Trade Regulation Rule: Labeling and Advertising of Home Insulation

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission (``Commission'') proposes

commencing a rulemaking proceeding to amend its Trade Regulation Rule

Concerning the Labeling and Advertising of Home Insulation (``R-value

Rule'' or ``Rule''). The purpose of the rulemaking is to streamline and

increase the benefits of the Rule to consumers and sellers, minimize

its costs, and respond to the development and utilization of new

technologies to make American homes more energy efficient and less

costly to operate. This document: First, summarizes public comments the

Commission received in response to a request for comments about the

need for the rule and its benefits and burdens; second, proposes

amendments to recognize technological advances in R-value testing and

specimen preparation procedures, and to clarify and streamline the

Rule's requirements; and third, solicits comments on the proposed

amendments and additional issues.

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

1999.

ADDRESSES: Five paper copies of each written comment should be

submitted to the Office of the Secretary, Federal Trade Commission,

Room 159, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. All

comments also should be submitted, if possible, in electronic form, on

a 3\1/2\ inch personal computer diskette, with a label on the diskette

stating the name of the commenter and the name and version of the word

processing program used to create the document. Programs based on DOS

are preferred. Files from other operating systems should be submitted

in ASCII text format. Individuals filing comments need not submit

multiple copies or comments in electronic form. Comments alternatively

may be submitted by electronic mail (e-mail) to [email protected]>.

Submissions should be identified as ``ANPR Comment, R-value Rule, 16

CFR Part 460.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kent C. Howerton or James G. Mills,

Attorneys, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326-

3013 or (202) 326-3035 (voice), or (202) 326-3259 (FAX).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

According to the U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE''), the typical

U.S. family spends close to $1,300 each year on energy bills. DOE

statistics show that, typically, 44% of a homeowner's utility bill goes

for heating and cooling costs. DOE states that homeowners may be able

to reduce their energy bills from 10% to 50% by taking certain

steps.\1\ One of the major steps is increasing the amount of thermal

insulation in their existing homes, or purchasing additional insulation

when purchasing new homes.

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

\1\ The amount of energy savings a particular homeowner can

save, of course, will vary depending on individual circumstances.

DOE provides recommendations about the amount of insulation

homeowners need, based on local heating and cooling costs and

climate conditions. DOE's recommendations are based on the cost-

effectiveness of the recommended insulation levels. for more

information, see http://www.eren.doe.gov/consumerinfo/

energy__>savers/ on the Internet, or telephone the U.S.

Department of Energy's Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Clearinghouse (``EREC'') at (800) 363-3732.

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

To assist consumers in reducing energy bills, the President of the

United States announced in 1998 the Partnership for Advancing

Technology in Housing (``PATH''). PATH is a public/private sector

initiative that seeks to expand the development and utilization of new

technologies in order to make American homes stronger, safer and more

durable; more energy efficient and environmentally friendly; easier to

maintain and less costly to operate; and more comfortable and exciting

to live in. The PATH effort is expected to result in, among other

things, improved energy efficiency and the increased market acceptance

of new housing technologies.

The FTC has long recognized the importance of energy expenditures

on housing to homeowners and other consumers. In 1979, the Commission

promulgated the R-value Rule, 16 CFR Part 460. The R-value Rule

requires that thermal insulation manufacturers and other sellers

disclose the thermal performance of their products, based on uniform

testing procedures adopted by the thermal insulation industry. The

purpose of this Rule is to provide consumers with information about

thermal insulation products, based on uniform standards, that allows

them to make meaningful, cost-based purchasing decisions among

competing products. As part of its ongoing program to review all its

rules and guides to ensure that they provide the maximum benefits at

the lowest cost, the Commission reviewed the R-value Rule in 1995 and

adopted amendments in 1996 to support the use of the most current

testing procedures available and to streamline the Rule.

To increase further the benefits of the Rule, reduce its costs, and

support PATH's goals to make American homes more energy efficient, and

less costly to operate, the Commission now proposes to consider

amending the Rule to recognize the latest technology available. At this

time the Commission proposes only a few limited amendments, which are

designed to clarify the Rule, make disclosure requirements consistent

for competing types of loose-fill insulation products, require the most

current procedures for preparing R-value test specimens and conducting

R-value tests, delete disclosures for a type of insulation that no

longer is sold, and reduce disclosure requirements for retailers.

Regarding these issues, the Commission believes that there is

sufficient information to propose amendments. Regarding other issues,

the Commission is not proposing amendments at this time, but seeks

additional comment that could ultimately result in proposed amendments.

The Commission, therefore, requests comments on additional issues, such

as whether the Commission should revise the Rule to cover additional

products or to require the disclosure of in-use performance values (as

opposed to laboratory tests that are conducted under static, uniform

conditions) or of the performance of building systems. In addition, the

Commission requests comments on whether it should adopt additional test

specimen preparation requirements for specific types and forms of

insulation products to account for various factors that affect R-

values; adopt additional or updated testing requirements; and revise

the disclosure requirements for manufacturers' label and fact sheets,

advertisements and other promotional materials, and for professional

installers, new home sellers, and retailers.

II. The R-Value Rule

The Commission promulgated the R-value Rule on August 29, 1979 \2\

under section 18 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (``FTC Act''), 15

U.S.C. 57a. The Rule became effective on September 30, 1980. The Rule

specifies substantiation and disclosure requirements for those who sell

thermal insulation products for use in the residential market, and

prohibits certain claims unless they are true. The primary

[[Page 48025]]

disclosure required is the insulation product's ``R-value'' ``R-value''

is the recognized numerical measure of the ability of an insulation

product to restrict the flow of heat and, therefore, to reduce energy

costs. R-values may be expressed per unit of thickness (e.g., one inch)

or for the total thickness of a particular insulation product or

installation. The higher the R-value, the better the product's

insulating ability.

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

\2\ Final trade regulation rule (``Statement of Basis and

Purpose'' or ``SBP''), 44 FR 50218 (1979).

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

On April 6, 1995, as part of its ongoing regulatory review program,

the Commission solicited public comments about the economic impact of

and current need for the R-value Rule.\3\ 60 FR 17492 (1995). At the

same time, the Commission solicited comments on a petition

(``Petition'') from Ronald S. Graves, who at that time was a Research

Staff Member, Materials Analysis Group, Martin Marietta Energy System,

Inc. (which operates Oak Ridge National Laboratory (``ORNL'') for the

U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'')). The Petition requested that the

Commission approve an additional (fifth) R-value test procedures, as an

optional test procedure for determining the R-value of home insulation

under the Rule. The test procedure had been issued by the American

Society for Testing and Material (``ASTM''), a voluntary industry

standards organization.

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

\3\ The Commission previously reviewed the Rule in 1985 under

the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 610, to determine the

economic impact of the Rule on small entities. Based on that review,

the Commission determined that: there was a continuing need for the

Rule; there was no basis to conclude that the Rule had a significant

impact on a substantial number of small entities; there was no basis

to conclude that the Rule should be amended to minimize its economic

impact on small entities; the Rule did not generally overlap,

duplicate, or conflict with other regulations; and technological,

economic, and other changes had not affected the Rule in any way

that would warrant amending the Rule. 50 FR 13246 (1985).

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

In response to the request for comments, the Commission received 42

comments from manufacturers of cellular plastics, cellulosic, mineral

fiber, and reflective insulation products; manufacturers of structural

insulated panels; trade associations comprised of manufacturers of

insulation products and structural insulated panels, professional

installers, and roofing contractors; independent technical consultants

to industry; a government contractor; and individual consumers.\4\

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

\4\ The April 6, 1995 request for comments is filed as document

number B172394. The comments filed in response to the request for

comments are listed in the attached Appendix, alphabetically

according to the citation abbreviations used in this notice. The

comments are filed as document numbers B17239400001, B17239400002,

etc. In today's notice, the comments are cited as #01, #02, etc.

They are available for inspection in Room 130 at the Commission's

Headquarters at 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC.

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

Thirty of the 31 comments that addressed the current need for the

Rule stated that there is a continuing need for the Rule (and its

requirements that manufacturers and other sellers substantiate and

disclose the R-values of home insulation products). Twenty-four

comments described benefits that the current Rule, and the disclosure

of R-values and related information, confer on consumers and home

insulation sellers, including: (1) Giving consumers the basic thermal

performance information (i.e., R-values) they need to select products

with the R-value they want; (2) giving consumers R-value information in

a uniform manner that facilitates easy comparison of competing

products; (3) requiring that R-value claims be substantiated so

consumers receive what they are promised; (4) helping consumers save

energy (and heating and cooling costs) by preventing misrepresentations

about R-values of insulation products; (5) saving consumers money by

eliminating marketing practices that lead them to over- or

underinsulate; (6) improving the quality and consistency of home

insulation and encouraging the development of advanced products; and

(7) creating a ``level playing field'' for competing insulation

sellers.\5\ Most of the comments stated that the costs the Rule imposes

on consumers and sellers are minimal.

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

\5\ In addition to these benefits, one comment explained that

utility companies have embraced the Rule and developed their own

energy savings programs that depend on the Rule to protect

consumers. The comment also stated that state departments of

consumer affairs have used the Rule as a model in writing their

regulations, which has led to state enforcement that has generated

publicity and educated consumers.

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

Based on the comments, the Commission determined that there is a

continuing need for the Rule, published its determination to retain it,

and adopted several technical, non-substantive amendments to support

the use of the most current testing procedures available and to

streamline the Rule.\6\ 61 FR 13659, at 13659-62, 13665 (1996). The

comments also discussed other issues and recommended that the

Commission consider additional Rule amendments. These comments, the

Commission's discussion of the issues the comments raised, proposed

revisions to the Rule, and objectives and regulatory alternatives to

the proposed revisions, are summarized in Part IV.

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

\6\ These amendments: (1) Revised section 460.5 of the Rule to

allow the use of an additional ASTM test procedure as an optional,

but not required, test procedure to determine the R-value of home

insulation; (2) revised section 460.5 to require the use of current,

updated versions of other ASTM R-value test methods cited in the

rule; (3) added an Appendix summarizing the exemptions from specific

requirements of the Rule that the Commission previously granted for

certain classes of persons covered by the Rule; and (4) revised

section 460.10 of the Rule to cross-reference the Commission's

enforcement policy statement for foreign language advertising in 16

CFR 14.9 and deleted the previous Appendix to the Rule because it

merely repeated the text of 16 CFR 14.9.

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

III. Overview of the Rule \7\

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

\7\ This part of the notice outlines the coverage and

requirements of the R-value Rule. Home insulation sellers should be

aware, however, that additional Commission rules or guides may also

apply to them. For example, the Commission's rules concerning

Disclosure of Written Consumer Product Warranty Terms and

Conditions, and the Pre-sale Availability of Written Warranty Terms,

16 CFR Parts 701 and 702, specify requirements concerning warranties

for home insulation products; the Commission's Guides for the Use of

Environmental Marketing Claims, 16 CFR Part 260, address the

application of section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45, to

environmental advertising and marketing claims (e.g., claims

concerning the amount of recycled material a product contains).

Further, section 5 of the FTC Act declares that unfair or deceptive

acts or practices are unlawful, and requires that advertisers and

other sellers have a reasonable basis for advertising and other

promotional claims before they are disseminated. See Deception

Policy Statement, Letter from the Commission to the Honorable John

D. Dingell, Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, U.S. House

of Representatives (Oct. 14, 1983), reprinted in Cliffdale Assocs.,

Inc., 103 F.T.C. 110 (1984); Statement of Policy on the Scope of the

Consumer Unfairness Jurisdiction, Letter from the Commission to the

Honorable Wendell H. Ford, Chairman, Consumer Subcommittee,

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, U.S. House of

Representatives, and the Honorable John C. Danforth, Ranking

Minority Member, Consumer Subcommittee, Committee on Commerce,

Science, and Transportation, U.S. Senate (Dec. 17, 1980), reprinted

in International Harvester Co., 104 F.T.C. 949 (1984); and Policy

Statement Regarding Advertising Substantiation, 49 FR 30999 (1984),

reprinted in Thompson Medical Co., 104 F.T.C. 839 (1984).

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

A. Products Covered

The R-value Rule covers all ``home insulation products.'' Under the

Rule, ``insulation'' is any product mainly used to slow down the flow

of heat from a warmer area to cooler area, for example, from the heated

interior of a house to the exterior during the winter through exterior

walls, attic, floors over crawl spaces, or basement. ``Home

insulation'' includes insulation used in all types of residential

structures. The Rule automatically covers new types or forms of

insulation marketed for use in the residential market, whether or not

they are specifically referred to in the Rule. The Rule does not cover

pipe insulation, or any type of duct insulation except for duct wrap.

The Rule does not cover insulation products sold for use in commercial

(including industrial) buildings. It does not apply to other products

with insulating characteristics, such as storm windows or storm doors.

Home insulation includes two basic categories: ``mass'' insulations

and

[[Page 48026]]

``reflective'' insulations. Mass insulations reduce heat transfer by

conduction (through the insulation's mass), convection (by air movement

within and through the air spaces inside the insulation's mass), and

radiation. Reflective insulations (primarily aluminum foil) reduce heat

transfer not through the mass of the product, but, when installed

facing an airspace, by increasing the thermal resistance of the

airspace by reducing heat transfer by radiation through it. 44 FR at

50219. Within these basic categories, home insulation is sold in

various types (``type'' refers to the material from which the

insulation is made, e.g., fiberglass, cellulose, polyurethane, aluminum

foil) and forms (``form'' refers to the physical form of the product,

e.g., batt, dry-applied loose-fill, spray-applied, boardstock, multi-

sheet reflective).

B. Parties Covered

The Rules applies to home insulation manufacturers, professional

installers, retailers who sell insulation to consumers for do-it-

yourself installation, and new home sellers (including sellers of

manufactured housing). It also applies to testing laboratories that

conduct R-value tests for home insulation manufacturers or other

sellers who use the test results as the basis for making R-value claims

about home insulation products.

C. Purpose of the Rule

The main reason consumers purchase home insulation is to reduce

energy expenditures to heat and cool their homes. To assist consumers,

the Rule requires sellers (including insulation manufacturers,

professional installers, new home sellers, and retailers) to disclose

the insulation product's R-value and related information, prior to

retail sale, based on uniform, industry-adopted standards. This

information enables consumers to evaluate how well a particular

insulation product is likely to perform, to determine whether the cost

of the insulation is justified, and to make meaningful, cost-based

purchasing decisions among competing products.

