all foamed plastic products, 
impermeably faced and unfaced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ See ACC and PIMA comments. PIMA and ACC noted, for 
instance, that the C1303 itself states that its application is 
``limited to unfaced or permeably faced, homogeneous materials,'' 
which covers many rigid closed-cell foam insulation types, including 
extruded polystyrene, polyurethane, polyisocyanurate, and phenolic. 
The method, however, does not apply to ``impermeably faced rigid 
closed-cell foams . . . .'' According to PIMA, the majority of 
closed-cell foam insulations available to consumers are unfaced or 
permeably-faced products covered by the test.
    \56\ According to PIMA, several widely-used closed-cell foam 
insulation products with impermeable facers, typically aluminum foil 
or an aluminum foil laminate, exist on the market. These impermeable 
faced products include: ASTM C1289 Type 1, Class 1 (Polyisocyanurate 
with aluminum foil facers over a non-reinforced core foam); and ASTM 
C1289 Type 1, Class 2 (Polyisocyanurate with aluminum foil facers 
over a glass fiber reinforced core foam). PIMA also indicated that 
ASTM C518, the test used for almost all other building thermal 
insulation products, continues to be recognized as the thermal 
performance test method for the aluminum foil faced polyisocyanurate 
products identified above. PIMA recommended the Rule incorporate 
ASTM C1303 as the R-value test method for all closed-cell foam 
products that are either unfaced or incorporate a permeable facer. 
However, it also recommended ASTM C518 for products that incorporate 
an impermeable or gas-tight facer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, several commenters noted that ASTM C1303 contains two 
separate timeframes for measuring R-value results. The first, referred 
to as the ``prescriptive'' method, predicts R-value after five years, 
while the second, the ``research'' method, calculates R-value at any 
point in the insulation's life. Because the life of these insulation 
products is generally much longer than five years, the prescriptive 
method does not fully reflect the impacts of aging on R-values. To 
reduce confusion and potential deception, AFM recommended the 
Commission either require industry disclosure of the test's predicted 
R-value at a 25-year period under the research method or allow the 
five-year figure from the prescriptive method with a mandatory 
disclosure such as ``This product will have an R-value lower than the 
stated R-value after 5 years.'' XPSA recommended the Rule require 
measurement of the product's R-value over its serviceable life and not 
merely a five-year estimate.
    XPSA raised two additional concerns. It warned that adopting C1303 
or CAN/ULC S770 would eliminate the use of C177 as a ``referee method'' 
to address disputed thermal values. Additionally, it argued that, since 
these tests do not address foams that incorporate pentane as a blowing 
agent, their adoption would create an unfair advantage for such 
products.
    Finally, several commenters (AFM, EPS Industry Alliance, and ACC) 
recommended deletion of Rule references to the obsolete HH-I-530A (GSA 
Standard). ACC explained that it is an ``an outdated and unnecessary 
method for aging foam insulation specimens.''
    Discussion: The Commission plans to continue requiring tests on 
cellular plastic insulations that fully reflect aging on the product's 
R-value, as currently indicated in section 460.5. In addition, the 
Commission proposes eliminating the Rule's reference to the rescinded 
GSA aging standard, which appears to be obsolete. However, for the 
reasons discussed below, the Commission does not propose requiring 
industry to use only ASTM C1303 or CAN/ULC S770 to measure aging.
    The record demonstrates that significant disagreements remain about 
various aspects of ASTM C1303 and CAN/ULC S770, including their 
accuracy, scope of coverage, and applicable timeframe. In light of 
these lingering questions, the Commission is reluctant to mandate that 
manufacturers use these methods. The Commission invites further 
comments on all aspects of this issue, including the criticisms raised 
about ASTM C1303 and CAN/ULC S770 in response to the ANPR, the results 
of any additional research on the issue, and any other relevant issues. 
Commenters should address any adverse impacts associated with the 
proposed removal of the reference to the GSA standard, the impacts from 
the continued absence of a specific FTC-mandated aging test, whether 
the Rule should identify ASTM C1303 and CAN/ULC S770 as a safe harbor, 
the identity and reliability of any tests (other than ASTM C1303 and 
CAN/ULC S770) currently used by various manufacturers to comply with 
the Rule's aging requirement, and whether the Commission should provide 
any additional clarification regarding the aging requirement.

F. Tolerance, Sampling, and Inspection

    Background: In the ANPR, the Commission sought comment on the 
Rule's testing requirements, including the ``tolerance'' provision. The 
Rule's principal testing provision (Sec.  460.5) lists the ASTM test 
procedures that industry members must use to derive R-values. The 
tolerance provision (Sec.  460.8) states that no individual insulation 
specimen can have an R-value more than 10% below the rating displayed 
on the product's label. The Commission developed this provision as an 
alternative to more detailed quality control standards. A violation of 
this provision indicates that the manufacturer's quality control 
procedures are insufficient to reasonably assure consumers they are 
receiving the represented R-value. The provision does not give industry 
a license to inflate their R-values above the amount determined through 
R-value testing. Instead, under the Rule, stated R-values on labels and 
advertisements must reflect the results of tests performed in 
accordance with the Rule.
    Comments: No commenter addressed the Rule's tolerance provision. 
However, NAIMA requested that the Commission identify ASTM C390 
(``Standard Practice for Sampling and Acceptance of Thermal Insulation 
Lots'') as an optional testing method for all insulation products. 
NAIMA stated that this standard's sampling and inspection provisions 
provide purchasers a practical level of quality assurance.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ Icynene noted that R-value is not easily measured in the 
field for spray foam insulation and asked whether the tolerance 
requirement should be written in terms of density to cover field 
enforcement. However, it offered no details regarding such an 
amendment or whether such prescriptive requirements in the Rule is 
necessary to address ongoing deception in the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Discussion: The Commission does not propose amending the tolerance 
provision or referencing new sampling requirements. While ASTM C390 
contains a procedure for sampling and inspection, the commenters did 
not identify a widespread pattern of noncompliance with the Rule that 
would justify imposing such additional requirements. In addition, the 
benefits of listing ASTM C390 as an optional method are unclear. 
Manufacturers are responsible for ensuring their products comply with 
the Rule's testing, tolerance, and labeling provisions. They must also 
ensure that their advertised R-values are consistent with their test 
results and that their products perform as advertised, within the 
Rule's parameters. Nothing in the Rule prohibits manufacturers from 
using ASTM C390 to help them meet these requirements.