D. Basis for the Rule

The Commission issued the R-value Rule to prohibit, on an industry-

wide basis, specific unfair or deceptive acts or practices. When it

issued the Rule, the Commission found that the following acts or

practices were prevalent in the home insulation industry and were

deceptive or unfair, in violation of section 5 of the FTC Act, 15

U.S.C. 45: (1) Sellers had failed to disclose R-value, and caused

substantial consumer injury by impeding the ability of consumers to

make informed purchasing decisions, 44 FR at 50222-23; (2) the failure

to disclose R-values, which vary significantly among competing home

insulation products of the same thickness and price, misled consumers

when they bought insulation on the basis of price or thickness alone,

Id. at 50223; (3) sellers had exaggerated R-values, often failing to

take into account factors (e.g., aging, settling) known to reduce

thermal performance, Id. at 50223-24; (4) sellers had failed to inform

consumers about the meaning and importance of R-value, which consumers

need to understand R-values, Id. at 50224; (5) sellers had exaggerated

the amount of savings of fuel bills that consumers could expect, and

often failed to disclose that savings will vary depending on the

consumer's particular circumstances, Id.; and (6) sellers had falsely

claimed that consumers would qualify for tax credits through the

purchase of home insulation, or that products had been ``certified'' or

``favored'' by federal agencies, Id.

E. Requirements of the Rule

The Rule requires that manufacturers and others who sell home

insulation determine and disclose each product's R-value (and related

information--e.g., thickness, coverage area per package) on package

labels and manufacturers' fact sheets. R-value ratings vary among

different types and forms of home insulations and among products of the

same type and form. The Rule requires that R-value claims to consumers

about specific home insulation products be based on uniform R-value

test procedures that measure thermal performance under ``steady-state''

(i.e. ``static'') conditions.\8\ Mass insulation products may be tested

under any of the test methods, reflective insulation products must be

tested according to either ASTM C 236-89 (1993) or ASTM C 976-90, which

can determine the R-value of insulation systems (such as those that

include one or more air spaces).\9\ The tests must be conducted at a

mean temperature of 75 deg.F. The tests on mass insulation products

must be conducted on the insulation material alone (excluding any

airspace).

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

\8\ Section 460.5 of the Rule requires that the R-values of home

insulation products be based on one of the following R-value test

procedures adopted by ASTM: (1) ASTM C 177-85 (Reapproved 1993):

Standard Test Method for Steady-State Heat Flux Measurements and

Thermal Transition Properties by Means of the Guarded-Hot-Plate

Apparatus (``ASTMC C 177-85 (1993)''or ``Guarded Hot Plate''); (2)

ASTM C 236-89 (Reapproved 1993): Standard Test Method for Steady-

State Thermal Performance of Building Assemblies by Means of a

Guarded Hot Box (``ASTM C 236-89 (1993)'' or ``Guarded Hot Box'');

(3) ASTM C 518-91: Standard Test Method for Steady-State Heat Flux

Measurements and Thermal Transmission Properties by Means of the

Heat Flow Meter Apparatus (``ASTM C 518-91'' or ``Heat Flow

Meter''); (4) ASTM C 976-90; Standard Test Method for Thermal

Performance of Building Assemblies by Means of a Calibrated Hot Box

(``ASTM C 976-90'' or ``Calibrated Hot Box'')); and (5) ASTM C 1114-

95; Standard Test Method for Steady-State Thermal Transmission

Properties by Means of the Thin-Heater Apparatus (``ASTM C 1114-

92''or ``Thin-Heater Apparatus''). R-values determined according to

ASTM C 177-85 (1993) or ASTM C 518-91 must be reported in accordance

with ASTM C 1045-90: Standard Practice for Calculating Thermal

Transmission Properties from Steady-Heat Flux Measurements (``ASTM C

1045-90''). The Commission gave manufacturers and others the option

of choosing among those test procedures because it determined that

all are highly accurate and reproducibly steady-state test methods

that yield uniform and reliable results. 44 FR at 50226; Final rule,

55 FR 10053, at 10054 (1990); Final rule, 61 FR 13659, at 13662-63

(1996). ASTM reviews and revises each of these procedures

periodically. Under section 460.7 of the Rule, the Commission will

accept, but not require, the use of a revised version of any of

these standards 90 days after ASTM adopts and publishes the

revision. The Commission may, however, reopen the rulemaking

proceeding during a 90-day period or at any later time to consider

whether it should require use of the revised procedure or reject it

under section 460.5 of the Rule. 61 FR at 13663.

\9\ The R-value of a single-sheet reflective insulation product

may be determined according to an alternative method. See Part

IV.D.2, infra.

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

When it promulgated the Rule, the Commission found that certain

factors, such as aging or settling, affect the thermal performance of

home insulation products. 44 FR at 50219-20, 50227-28. To ensure that

R-value claims take these factors into account, the Rule mandates that

the required R-value tests for polyurethane, polyisocyanurate, and

extruded polystyrene insulation products be conducted on test specimens

that fully reflect the effect of aging,\10\ and for loose-fill

insulation products on test specimens that fully reflect the effect of

settling.\11\

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

\10\ See Part IV.C.1.a, infra.

\11\ See Part IV.C.2.a, infra.

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

Specific disclosures must be made: (1) By manufacturers on product

labels and manufacturers' fact sheets; (2) by professional installers

and new home sellers on receipts or contracts; and (3) by

manufacturers, professional installers, and retailers in advertising

and other promotional materials (including those on the Internet) that

contain an R-value, price, thickness, or energy-savings claim, or

compare one type of insulation to another. Manufacturers and other

sellers must have a ``reasonable basis'' for any energy savings claims

they make.\12\

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

\12\ Although the Rule does not specify how energy savings

claims must be substantiated, the Commission explained that

scientifically reliable measurements of fuel use in actual houses or

reliable computer models or methods of heat flow calculations would

meet the reasonable basis standard. 44 FR at 50233-334. Sellers

other than manufacturers can rely on the manufacturer's claims

unless they know or should know that the manufacturer does not have

a reasonable basis for the claims.

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

[[Page 48027]]

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

Regulatory alternatives

This part of the notice summarizes and discusses the issues raised

by the comments, including suggestions that the Commission revise the

Rule. In analyzing the comments, the Commission has considered whether

the suggested revisions would further the Commission's objective of

ensuring that consumers receive information about home insulation

products prior to purchase in a uniform, reliable, and substantiated

manner, so that they can evaluate how well a particular product is

likely to perform and make meaningful, cost-based purchasing decisions.

In addition, the Commission has considered alternatives to amending the

Rule to impose new requirements on an industry-wide basis, such as

dealing with questionable claims or practices on a case-by-case basis,

or exploring other mechanisms such as consumer and business education

or industry self-regulation. Below, the Commission explains, on an

issue-by-issue basis, whether it proposes amending the Rule as

suggested by the comments. Both Parts IV and V include specific issues

and questions on which the Commission solicits public comments.

A. Disclosing Thermal Performance of Additional Products

1. Residential Pipe and Duct Insulations

Comments

Dr. Kenneth E. Wilkes, for ORNL, recommended amending the Rule to

include pipe insulations and all types of duct insulations, and listed

the applicable ASTM test methods that apply to these products. Dr.

Wilkes stated that the disclosure of R-value information would provide

important information for purchasers of these products.\13\

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

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

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

Discussion

The Commission excluded pipe insulation based on uncontroverted

evidence in the original rulemaking proceeding that it was used

primarily to prevent moisture condensation on low temperature lines,

not for energy conservation; that R-value was not a reliable basis for

comparing the performance of pipe insulations; and that pipe

insulations were not commonly advertised in terms of energy-savings

potential.\14\ Similarly, it excluded duct insulations other than duct

wrap because only duct wrap was used extensively in the residential

setting. 44 FR at 50238 n.170. The Commission's staff has reviewed

current consumer advertising for these products and found no

information to indicate that these facts have changed. Unless

interested parties have information that sellers are misrepresenting

the thermal performance of these products to consumers, the Commission

will not propose extending the Rule to cover them.

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

\14\ See Final Staff Report to the Federal Trade Commission and

Proposed Trade Regulation Rule (16 CFR Part 460), July 1978 (``Staff

Report''), at 21-22, 188.

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

2. Non-residential Insulations

Comments

Two comments suggested extending the Rule to cover insulation

products used in all buildings, not just residential applications. Dr.

David W. Yarbrough, for Tennessee Technological University (``TN

Tech.''), asserted that extending the Rule to cover commercial building

insulations would improve the energy efficiency of buildings and would

contribute to the nation's energy conservation effort without imposing

a measurable increased cost on manufacturers.\15\ Dr. Wilkes, for ORNL,

stated that the Rule has improved both the marketplace and the

technology for home insulations and contended that similar improvements

are needed in the commercial market and would occur if the Rule's

coverage were expanded.\16\ In contrast, Celotex stated that the

Commission should not extend the Rule to cover commercial applications

because commercial insulations are purchased primarily by professional

architects, engineers, and specification writers.\17\

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

\15\ TN Tech, #26, at 1.

\16\ ORNL/Wilkes, #29, at 3.

\17\ Celotex, #25, at 1.

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

Discussion

Although applying the Rule to thermal insulation products used in

commercial buildings might provide information to purchasers that could

improve the energy efficiency of buildings, and otherwise prove useful,

the comments do not demonstrate that sellers of commercial insulations

are engaged in unfair or deceptive acts or practices that would justify

expanding the Rule. Furthermore, in many instances, thermal insulation

purchasing decisions for commercial building applications are made by

architects or engineers. These professionals may require R-value and

other performance information based on circumstances different than the

uniform approach the Commission determined was necessary to provide

accurate and understandable information to individual consumers to

compare competing products and make purchasing decisions.

In limiting the disclosure requirements to materials distributed

``for consumer use,'' the Commission recognized that insulation

manufacturers often prepare detailed, technical data for building

industry professionals, who should already be informed concerning

thermal insulation performance. The Commission also recognized that

manufacturers may wish to provide these professionals with additional

information or with information in a different form from that required

for consumer use. 44 FR at 50225.

For these reasons, the Commission does not propose extending the

Rule to cover sales to the commercial market. If interested parties

have evidence that sellers in this market are misrepresenting the

thermal performance of insulation products or are engaging in other

unfair or deceptive practices, however, the Commission invites them to

submit this information.

B. Disclosing In-Use Thermal Performance Values

1. Performance of Insulations in Actual Use

Eleven comments discussed seasonal and other variables that can

affect the R-value of insulation products in actual use, and suggested

that the Rule does not sufficiently account for these factors.\18\

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

\18\ Benchmark #04, at 1; Regal, #16, at 3; CIMA, #19, at 3-5;

GreenStone/Tranmer, #20, at 2; BASF, #21, at 1; Hamilton, #22, at 1-

2; ECI, #23, at 1; Superior, #27, at 1; ORNL/Wilkes, #29, at 4-5;

GreenStone/Smith, #32, at 2: Tascon, #35, at 2.

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

Comments Regarding Factors That Affect Performance in Attics During

Winter Conditions

Ten of these comments discussed the reduction in R-value of very

low density fibrous insulations (e.g., those at approximately 0.7

pounds per cubic foot or less) installed in open or vented attics that

can result from convective currents when the outside temperature (and

that in the attic) is particularly low.\19\ CIMA stated that when the

Rule was promulgated it was assumed that R-

[[Page 48028]]

value was relatively unchanging over a wide range of temperatures. CIMA

asserted that subsequent research by ORNL has shown a reduction of

steady-state R-values caused by convective heat loss in very low

density fiber insulation materials during very cold periods, when the

temperature difference (delta T) between the heat area of a home and

its cold attic becomes particularly great. CIMA stated that this

phenomenon can reduce the steady-state R-value of affected products

from 10% of a delta T of 50 deg.F to 55 deg.F (17 deg.F to 25 deg.F

in the attic of a home heated to 72 deg.F) to as much as 40% at a

delta T of 90 deg.F (-18 deg.F in the attic of a home heated to 72

deg.F), which can occur during the most severe winter conditions in

some portions of the United States. CIMA recommended that the

Commission require that insulation manufacturers provide winter design

correction factors in coverage charts to compensate for R-value erosion

due to convective heat loss, and require that, if insulation material

is not subject to R-value loss under cold conditions, the manufacturer

state on the package label that the insulation is not subject to

convective heat loss at winter attic temperatures above -20 deg.F.\20\

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

\19\ Regal, #16, at 3; CIMA, #19, at 3-5; GreenStone/Tranmer,

#20, at 2; Hamilton, #22, at 1-2; ORNL/Wilkes, #29, at 4-5;

GreenStone/Smith, #32, at 2; Tascon, #35, at 2.

\20\ CIMA, #19, at 3-4.

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

Dr. Wilkes, for ORNL, pointed out that tests on very low density

loose-fill fiberglass insulations with an airspace above the insulation

(as in an open attic application) gave R-values that decreased by more

than 50% from those determined at a mean test temperature of 75 deg.F

value, when they were tested with a delta T greater than 72 deg.F and

a mean test temperature of 70 deg.F. Dr. Wilkes explained that ASTM is

developing a method of determining the thermal performance of attic

insulations during winter conditions, ASTM C 1373,\21\ and suggested

that the Commission incorporate it into the Rule when it is adopted.

This method is still under consideration by ASTM.

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

\21\ Standard Practice for Determination of Thermal Resistance

of Attic Insulation Systems Under Simulated Winter Conditions

(``ASTM C 1373'').

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

Mr. Tranmer, for GreenStone, asserted that several factors in

addition to R-values that are determined under steady-state conditions

have a major effect on product performance, such as air permeability

and temperature differential. Mr. Tranmer stated that a measurement

known as the Rayleigh number \22\ provides a more complete indication

of the effect that the combination of R-value, air permeability, and

temperature differential have on insulation materials under specific

conditions, and that it represents a more accurate measure of

insulating capabilities than R-value alone. He suggested that the

Commission require the Rayleigh number on packages and promotional

materials to give consumers a better measure of the overall

effectiveness of insulation products.\23\

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

\22\ The Rayleigh number is a measure of the tendency of air to

move. In the context of very low density thermal insulations

installed on the floor of an open attic during very cold periods,

the Rayleigh number is a ratio between the buoyant force of warmer

air (the air at the bottom of the insulation near the heated

interior of the house) attempting to move upward and the resistance

of the insulation fibers against that upward air movement. The

higher the number, the stronger the buoyant force, and the greater

the reduction of the insulation's steady-state R-value.

\23\ GreenStone/Tranmer, #20, at 2-3, See also GreenStone/Smith,

#32, at 2 (Rule leads consumers to believe that R-value is the most

important factor in comparing insulations; not sufficient merely to

state that other factors may affect insulation thermal performance

if other important factors can be quantified; require testing for

air permeability, R-value, and temperature difference to enable

disclosure of a relative insulation performance factor (Rayleigh

Number)), Hamilton, #22, at 2 (effects of convective heat loss on R-

value could be communicated to consumers by an ``air resistance

index'' number to give them a reference to compare insulation for

certain applications; bag label should include warning about

convection effect on lighter-density materials below 20 deg.F);

Tascon, #35, at 1-2 (require determination of the effects of air

convection on R-value and depiction of that effect at representative

temperatures on coverage charts; require disclosure of the Rayleigh

number); Regal, #16, at 3 (insulation performance and cost

effectiveness should address not only R-value, but also resistance

to heat flow and to convective effects under winter design

conditions.).

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

Mr. Tranmer also recommended that the Commission specify testing

with the ORNL Large Scale Climate Simulator to provide more accurate

information for all attic insulation products, and that these products

be tested at temperatures from -20 deg.F to +120 deg.F to provide

consumers with performance information specific to a particular climate

zone. He stated that, while the cost of testing in this apparatus is

approximately $20,000 (significantly more than the usual R-value test),

the benefits through increased energy savings would more than offset

the increase in testing costs.\24\

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

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

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

Citing research that heating energy consumption can vary 25% to 38%

in structures insulated to the same nominal R-value with different

insulation materials, CIMA similarly asserted that, by focusing only on

R-value, the current Rule has the effect of misleading consumers into

thinking that R-value is the only consideration when buying or

specifying insulation. Recognizing that presently there is no perfect

solution to this dilemma, CIMA suggested that Commission expand the

Rule to require manufacturers to disclose Rayleigh numbers for

materials under specific conditions. CIMA asserted that the Rayleigh

number combines the effects of R-value, air permeability, and

temperature difference to produce an expression of relative insulation

performance.

Comments Regarding Factors That Affect Performance Under Winter Versus

Summer Conditions

One commenter, Superior, contended that the R-value test procedures

presently required as the primary means of identifying heat transfer

are no longer valid, because they were developed almost exclusively for

winter conditions. Superior asserted that, with the post-World War II

advent of air conditioning and a higher concern for summer comfort, the

primary mode of heat transfer that should be measured is radiant heat.

Superior explained that R-value is a component of conductive heat

transfer, while radiant heat should be measured by its emissivity,\25\

and contended that reflective insulations with one-half or less the

steady-state R-value of fiberglass will stop more heat transfer into

the home during summer conditions. Superior recommended that the

Commission require manufacturers of all insulations to disclose winter

and summer performance values, with the summer value determined

according to a test procedure other than R-value tests, which have very

little significance for radiant heat transfer during summer

conditions.\26\

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

\25\ ``Emissivity'' is a numerical measurement of the ability of

a surface to reflect back radiant heat transfer. It is expressed as

a number between 0.0 and 1.0. The lower the emissivity, the greater

the ability to reflect radiant heat back. The inverse of emissivity

is the product's ``reflectivity'' (also called the ``reflectance'').

\26\ Superior, #27, at 1.

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

Discussion

The Rule requires that R-values be determined according to ASTM

test methods that provide R-value measurements under ``steady-state''

or ``static'' laboratory conditions. These test methods do not take

into account transient environmental factors, such as air circulation,

that can have a significant effect on insulation performance in actual

use (i.e., on site, or in situ). When it promulgated the Rule, the

Commission determined that, notwithstanding this limitation, these

steady-state tests were the most reliable and accurate test methods

available. In addition, evidence on the rulemaking record indicated

that, although environmental conditions might affect the R-value number

determined in steady-state tests, these conditions would affect

competing home insulation products in approximately the same manner.

Accordingly, the Commission

[[Page 48029]]

determined that use of the ASTM steady-state R-value test methods would

permit fair comparisons of product R-values on a standardized basis to

provide consumers with a reliable, uniform, and comparative base for

their purchasing decisions. 44 FR at 50225-26. At the same time, while

the Rule requires that R-values claimed must be based on the uniform

test methods specified in the Rule, manufacturers and other sellers may

provide additional, truthful, substantial information voluntarily to

consumers about the manner in which their products perform in actual

use.

The Commission recognizes that the testing of insulation products

by means of steady-state laboratory testing procedures may not

duplicate precisely the performance of an insulation product in situ.

The thermal performance of any insulation product in actual use,

however, is a highly complex subject that involves a broad range of

parameters, including the design characteristics of the building and

the specific application in which the product is installed (e.g., open

attic, enclosed wall cavity), the geographical location, outside and

inside temperatures, air and moisture movement, proper installation,

and other variables. Determining the disclosing R-values under these

varying circumstances, only some of which may apply to a particular use

by a specific consumer, could result in multiple R-value disclosures

that might overload rather than assist consumers in comparing

insulation products and making purchase decisions. For these reasons,

the Commission does not at this time propose specific amendments to

require disclosures regarding in situ performance or multiple R-values

for different uses.

Consumers, however, could benefit from the most up-to-date,

accurate, and useful information, based on the best available research

and substantiation. For example, in areas where a significant delta T

is predictable, consumers might want to install additional insulation

to take into account the reduction in R-value that might occur during

extreme conditions, or consider installing a higher density product.

The Commission, therefore, solicits comments on the alternatives to

steady-state R-values (e.g., Rayleigh numbers, R-value disclosures

based on temperature ranges for different regions of the country or for

different applications) suggested by the commenters, or other

alternatives, that would provide consumers with accurate, meaningful,

and understandable information relevant to their individual

circumstances. The Commission requests that commenters address: (1)

Specific alternative measurements that are available to describe the in

situ use of home insulation products better than the steady-state R-

values required by the rule; (2) which in situ conditions should be

accounted for (and why); (3) whether (and how and to what extent)

different types or forms of home insulation products perform

differently under specific in situ conditions, and how significant this

different performance is under specific circumstances (e.g., how much

would the difference in performance in actual use make on the

consumer's annual fuel bill); (4) whether accepted test methods are

available to measure in situ performance (and the identity of specific

test methods); (5) how the results of in situ performance measurements

could be described in a meaningful manner to consumers; and (6) the

benefits and costs to consumers and sellers that would be associated

with the use of the alternatives. Among other things, comments are

requested to include data such as consumer research that demonstrate

whether disclosures of in situ performance would be meaningful and

understandable to consumers.

2. Performance of Building System Components That Include Insulation

Comments

Four manufacturers of structural insulation panels (building

systems products that include insulation as a major component) \27\ and

a trade association representing such manufacturers \28\ supported

requiring the thermal efficiency testing of insulation systems, rather

than testing only individual insulation products. These comments

asserted that the Structural Insulated Panel (``SIP'') industry is

penalized by reporting R-values of the insulation components as the

measure of the thermal efficiency of panel system because such R-values

do not adequately represent the energy efficiency and thermal

effectiveness of the panel systems in comparison to insulated panels

may appear to have the same total R-value as some fiberglass batts used

in stick construction, ``[in a typical installation, using EPS foam in

a structural insulated panel, the EPS panel outperforms [a] fiberglass

batt by 20%.''

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

\27\ Porter, #03; BASF, #21; Insulspan, #33; Fischer Sips, #36.

\28\ SIPA, #11.

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

Three of the manufacturers \29\ and the trade association, however,

apparently recognized that additional research and development would be

necessary before the Commission could require the testing and

disclosure of systems performance values. These comments recommended

that the Commission, along with several other federal agencies, work

with industry to develop consensus testing procedures to consider

factors such as air infiltration, thermal bridging, and moisture

effects on the performance of building systems, and provide resources

for testing and evaluation of the thermal performance and energy

efficiency of construction systems.

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

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

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

Discussion

The Rule covers home insulation products, including products made

up of home insulation and other components (such as structural

insulation panels) when they are marketed primarily to slow down the

flow of heat. These comments appear to be concerned primarily that the

Rule may penalize them by requiring that they disclose the R-value of

the insulation component of their panels, instead of the thermal

performance of their panels compared to the use of competing home

insulation products in other types of building construction. Although

the Rule requires that those who market home insulation test and

disclose the R-value of their insulation, it does not restrict sellers

from providing additional information about how their products perform

in actual use, if they are able to substantiate their claims. The

comments acknowledge that additional research would be required to

develop the procedures necessary to implement a requirement that

sellers include in their R-value disclosures information about how

their products perform in various types of construction, which would

depend on multiple variables. Even if such procedures were developed,

as a practical matter, it might be extremely difficult, and perhaps

impossible, to draft testing and disclosure requirements that could

take such variables into account in a manner that would be meaningful

to consumers, and where the benefits (e.g., better information for

consumers) outweighed the additional costs (e.g. for additional testing

and disclosures) that would be imposed.

Accordingly, while the commission acknowledges the concerns

underlying these comments, it has determined not to propose amending

the Rule at this time to require the disclosure of insulation

performance based on testing of home insulation products in different

types of applications. The Commission

[[Page 48030]]

encourages interested parties to pursue the additional testing and

research that support a system-type disclosure format, and the

Commission's staff is available to provide advice about the type of

documentation that would be necessary for the Commission to propose

formal testing and disclosure requirements that include these

applications.

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

The comments described in this section addressed issuers relating

to the Rule's R-value test specimen preparation requirements for

specific types and forms of home insulation products. All home

insulation products are covered by the Rule, regardless of whether they

are specifically referred to in the test specimen preparation

requirements or other provisions of the Rule. That is, they must be

tested for R-value under the test procedures specified in section 460.5

of the Rule and the R-value results of those tests must be disclosed to

consumers. In some instances the Rule specifies how test specimens must

be prepared for R-value tests. In other instances it does not, either

because the Commission determined it was not necessary to specify R-

value test specimen preparation requirements, or because those products

were not being sold when the Commission conducted the original

rulemaking. These comments suggested adopting updated test specimen

preparation requirements or specifying test specimen preparation

requirements not currently required by the Rule.\30\

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

\30\ In some instances, comments suggested that a specific test

specimen preparation procedure, although appropriate for the most

products of a certain type and form, might not be appropriate for a

specific product, for example, a loose-fill cellulose insulation

product with a lower than normal initial density. In such instances,

these comments suggested that use of in situ data to determine test

specimen preparation might be preferable to the specific procedure

designated in the Rule. Although the Commission is not proposing to

amend specific test specimen preparation requirements in the Rule to

include such a provision, manufacturers may file petitions for

exemption from the Rule's test specimen preparation requirements

under section 18(g) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a(g). Petitioners

should submit evidence substantiating why the test specimen

preparation procedure required by the Rule is not appropriate for a

particular product and why an alternative procedure or method would

be appropriate. The Commission will determine whether to grant an

exemption based on the petition, substantiating evidence submitted

with the petition, and public comments.

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

1. Aging

a. Cellular Plastics Insulations

Certain types of cellular plastics insulations (polyurethane,

polyisocyanurate, extruded polystyrene boardstock insulations) are

manufactured in a process that results in a gas other than normal air

being incorporated into the voids in the products. This gives the

product an initial R-value higher than it would have if it contained

normal air (as do other types of insulations). A chemical process,

known as aging, causes the R-value of these insulations to decrease

over time as the gas is replaced by normal air. 44 FR at 50219-20. The

length of this aging process, which may continue over several years,

depends on whether the product is faced or unfaced, the permeability of

the facing, how well the facing adheres to the product, and other

factors.

The Rule addresses this aging process by requiring that R-value

tests be performed on specimens that ``fully reflect the effect of

aging on the product's R-value.'' Section 460.5(a)(1) of the Rule

accepts the use of the ``accelerated aging'' procedure in General

Services Administration (``GSA'') purchase Specification HH-I-530A

(which was in effect at the time the Commission promulgated the Rule)

as a permissible ``safe harbor'' procedure, but also allows

manufacturers to use ``another reliable procedure.'' 44 FR at 50227-28.

The ``accelerated'' procedure was designed to age these insulations in

a shorter period than they would age under normal usage conditions.

Under the ``accelerated aging'' method in the GSA specification, test

specimens are aged for 90 days at 140 deg.F dry heat.

GSA amended its specification in 1982 to allow the use of an

optional aging procedure (in addition to the ``accelerated'' method)

under which test specimens are aged for six months at 73

deg.F 4 deg.F and 50 percent 5 percent

relative humidity (with air circulation to expose all surfaces to the

surrounding environmental conditions). An industry group, the Roof

Insulation Committee of the Thermal Insulation Manufacturers

Association (``RIC/TIMA''), specified the use of similar conditions in

a technical bulletin it adopted at about the same time. In response to

adoption of the alternative aging procedure by GSA and RIC/TIMA, the

Commission's staff advised home insulation sellers that the alternative

procedure appeared to be reliable and could be used to age cellular

plastics insulations. The staff cautioned, however, the manufacturers

of insulations faced with materials that significantly retard aging may

need to age test specimens for a longer period of time, and that the

staff would consider whether the alternative procedure was acceptable

for specific products on a case-by-case basis.\31\

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

\31\ See, e.g., staff opinion letter dated May 5, 1983, to

Manville Corporation. GSA thereafter rescinded its specification

(along with other insulation specifications) and now requires that

insulations purchased by the federal government comply with ASTM

insulation material specifications.

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

Comments Regarding Which Aging Procedures Should Be Required

Ten comments addressed how the Rule should treat the reduction in

R-values that occurs when cellular plastics insulation products

age.\32\ Two recommended requiring the use of aging procedures in

current ASTM specifications; one recommended requiring the use of a

different method being developed by ASTM; and one association

(representing 37 manufacturers) and two manufacturers appear to

question the accuracy of current aging procedures in determining long-

term performance.

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

\32\ Plymouth, #01, at 1; Big Sky, #05, at 1; Anderson, #08, at

2-3; EPSMA, #13, at 1; Western, #14, at 1-2; NAIMA, #24, at 2,

Celotex, #25, at 4; ORNL/Wilkes, #29, at 3-4; PIMA, #30, at 5-6;

AFM, #35, at 1.

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

Celotex and PIMA \33\ recommended deleting the reference to the

aging procedures in former GSA Specification HH-I-530A and instead

requiring the use of the aging procedures in ASTM C 1289-95 (for faced

polyisocyanurate and faced polyurethane),\34\ ASTM C 591-85 (for

unfaced polyisocyanurate and unfaced polyurethane),\35\ and ASTM C 578-

92 (for polystyrene).\36\ The aging procedures in these ASTM

specifications are essentially the same as the optional procedures

contained in the revised GSA specification, although ASTM C 591-94

specifies that aging must be conducted according to the 180-day

procedure.

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

\33\ Celotex, #25, at 4; PIMA, #30, at 5-6.

\34\ Standard Specification for Faced Rigid Cellular

Polyisocyanurate Thermal Insulation Board (``ASTM C 1289-95'').

\35\ Standard Specification for Unfaced Preformed Rigid Cellular

Polyisocyanurate Thermal Insulation (``ASTM C 591-94''). This is the

current version of the specification cited by Celotex and PIMA.

\36\ Standard Specification for Rigid, Cellular Polystyrene

Thermal Insulation (``ASTM C 578-92'').

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

Dr. Wilkes, for ORNL, stated that the Rule's aging requirement

should be improved and modified to account for technological changes.

He reported that ASTM was developing a new method of determining the

aged R-value of unfaced cellular plastics board stock insulations and

those with permeable facings based on R-value tests of thin samples

sliced from the center of the boards (which ASTM has now adopted as

ASTM C 1303-95).\37\ Under this method, a thin

[[Page 48031]]

test specimen is sliced from close to the center of the insulation

board. R-value measurements are taken over time, normally a 180-day

period, and the test specimen is kept in an environmental chamber when

R-value tests are not being conducted. The resulting R-values over time

are converted into an average value according to a specific

mathematical formula. Dr. Wilkes recommended that the Commission adopt

this ASTM method as the required procedure for deriving aged R-values

for these insulation products.