G. Mean Temperature

    Background: Since its promulgation in 1979, section 460.5 of the 
Rule has required R-value testing at a 75 [deg]F mean temperature for 
most insulation products. In initially issuing this requirement, the 
Commission explained that ``[t]he choice of this particular temperature 
is based on a significant volume of record evidence that 75 [deg]F is 
already a widely-used test temperature and is incorporated in many 
voluntary industry standards and federal procurement specifications.'' 
\58\ Section 460.5 requires testing at a 50 [deg]F temperature 
differential (i.e., the difference between the hot and cold surface 
during testing).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ 44 FR at 50227.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: Some commenters (e.g., AFM, EPS Industry Alliance, and 
Icynene) recommended the Rule address insulation performance at mean 
temperatures lower than 75 [deg]F. As discussed below, they suggested 
the Commission consider either requiring an additional R-value 
disclosure at a low mean temperature or requiring disclosures about the 
cold weather performance of certain insulations.
    These commenters raised concerns that the Rule's current mean 
temperature does not reflect typical conditions. For instance, EPS 
Industry Alliance argued that the 75 [deg]F mean temperature is not a 
representative condition for most consumer applications. Similarly, AFM 
contended that the 75 [deg]F mean is most typical of

[[Page 2943]]

warm climates and thus not representative of conditions commonly 
associated with ``residential home heating and cooling needs.'' Icynene 
added that insulation used in a warm climate should be tested at a 
higher temperature, while insulation used in a colder climate should be 
tested at a lower temperature.
    In addition, AFM and EPS Industry Alliance explained that some 
insulations have much lower R-values under cold conditions, a fact not 
revealed from the R-values derived with a 75 [deg]F mean nor disclosed 
on FTC-required labels. According to EPS Industry Alliance, some 
insulation lost 15% of their R-value at a 40 [deg]F mean temperature. 
In its view, the failure to require the affirmative disclosure of such 
differences misleads consumers and frustrates the Rule's purpose.\59\ 
To address this issue, both AFM and EPS Industry Alliance suggested the 
Rule require testing and disclosures at a 40 [deg]F mean temperature in 
addition to the disclosures derived from a 75 [deg]F mean. 
Alternatively, AFM and EPS Industry Alliance suggested the Commission 
consider a new mandatory disclosure for products that exhibit lower 
values at cold temperatures (e.g., when tested at a 40 [deg]F mean 
temperature). For example, AFM recommended the following statement: 
``This product has an R-value lower than the stated R-value in cold 
conditions.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ EPS Industry Alliance explained that the National 
Fenestration Rating Council (NFRC) requires that product labels for 
windows report thermal transmission at 35 [deg]F mean temperature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Discussion: The Commission does not propose revising the Rule's 
mean test temperature requirement, nor does it propose requiring 
specific affirmative disclosures for insulation products that may 
exhibit lower R-values at low temperatures. Given the temperature 
differences throughout the country, no one temperature is likely to be 
sufficiently representative of consumer experiences.\60\ To address 
this problem, the Commission could require two R-value disclosures, 
derived at two separate mean temperatures, or require additional 
disclosures for products that exhibit decreased R-values at lower 
temperatures as some commenters suggest. Although useful information 
may be derived by testing at multiple temperatures, the Commission 
concludes that requiring additional tests would increase the burden to 
manufacturers without a corresponding benefit to consumers. 
Specifically, it is not clear that two disclosures would adequately 
represent the variety of temperatures to which insulation may be 
exposed. Moreover, it is unclear whether multiple R-value disclosures 
would improve consumer understanding of the energy efficiency of 
insulation products. For example, would consumers put more weight on 
the prevailing mean temperature in their area, the extreme temperatures 
for their area, or some other factor? Thus, multiple disclosures may 
result in consumer confusion or discourage consumers from using R-
values in their purchases. Therefore, the Commission declines to revise 
the Rule to require testing at mean temperatures other than 75 [deg]F. 
Finally, nothing in the FTC Act or the Rule prohibits sellers from 
promoting their products' performance in low temperatures in their 
advertising. If a seller's products have better R-values than others at 
low temperatures, they may make truthful, substantiated comparative 
claims conveying their products' advantages.\61\ The Commission seeks 
further comment on these issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ In initially issuing the Rule, the Commission did not 
attempt to specify a mean test temperature representative of any 
particular geographical region or season. Indeed, it reasoned that 
any attempt to do so would yield results inappropriate for other 
regions or seasons. Accordingly, the Commission chose a single 
temperature widely used in industry standards, recognizing the fact 
that it is not perfectly representative. See 64 FR at 48037; and 44 
FR at 50219, 50227. In this proceeding, some commenters contend that 
a 75 [deg]F mean is not representative. However, it is likely a 40 
[deg]F mean is probably similarly unrepresentative.
    \61\ See 68 FR at 41878-41879.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. Disclosures for Reflective Insulation

    Background: Reflective insulations, primarily aluminum foils, work 
by reducing heat transfer when installed facing an airspace. The Rule 
requires reflective insulation manufacturers to use specific tests to 
determine R-values, and to disclose those ratings to consumers for 
particular applications.\62\ Section 460.5(c) requires industry members 
to test single sheet systems using ASTM E 408-71 (``Standard Test 
Methods for Total Normal Emittance of Surfaces Using Inspection-Meter 
Techniques''), or ASTM C 1371-04a (``Standard Test Method for 
Determination of Emittance of Materials Near Room Temperature Using 
Portable Emissometers'').\63\ Section 460.12 of the Rule also requires 
that labels for reflective insulation include ``. . . 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ See 64 FR 48024, 48038-48039 (Sep. 1, 1999).
    \63\ For reflective systems with more than one sheet, section 
460.5(b) requires the use of 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 
C1224-03, ``Standard Specification for Reflective Insulation for 
Building Applications,'' and under the test conditions specified in 
ASTM C1224-03.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Rule also covers radiant barrier insulations, which are 
generally installed in attics facing the open airspace. However, as the 
Commission has stated, R-value claims are not appropriate for these 
products because no generally accepted test procedure exists to 
determine their R-value.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ 68 FR at 41889-90.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: XPSA raised several issues about reflective insulation 
marketing. Specifically, it argued that reflective insulation sellers 
do not have adequate performance standards, provide insufficient 
information to consumers about installation, or use inadequate existing 
test methods. In addition, XPSA recommended the Commission change the 
Rule's terminology for these products and add language stating that 
these products are not ``insulation.''
    XPSA explained that reflective insulation performance heavily 
relies on proper installation and use. Specifically, according to XPSA, 
R-value claims for reflective insulations require sealed air spaces 
with little leakage and proper configuration to match specific heat 
flow direction for horizontal air-space applications. Though such 
conditions exist during testing, XPSA indicated that sellers do not 
always adequately disclose the installation instructions needed for 
such conditions. Without clear, comprehensive instructions, consumers 
may improperly install these products and fail to achieve the 
represented thermal performance. In XPSA's opinion, the lack of such 
information ``opens the door for unreasonable claims or misguided 
applications which create a deterrent to the competitive and 
appropriate use of these materials.'' XPSA therefore recommended the 
``reflective insulation'' industry provide additional guidance about 
testing, the air spaces necessary to achieve the claimed performance, 
the long-term emissivity of reflective surfaces, and the direction of 
heat flow effects on the claimed R-value for different seasons.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ XPSA claimed that the cost to such disclosures should not 
be more than it has been for manufacturers of ``mass'' insulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    XPSA further noted that reflective products installed behind siding 
``should not be considered reflective insulation'' because of the 
significant air exchange in those applications.\66\ The Rule and test 
procedures, however, do not clearly identify such limitations. As