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

\37\ Standard Test Method for Estimating the Long-Term Change in

the Thermal Resistance of Unfaced Rigid Closed Cell Plastic Foams by

Slicing and Scaling Under Controlled Laboratory Conditions (``ASTM C

1303-95'').

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

Dr. Wilkes asserted that a satisfactory aging method for these

boardstock insulations with impermeable facers (e.g., aluminum) has not

yet been developed. He recommended that the Rule state this fact and

require ``direct'' aging of products with impermeable facers (i.e.,

aging over time of samples as they are produced--at full thickness and

with facers attached). Finally, Dr. Wilkes recommended that the

Commission delete the phrase ``or another reliable procedure'' because

of its lack of specificity.\38\

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

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

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

AMF, for itself and its 37 manufacturing partners, stated that the

reporting of different R-values for insulations that use gases, and

that are known to lose R-value over time as those gases diffuse, has

frustrated the original objective of the Rule to provide, a ``level

playing field.'' \39\ Plymouth Foam Products complained that ``[s]ome

[cellular plastics] foam insulation manufacturers are allowed to

represent their products with installed R-values of as high as eight

per inch, when, in fact, that value will reduce substantially over the

life of the product/structure.'' \40\ These comments recommended that

the Rule require testing and disclosure of R-values that more

accurately reflect the effect of aging on the R-value of cellular

plastics insulation products.

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

\39\ AFM, #38, at 1.

\40\ Plymouth, #01, at 1.

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

Big Sky and Western contended that the practice of aging a test

specimen for six months, even at an elevated temperature, does not

provide a true picture of the R-value a consumer can expect over the

full life of the product.\41\ Big Sky suggested three options: (1) A

six-month accelerated aging process, with an additional 18-month hold

on the test specimens before they are tested for R-value; (2)

accelerated aging for 18 months; or (3) holding the test specimens for

three years. Western suggested that the Commission adopt an accelerated

aging test either from ASTM methods or the Corps of Engineers System.

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

\41\ Big Sky, #05 (many manufacturers advertise what they call

an aged R-value, when in fact it is only an R-value for insulation

aged for six months at elevated temperatures; this R-value is not a

true indication of the in-service R-value, which can drop over 30%

within three years); Western, #14, at 1-2 (because polyisocyanurate

insulation has been sold based on R-values derived after six months

of aging under RIC/TIMA 281 or PIMA 100, consumers have been duped

into believing they are purchasing insulation that will deliver an

R-value of 7.2 per inch for the duration of its service; although

the true aged R-value of polyisocyanurate cannot be agreed upon,

5.56 per inch is often used and would be a more realistic figure).

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

Discussion Regarding Which Aging Procedures Should Be Required

Requiring manufacturers to age their insulation products for

several years before being able to test and market them would impose a

significant burden. Instead, the Rule allows the use of the GSA

``accelerated aging'' procedure, or another reliable procedure. Because

some of the comments question whether the GSA accelerated aging

procedure or the procedures in ASTM specifications are adequate for all

types of cellular plastics insulation products (particularly those with

less permeable facers), the Commission solicits comments regarding the

length of time over which specific types and forms of cellular plastics

insulations age (including both unfaced products and those with

different kinds of facings); the effect of the aging process on

specific types and forms of cellular plastics insulations (i.e., the

overall reduction of R-value over time); the accuracy of different

aging procedures to reflect long-term aging of specific types and forms

of cellular plastics insulation products; which aging procedures the

Commission should require for which types of cellular plastics

insulation products; the burdens that would be imposed on manufacturers

and other sellers by requiring the use of specific aging procedures;

and how the Commission should deal with products for which adequate

aging procedures do not currently exist (e.g., those with relatively

non-permeable facings).

Comments Regarding Which Cellular Plastics Insulations Should Be Aged

for R-value Testing

NAIMA recommended requiring R-value testing on aged samples of

``other foam plastic insulation'' products (in addition to the types

currently enumerated) and recordkeeping of the age of the test

specimen. NAIMA asserted that present and future foam insulations not

currently covered by the aging requirement should be tested and labeled

to reflect the effects of aging, but did not submit data to demonstrate

whether other existing cellular plastics, or foam, insulations are

subject to aging. According to NAIMA, the requirement would impose no

extra testing or labeling burdens on manufacturers of insulations that

are not subject to aging.\42\

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

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

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

Discussion Regarding Which Cellular Plastics Insulations Should Be Aged

for R-value Testing

The Commission required R-value testing of aged specimens only for

extruded polystyrene, polyurethane, and polyisocyanurate insulations

because these were the only types of insulations discussed during the

rulemaking proceeding that included blowing agents subject to the aging

process. The Commission agrees that manufacturers of additional types

of cellular plastics, or foam, insulations that are subject to the

aging process should be required to test aged specimens and disclose

aged R-values, and to maintain testing records identifying the aging

procedure used. The Commission, therefore, solicits comments on what

additional types or forms of insulations are subject to the aging

process.

b. Reflective Insulations

Comments

NAIMA recommended that the Commission require that reflective

(aluminum foil) insulation products be tested for emissivity and R-

value ``using samples that fully reflect the effect of aging'' on the

product's emissivity and R-value. NAIMA asserted that thermal

performance claims for reflective insulations, as for cellular plastics

insulations, should reflect the effects of aging (in this case, the

accumulation of dust or corrosion of the foil). NAIMA did not submit

evidence that dusting or corrosion is a problem that degrades the R-

value of reflective insulations in actual applications, and did not

suggest a specific test method or procedure that should be used to

determine the effects of this type of aging on reflective

insulations.\43\

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

\43\ Id. at 3.

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

Discussion

The Commission believes that claims for all types of home

insulation products should take into account factors that affect the

products' thermal performance. The Commission, therefore, invites

interested parties to comment on whether dusting or

[[Page 48032]]

corrosion of reflective insulations in actual applications is a problem

resulting in lower R-values than claimed, the extent of any degradation

of R-value, and how the effect of dusting or corrosion on R-value could

most accurately be determined.

2. Settling

a. Loose-fill and Stabilized Insulations in Attics

In the original rulemaking proceeding, the Commission determined

that all dry-applied loose-fill insulation products tend to settle

after being installed in open (or unconfined) areas such as attics.

Settling lowers the product's thickness, increases its density, and

affects its total R-value.\44\ The amount of settling depends on

several factors, including the raw materials and manufacturing process

used, and the installer's application techniques (which affect the

insulation's initial thickness and density).

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

\44\ Settling of loose-fill cellulose insulation reduces the

product's total R-value, often decreasing it proportionate to the

amount of settling. Settling of loose-fill mineral fiber insulation

also affects the product's total R-value, but the reduction in total

R-value may be less than the reduction in thickness. E.g., ORNL/

Yarbrough, #28, at References 1, 2; ORNL/Wilkes, #29, at References

9, 10.

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

To ensure that claims made to consumers are based on long-term

thickness and density after settling, the Rule requires that the R-

value of each dry-applied loose-fill home insulation product for these

applications be determined at its ``settled density.'' The Rule

requires that manufacturers of dry-applied loose-fill cellulose

insulation for attic applications test and disclose the R-value (as

well as coverage area and related information) at the long-term,

settled density determined according to paragraph 8 of ASTM C 739-91,

commonly referred to as the ``Blower Cyclone Shaker'' (``BCS'')

test.\45\ Because a consensus-based test procedure had not been adopted

for determining the long-term, settled density of dry-applied loose-

fill mineral-fiber insulation for this type of application, the Rule

does not specify the procedure for determining the density of the R-

value test specimen, but it requires that R-values claimed to consumers

be based on long-term thickness and density after settling.\46\

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

\45\ Standard Specification for Cellulosic Fiber (Wood-Base)

Loose-Fill Thermal Insulation (``ASTM C 739-91'').

\46\ At the time the Commission promulgated the Rule, GSA had

proposed adopting a settled density test procedure for loose-fill

mineral fiber insulation products similar to the one it had adopted

for loose-fill cellulose insulation products. Mineral fiber

manufacturers contended, however, that they took settling into

account in their coverage charts, and that if their insulations were

installed according to their coverage charts, consumers would

receive the R-values they claimed. The Commission imposed a general

requirement that R-values of dry-applied loose-fill mineral fiber

insulations be based on tests that take the adverse effects of

settling into account, but did not specify how the settled density

was to be determined. 44 FR at 50228. GSA never adopted a procedure

for determining the settled density of mineral fiber insulations.

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

Since the Commission promulgated the Rule, new forms of loose-fill-

type home insulation products have been introduced for use in attic

applications, including ``stabilized'' cellulose. ``Stabilized''

cellulose refers to a form of loose-fill cellulose insulation that

contains a glue binder and is applied on attic floors with a small

amount of liquid. Application of the insulation with the glue binder

and liquid purportedly results in lower-density cellulose insulations

that do not settle like dry-applied loose-fill cellulose insulations.

The Rule does not currently specify a procedure for determining the

long-term, settled density of stabilized cellulose insulation.

Comments

Dry-applied Loose-Fill Cellulose. Dr. Wilkes, for ORNL, stated that

settling decreases the R-value obtained when a loose-fill insulation

product is applied, although limited information exists about the

amount of settling that occurs. Dr. Wilkes supported use of the BCS

test procedures to determine the settled density of dry-applied loose-

fill cellulose insulation. He suggested that the BCS procedure may be

inappropriate for new products such as those with initial densities as

low as 1.0 to 1.5 pounds per cubic foot. For such products, Dr. Wilkes

stated that in situ data would be more appropriate than the BCS

procedure in determining long-term, settled density, and recommended

that the Commission permit manufacturers to submit in-situ data to

demonstrate the actual settled density of their products.\47\

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

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

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

Dry-applied Loose-Fill Mineral Fiber. Eleven comments addressed how

the settled density of dry-applied loose-fill mineral fiber insulation

products in open attic applications should be determined for R-value

testing.\48\ Regal contended that the Rule's objective of creating a

level playing field has been compromised because of the failure of GSA,

ASTM, and the mineral fiber industry to develop a uniform standard for

determining the settled density of dry-applied loose-fill mineral fiber

insulations.\49\ Other comments agreed.\50\ Three stated that this

uneven playing field (i.e., requiring cellulose manufacturers, but not

mineral fiber manufacturers, to use a specific test procedure) imposes

a competitive disadvantage for the cellulose industry.\51\ CIMA, for

example, stated that the BCS test typically produces 30% settling for

loose-fill cellulose, while long-term studies of actual installations

rarely find cellulose settling as much as 20%. CIMA asserted that the

Rule places the cellulose industry at a competitive disadvantage of as

much as 10% to 15% compared to loose-fill fiberglass, and that, if this

discrimination has affected the cellulose market share by as little as

5%, it has resulted in an annual revenue loss of approximately $50

million for cellulose producers.

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

\48\Regal #16, at 1-2; England, #18, at 3; CIMA, #19, at 2-3;

GreenStone/Tranmer, #20, at 2-3; Hamilton, #22, at 3; NAIMA, #24, at

2; TN Tech/Yarbrugh, #26, at 4-5; ORNL/Wilkes, #29, at 4;

GreenStone/Smith, #32, at 2; Clayville, #34, at 1-2; Tascon, #35, at

1.

\49\ Regal, #16, at 1-2.

\50\ England, #18, at 3 1-2; CIMA, #19, at 2-3; GreenStone/

Tranmer, #20, at 2-3; Hamilton, #22, at 3; GreenStone/Smith, #32, at

2; Clayville, #34, at 1-2; Tascon, #35, at 1.

\51\ CIMA, #19, at 2-3; GreenStone/Tranmer, #20, at 2-3;

Clayville, #34, at 1-2.

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

Four comments stated this uneven treatment is unfair to

consumers.\52\ GreenStone/Smith, for example, stated that mineral fiber

manufacturers have not developed a standard test method to measure the

settling of loose-fill mineral fiber insulations, but instead claim

that if their products are installed at the density they recommend, the

amount of settling will be minimal (less than 5%). He asserted that the

mineral fiber manufacturers construct coverage charts at this density

and represent to consumers that no settling is expected. According to

GreenStone/Smith, installers who desire to minimize costs can install

loose-fill mineral fiber insulations at less than the density claimed

by manufacturers (and at a lower total R-value than claimed), without

consumers' knowledge, and thereby save time and material and defraud

consumers of the energy savings they anticipate.

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

\52\ GreenStone/Tranmer, #20, at 2-3; Hamilton, #22, at 3;

GreenStone/Smith, #32, at 2; Clayville, #34, at 1-2.

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

As a short-term solution, five comments recommended that the

Commission impose a settlement factor of up to 10% or more for dry-

applied loose-fill mineral insulation products, pending the adoption of

a suitable industry standard to address how much these products

settle.\53\ Dr. Yarbrough,

[[Page 48033]]

for TN Tech., and Dr. Wilkes, for ORNL, suggested that, until a uniform

test procedure is developed, manufacturers should determine settled

density based on in situ data.\54\

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

\53\ Regal, #16, at 1-2; England, #18, at 3; CIMA, #19, at 2-3

(impute 10% settling for all loose-fill insulations for which there

is no standard settled density methodology published by a

recognized, independent materials-standards organization);

GreenStone/Tranmer, #20, at 2 (impute 5% to 10% settling);

GreenStone/Smith, #32, at 2-3 (absent a standard test method,

require disclosures based on at least 10% settling; if a product has

been determined not to settle, require disclosure of that fact as an

assurance to consumers); Tascon, #35, at 1 (impute settlement not

less than 10% if a technically supportable method of determining

settlement has not been established within a reasonable time, e.g.,

5 years).

\54\ TN Tech/Yarbrough, #26, at 4-5; ORNL/Wilkes, #29, at 4.

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

Stablized Cellulose. Dr. Wilkes, for ORNL,\55\ and Dr. Yarbrough,

for TN Tech., \56\ stated that the BCS test is inappropriate for

determining the settled density of stabilized cellulose insulation. Dr.

Yarbrough explained that ``stabilized'' cellulose insulation contains a

binder, or other means, for bonding particles in the insulation to

reduce settling, and that the fan used in the BCS test breaks the bond.

Dr. Wilkes and Dr. Yarbrough recommended allowing the use of in situ

observations of the degree of settling to establish the settled density

at which the R-value of a stabilized cellulose product must be

determined. Dr. Yarbrough stated that a methodology for obtaining in

situ data is available.\57\ He explained that an ASTM task group is

working on a material specification for stabilized cellulose insulation

that he expects will include a method for determining settled density,

and recommended that the Commission consider requiring the use of the

ASTM standard when it has been adopted by ASTM.\58\

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

\55\ ORNL/Wilkes, #29, at 3.

\56\ TN Tech/Yarbrough, #26, at 2.

\57\ Id. at 2, references 1, 2.

\58\ Id. at 3.

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

NAIMA recommended requiring that R-value tests on stabilized

cellulose insulations be ``done on samples that fully reflect the

effect of settling on the product's R-value.'' NAIMA stated that ASTM C

1149 \59\ has been modified to include products containing an adhesive

that is mixed with water during installation and is intended for use in

attic applications. NAIMA stated that a task group is developing a

method to determine and quantify the amount of settling.\60\

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

\59\ ASTM C 1149-90: Standard Specification for Self-Supported

Spray Applied Cellulosic Thermal/Acoustical Insulation (``ASTM C

1149'').

\60\ NAIMA, #24, at 2-3.

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

Discussion

Dry-applied Loose-fill Cellulose. Although the rule requires

manufacturers of dry-applied loose-fill cellulose to determine the R-

values and coverage of their products at the settled density determined

according to the BCS procedure, manufacturers who can demonstrate that

the BCS procedure is inappropriate for their products can petition the

Commission for an exemption that would allow them to determine the

settled density of their products according to a more appropriate

methods. See note 30, above.

Dry-Applied Loose-fill Mineral Fiber. The Rule specifies the

procedures to be used in determining the settled density only for

cellulosic, and not mineral fiber, insulation products. When the

Commission promulgated the Rule in 1979, it expected that GSA soon

would adopt a specific test procedure for determining the settled

density of dry-applied loose-fill mineral fiber insulation products. 44

FR at 50228, 50239 n.239. GSA did not do so, and now accepts the use of

ASTM standards, which do not specify procedures for determining the

settled density of dry-applied loose-fill mineral fiber insulations.

Reports of studies conducted by Oak Ridge National Laboratory

during the 1980s demonstrate that certain loose-fill mineral fiber

insulation products can settle following installation, resulting in a

reduction of R-value.\61\The results differed in the amount of

settling, and the effect of settling on the R-values of the specific

insulation products studied, depending on the type of mineral fiber

insulations studied (fiberglass versus rock wool products) due to

differences in density.

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

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

Refs. 9, 10.

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

The Commission agrees that it would be preferable to specify a

uniform procedure for determining the long-term, settled density of

dry-applied loose-fill mineral fiber insulation products.

Unfortunately, none of the comments suggested a specific procedure that

the Commission could adopt at this time. In addition, the comments that

suggested requiring an across-the-board settlement factor of 10% have

not submitted documentation that would justify the Commission imposing

it on all dry-applied loose-fill mineral fiber insulation products.

The Commission, therefore, solicits comments on specific reliable

and uniform procedures that would be appropriate for determining the

long-term, settled density of dry-applied loose-fill mineral fiber

insulation products, and the submission of data to demonstrate that

those procedures will result in uniform and accurate results. For

example, the Commission requests any data that demonstrate that any of

the following, currently available test procedures, or others, would

produce accurate and reliable, long-term settled density results for

mineral fiber insulation products in attic applications: the BCS test

procedure in ASTM C 739-91 (which currently is required for dry-

applied, loose-fill cellulose insulation products); the ``Canadian drop

box procedure,'' which previously was proposed by GSA for loose-fill

mineral fiber insulations under Federal Specification HH-I-1030B; \62\

the British Standard Vibration Test; and the procedure developed in

Scandinavia by Dr. Svennerstedt. In the meantime, the Commission will

continue to examine the data specific manufacturers use to substantiate

their R-value, long-term settled density, and coverage claims.

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

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

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

Stabilized Cellulose. Because of the manner in which stabilized

cellulose insulation is installed, the Commission agrees that the BCS

test procedure may not be appropriate for determining its long-term,

settled density. Further, the Commission does not believe that the

procedure for determining density in ASTM C 1149, which NAIMA

suggested, is the appropriate measure of the long-term, settled density

of stabilized cellulose insulations installed in attic applications.

ASTM C 1149 is designed for insulations sprayed onto walls (most often

being applied to metal walls in commercial buildings, where they are

left exposed, without being covered by an internal wall), and requires

that these insulations be able to support themselves in that type of

application. The settling characteristics of stabilized cellulose

insulations in attic applications are different from those of self-

supported insulations sprayed onto walls. ASTM has not yet adopted a

specific method for determining the long-term density of stabilized

cellulose insulation for attic applications. When ASTM, or others,

adopt an appropriate procedure, the Commission will consider whether to

require its use. In the meantime, under section 5 of the FTC Act,

manufacturers must have a reasonable basis for the density at which

they conduct the R-value tests required by the Rule and make R-value

claims to consumers.

Loose-fill and Stabilized Insulations Used in Manufactured Housing

Attics. No comments addressed whether the procedures currently used to

determine the settled density of dry-applied loose-fill insulations or

stabilized insulations when they are used in attics of site-built homes

are appropriate for determining

[[Page 48034]]

their settled density when they are used in attics of manufactured

housing. Industry members have raised this question separately,

however, with the Commission's staff. At issue is whether these

insulations, which are installed in attic assemblies in a factory and

then transported to the site where the manufactured home will be

located, settle more, or differently, than those used in site-built

homes because of additional vibrations and other factors during

transportation. The Commission solicits comments regarding the extent

of settling of dry-applied loose-fill insulations and stabilized

insulations when they are used in attics of manufactured housing, the

density at which the R-value of these insulations should be determined

for use in attics of manufactured housing, and how that density should

be determined.

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

Dry-applied loose-fill insulations and spray-applied, self,

supported insulations can be installed in walls in residential

applications. Dry-applied loose-fill insulations normally can only be

applied to existing wall cavities (primarily in retrofit applications).

Spray-applied, self-supported insulations can be applied to open wall

cavities before installation of internal walls.

Dry-applied loose-fill insulations may settle when blown into a

confined area, such as an enclosed wall cavity, leaving a gap at the

top of the wall cavity if they are not sufficiently compressed during

installation. Manufacturers who claim an R-value for a dry-applied

loose-fill insulation must disclose the R-value at the applied density,

determined according to the R-value test procedures specified in the

Rule. The Rule, however, does not specify how manufacturers must

determine that density because there was no standard procedure for

measuring the applied density in wall applications for all products at

the time the Commission promulgated the Rule. Because dry-applied

loose-fill insulations installed in closed wall cavities must be

compressed during application to ensure that they do not settle, the

applied density in wall applications is likely to be greater than the

settled density of the product when it is installed in an open attic.

Self-supported, spray-applied insulations, mixed with water and

adhesives (also referred to as ``wet-spray'' insulations), are

installed pneumatically on-site by professional installers. They may be

made of either cellulose or mineral fiber. When applied, this form of

insulation requires no support other than the insulation itself or the

substrate to which it is attached. These products most often are used

in walls in commercial applications, where they may be left exposed

after they are installed. They are rarely used in residences, primarily

because this application requires the use of more insulation material

for a given thickness (i.e. the insulation is installed at a higher

density and cost), often without any increase in total R-value, and

sometimes at a reduced R-value. They are not used in attics because of

their additional weight (and cost). Because these products are applied

at a greater density than either dry-applied loose-fill or stabilized

insulations, they are not likely to settle. Although this form of

insulation was not discussed during the original rulemaking proceeding

and the Rule does not specify how R-value these specimens must be

prepared, it is covered by the Rule if it is sold for use in the

residential market. Because the density at which these insulations are

applied affects their R-values, the Commission's staff has advised

industry members that they should prepare test specimens according to

the manufacturer's installation instructions, using equipment,

materials, and procedures representative of the manner in which the

insulation is applied in the field.

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

Wall Cavities

Two comments recommended requiring the disclosure of R-values and

related information for loose-fill insulations intended in walls or

other enclosed cavities. NAIMA recommended requiring that coverage

charts for these products include R-values maximum net coverage area,

and minimum weight per square foot for the thicknesses of common

cavities (e.g. 3\1/2\''). NAIMA asserted that separate disclosures for

installations of these insulation products in enclosed cavities is

necessary to provide guidance about the proper amount of material that

must be installed.\63\ Mr. Smith, for GreenStone, agreed and suggested

requiring disclosure of a coverage chart for ``Gross Coverage,'' for

cavities using 2x4 and 2x6 on 16'' center construction. He recommended

requiring the disclosure of the density at which the loose-fill

insulation should be installed, along with a statement that

applications below this density may be subject to settling and may

create gaps at the top of or within wall cavities that may

significantly reduce the insulating value of the product. Lastly, he

stated that the R-value for each of the wall thicknesses claimed must

be determined at the applied density the manufacturer recommends.\64\

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

\63\ NAIMA, #24, at 5.

\64\ GreenStone/Smith, #32, at 3.

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

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

Wall Cavities

The Commission agrees that specific requirements for determining

the appropriate density for the R-value test specimen and for

disclosures on coverage charts for applications in enclosed wall

cavities would be appropriate and desirable. GreenStone's suggestion of

requiring a statement of ``applied density'' could provide helpful

information to installers in determining whether they have installed

the requisite amount of insulation material, but it does not address

how that density should be determined. The Commission, therefore,

solicits comments on whether there are reliable procedures that could

be used to determine the density of dry-applied loose-fill insulations

when installed in enclosed wall cavities, and the specific disclosures

that should be required (e.g., how coverage area for enclosed wall

cavities should be described).

Comments Regarding the Use of Self-Supported Insulations in Wall

Cavities

ECI recommended adopting the test specimen preparation procedures

in ASTM C 1149 when testing insulations that are sprayed into wall

cavities.\65\ England recommended requiring use of either HUD UM-80

\66\ or ASTM C 1149, both of which apply to spray-applied cellulose

insulation, to ensure that R-value and related information is

accurate.\67\

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

\65\ ECI, #23, at 1.

\66\ U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Materials

Bulletin No. 80 (``HUD UM-80''), dated October 31, 1979. This

specification includes additional requirements, e.g., the surface to

which the specimen is to be applied, and post-preparation

conditioning.

\67\ England, #18, at 2-3.

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

Discussion Regarding the Use of Self-supported Insulations in Wall

Cavities

The procedures in paragraph 5.1 of ASTM C 1149-90 and in paragraph

9.1.1 of HUD UM-80, which require the R-value test specimens be

prepared using the maufacturer's recommended equipment and procedures

and at the manufacturer's maximum recommended thickness, appear to be

appropriate procedures for preparing R-value test specimens of self-

supported, spray-applied cellulose insulation products.

[[Page 48035]]

Accordingly, the Commission proposes amending the Rule to require

preparation of R-value test specimens of self-supported, spray-applied

cellulose insulation products according to either of these

specifications. The Commission solicits public comments regarding the

accuracy and reliability of the two procedures, whether the Commission

should allow use of either procedure or only one, how the Commission

should define specifically the products to which the procedures apply,

and whether the same procedures (or others) should be required for

other types of spray-applied insulations (e.g., mineral fiber

insulations) that are used in residential applications.

Discussion Regarding the Use of Loose-fill Insulations and Self-

supported Insulations in Wall Cavities of Manufactured Housing

No comment addressed whether the procedures currently used to

determine the settled density of dry-applied loose-fill insulations or

self-supported insulations when they are used in wall cavities of site-

built homes are appropriate for determining their settled density when

they are used in wall cavities of manufactured housing. Industry

members have raised this question separately, however, with the

Commission's staff. At issue is whether the settling of these

insulations, which are installed in wall assemblies in a factory and

then transported to the site where the manufactured home will be

located, settled more, or differently, than those used in site-built

homes because of additional vibrations and other factors during

transportation. The Commission solicits comments regarding the extent

of settling of dry-applied loose-fill insulations and self-supported

insulations when they are used in wall cavities of manufactured

housing, the density at which the R-value of these insulations should

be determined for use in wall cavities of manufactured housing, and how

that density should be determined.

3. Density Variations

The Rule's testing and labeling requirements assume that the long-

term settled density of a dry-applied loose-fill insulation product

does not change with variations in thickness. The Rule, therefore,

simply requires that manufacturers of dry-applied loose-fill cellulose

insulation determine the settled density of each product according to

the BCS test procedure and test it for R-value at that density, and

that manufacturers of dry-applied loose-fill mineral fiber insulation

determine the R-value of each product on samples that fully reflect the

effect of settling on R-value. As long as the R-value test has been

conducted at that density and at the product's ``representative

thickness,'' \68\ the manufacturer can construct the required coverage

chart for various total R-value levels based on the R-value result at

the tested density.

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

\68\ The mathematical extrapolation of R-value for a mass

insulation product from thin-sample tests can be misleading because

it fails to recognize that, up to at least some thickness, R-value

does not increase linearly with increases in thickness. This is

referred to as the ``thickness effect.'' To account for the

thickness effect, section 460.6 requires that R-value tests of mass

insulations be conducted at the product's ``representative

thickness,'' which it defines as the thickness at which the R-value

per unit will vary no more than plus or minus two percent with

increases in thickness. For thicknesses less than the representative

thickness, however, the R-value claimed may be based on testing at

the claimed thickness. 44 FR at 50226.

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

Comments

Ivan Smith, for GreenStone, recommended revising section 460.6 of

the Rule to require testing of loose-fill insulations at each thickness

shown on a label unless there is a limitation caused by the physical

constraints of the test equipment. Mr. Smith believes it is likely that

density will be different at each different thickness of loose-fill

material, and that this variation of density potentially affects the

thickness necessary to obtain the claimed total R-value. He contended

that this requirement would not result in a substantial expense to the

manufacturer.\69\

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

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

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

Discussion

The Commission cannot determine whether it would be appropriate to

propose amending the Rule as Mr. Smith recommended without specific

data to demonstrate whether or how much the density of particular types

of loose-fill insulations varies with differences in thickness. The

Commission solicits comments and data, therefore, on whether, and how

much, the density of specific loose-fill insulations varies with

thickness, the effect of any such variations on the total R-value at

different thickness, and how the Commission should amend the Rule to

ensure that R-values and related claims for loose-fill insulation

products are accurate.

4. Installation in Closed Cavities of Variable Thickness

Comments

Dr. Yarbrough, for TN Tech, stated that the evaluation of the

thermal performance of insulations used in attics of manufactured

housing represents a special challenge because, in some cases, the roof

cavity (and the insulation installed in it) varies in thickness and

density. For example, these roof cavities often slope to the edge of

the roof assembly, where the cavity may be only 1\1/2\'' to 2'' thick.

Any insulation (whether it is a batt or blanket, dry-applied loose-

fill, or stabilized product) installed in such an application can vary

in thickness across the cavity, and may be compressed more than normal

in the thinnest portions of the cavity. These factors result in

different total R-values at different places. Dr. Yarbrough recommended

specifying how R-values for such variable thickness and density

applications should be calculated, and suggested using a method such as

the one he and others have described in a paper published by the

American Society of Mechanical Engineers.\70\ He stated that the manner

in which R-values are expressed for this type of application could

affect a major portion of new manufactured homes and could determine

whether insulations installed in these applications achieve the total

R-values claimed.\71\

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

\70\ D.W. Yarbrough, R.S. Graves, and D.L. McElroy,

Effectiveness of Thermal Insulation in Attic Spaces of Manufactured

Homes, Collected Papers in Heat Transfer 1988, K.J. Yang, Ed., The

American Society of Mechanical Engineers, HTD-Vol. 104 (1988), at

71-80.