[[Page 2944]]

a result, many of these products are installed in spaces with 
significant airflow, eroding their thermal performance. According to 
XPSA, guidance regarding these issues has appeared ``by consensus with 
newly added criteria and limitations to the 2016 ASHRAE Standard 90.1, 
Section 9.4.'' \67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ Citing to Chapter 26 of the 2013 ASHRAE Handbook of 
Fundamentals (page 26.12).
    \67\ XPSA also noted recent Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA) efforts to address these issues in the Energy Star program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    XPSA also alleged that the reflective insulation industry ``has not 
produced adequate performance standards or research to guide the 
industry in the use of these products to ensure that false or 
exaggerated claims or inappropriate applications are not made.'' In 
addition, it asserted that the industry has not provided data related 
to product aging, including the impacts of dust accumulation and water 
pitting on long-term performance.\68\ XPSA urged the Commission to 
request this data or ``not allow R-value to be claimed for the 
airspaces associated with these products.'' At a minimum, XPSA 
recommended these products ``include transparent statements'' about air 
space construction, the placement of the air barrier in relationship to 
the airspace and other building envelope enclosure components, the 
effects of heat flow direction in relation to airspace orientation, and 
the expected rate of degraded performance over time. These factors, in 
its view, are known to significantly affect the reflective insulation 
performance and thus should be disclosed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ XPSA also argued that some market participants 
misunderstand the air-flow provisions in ASTM C1363. According to 
XPSA, the procedure's airflow provisions assure the mixing of air in 
the test chamber. However, some understand these provisions to 
replicate or simulate air-exchange across or within portions of the 
tested assemblies. See ASTM C1363, Appendix X1. This concern is 
primarily an issue when evaluating whether or not air spaces within 
an assembly will result in the desired or claimed performance. XPSA 
suggested the development of a new test method or the inclusion of 
appropriate air exchange rates on airspaces during ASTM C1363 
testing. In its view, such changes will ensure that claimed 
reflective airspace R-values are reasonably consistent with end-use 
conditions likely to affect thermal value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, XPSA asked the Commission to reconsider use of the 
term ``reflective insulation.'' In its opinion, the term potentially 
deceives consumers by implying that reflective products deliver the 
same conductive thermal resistance as mass insulation. In fact, 
according to XPSA, these products perform differently from mass 
insulation, and using the term ``insulation'' tends to obscure the 
important differences between the two products. It also argued that 
these products are not necessarily ``aluminum'' (a term used in the 
Rule) but are rather products that generally have a high emissivity 
value, regardless of whether they are aluminum or another material. 
XPSA suggested the term ``reflective film'' instead.
    Finally, XPSA asked the Commission to clarify that radiant barriers 
and radiation control coatings are not insulation. Like other excluded 
products, such as storm windows and doors, radiant barriers and 
radiation control coatings behave differently from mass insulation 
products in different climates.\69\ In addition, XPSA explained that 
existing tests do not generate R-values for these products or quantify 
their benefits in all applications. Therefore, it urged the FTC to 
provide guidance indicating that energy savings for radiant barrier 
products are not ``in any way equivalent to that of insulation products 
bearing an R-value.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ XPSA noted that the EPA's Energy Star program excludes 
radiant barriers, in part, because these products are not assigned 
an R-value and their cost effectiveness is ``highly variable across 
climate zones and across various installation scenarios.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Discussion: The Commission does not propose any new requirements 
related to reflective insulations. The Rule already requires labels for 
these products to disclose the number and thickness of the air spaces 
and the R-value provided by that system depending on whether the 
direction of heat flow is up, down, or horizontal. In addition, the 
Rule requires disclosures related to proper installation. Specifically, 
labels must contain the 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.'' If instructions are not 
included, the labels require a statement that ``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.''
    Absent evidence of a clear pattern of deceptive practices or flaws 
in current requirements, the Commission does not propose adding 
additional regulatory requirements. Because installation often involves 
issues specific to particular product types, instructions may vary from 
product to product. Therefore, the Rule does not generally mandate 
specific installation instructions for insulation products. Moreover, 
Section 5 of the FTC Act already addresses deceptive claims. If 
industry sellers make deceptive claims concerning installation 
instructions, the FTC could bring an enforcement action alleging 
violations of Section 5. Moreover, should future evidence indicate 
persistent, deceptive installation claims regarding these products, the 
Commission may consider whether additional Rule provisions are needed 
to protect consumers.
    The Commission also does not propose changes to the current testing 
requirements for these reflective insulations. Although XPSA claimed 
that some industry members misunderstand certain aspects of ASTM C1363, 
there is no clear evidence that this test, which the Rule has required 
since 1979, is defective or opens the door to false or misleading 
claims. In addition, the Commission does not generally develop or 
modify test procedures. Instead, the Rule incorporates consensus 
industry standards developed by ASTM and similar bodies that have the 
required expertise to address improvements in test methods.
    Furthermore, the Commission does not propose to remove the term 
``insulation'' from the Rule as a descriptor for these products. The 
record provides no clear evidence that the term confuses consumers or 
should otherwise be changed. In fact, ``reflective insulation'' is the 
term routinely used in ASTM procedures as well as in Department of 
Energy publications.\70\ While the Commission does not propose to 
change references to ``insulation,'' it seeks comment on whether to 
replace the term ``aluminum'' with ``reflective material'' or a similar 
term because these insulation systems may not always involve aluminum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ See, e.g., ASTM C1224-03, ``Standard Specification for 
Reflective Insulation for Building Applications;'' and ``Insulation 
Fact Sheet,'' Department of Energy, DOE/CE-0180, 2008 at https://www1.eere.energy.gov/library/pdfs/insulation_fact_sheet.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Commission does not propose to require warnings that 
radiant barriers and radiant control coatings are not ``insulation.'' 
It is unclear whether such statements would benefit consumers or even 
how they would interpret such a disclosure. Nevertheless, as the 
Commission has stated, R-value claims are not appropriate for radiant 
barrier reflective insulations, and sellers of radiant barriers, 
reflective coatings, and similar products must have competent and 
reliable scientific evidence to substantiate any energy savings claims 
they make.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ 68 FR at 41890.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Updating Test References

    Background and Comments: In the ANPR, the Commission asked whether

[[Page 2945]]

it should amend the Rule to update the tests currently incorporated by 
reference. Under section 460.7, 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 standards or reject them under section 460.5.\72\ Two 
commenters (Icynene and ACC) recommended the Commission update the 
referenced tests. ACC further recommended the Rule allow for ``the 
continual incorporation of new or amended consensus-based material 
specifications.'' It explained that the current Rule requires outdated 
specifications and may create a disincentive to improve existing 
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ 61 FR at 13663.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Discussion: The Commission proposes to update section 460.5 reflect 
the most recent versions of the ASTM test procedures. It also proposes 
to remove section 460.7 to eliminate automatic updates to the ASTM test 
procedures incorporated by reference in the Rule. Doing so ensures the 
Rule is consistent with the Office of Federal Register (OFR) 
regulations. Specifically, OFR requires that incorporation by reference 
is ``limited to the edition of the publication that is approved. Future 
amendments or revisions of the publication are not included.'' \73\ The 
proposed amendment will also ensure that the Rule provides notice and 
an opportunity to comment on test updates before they are incorporated 
into the regulation. The Commission periodically will review the test 
procedures incorporated by reference to ensure the Rule contains the 
most recent versions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ See 1 CFR 51.1(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Fibrous Insulation