\71\ TN Tech/Yarbrough, #26, at 4.

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

Discussion

The Commission agrees that it is important to address how R-values

should be determined and disclosed to consumers where the insulation

varies in thickness and/or density in particular applications, so that

R-values claimed to consumers under these circumstances will be

accurate and determined according to a uniform standard. The Commission

solicits comments, therefore, regarding the method (such as that

recommended by Dr. Yarbrough) that should be used to determine and

disclose R-values under these circumstances, and how different

variables (e.g., thickness, density) should be accounted for in the

determination.

D. Other Testing Requirements

1. Accreditation of Testing Laboratories

Comments

The Celotex Corporation recommended requiring that testing

laboratories either be accredited by the National Voluntary Laboratory

Accreditation Program (``NCLAP''), administered by the U.S. Department

of Commerce's National Institute of

[[Page 48036]]

Standards and Technology (``NIST''), for the specific test methods

listed in the Rule, or by the International Organization for

Standardization (``ISO'') as an ISO/IEC Guide 25 Testing Laboratory.

Further, Celotex stated that accreditation as an ISO/IEC Guide 25

Laboratory provides global acceptance of a laboratory's test

results.\72\

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

\72\ Celotex, #25, at 3.

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

Discussion

Although accreditation of testing laboratories by a qualified,

professional accreditation program generally is useful and important,

the Commission is not aware of any significant testing problems with

unaccredited laboratories that would justify the Commission's imposing

this additional burden under the Rule. Further, to the extent that

accreditation of a laboratory provides either domestic or global

acceptance of that laboratory's test results, manufacturers and other

sellers should already have sufficient incentive to use accredited

laboratories, and testing laboratories should have sufficient incentive

to seek accreditation, without the Commission imposing an accreditation

requirement.

The Rule already includes several interrelated safeguards to ensure

testing integrity that make a separate accreditation requirement

unnecessary, absent evidence of testing abuse. First, the Rule requires

manufacturers to test or have their products tested to substantiate the

R-values they claim, and to maintain specific records concerning the

testing methods and results. Second, it enables the Commission to

analyze the substantiation tests by evaluating the required testing

records. Third, it includes a quality control requirement, under which

industry members must ensure that the R-value of the insulation they

sell is not more than 10% below the R-value they claim. Thus, even if

the manufacturer or other covered party has a test result that purports

to verify the claimed R-value, the Commission can obtain samples and

conduct its own testing to ensure that accurate, properly determined R-

values are being disclosed to consumers.

Although the Commission is not proposing to require laboratory

accreditation at this time, it solicits comments on the extent to which

manufacturers presently use accredited versus nonaccredited labs. In

addition, the Commission seeks comments on whether it should require

additional recordkeeping to make the records more clearly demonstrate

whether the tests have been conducted accurately and in accordance with

the required procedures.

2. Test Temperature Requirements

Several test temperature parameters are involved in R-value

testing: (1) The temperature on the cold side of the testing apparatus;

(2) the temperature on the hot side of the testing apparatus; (3) the

mean (or average) test temperature within the test chamber; and (4) the

temperature differential (i.e., the temperature spread between the cold

and hot sides). The record in the original rulemaking proceeding

indicated that variations in these test parameters affected the ASTM

steady-state R-value results for mass insulations and reflective

insulations differently.

For mass insulations, the record indicated that R-values decreased

as the mean test temperature rose, and that this inverse relationship

between R-value and mean test temperature was approximately the same

for all mass insulations. On the other hand, the record indicated that

variations in the temperature differential between the hot and cold

sides did not significantly affect the R-value results. For these

reasons and other explained below, the Commission determined the R-

value tests of mass insulations should be conducted at a mean test

temperature of 75 deg.F, but that it was not necessary to specify a

required test temperature differential for testing mass insulations.

For traditional reflective foil insulations, on the other hand, the

record indicated that variations in mean test temperature did not

affect the R-value results, but that variations in the temperature

differential between the hot and cold sides did affect the R-value

results. At least at smaller temperature differentials, the record

indicated that there was an inverse relationship between R-value and

the temperature differential, as the temperature differential

increased, the R-value result went down. The Commission determined,

therefore, that it was necessary to specify both the mean test

temperature and the temperature differential for R-value testing of

reflective insulations.

The R-value of a reflective insulation is related to its

emissivity.\73\ Based on evidence that single-sheet reflective foil

insulation products with a given emissivity installed in an airspace of

the same thickness and configuration will have the same R-value, the

Commission minimized manufacturers' testing burdens by allowing them to

use the R-values for those products listed in a specific table

published by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-

Conditioning Engineers, Inc. (``ASHRAE''). Thus, manufacturers of

single-sheet reflective insulation products need only to measure the

product's emissivity according to a specific ASTM test procedure (or an

alternative procedure that provides comparable results) \74\ and find

the appropriate R-value in the ASHRAE table for that emissivity.\75\

The ASHRAE table contained R-values for only certain mean test

temperatures and temperature differentials. To ensure that claims were

based, to the extent possible, on a standard that would allow

comparison on a uniform basis of R-values for single-sheet reflective

insulations and mass insulations, the Commission specified that single-

sheet reflective insulation manufacturers must use the R-value in the

ASHRAE table for a mean test temperature of 50 deg.F (the table did

not include a mean test temperature of 75 deg.F, so the Commission

selected the mean test temperature closest to 75 deg.F) and a

temperature differential of 30 deg.F.

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

\73\ See note 25, supra.

\74\ See Part IV.D.5.a.i., infra

\75\ The values in the table apply only to air spaces of uniform

thickness bounded by plane, smooth, parallel surfaces with no

leakage of air to or from the space. Further, the table lists only

certain emissivities and airspace thicknesses. The Rule specifies

that the emissivity must be determined according to ASTM E 408, or

another test method that provides comparable results. The R-value of

a traditional single-sheet reflective foil insulation product that

will be installed in an air space that is not of uniform thickness

bounded by plane, smooth, parallel surfaces with no leakage of air

to or from the space should be tested according to the Rule's

requirements for traditional multi-sheet reflective foil

insulations.

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

For multi-sheet reflective foil insulations (used to create

multiple airspaces), the record indicated that extrapolation of a total

R-value from the ASHRAE R-value for a single airspace was unreliable.

44 FR at 50228. The Commission, therefore, required that R-values be

determined through R-value testing according to specific ASTM

procedures. So that the results of these tests would be comparable to

those for single-sheet insulations and for mass insulations, the

Commission determined that the tests must be conducted at a mean test

temperature of 75 deg.F and a temperature differential of 30 deg.F.

a. Mean Temperature

Comments

Plymouth Foam Products asserted that a mean test temperature of 40

deg.F would more accurately represent the climate(s) for the majority

of the United

[[Page 48037]]

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

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

\76\ Plymouth, #01, at 1.

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

Discussion

The Commission addressed this issue when it originally promulgated

the Rule.\77\ To ensure that R-values claimed to consumers are made on

a uniform basis, the Commission required that R-values disclosed to

consumers be based on steady-state ASTM R-value tests conducted at a

mean temperature of 75 deg.F. The Commission concluded that 75 deg.F

(which was incorporated in many voluntary industry standards and

federal procurement specifications) would be as effective as any other

mean temperature in providing a standard mean test temperature for R-

value comparison purposes, although it otherwise had not particular

advantage over any other temperature. By requiring that R-value testing

be conducted at this mean test temperature, the Commission did not

intend to specify a mean test temperature that would be representative

of any particular geographical region, or particular season or of

actual performance conditions. Indeed the Commission concluded that

requiring sellers to test and disclose R-values at a mean temperature

representative of any specific geographical region, or season of the

year, would yield R-value results that would be inappropriate for other

regions or seasons. Further, it concluded that requiring sellers to

test and disclose R-values separately for different regions of seasons

would yield multiple disclosures that could confuse consumers and

discourage them from using R-values in making purchasing decisions.

Thus, the Commission selected a single mean test temperature to

establish a uniform standard for disclosing R-values. Although the

Commission received no new information that would indicate that any

other single mean test temperature would be preferable to 75 deg.F,

the Commission invites public comments on this issue, along with

comments regarding the testing and the disclosure of in situ

performance information. See also the discussion in Part IV.B.1, above.

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

\77\ 44 FR at 50219, 50227.

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

b. Temperature Differential

Comments

One comment recommended amending the Rule to specify the

temperature differential. NAIMA recommended requiring not only that R-

value tests be preformed at the mean temperature of 75 deg.F, but also

requiring a test temperature differential of ``50 deg.F 10

deg.F.'' NAIMA explained that the thermal properties of a specimen may

change both with mean temperature and with the temperature difference

across the test specimen, and that data and information at standard

temperatures are therefore necessary for valid comparison of thermal

properties. NAIMA stated that ASTM C 1058 \78\ specifies a temperature

difference of 50 deg.F #10 deg.F when conducting tests at

a mean temperature of 75 deg.F according to ASTM test methods C 177, C

236, C 581, and C 1114.\79\

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

\78\ Standard Practice for Selecting Temperatures for Evaluating

and Reporting Thermal Properties of Thermal Insulation (``ASTM C

1058-92'').

\79\ NAIMA, #24, at 1.

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

Discussion

The Commission agrees that, if current evidence demonstrates that

different test temperature differentials affect R-value results, it may

be appropriate to consider specifying a test temperature differential

in the Rule to ensure the comparability of R-value claims for competing

home insulation products. The Commission, therefore, solicits comments

on whether, to what extent, and for what types and forms of insulation,

variations in the test temperature differential affect R-value results;

and what specific test temperature differential(s) the Commission

should impose for tests conducted according to each of the R-value test

procedures cited in the Rule. See also the discussion in Part IV.B.1,

above.

3. Tolerance

Comments Regarding Responsibilities of Manufacturers Versus Installers

NAIMA \80\ and ICAA \81\ proposed limiting application of the

Rule's 10% tolerance limit to manufacturers by replacing the words

``industry member'' with ``manufacturer.''

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

\80\ Id. at 4.

\81\ ICCA/1, #17, at 8. See also Rock Wool Mfg./1, #06 (fully

supports ICAA's submittal).

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

Discussion Regarding Responsibilities of Manufacturers Versus

Installers

The Commission designed the tolerance limit provision to apply to

the manufacturer. Strictly speaking, the tolerance does not apply to

professional installers or new home sellers. The Rule requires that

professional installers and new home sellers apply loose-fill

insulations according to the manufacturer's installation instructions,

but allows them to rely on the accuracy of the manufacturer's R-value

and installation instructions. Installers and new home sellers

therefore have the benefit of the 10% tolerance limit for variances

occurring in the manufacturing process. But the tolerance is not

intended to allow installers or new home sellers to deviate from the

manufacturer's installation instructions. Consequently, the Commission

proposes amending the Rule to clarify that the tolerance provision

applies solely to claims made by manufacturers.

Comments Regarding How the Tolerance Limit Will Be Applied

NAIMA and Dow suggested clarifying the Rule to state more precisely

how the tolerance limit would be applied. NAIMA suggested specifically

requiring manufacturers to design their products to 100% of the claimed

R-value, rather than aiming at the tolerance. NAIMA further recommended

that the section require that the R-value of home insulation to be no

more than 5% below the listed R-value for the average of four randomly

selected samples, and that the R-value of any single sample to be no

more than 10% below the listed R-value. NAIMA explained that limiting

the tolerance to the average of four samples would make this section of

the Rule consistent with current ASTM material standards. Dow asked

that the Commission clarify the intent of Sec. 460.8, and suggested the

following language to allow some variability in a production lot

(rather than simply permitting an R-value of up to 10% below the

claimed value):

The mean R-value of sampled specimens of a production lot must

meet or exceed the R-Value shown in a label, fact sheet, ad or other

promotional material. No individual specimen can have an R-Value

more than 10% below the claimed R-Value.\82\

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

\82\ Dow, #37, at 1.

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

Discussion Regarding How the Tolerance Limit Will Be Applied

The tolerance limit provision was designed to give manufacturers

the flexibility to use the most effective and least burdensome or

costly quality control procedures necessary to maintain each product's

R-value (and the density necessary to obtain the claimed R-value)

within an acceptable limit. At this time, however, the Commission

agrees that it would be appropriate to consider whether the Commission

should include in the Rule additional, more specific, guidance about

how manufacturers should apply the tolerance limit. Possible

alternatives include the suggestions made by NAIMA and Dow.

Consequently, the

[[Page 48038]]

Commission solicits comments on whether and how it should propose

amending the tolerance provision, and the benefits and burdens such an

amendment would confer on consumers and insulation sellers.

Comments Regarding Sampling Procedures for the Tolerance Limit

NAIMA recommended amending Sec. 460.8 to require manufacturers to

select test specimens in accordance with ASTM C 390-79 \83\ which is

the sampling procedure required by all ASTM thermal insulation

standards.\84\

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

\83\ The current version of this specification is ASTM C 390-79

(Reapproved 1995): Standard Criteria for Sampling and Acceptance of

Preformed Thermal Insulation Lots (``ASTM C 390-79 (1995)'').

\84\ NAIMA, #24, at 4.

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

Discussion Regarding Sampling Procedures for the Tolerance Limit

In the original rulemaking proceeding, the Commission concluded

that the available sampling standards--specifically ASTM C 390 and

Military Standard 105 \85\--were not suitable for inclusion as

requirements of the Rule because they were extremely complex and were

not designed for sampling from a continual production process but,

instead, were ``lot'' sampling procedures designed for use in

individual transactions. Accordingly, the Commission left the choice of

specific sampling methods to the manufacturer's discretion. Likewise,

paragraph 3.1.6 of the current ASTM sampling specification, ASTM C 390-

79 (1995), establishes sampling standards applicable to a specific

``lot'' or ``batch'' (which is defined as ``a definite quantity of some

product manufactured under conditions of production that are considered

uniform''). Although the Rule does not require specific sampling

procedures, it requires that manufacturers be able to prove that test

samples they select are representative of ongoing production.

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

\85\ The version of the military standard in effect at that time

was: Sampling Procedures and Tables for Inspection by Attributes,

MIL-STD-105D (``Military Standard 105'').

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

To address this issue, the Commission solicits comments on whether

manufacturers currently use sampling procedures that do not result in

the selection of test specimens that are representative of ongoing

production; which specific procedures currently are available for use

in sampling from continuing production (or how sampling procedures

designed for specific lots could be used to select samples from

continuing production); and whether the Commission should require the

use of specific sampling procedures.

4. Use of Current Test Data

Comments

Dr. Yarbrough, for TN Tech, asserted that required R-Value

disclosures should be based on test data no more than two years old. He

contended that normal quality control activities should require more

frequent thermal tests than are currently performed, and that this

would not unduly burden the industry. He also recommended that, because

the properties of thermal insulation can change when the manufacturing

process changes, thermal test data should be based on the current

manufacturing process and equipment being used.\86\ Dr. Yarbrough would

exclude reflective insulations from this requirement because the

thermal measurements for these products are much more expensive than

tests for mass insulations. He recommended that a test on a reflective

insulation be considered current if it conforms to ASTM C 1224 and the

measurements were made on the product being marketed.\87\

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

\86\ TN Tech/Yarbrough, #26, at 2.