    Background and Comments: ACC and Icynene suggested the Rule's 
compression warning, currently applicable to duct insulation (Sec.  
460.13(d)), should also apply to all fibrous insulation because 
compression is not unique to air duct insulation.
    Discussion: The Commission does not propose to change the fact 
sheet disclosure related to compression. When the Rule was first 
promulgated in 1979, the Commission considered compression disclosures 
for both air duct and other insulations. In issuing the final Rule, it 
explained that air duct insulation ``must be wrapped around the air 
duct during installation, causing significant compression at the edges 
of the duct,'' while mineral wool batts, when installed properly, are 
not similarly compressed. In fact, commenters at the time indicated 
that special disclosures for such products would ``be overly 
simplified'' and would apply only to the performance of improperly 
installed insulation. The Commission has determined not to alter this 
original determination based on the information in new comments.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ 44 FR at 50231. Icynene also questioned the basis for the 
Rule's exclusion of pipe insulation. In promulgating the original 
Rule, the Commission noted that, although it can serve to reduce 
heat loss, pipe insulation is used primarily to prevent condensation 
on low-temperature pipelines. See 44 FR at 50238, n. 170 (``Pipe 
insulation . . . has unique qualities . . . .''); and Final Staff 
Report to the Federal Trade Commission and Proposed Trade Regulation 
Rule (16 CFR part 460), July 1978 (``Staff Report'') at 21, 188.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

K. Limited Format Disclosures

    Background and Comments: NAIMA urged the Commission to exempt 
Twitter and mobile sources from Rule provisions requiring insulation 
advertisements to contain statements such as ``Savings vary. Find out 
why in the seller's fact sheet on R-values. Higher R-values mean 
greater insulating power.'' \75\ NAIMA explained that disclosures of 
such length are not suited to smaller formats. In addition, it noted 
that the Rule already exempts radio and television advertisements from 
these disclosures. Like those formats, NAIMA argued that Twitter and 
mobile source advertising ``demand pithy and concise messages--clever 
enough to catch the audience's attention in a very short amount of 
time.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ 16 CFR 460.19(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Discussion: The Commission agrees that the required disclosures may 
be infeasible or impractical for some methods of advertising. 
Therefore, the Commission proposes to amend the Rule to exempt space-
constrained advertising from the required disclosures in sections 
460.18 and 460.19. The Rule already excludes television and radio 
advertising from the more detailed disclosures requirements because 
meaningful disclosures are probably not effective in those media.\76\ 
The same rationale would seem to apply to space-constrained 
advertisements in Twitter and mobile sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ See 70 FR at 31271; 51 FR 39650 (Oct. 30, 1986).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Commission proposes to exempt any ``space-
constrained advertisement'' from the disclosures in sections 460.18 and 
460.19. The proposed Rule defines ``space-constrained'' as any 
communication made through interactive media (such as the internet, 
online services, and software, including but not limited to internet 
search results and banner ads) that has space, format, size or 
technological limitations or restrictions that effectively prevent 
marketers from making the required disclosures. Industry members would 
have the burden of showing that there is insufficient space for the 
required disclosure. This amendment would appear to reduce burden on 
companies without decreasing the Rule's effectiveness. The Commission 
seeks comments on this proposal.

L. Distribution of Fact Sheets

    Background and Comments: Commenter Robin Turk argued that the Rule 
should require sellers to give a copy of their fact sheets to consumers 
instead of merely ``showing'' the fact sheets as currently required by 
sections 460.14 and 460.15. Turk recommended consumers ``sign off'' on 
the fact they received the sheet and acknowledge they were made aware 
of the R-value requirements under the building code. The Commission is 
not proposing these amendments. It is not clear the Rule's current 
approach results in consumers receiving inadequate information. 
Moreover, the suggested approach would impose burdens on industry, and 
it is not clear the benefits of the approach would justify such 
burdens.

M. Efficiency Claims for New Homes

    Background and Comment: NAIMA recommended that sellers who 
advertise homes as ``energy efficient'' disclose the basis for such 
claims, including ``the products used (appliances, insulation, 
windows), the R-value of the products used, and the location in the 
home in which they were used.'' NAIMA argued that such disclosures 
would prevent sellers from misleading buyers with unsubstantiated 
claims.
    Discussion: The Commission does not propose to amend the Rule to 
cover ``energy efficient'' claims for homes. Such a change would 
substantially expand the Rule's scope. Energy efficiency claims for 
homes involve many factors, including air sealing, windows, appliances, 
lighting, and HVAC equipment. The number of variables thus requires a 
case-by-case analysis of a home's components. Such variables make it 
difficult to provide a broad disclosure that would be generally 
meaningful. For example, certain factors, such as significant air 
leakage, can substantially limit the benefits of high efficiency 
heating and cooling equipment, appliances, and

[[Page 2946]]

windows. Furthermore, Section 5 of the FTC Act already covers such home 
energy representations, and the Commission can bring enforcement 
actions when appropriate to address deceptive claims.\77\ Finally, 
commenters provided no evidence that deceptive claims regarding home 
energy efficiency were prevalent in the housing market to warrant the 
Rule's expansion.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ In past cases, the Commission has required that marketers 
have competent and reliable scientific evidence to support their 
energy savings claims. See, e.g., In re Gorell Enterprises Inc., FTC 
File No. 112-3053 (May 16, 2012); In re Long Fence & Home LLLP, FTC 
File No. 112-3005 (Apr. 5, 2012); In re Serious Energy Inc., FTC 
File No. 112-3001 (May 16, 2012); In re THV Holdings LLC, FTC File 
No. 112-3057 (May 16, 2012); and In re Winchester Industries, FTC 
File No. 102-3171 (May 16, 2012). In addition, the Commission 
already administers labeling programs for the energy use of many 
products important to home efficiency. 16 CFR part 305.
    \78\ The Commission may not issue a notice of proposed 
rulemaking unless it has ``reason to believe that the unfair or 
deceptive acts or practices which are the subject of the proposed 
rulemaking are prevalent.'' 15 U.S.C. 57a(b)(3). The Commission may 
find prevalence where available information ``indicates a widespread 
pattern of unfair or deceptive acts or practices.'' Id. at 
57a(b)(3)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

N. Acoustic Performance Claims

    Background and Comments: NAIMA also urged the Commission to expand 
the Rule to cover acoustic performance claims for insulation. According 
to NAIMA, these claims have increased, and a recent National 
Advertising Division (``NAD'') case addresses them.\79\ Specifically, 
NAIMA recommended the Rule require ``manufacturers to have competent 
and reliable test data per appropriate ASTM methods'' to support such 
claims.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ See Applegate Insulation (Cellulose Insulation Products), 
Case #5961, NAD/CARY Case reports (June 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Discussion: The Commission does not propose to expand the Rule to 
cover acoustic performance claims because it lacks evidence regarding 
the prevalence of misleading acoustical performance claims. In 
addition, as with energy efficiency claims, Section 5 of the FTC Act 
already requires manufacturers to substantiate any claims regarding 
insulation's acoustic performance, and the FTC may bring enforcement 
actions against those who violate Section 5.