\87\ Id. at 3.

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

Discussion

When the Commission promulgated the Rule, it considered, but

rejected, a recommendation in the Staff Report that the Commission

require manufacturers to repeat their R-value substantiation tests

every 60 days, coupled with a 5% tolerance limit. The Commission

explained that the rulemaking record pointed no single retesting

frequency that would be superior for all manufacturers, regardless of

the type and amount of insulation they produce and sell and regardless

of the variables that might affect the production of each type of

insulation product. In addition, the record indicated that there was a

limited availability of testing laboratories and testing equipment at

that time to conduct the required testing for all manufacturers on a

frequent basis.

Instead, the Commission determined to rely on a tolerance limit

provision as the governing quality control mechanism.\88\ It specified

10% as the acceptable tolerance limit, and required manufacturers to

institute in-plant quality control procedures necessary to stay within

that tolerance limit. This mechanism was designed to give manufacturers

the flexibility to use whatever quality control procedures are

necessary to ensure the accuracy of their R-value claims, using the

most effective and efficient, but the least burdensome or costly, means

possible within their technical expertise. If the manufacturer changed

the raw materials used or the manufacturing process, however, the

resulting insulation product would be a new home insulation product.

The Rule requires manufacturers to conduct a new R-value test on each

new home insulation product, and to disclose the R-value (and related

information) of each new product based on the new test.

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

\88\ 44 FR at 50229.

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

The Commission agrees that it is appropriate to consider whether

current conditions would justify the Commission's requiring a more

specific retesting quality control mechanism. In this regard, the

Commission is interested in comments regarding how frequently

manufacturers currently test their insulation products, how much the R-

value of current production varies,\89\ how frequently manufacturers

change their products, whether they retest products that have changed,

and what retesting schedule would be most appropriate to ensure the

accuracy of R-value claims made to consumers. After considering the

comments, the Commission will determine whether it should propose

requiring a specific retesting schedule.

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

\89\ For example, is the R-value of the insulation being

produced consistently below the R-value claimed and previously

determined, even if it is within the Rule's 10% tolerance?

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

5. Determining the Thermal Performance of Reflective Insulations

Two basic forms of reflective insulation products are marketed for

use in the residential market: (1) Traditional single-sheet and multi-

sheet reflective insulations; and (2) single-sheet radiant barrier

reflective insulations. Traditional reflective insulation products

normally are installed in closed cavities, such as walls. As explained

in Part IV.D.2, above, the Rule requires that manufacturers of

traditional reflective insulation products use specific test procedures

to determine the R-values of their products, and that manufacturers and

other sellers disclose R-values to consumers for specific applications.

Radiant barrier reflective insulations, on the other hand, are

installed in attics facing the attic's open airspace. Although radiant

barrier reflective insulations are covered by the R-value Rule, R-value

claims are not appropriate for them because no generally accepted test

procedure exists to determine the R-value of a radiant barrier

reflective insulation in an open attic. Sellers who make energy savings

claims for radiant barrier insulations, however, must have

[[Page 48039]]

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

a. Traditional Reflective Insulations

i. Single-sheet Products

Comments

Three comments recommended allowing the use of updated or

alternative test procedures to measure the emissivity of traditional

single-sheet reflective insulations.\90\ Celotex and PIMA \91\

recommended requiring that emissivity be determined under ASTM E 408-71

(1990),\92\ ASTM C 835-82 (1988),\93\ or another method that provides

comparable results. Dr. Wilkes, for ORNL, reported that ASTM is in the

final stages of developing a procedure to measure the emittance of foil

sheets with a portable Emissometer, and recommended that the Commission

include this procedure in section 460.5(c) when ASTM adopts it.\94\

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

\90\ NAIMA, #24, at 3; Celotex, #25, at 4; PIMA, #30, at 6-7.

See Part IV.D.2, supra, for a discussion regarding the use of

emissivity in determining the R-value of a single-sheet reflective

insulation product.

\91\ Celotex, #25, at 4; PIMA, #30, at 6-7.

\92\ The current version of this specification is ASTM E 408-71

(Reapproved 1996): Standard Test Methods for Total Normal Emittance

of Surfaces Using Inspection Meter Techniques (``ASTM E 408-71

(1996)'').

\93\ The current version of this specification is ASTM C 835-95:

Standard Test Method for Total Hemispherical Emittance of Surfaces

from 20 to 1400 deg. C (``ASTM C 835-95'').

\94\ ORNL/Wilkes, #29, at 5.

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

Discussion

ASTM now has adopted the procedure (ASTM 1371-97) \95\ that Dr.

Wilkes recommended Dr. Wilkes informed the Commission's staff that the

procedure is a very simple, quick measurement, using an instrument that

costs about $1,000. He also informed the staff that, while there is no

meaningful statistical difference between the results of measurements

under ASTM C 1371-97 and ASTM C 835-95, the ASTM C 835-95 procedure is

considerably more complicated.

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

\95\ Standard Test Method for Determination of Emittance of

Materials Near Room Temperature Using Portable Emissometers (``ASTM

C 1371-97'').

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

The Commission solicits comments on the accuracy, reliability, and

consistency of each of these procedures in measuring emissivity; the

costs of conducting the procedures; and whether the Commission should

require the emissivity be measured by only one procedure to ensure that

measurements of emissivity are accurate and reliable.

ii. Multi-sheet Products

Comments

The five comments that addressed the Rule's R-value testing

requirements for traditional multi-sheet reflective foil insulations

recommended requiring that R-values be determined according to the

procedures specified in ASTM C 1224-93, either in addition to or

instead of the two ASTM R-value test procedures specified in the

Rule.\96\ Dr. Wilkes, for ORNL, explained that ASTM C 1224-93 requires

R-value testing according to ASTM C 236 or ASTM C 976, but specifies

additional instrumentation for the tests and a method of calculating R-

values based on the R-value test procedure measurements. He further

recommended requiring that the tests be conducted at the mean test

temperature and temperature differential specified in ASTM C 1224-

93.\97\

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

\96\ NAIMA, #24, at 3 (ASTM C 1224-93 was not developed when the

Rule was issued; reference in the Rule to C 236 and C 976 is

unnecessary because those standards are incorporated into C 1224);

Celotex, #25, at 4; TN Tech, #26, at 3; ORNL/Wilkes, #29, at 6;

PIMA, #30, at 6.

\97\ ORNL/Wilkes, #29, at 6. ASTM C 1224-93 requires testing at

a cavity mean test temperature of 754 deg.F

(242 deg.C) with a temperature difference across the

insulated cavity of 302 deg.F (16.51

deg.C). These temperature requirements are similar to those

currently required by the Rule, but ASTM C 1224-93 specifies that

the temperatures are those within the cavity (not including the

cavity walls, or the air temperatures inside or outside the house)

and incorporates tolerances to allow minor temperature variations.

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

Discussion

Traditional multi-sheet reflective insulations must be tested in an

enclosed cavity system that includes air spaces. Testing such a system

requires the construction of a test panel to contain the reflective

insulation. R-values determined in these systems tests may vary

depending on the size and configuration of the test panel, the

materials used to construct the test panel, how mean temperature and

temperature differential are measured, and the corrections for

components such as framing members used in the test panel that are made

in the calculation of R-values based on the test results. ASTM C 1224-

93 includes requirements concerning the construction of the test panel,

verification of the R-value measurement, and calculation of the R-value

of the reflective insulation from the R-value measurement of the entire

system. The Commission concludes that requiring standardization of

these variables would be comparable to the Rule's requirements that

test specimens of certain mass insulation products be prepared

according to specified procedures and that R-values determined under

ASTM C 177-85 (1993) or ASTM C 518-91 be reported in accordance with

the requirements of ASTM C 1045-90, and would benefit consumers by

making R-value claims for these products more accurate and reliable.

For these reasons, the Commission proposes requiring that R-values

for reflective insulations be tested according to ASTM C 236-89 (1993)

or ASTM C 976-90 in a test panel constructed according to ASTM C 1224-

93, and under the test conditions specified in ASTM C 1224-93, and that

the R-values be calculated according to the formula specified in ASTM C

1224-93, from the results of those R-value tests. The Commission

solicits comments on this proposal.

b. Radiant Barrier Products

Comments

Dr. Wilkes, for ORNL, states that ASTM is developing a method for

evaluating the thermal performance of low-emittance foils used in

residential attics to reduce radiative transport across the attic air

space. He recommended that the Commission incorporate this method into

the Rule once ASTM adopts it.\98\

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

\98\ Id. at 5.

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

Discussion

ASTM has now adopted the standard referred to by Dr. Wilkes. The

standard, ASTM C 1340-96,\99\ incorporates a complicated calculation

(and computer program) to determine the heat flux through an attic

containing a radiant barrier. The results do not determine an R-value

rating, but instead a performance value that might serve as a

reasonable basis for energy savings claims (and related performance

claims) made about radiant barrier insulations. The Commission solicits

comments concerning the specific type of performance the standard

measures, how the standard may be used to substantiate energy savings

claims or other performance claims for radiant barrier insulations, the

types of installations of radiant barrier insulations for which the

standard may be used, the accuracy of the determinations made under the

standard, and whether the Commission should require that energy savings

or other performance claims for radiant

[[Page 48040]]

barrier insulations be based on the standard.

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

\99\ Standard Practice for Estimation of Heat Gain or Loss

through Ceilings Under Attics Containing Radiant Barriers by Use of

Computer Program (ASTM C 1340-96'').

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

6. Additional Laboratory Procedures for Testing Loose-fill Insulations

Comments

NAIMA recommended that the Commission require testing of loose-fill

insulations ``in full conformance with ASTM C 687-93.'' \100\ NAIMA

explained that C 687 has been significantly improved since the Rule

became effective and that it now deals more specifically with test

specimen preparation techniques, stabilization times, and measurement

of the specimen density in the test area, resulting in a significant

improvement in test precision.\101\

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

\100\ The current specification is: Standard Practice for

Determination of Thermal Resistance of Loose-fill Building

Insulation (``ASTM C 687-95'').

\101\ NAIMA, #24, at 2.

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

Discussion

ASTM C 687-95 (the current ASTM specification) is a standard

practice, rather than a test procedure. It specifies procedures to be

followed in testing a variety of loose-fill insulations to be used in

other than enclosed applications. It is a detailed laboratory

procedures guide that appears to be both comprehensive and complicated.

In an attempt to minimize burdens imposed by the rule, the Commission

limited its testing requirements to the minimums necessary to ensure

the accuracy and reliability of test results. The Rule, therefore,

specifies only the basic R-value test procedures and test specimen

preparation procedures for certain products that are necessary to

account for factors that can significantly affect R-value results

(e.g., aging, settling). In the original rulemaking proceeding, the

Commission considered, but rejected as unnecessary, requiring adherence

to more detailed standard practice or standard guide specifications,

such as ASTM C 687. Without data substantiating the need to specify

detailed laboratory operating procedures, for these insulations or

others, the Commission is reluctant to consider imposing additional

requirements. The Commission invites public comments, however, on

whether and why there is a need to specify in more detail the

laboratory procedures that should be followed in preparing test

specimens and conducting R-value test procedures, for loose-fill

insulations as well as other forms of insulations, and the benefits and

burdens from such additional requirements.

E. Other Disclosure Issues

1. Disclosures on Labels and Fact Sheets

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

Comments

The Rule requires the manufacturer's fact sheet to include a

specific statement entitled ``What You Should Know About R-values''

that explains the meaning of R-value and lists factors consumers should

consider when purchasing insulation.\102\ Regal suggested that this

statement should be more specific in explaining how consumers can

determine the amount of insulation they need. Regal commended the

Insulation Fact Sheet published by the DOE for providing the best such

information for consumers, but contended that it is not readily

available in the marketplace. Regal also explained that the DOE ZIP

Computer Program can be used to make a cost-benefit analysis for

specific insulation products based on their cost per R-value and

expected benefits.\103\

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

\102\ The required statement is:

READ THIS BEFORE YOU BUY

What You Should Know About R-values.

The chart shows the R-value of this insulation, R means

resistance to heat flow. The higher the R-value, the greater the

insulating power. Compare insulation R-values before you buy.

There are other factors to consider. The amount of insulation

you need depends mainly on the climate you live in. Also, your fuel

savings from insulation will depend upon the climate, the type and

size of your house, the amount of insulation already in your house,

and your fuel use patterns and family size. If you buy too much

insulation, it will cost you more than what you'll save on fuel.

To get the marked R-value, it is essential that this insulation

be installed properly.

\103\ Regal, #16, at 2-3.

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

Corbond suggested that the current Rule has four negative effects

that the Commission should address: (1) The Rule codifies the least

effective measure of insulation performance, conductivity, as the sole

measure widely used for comparing insulation value; (2) the Rule's

emphasis on a product's R-value, as opposed to factors that affect

installed performance, retards the development and acceptance of new

products that perform better than fiberglass insulations because their

performance appears the same when measured by R-value alone; (3) energy

codes that require the installation of specific R-values favor products

such as fiberglass insulations because the code requirements do not

recognize the superior performance of insulations that are not subject

to degradation of R-value in actual use due to factors such as venting,

wind, convection, and moisture accumulation; and (4) the Rule

perpetuates the use of an obsolete product, fiberglass insulation,

which requires supplementation by other products and techniques (e.g.,

foam caulk, house-wrap, sheet vapor barriers, foam insulation

sheathing, and venting) to help it do the job it should be able to do

on its own.\104\

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

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

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

CIMA and Corbond recommended that the Commission add language to

the required statement to address these concerns. CIMA recommended the

following statement: \105\

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

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

R-value is important, but it is only one of many factors that

affect the actual performance of insulation as installed. Other

important factors to consider include air permeability, ability of

the insulation to ``tighten'' the building against air infiltration,

susceptibility to convective heat loss under cold conditions, and

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

proper installation.

Corbond supported CIMA's suggestion, but recommended the use of an

expanded version of the statement:

R-value is important, but it is only one of the many factors

that affect the actual performance of insulation as installed. Other

important factors to consider include air permeability, ability of

the insulation to ``tighten'' the building against air infiltration,

susceptibility to convective heat loss under cold conditions, the

potential for moisture permeation and accumulation and its

deteriorating effects, and proper installation. Consult your

insulation manufacturer for information regarding the true

performance efficiency of the insulation under conditions

appropriate to your climate.

Discussion

The original purpose of the required explanation in fact sheets was

to minimize disclosure burdens on industry members who advertise energy

or fuel savings. Instead of requiring them to provide lengthy

disclosures in ads that claim energy savings, the ad simply could refer

consumers to information in the manufacturer's fact sheet.\106\ This

approach would ensure that the explanatory information would be made

available to consumers, while keeping advertisements less cluttered.

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

\106\ 44 FR at 50233-34.

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

The Commission recognizes that, as the comments have indicated,

more information could be provided in the explanation about how

consumers can purchase the most cost-effective amount of insulation,

and that there are additional factors that can affect R-value and

performance in actual use. The Commission drafted the statement to

balance consumers' need for information against keeping the statement

simple enough to be useful and not detract from its basic purpose--

making consumers aware that there are

[[Page 48041]]

various factors they should consider when purchasing products to make

their homes more energy efficient.

Because new information may be available about the factors that

affect insulation performance, the Commission is willing to consider

revising the explanation. The Commission is concerned, however, that

many consumers would not understand the meaning or impact of a general

cautionary statement that contains terms such as ``air permeability,''

``susceptibility to convective heat loss under cold conditions,'' ``the

potential for moisture permeation and accumulation and its

deteriorating effects.'' The Commission, therefore, solicits comments

regarding how the explanation could be revised to provide the most

useful information to assist consumers in making purchasing decisions.

In particular, the Commission is interested in receiving information

about the factors that should be included, why those factors are

important, how the information could be explained in a meaningful and

helpful manner, and how the information would assist consumers in

making purchasing decisions. Among other things, commenters are

requested to include data such as consumer perception studies that

demonstrate whether suggested alternative disclosures would be

meaningful to consumers.

b. Disclosures for Batt, Blanket, and Boardstock Insulations

Subsections 460.12(b)(1) and 460.12(B)(4) of the Rule require that

manufacturers label all packages of batt/blanket insulations and

boardstock insulations, respectively, with a chart showing the R-value,

length, width, thickness, and square feet of insulation in the package,

and 460.13(c)(1) requires that they include the chart on the

manufacturer's fact sheets.

Comments Regarding Batt and Blanket Insulations

NAIMA recommended amending 460.12(b)(1) to apply to all batt and

blanket insulation products by deleting the reference to ``mineral

fiber.'' NAIMA asserted that batts and blankets made of other

materials, such as cotton, other cellulosic materials, and plastic

fiber, have been introduced into the marketplace and that the Rule

should specify labeling requirements for these new batt and blanket

products.\107\

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

\107\ NAIMA, #24, at 4.

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

Discussion Regarding Batt and Blanket Insulations

The Commission agrees that all types of batt and blanket

insulations should be labeled with the same basic R-value and coverage

area information, and that manufactures' fact sheets for these

insulation products should include these disclosures. Like other basic

coverage chart disclosure requirements in section 460.12(b), the

Commission designed this coverage chart disclosure requirement to apply

to the form of the product (batt or blanket), not the type (e.g.,

mineral fiber). The Rule refers to ``mineral fiber'' batts and blankets

because when the Rule was promulgated the batt and blanket insulation

products being sold in the residential market were mineral fiber

insulation products, primarily fiberglass. The Commission, therefore,

proposes amending the Rule to clarify the requirement by deleting the

phrase ``mineral fiber'' from section 460.12(b)(1), and solicits

comments on this proposal.

Comments Regarding Disclosures to Assist Installers and Post-

Installation Inspectors

ICAA recommended that the Commission require manufacturers of batt

and blanket insulations to mark their products with the R-value in

numerical terms only. ICAA contended that the method some manufacturers

use of applying stripes on unfaced batt and blanket products to

indicate the product's R-value is not understood by installers, code

compliance officials, and others in the building inspection

community.\108\

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

\108\ ICAA/1, #17, at 3. ICAA provided an article from

Insulation Contractors Monthly (Appendix A to the comment)

describing guidelines, issued by NAIMA, for identifying, by means of

stripes, the R-values of unfaced fiberglass insulation. See also

NAIMA, #24m at 6-7.

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

To assist building code officials and others who perform post-

installation inspections in determining whether the correct R-value has

been installed, ICAA also recommended that the Commission require

manufacturers of unfaced batt and blanket insulation products to

include the following statement on their product packages:

The unfaced batt should be installed so that the R-value

identification is visible for inspection. ICAA reported that the 1955

version of the Model Energy Code (``CABO/MEC''), issued by the Council

of American Building Officials (``CABO''), recommends that insulation

be installed in a manner that will permit inspection of the

manufacturer's R-value identification mark. ICAA asserted that that is

important that contractors who install unfaced batts and blanket do so

in a way that will make it possible to verify R-value quickly and

easily.\109\

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

\109\ ICAA/1, #17, at 2. See also Rock Wool Mfg./1, #06, at 1

(fully supportin ICAA's submittal).

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

Discussion Regarding Disclosures To Assist Installers and Post-

Installation Inspectors

The R-value Rule does not require that individual pieces of

insulation be marked, but instead requires point-of-sale disclosures to

consumers prior to purchase on manufacturers' package labels and fact

sheets, and on receipts or contracts professional installers and new

home sellers must give to consumers. These prepurchase disclosures

enable consumers to compare competing insulation products and make

purchasing decisions. As ICAA's comment suggests, however, many

manufacturers also mark individual insulation products such as faced or

unfaced batts and blankets and boardstock products in some way to

identify their R-value.

Under provisions of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1992,

DOE, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (``HUD''),

and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (``USDA'') have adopted the

CABO/MEC for federal residential buildings or federally insured

residential housing, and 33 states have adopted, at some level, some

version of the CABO/MEC, or its equivalent. The CABO/MEC (including the

1995 version) requires for new residential construction (including new

additions to existing residential buildings), that, among other things:

(1) An R-value identification mark appear on each piece of insulation

that is 12 inches wide or greater; and (2) individual pieces of

insulation be installed in attics, floors, and wall cavities in a

manner that permits post-installation inspection of the manufacturer's

R-value identification mark. These requirements assist building

inspectors in determining, after installation, whether the proper

amount of insulation has been installed to meet the minimum thermal

performance requirements of the CABO/MEC.

Marking individual batt, blanket, and boardstock insulation

products with R-values would not provide additional prepurchase

information to consumers (beyond the required disclosures on product

packages, manufacturers' fact sheets, and in contracts or receipts). It

would, however, facilitate R-value verification. But, the CABO/MEC

already requires such marking and it has

[[Page 48042]]

been adopted for new residential construction by other agencies of the

federal government and the majority of states. Thus, it does not appear

necessary for the Commission to amend the Rule to require that

individual batts, blankets, or other insulation products be marked. The

Commission solicits comments, however, regarding whether this

additional disclosure requirement in the Rule would assist consumers in

making purchasing decisions, whether (and why) CABO/MEC requirements

are insufficient to provide this information to building inspectors,

and whether (and to what extent) there currently are abuses in the sale

and installation of home insulation that could be remedied by

duplicating the CABO/MEC requirements in the R-value Rule, as well as

the costs that such an amendment would impose on manufacturers.

Comments Regarding Disclosure of Thickness

Celotex and PIMA recommended requiring the disclosure, on the

required coverage charts on manufacturer's package labels and fact

sheets for boardstock insulations, of the ``nominal thickness'' of the

boards in the package. The comments asserted that boardstock

insulations are produced in nominal (or average) thicknesses and

expressed concern that the current wording of the section implies exact

thickness.\110\

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

\110\ Celotex, #25, at 5; PIMA, #30, at 7. The Commission

understands that, by ``nominal thickness,'' the comments mean the

``average thickness'' of each board.

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

Discussion Regarding Disclosure of Thickness

Subsections 460.12(b)(1) and 460.12(b)(4) of the Rule require the

disclosure of ``thickness'' for batts, blankets, and boardstock

products, without defining whether the thickness disclosed must be the

actual, minimum, nominal, or average thickness.\111\ Although

variations in the manufacturing process may make it difficult for

manufacturers to ensure that they produce products of exact thickness,

it is essential that the thickness delivered to consumers be within a

reasonable tolerance because the total R-value of a batt, blanket or

boardstock insulation product is directly related to its thickness. In

order to provide guidance to sellers, the Commission solicits comments

on: (1) Whether it should propose amending the Rule to specify

individual tolerances for the required thickness disclosure (as well as

required disclosures of net weight and other dimensions of packaged

insulation products) and procedures for determining whether products

are within those tolerances; (2) what tolerances and procedures it

should consider, for example, the procedures and tolerances adopted by

the National Conference of Weights and Measures (``NCMW'');\112\ and

(3) the benefits and burdens to consumers and sellers of specifying

individual tolerances and procedures for these measurements.

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

\111\ The Commission, on the other hand, required the disclosure

of ``minimum thickness'' for loose-fill insulations in subsections

460.12(b)(2)-(3) to address the issue of settling, which is

discussed supra.

\112\ See ``Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods,'' NBS/

NIST Handbook 133, Third Edition (including Supplements 1, 2, and 3)

(Sept. 1998), and ``Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods,''

NIST Handbook 133, Third Edition, Supplement 4 (Oct. 1994). The NCWM

procedures provide mean and maximum allowable variations for the net

contents of packaged items, including weight, dimensions, and other

measurements.

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

c. Disclosures for Loose-fill Insulations

Section 460.12(b) of the rule requires that labels on loose-fill

insulation packages disclose the minimum net weight of the insulation

in the package and include a coverage chart disclosing minimum

thickness (after settling), maximum net coverage area, minimum weight

per square foot, and (for loose-fill cellulose insulation only) number

of bags per 1,000 square feet for each of several specified total R-

values for installation in open attics. The Rule currently specifies

different total R-values for which the disclosures must be made for

loose-fill cellulose insulations and other types of loose-fill

insulations. The rule requires professional installers to calculate the

number of square feet to be insulated and to install the number of bags

indicated on the manufacturer's coverage chart that are necessary for

the desired R-value (commonly referred to as ``bag count'').

Comments Regarding Required Disclosures

Four comments recommended that the Commission amend section

460.12(b) to require the same total R-value and other disclosures for

all types of loose-fill insulations.\113\

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

\113\ Hamilton, #22, at 2 (recommending disclosures at R-13, R-

19, R-30, R-38, and R-42, and recommending that the combined

subsection require that mineral fiber loose-fill coverage charts

list number of bags per 1000 square feet); ICAA/1, #17, at 9 (R-11,

R-19, R-30, and R-38); NAIMA, #24, at 5 (recommending disclosures at

R-13, R-19, R-30, R-38--these are the common R-values typically

installed to satisfy the roof/ceiling requirements of the CABO/MEC

and many state energy codes; also recommending disclosures at all

other R-values listed on the chart); GreenStone/Smith, #32, at 3

(recommending disclosures at R-11, R-13, R-19, R-22, R-24, R-30, R-

32, R-38, and R-40). See also Rock Wool Mfg./1, #06 (fully

supporting ICAA's submittal).

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

Discussion Regarding Required Disclosures

The Commission agrees that it would be appropriate to require the

same disclosures for all types of loose-fill insulations for

application in attics or other open areas. The Commission originally

prescribed separate disclosure requirements for loose-fill cellulose

insulations and other types of loose-fill insulations (primarily

material fiber loose-fill insulations) in response to requests that the

Rule, where possible, apply labeling requirements consistent with GSA's

purchasing specifications. 44 FR at 50230. GSA's specifications at that

time required that labels for loose-fill cellulose insulation disclose

the number of bags required to cover 1,000 square feet, but did not

require this disclosure on labels for loose-fill mineral fiber

insulation, and it required that the mandatory disclosures be made at

different total R-values for the two types of loose-fill

insulations.114 After the Commission promulgated the Rule,

GSA eliminated its own specifications and now uses ASTM material

specifications for determining which insulation products may be

purchased by the federal government (or in connection with programs

operated by the federal government).115 The Commission

believes that there no longer is any justification for requiring

different disclosures for different types of loose-fill insulations for

application in attics or other open areas, and proposes to apply a

single set of disclosures requirements for all types. The Commission

solicits comments regarding this proposal, including the total R-values

for which it would be most appropriate to require the disclosures, and

whether the same disclosures should apply to both dry-applied loose-

fill insulations and stabilized insulations.

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

\114\ Consistent with the GSA specification, subsection

460.12(b)(2) requires that the disclosures be made at R-values of

11, 19, and 22 and all loose-fill insulation except cellulose, and

subsection 460.12(b)(3) requires the disclosures at R-values of 13,

19, 24, 32, and 40 for loose-file cellulose insulation.

\115\ In its compliance guidelines published in 1980, the

Commission's staff explained that GSA had eliminated its own

specifications and recommended that manufacturers of mineral fiber

and other loose-file insulations other than cellulose include a

column disclosing number of bags per 1,000 square feet in their

coverage charts. Staff compliance guidelines, 45 FR 68920, at 68923-

24 (1980). The Commission believes that virtually all manufacturers

of loose-file insulation currently includes this information.

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

[[Page 48043]]

Comments Regarding Disclosure of ``Minimum Net Weight''

One comment recommended requiring the disclosure of ``net weight''

on loose-fill insulation packages, instead of ``minimum net weight.''

116

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

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

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

Discussion Regarding Disclosure of ``Minimum Net Weight''

Subsections 460.12(b)(2) and 460.12(b)(3) require that ``minimum

net weight'' be disclosed on package labels of all types of loose-fill

insulations, but do not require all the disclosure be made in those

exact words. Some state weights and measures regulations, on the other

hand, require the disclosure of ``net weight'' or ``nominal net

weight,'' using specific words. To ensure that manufacturers and other

sellers can conform to the requirements of both the Rule and the

states' regulations, the Commission's staff had advised home insulation

manufacturers that the Rule does not require that the word ``minimum''

appear in the disclosure, and that they can use the terms required by

the state regulations. The Commission affirms the staff's advice.

Further, the Commission intended the term ``minimum net weight'' in

the Rule to mean that the package contains at least the weight claimed,

because the accuracy of the information in the coverage chart depends

on the package containing that amount of insulation material. Terms

such as ``net weight'' or ``nominal net weight'' in state weights and

measures regulations, on the other hand, have been interpreted to mean

average weight per package, within a specific tolerance, over a given

lot of packages or production runs. As with the thickness of batt,

blanket, and boardstock insulations, discussed in Part IV.E.1.b, above

variations in the manufacturing process may make it difficult for

manufacturers to ensure that they produce loose-fill insulation

packages filled with an exact weight of material; but it is essential

that sufficient loose-fill insulation material be installed for

consumers to received the total R-value they are purchasing. If an

insufficient amount of material is contained in the packages used to

install insulation in a particular consumer's home, even if the average

weight is correct over the sampling lot considered, that consumer will

receive less insulation R-value than promised.

The Commission is committed to ensuring that consumers receive what

they are promised, while also minimizing unnecessary burdens and costs

on sellers. The Commission, therefore, solicits comments on: (1)

Whether it should propose amending the Rule to specify individual

tolerances for the required net weight disclosure for loose-fill

insulation and procedures for determining whether packages are within

those tolerances; (2) what tolerances and procedures it should

consider, for example, the tolerances and procedures adopted by the

NCWN;117 and (3) the benefits and burdens to consumers and

sellers of specifying individual tolerances and procedures for the

measurement of net w

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.