O. R-Value per Inch Claims

    Background: Section 460.20 of the Rule prohibits R-value per inch 
claims unless test results prove that the product's R-value per inch 
does not drop at greater thicknesses. The Commission previously 
explained that the basis for this provision is that R-value per inch 
claims lead ``consumers to believe that insulation R-values are 
linear,'' when, in fact, they often are not. For most insulation, R-
value does not increase proportionally with thickness. Accordingly, 
unqualified R-value per inch claims are often deceptive.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ 44 FR at 50234.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: NAIMA recommended the Commission amend the Rule to 
clarify the rationale for the R-value per inch prohibitions in section 
460.20. Although NAIMA supported the existing restrictions, it 
suggested that many consumers do not understand that the relation 
between R-value and inches is not linear. Specifically, NAIMA argued 
the Commission's focus on the term ``linear'' may be confusing. 
Accordingly, it recommended new Rule language stating that, while 
adding thickness may increase the total R-value, each added inch will 
not add the same ``amount'' of R-value. It also cited a recent NAD 
case, rejecting a challenge to an R-value per inch claim because of the 
lack of consumer perception evidence indicating consumers believe the 
relationship between R-value and thickness is linear. NAIMA noted that 
the FTC has long assumed this to be the case because the Rule's ``per 
inch'' section rests on that understanding.\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ Icynene asked whether section 460.6 translates into a 
minimum or an average thickness required for spray in or blown in 
products. On its face, the provision does not exclude such products. 
In addition, in initially issuing the provision, the Commission 
discussed its application to loose fill products. See 44 FR at 
50226.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Recommendation: The Commission declines to propose amendments to 
section 460.20. When it adopted this provision, the Commission 
recognized that many consumers believed the relationship between R-
value and thickness was linear, particularly when interpreting certain 
claims (i.e., per inch claims). Specifically, in first issuing this 
provision, the Commission explained that misleading ``references to the 
R-value for a one-inch thickness of the material will encourage 
consumers to think that it is appropriate to multiply this figure by 
the desired number of inches, as though the R-value per inch was 
constant.'' \82\ However, there is insufficient evidence to indicate 
that the Rule's current language is ambiguous or confusing. Section 
460.20 simply explains that industry members should not advertise R-
value for one inch or the ``R-value per inch'' unless ``actual test 
results prove that the R-values per inch of your product does not drop 
as it gets thicker.'' The Commission declines to revise this language 
as suggested because the explanatory language proposed by NAIMA may not 
apply to all insulation products and thus may create consumer 
confusion.\83\ Furthermore, the Rule itself does not include the term 
``linear,'' which NAIMA identifies as particularly confusing. The 
Commission will consider whether to issue additional consumer and 
business education materials relating to R-value per inch claims.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ 44 FR at 50234.
    \83\ For example, some products may, in fact, exhibit a linear 
relationship between R-value and thickness. Indeed, in the case 
noted by NAIMA, NAD concluded the company in question ``provided a 
reasonable basis for its `R-value per inch claims,' noting that the 
evidence in the record supports a finding that [the company's] 
cellulose insulation meets the exception to the FTC's R-value rule 
and therefore . . . is not prohibited by that rule from making `R-
value per inch' claims.'' See http://www.asrcreviews.org/nad-recommends-applegate-discontinue-certain-claims-for-cellulose-insulation-finds-company-can-support-certain-claims/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

P. Preemption and Other Laws

    Background: Section 460.23(b) of the Rule provides that ``[s]tate 
and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with, or frustrate 
the purposes of, the provisions of this regulation are preempted. 
However, a state or local government may petition the Commission, for 
good cause, to permit the enforcement of any part of a State or local 
law or regulation that would be preempted by this section.''
    Comments: NAIMA urged the Commission to retain the Rule's 
preemption provision and, to the extent possible, clarify it. 
Specifically, it noted that the Rule (section 460.23(b)) allows a state 
or local government to petition the Commission, for good cause, ``to 
permit the enforcement of any part of a State or local law or 
regulation that would be preempted by this section.'' NAIMA urged the 
FTC to revise the Rule to make clear that the Commission will provide 
the public and the affected industry with notice and opportunity to 
comment before the Commission makes any decision to waive 
preemption.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ XPSA and EPS Alliance also expressed concern about an 
ongoing Department of Energy proceeding involving efficiency 
standards for walk-in coolers and freezers. XPSA explained that the 
proposed DOE regulation is potentially inconsistent with the 
International Energy Conservation Code for Commercial Buildings 
(Section C303.1.4), which follows the FTC R-value Rule on the issues 
of aging and mean temperatures. XPSA and other commenters have 
brought these concerns to DOE's attention in that proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Discussion: The Commission does not propose to amend the existing 
preemption provision. The Commission has already indicated that it will 
seek public comment when considering such preemption-related requests 
from states, just as NAIMA has requested. Specifically, in promulgating 
the Rule in 1979 (44 FR at 50235), the Commission stated that any 
action to

[[Page 2947]]

grant such a petition will be conducted in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 
553, providing notice and opportunity to comment for affected parties.

H. Effective Date of Amendments

    The Commission proposes to make these amendments effective 180 days 
after publication. The Commission seeks comment on whether such an 
effective date provides those subject to the amendments sufficient time 
to come into compliance.

IV. Request for Comment

    You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to 
consider your comment, we must receive it on or before March 23, 2018. 
Write ``R-value Rule (No. R811001)'' on your comment. Your comment--
including your name and your state--will be placed on the public record 
of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public 
FTC website, at https://www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments.
    Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to 
heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit 
your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your 
online comment, you must file it at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/R-value, by following the instruction on the web-based form. When 
this Notice appears at http://www.regulations.gov, you also may file a 
comment through that website.
    If you file your comment on paper, ``R-value Rule (No. R811001)'' 
on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the 
following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 
600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite CC-5610 (Annex E), Washington, DC 
20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade 
Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th 
Street SW, 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex E), Washington, DC 20024. If 
possible, please submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier 
or overnight service.
    Because your comment will be placed on the publicly accessible FTC 
website at https://www.ftc.gov, you are solely responsible for making 
sure that your comment does not include any sensitive or confidential 
information. In particular, your comment should not include any 
sensitive personal information, such as your or anyone else's Social 
Security number; date of birth; driver's license number or other state 
identification number, or foreign country equivalent; passport number; 
financial account number; or credit or debit card number. You are also 
solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include 
any sensitive health information, such as medical records or other 
individually identifiable health information. In addition, your comment 
should not include any ``[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial 
information which is . . . privileged or confidential''--as provided by 
section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 
16 CFR 4.10(a)(2)--including in particular competitively sensitive 
information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, 
patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.
    Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is 
requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled 
``Confidential,'' and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c). In particular, 
the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the 
comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and 
must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from 
the public record. See FTC Rule 4.9(c). Your comment will be kept 
confidential only if the FTC General Counsel grants your request in 
accordance with the law and the public interest. Once your comment has 
been posted on the public FTC website--as legally required by FTC Rule 
4.9(b)--we cannot redact or remove your comment from the FTC website, 
unless you submit a confidentiality request that meets the requirements 
for such treatment under FTC Rule 4.9(c), and the General Counsel 
grants that request.
    Visit the FTC website to read this NPRM and the news release 
describing it. The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission 
administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and 
use in this proceeding, as appropriate. The Commission will consider 
all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before 
March 23, 2018. You can find more information, including routine uses 
permitted by the Privacy Act, in the Commission's privacy policy at 
https://www.ftc.gov/site-information/privacy-policy.

V. Rulemaking Procedures

    The Commission finds that using expedited procedures in this 
rulemaking will serve the public interest. Expedited procedures will 
support the Commission's goals of clarifying and updating existing 
regulations without 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. Because written comments 
should adequately present the views of all interested parties, the 
Commission is not scheduling a public hearing or workshop. However, if 
any person would like to present views orally, he or she should follow 
the procedures set forth in the DATES, ADDRESSES, and SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION sections of this document.
    Pursuant to 16 CFR 1.20, the Commission will use the procedures set 
forth in this document, including: (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 a workshop, if requested by interested parties; (4) 
obtaining a final recommendation from staff; and (5) announcing final 
Commission action in a document published in the Federal Register. Any 
motions or petitions in connection with this proceeding must be filed 
with the Secretary of the Commission.

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 through 612, 
requires that the Commission provide an Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (IRFA) with a proposed rule and a Final Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (FRFA), if any, with the final rule, unless the Commission 
certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities. See 5 U.S.C. 603 through 605.
    The Commission does not anticipate that the proposed amendments 
will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. The Commission recognizes that some of the affected 
manufacturers may qualify as small businesses under the relevant 
thresholds. 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. 
However, the Commission does not expect that the economic impact of the 
proposed amendments will be significant because these amendments 
involve updates, clarifications and minor changes to the Rule.
    Accordingly, this document serves as notice to the Small Business 
Administration of the FTC's certification of no effect. To ensure the 
accuracy of this certification, however, the Commission requests 
comment on whether the proposed rule will have a

[[Page 2948]]

significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, including 
specific information on the number of entities that would be covered by 
the proposed rule, the number of these companies that are small 
entities, and the average annual burden for each entity. Although the 
Commission certifies under the RFA that the rule proposed in this 
notice would not, if promulgated, have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities, the Commission has determined, 
nonetheless, that it is appropriate to publish an IRFA in order to 
inquire into the impact of the proposed rule on small entities. 
Therefore, the Commission has prepared the following analysis:

A. Description of the Reasons That Action by the Agency Is Being Taken

    The Commission is proposing improvements to the Rule to help 
consumers in their purchasing insulation by clarifying several 
provisions, updating requirements, ensuring proper test procedures are 
followed to determine the R-values of covered products, and exempting 
certain types of advertising from affirmative disclosures.

B. Statement of the Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the Proposed 
Rule

    The objective of the amendments is to improve the existing 
requirements for insulation labeling and advertising. The legal basis 
for the Rule is 15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.

C. Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rule Will Apply

    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. The FTC seeks comment and information 
regarding the estimated number or nature of small business entities for 
which the proposed rule would have a significant economic impact.

D. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements

    The changes under consideration would not increase reporting or 
recordkeeping requirements.

E. Duplicative, Overlapping, or Conflicting Federal Rules

    The Commission has not identified any other federal statutes, 
rules, or policies that would duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the 
proposed rule. The Commission invites comment and information on this 
issue.

F. Significant Alternatives to the Proposed Rule

    The Commission seeks comment and information on the need, if any, 
for alternative compliance methods that, consistent with the statutory 
requirements, would reduce the economic impact of the rule on small 
entities. For example, the Commission is currently unaware of the need 
to adopt any special provisions for small entities. However, if such 
issues are identified, the Commission could consider alternative 
approaches such as extending the effective date of these amendments for 
catalog sellers to allow them additional time to comply beyond the 
labeling deadline set for manufacturers. Nonetheless, if the comments 
filed in response to this notice identify small entities that are 
affected by the proposed rule, as well as alternative methods of 
compliance that would reduce the economic impact of the rule on such 
entities, the Commission will consider the feasibility of such 
alternatives and determine whether they should be incorporated into the 
final rule.

VII. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The current Rule contains recordkeeping, disclosure, testing, and 
reporting requirements that constitute information collection 
requirements as defined by 5 CFR 1320.3(c), the definitional provision 
within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations that 
implement the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). OMB has approved the 
Rule's existing information collection requirements through January 31, 
2018 (OMB Control No. 3084-0109). The proposed amendments make changes 
in the Rule's labeling requirements that will increase the PRA burden 
as detailed below. Accordingly, FTC staff will submit this notice of 
proposed rulemaking and associated Supporting Statement to OMB for 
review under the PRA.\85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ The PRA analysis for this rulemaking focuses strictly on 
the information collection requirements created by and/or otherwise 
affected by the amendments. Unaffected information collection 
provisions have previously been accounted for in past FTC analyses 
under the Rule and are covered by the current PRA clearance from 
OMB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is proposing to adopt a small number of rule 
amendments designed to clarify the Rule, reduce its burdens, and 
require specific testing procedures for non-insulation products. In the 
Commission's view, the proposed amendments will not increase the 
paperwork burden associated with the Rule's requirements. Under the 
current requirements, any marketer making an R-value claim must have 
competent and reliable evidence to back that claim. Accordingly, it is 
likely that such marketers already conduct testing for claims under the 
normal course of business. Thus, the proposed requirement should not 
increase those burdens. Similarly, with regard to online insulation 
sales and fact sheet amendments, the Rule already requires retailers to 
provide fact sheets to their consumers. Accordingly, the amendments 
regarding the small changes to fact sheets and online displays of fact 
sheets and labels should not create any significant increase in the 
Rule's current burden. In addition, any potential increase from those 
amendments is likely to be offset by the amendment exempting space-
constrained advertising from the affirmative disclosures in section 
460.18 and 460.19.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ The proposed fact sheet amendments in 460.13 do not 
constitute a ``collection of information'' under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) because they are a 
``public disclosure of information originally supplied by the 
government to the recipient for the purpose of disclosure to the 
public'' as indicated in Office of Management and Budget 
regulations. 5 CFR 1320.3(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consequently, there are no additional ``collection of information'' 
requirements included in the proposed amendments to submit to OMB for 
clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Although the Commission 
has tentatively concluded the proposed amendments would not increase 
the paperwork burden associated with compliance with the Rule, to 
ensure that no significant paperwork burden is being overlooked, the 
Commission requests comments on this issue.

VIII. Communications by Outside Parties to the Commissioners or Their 
Advisors

    Pursuant to Commission Rule 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

[[Page 2949]]

rulemaking record if the communication is received before the end of 
the comment period on the staff report. 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.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ See 15 U.S.C. 57a(i)(2)(A); 16 CFR 1.18(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IX. Incorporation by Reference

    Consistent with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51, the Commission 
proposes to incorporate the specifications of the following documents 
published by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
Conditioning Engineers, Inc. and ASTM International: \88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ Quoted descriptions of ASTM standards from www.astm.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     2017 ASHRAE Handbook--Fundamentals, I-P Edition (published 
2017) (ASHRAE Handbook covers basic principles and data used in the 
heating, ventilation, air conditioning and refrigeration industry);
     ASTM C 177-13, ``Standard Test Method for Steady-State 
Heat Flux Measurements and Thermal Transmission Properties by Means of 
the Guarded-Hot-Plate Apparatus (published October 2013)'' (``This test 
covers the measurement of heat flux and associated test conditions for 
flat specimens. The guarded-hot-plate apparatus is generally used to 
measure steady-state heat flux through materials having a ``low'' 
thermal conductivity and commonly denoted as ``thermal insulators.'');
     ASTM C 518-15, ``Standard Test Method for Steady-State 
Thermal Transmission Properties by Means of the Heat Flow Meter 
Apparatus (published December 2015)'' (``This test method covers the 
measurement of steady state thermal transmission through flat slab 
specimens using a heat flow meter apparatus'');
     ASTM C 739-17, ``Standard Specification for Cellulosic 
Fiber Loose-Fill Thermal Insulation'' (August 2017) (``This 
specification covers the composition and physical requirements of 
chemically treated, recycled cellulosic fiber loose-fill type thermal 
insulation for use in attics or enclosed spaces in housing, and other 
framed buildings within the ambient temperature range from[thinsp]-45 
to 90 [deg]C by pneumatic or pouring application.'');
     ASTM C 1045-07 (reapproved 2013), ``Standard Practice for 
Calculating Thermal Transmission Properties from Steady-State 
Conditions (published January 2014)'' (``This practice is intended to 
provide the user with a uniform procedure for calculating the thermal 
transmission properties of a material or system from standard test 
methods used to determine heat flux and surface temperatures.'');
     ASTM C 1114-06 (Reapproved 2013), ``Standard Test Method 
for Steady-State Thermal Transmission Properties by Means of the Thin-
Heater Apparatus (published January 2014)'' (``This test method covers 
the determination of the steady-state thermal transmission properties 
of flat-slab specimens of thermal insulation using a thin heater of 
uniform power density having low lateral heat flow.'');
     ASTM C 1149-11, ``Standard Specification for Self-
Supported Spray Applied Cellulosic Thermal Insulation (published August 
2011)'' (``The specification covers the physical properties of self-
supported spray applied cellulosic fibers intended for use as thermal 
insulation or an acoustical absorbent material, or both.'');
     ASTM C 1224-15, ``Standard Specification for Reflective 
Insulation for Building Applications (published November 2015)'' 
(``This specification covers the general requirements and physical 
properties of reflective insulations for use in building 
applications.'');
     ASTM C 1363-11, ``Standard Test Method for the Thermal 
Performance of Building Assemblies by Means of a Hot Box Apparatus 
(published June 2011)'' (``This test method establishes the principles 
for the design of a hot box apparatus and the minimum requirements for 
the determination of the steady state thermal performance of building 
assemblies when exposed to controlled laboratory conditions. This 
method is also used to measure the thermal performance of a building 
material at standardized test conditions such as those required in ASTM 
material Specifications C739, C764, C1224 and Practice C1373.'');
     ASTM C 1371-15, ``Standard Test Method for Determination 
of Emittance of Materials Near Room Temperature Using Portable 
Emissometers (published June 2015)'' (``This test method covers a 
technique for determination of the emittance of opaque and highly 
thermally conductive materials using a portable differential thermopile 
emissometer. The purpose of the test method is to provide a comparative 
means of quantifying the emittance of materials near room 
temperature.'');
     ASTM C 1374-14, ``Standard Test Method for Determination 
of Installed Thickness of Pneumatically Applied Loose-Fill Building 
Insulation'' (published May 2014) (``This test method covers 
determination of the installed thickness of pneumatically applied 
loose-fill building insulations prior to settling by simulating an open 
attic with horizontal blown applications.'');
     ASTM E 408-13, ``Standard Test Methods for Total Normal 
Emittance of Surfaces Using Inspection-Meter Techniques (published June 
2013)'' (``These test methods cover determination of the total normal 
emittance of surfaces by means of portable, as well as desktop, 
inspection-meter instruments.'').
    The ASHRAE Handbook and the ASTM standards are reasonably available 
to interested parties. Members of the public can obtain copies of ASTM 
C 177-13, ASTM C 518-15, ASTM C 739-11, ASTM C 1045-07, ASTM C 1114-06, 
ASTM C 1149-11, ASTM C 1224-15, ASTM C 1363-11, ASTM C 1371-15, ASTM C 
1374-14, and ASTM E 408-13 from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor 
Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428; telephone: 1-877-909-2786; internet 
address: http://www.astm.org. Members of the public can obtain copies 
of the 2017 ASHRAE Handbook--Fundamentals, I-P Edition (2017) from 
ASHRAE Headquarters 1791 Tullie Circle, NE Atlanta, GA 30329; telephone 
(404) 636-8400; internet address: https://www.ashrae.org. These 
standards are also available for inspection at the FTC Library, (202) 
326-2395 Federal Trade Commission, Room H-630, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue 
NW, Washington, DC 20580.

IX. Proposed Rule Language

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 460

    Advertising, Incorporation by reference, Insulation, Labeling, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Trade practices.

    For the reasons set out in this document, the Commission proposes 
adopting the following amendments to 16 CFR part 460.

PART 460--LABELING AND ADVERTISING OF HOME INSULATION

0
1. The authority citation for part 460 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. Revise Sec.  460.1 to read as follows:


Sec.  460.1  What this regulation does.

    This regulation deals with R-value claims, as well as home 
insulation labels, fact sheets, ads, and other promotional materials in 
or affecting

[[Page 2950]]

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 the civil monetary penalty amount specified in Sec.  1.98 of this 
chapter) each time you break a rule.
0
3. Revise Sec.  460.2 to read as follows:


Sec.  460.2  What is home insulation.

    Insulation is any material mainly used to slow heat flow. It may be 
mineral or organic, fibrous, cellular, or reflective (aluminum foil). 
It may be in rigid, semirigid, flexible, or loose-fill form. Home 
insulation is for use in old or new homes, condominiums, cooperatives, 
apartments, modular homes, or mobile homes. It does not include pipe 
insulation. It does not include any kind of duct insulation except for 
duct wrap. It also includes insulation developed and marketed for 
commercial or industrial buildings that is also marketed for and used 
in residential buildings.
0
4. Revise Sec.  460.3 to read as follows:


Sec.  460.3  Who is covered.

    You are covered by this regulation if you are a member of the home 
insulation industry. This includes individuals, firms, partnerships, 
and corporations. It includes manufacturers, distributors, franchisors, 
installers, retailers, utility companies, and trade associations. 
Advertisers and advertising agencies are also covered. So are labs 
doing tests for industry members. If you sell new homes to consumers, 
you are covered. If you make R-value claims for non-insulation products 
described in Sec.  460.22 of this part, you are covered by the 
requirements of that section.
0
5. Revise Sec.  460.4 to read as follows:


Sec.  460.4  When the rules apply.

    You must follow these rules each time you import, manufacture, 
distribute, sell, install, promote, or label home insulation. You must 
follow them each time you prepare, approve, place, or pay for home 
insulation labels, fact sheets, ads, or other promotional materials for 
consumer use. You must also follow them each time you supply anyone 
covered by this regulation with written information that is to be used 
in labels, fact sheets, ads, or other promotional materials for 
consumer use. Testing labs must follow the rules unless the industry 
members tells them, in writing, that labels, fact sheets, ads, or other 
promotional materials for home insulation will not be based on the test 
results. You must follow the requirements of Sec.  460.22 of this part 
each time you make an R-value claim for non-insulation products 
marketed in whole or in part to reduce residential energy use by 
slowing heat flow.
0
6. 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 C177-13, ``Standard Test Method for Steady-State Heat Flux 
Measurements and Thermal Transmission Properties by Means of the 
Guarded-Hot-Plate Apparatus;'' ASTM C518-15, ``Standard Test Method for 
Steady-State Thermal Transmission Properties by Means of the Heat Flow 
Meter Apparatus;'' ASTM C1363-11, ``Standard Test Method for the 
Thermal Performance of Building Assemblies by Means of a Hot Box 
Apparatus'' or ASTM C1114-06, ``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 C177-
13 or ASTM C518-15 must be reported only in accordance with the 
requirements and restrictions of ASTM C1045-07, ``Standard Practice for 
Calculating Thermal Transmission Properties from Steady-State 
Conditions.''
    (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.
    (2) For loose-fill cellulose, the tests must be done at the settled 
density determined under paragraph 8 of ASTM C739-17, ``Standard 
Specification for Cellulosic Fiber 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.
    (4) For self-supported spray-applied cellulose, the tests must be 
done at the density determined pursuant to ASTM C1149-11, ``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 C1374-04, ``Standard 
Test Method for Determination of Installed Thickness of Pneumatically 
Applied Loose-Fill Building Insulation,'' for R-values of 13, 19, 22, 
30, 38, 49 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 
E408-13, ``Standard Test Methods for Total Normal Emittance of Surfaces 
Using Inspection-Meter Techniques,'' or ASTM C1371-15, ``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 ASHRAE Handbook--Fundamentals, I-P Edition, 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 ASHRAE 
Fundamentals Handbook, must be tested with ASTM C1363-11, ``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 
C1224-15, ``Standard Specification for Reflective Insulation for 
Building Applications,'' and under the test conditions specified in 
ASTM C1224-15. To get the R-value from the results of those tests, use 
the formula specified in ASTM C1224-15.
    (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 C1363-
11, ``Standard Test Method for the Thermal Performance of Building 
Assemblies by Means of a Hot Box Apparatus,'' which is incorporated by 
reference in

[[Page 2951]]

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 required in this section are incorporated by 
reference into this section with the approval of the Director of the 
Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. All approved 
material is available for inspection at the FTC Library, (202) 326-
2395, Federal Trade Commission, Room H-630, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 
Washington, DC 20580. It is also available for inspection at the 
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on 
the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030 or go to 
www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html:
    (1) ASHRAE Headquarters, 1791 Tullie Circle, NE, Atlanta, GA 30329; 
telephone (404) 636-8400; https://www.ashrae.org.
    (i) 2017 ASHRAE Handbook--Fundamentals, I-P Edition (published 
2017)
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (2) ASTM Int'l, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West 
Conshocken, PA 19428-2959, 877-909-2786, www.astm.org/ (i) ASTM C 177-
13, ``Standard Test Method for Steady-State Heat Flux Measurements and 
Thermal Transmission Properties by Means of the Guarded-Hot-Plate 
Apparatus (published October 2013).''.
    (ii) ASTM C 518-15, ``Standard Test Method for Steady-State Thermal 
Transmission Properties by Means of the Heat Flow Meter Apparatus'' 
(published December 2015).
    (iii) ASTM C 739-11, ``Standard Specification for Cellulosic Fiber 
Loose-Fill Thermal Insulation.'' (May 2011).
    (iv) ASTM C 1045-07 (reapproved 2013), ``Standard Practice for 
Calculating Thermal Transmission Properties from Steady-State 
Conditions'' (published January 2014).
    (v) ASTM C 1114-06 (Reapproved 2013), ``Standard Test Method for 
Steady-State Thermal Transmission Properties by Means of the Thin-
Heater Apparatus'' (published January 2014).
    (vi) ASTM C 1149-11, ``Standard Specification for Self-Supported 
Spray Applied Cellulosic Thermal Insulation'' (published August 2011).
    (vii) ASTM C 1224-15, ``Standard Specification for Reflective 
Insulation for Building Applications'' (published November 2015).
    (viii) ASTM C 1363-11, ``Standard Test Method for the Thermal 
Performance of Building Assemblies by Means of a Hot Box Apparatus'' 
(published June 2011).
    (ix) ASTM C 1371-15, ``Standard Test Method for Determination of 
Emittance of Materials Near Room Temperature Using Portable 
Emissometers'' (published June 2015).
    (x) ASTM C 1374-14, ``Standard Test Method for Determination of 
Installed Thickness of Pneumatically Applied Loose-Fill Building 
Insulation'' (published May 2014).
    (xi) ASTM E 408-13, ``Standard Test Methods for Total Normal 
Emittance of Surfaces Using Inspection-Meter Techniques'' (published 
June 2013).
    (2) [Reserved]


Sec.  460.7  [Removed and Reserved]

0
7. Remove and reserve Sec.  460.7.
0
8. Revise paragraph (e) of Sec.  460.13 to read as follows:


Sec.  460.13  Fact Sheets

* * * * *
    (e) After the chart and any statement dealing with the specific 
type of insulation, ALL fact sheets must carry this statement, boxed, 
in 12-point type:

READ THIS BEFORE YOU BUY

What You Should Know About R-Values

    The chart shows the R-value of this insulation. R means 
resistance to heat flow. The higher the R-value, the greater the 
insulating power. Compare insulation R-values before you buy.
    There are other factors to consider. The amount of insulation 
you need depends mainly on the climate you live in. Also, your fuel 
savings from insulation will depend upon the climate, the type and 
size of your house, the amount of insulation already in your house, 
your fuel use patterns and family size, proper installation of your 
insulation, and how tightly your house is sealed against air leaks. 
If you buy too much insulation, it will cost you more than what 
you'll save on fuel.
    To get the marked R-value, it is essential that this insulation 
be installed properly.

0
9. Revise Sec.  460.14 to read as follows:


Sec.  460.14  How retailers must handle labels and 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, whether you offer insulation 
products for sale offline or online. 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. If you are offering products 
for sale online, the product labels and fact sheets required by this 
part, or a direct link to this information, must appear clearly and 
conspicuously and in close proximity to the covered product's price on 
each web page that contains a detailed description of the covered 
product and its price.
0
10. Revise paragraph (e) of Sec.  460.18 to read as follows:


Sec.  460.18  Insulation ads.

* * * * *
    (e) The affirmative disclosure requirements in Sec.  460.18 do not 
apply to television or radio advertisements or to space-constrained 
advertisements. For the purposes of this part, ``space-constrained 
advertisement'' means any communication made through interactive media 
(such as the internet, online services, and software, including but not 
limited to internet search results and banner ads) that has space, 
format, size or technological limitations or restrictions that prevent 
industry members from making disclosures required by this part clearly 
and conspicuously. Industry members maintain the burden of showing that 
there is insufficient space to provide the disclosures that this part 
otherwise requires be made clearly and conspicuously.
0
11. Revise paragraph (g) of Sec.  460.19 to read as follows:


Sec.  460.19  Savings claims.

* * * * *
    (g) The affirmative disclosure requirements in Sec.  460.19 do not 
apply to television or radio advertisements or to space-constrained 
advertisements. ``Space-constrained advertisement'' is defined in Sec.  
460.18(e).
0
12. Redesignate Sec. Sec.  460.22 through 460.24 as Sec. Sec.  460.23 
through 460.25 and add a new Sec.  460.22 to read as follows:


Sec.  460.22  R-value Claims for Non-Insulation Products

    If you make an R-value claim for a product, other than a 
fenestration-related product, that is not home insulation and is 
marketed in whole or in part to reduce residential energy use by 
slowing heat flow, you must test the product pursuant to Sec.  460.5 of 
this part using a test or tests in that section

[[Page 2952]]

appropriate to the product. Any advertised R-value claims must fairly 
reflect the results of those tests. For the purposes of this section, 
fenestration-related products include windows, doors, and skylights as 
well as attachments for those products.
0
14. In Appendix to Part 460--Exemptions, add paragraph (d) to read as 
follows:

In Appendix to Part 460--Exemptions

* * * * *
    (d) The requirements in Sec. Sec.  460.6 through 460.21 of this 
part do not apply to R-value claims covered by Sec.  460.22.

    By direction of the Commission.
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2017-26569 Filed 1-19-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6750-01-P