[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 169 (Wednesday, September 1, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48024-48049]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-22577]
[[Page 48023]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part III
Federal Trade Commission
_______________________________________________________________________
16 CFR Part 460
Trade Regulation Rule: Labeling and Advertising of Home Insulation;
Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 169 / Wednesday, September 1, 1999 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 48024]]
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
16 CFR Part 460
Trade Regulation Rule: Labeling and Advertising of Home
Insulation
AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission (``Commission'') proposes
commencing a rulemaking proceeding to amend its Trade Regulation Rule
Concerning the Labeling and Advertising of Home Insulation (``R-value
Rule'' or ``Rule''). The purpose of the rulemaking is to streamline and
increase the benefits of the Rule to consumers and sellers, minimize
its costs, and respond to the development and utilization of new
technologies to make American homes more energy efficient and less
costly to operate. This document: First, summarizes public comments the
Commission received in response to a request for comments about the
need for the rule and its benefits and burdens; second, proposes
amendments to recognize technological advances in R-value testing and
specimen preparation procedures, and to clarify and streamline the
Rule's requirements; and third, solicits comments on the proposed
amendments and additional issues.
DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before November 15,
1999.
ADDRESSES: Five paper copies of each written comment should be
submitted to the Office of the Secretary, Federal Trade Commission,
Room 159, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. All
comments also should be submitted, if possible, in electronic form, on
a 3\1/2\ inch personal computer diskette, with a label on the diskette
stating the name of the commenter and the name and version of the word
processing program used to create the document. Programs based on DOS
are preferred. Files from other operating systems should be submitted
in ASCII text format. Individuals filing comments need not submit
multiple copies or comments in electronic form. Comments alternatively
may be submitted by electronic mail (e-mail) to rvalue@ftc.gov>.
Submissions should be identified as ``ANPR Comment, R-value Rule, 16
CFR Part 460.''
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kent C. Howerton or James G. Mills,
Attorneys, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326-
3013 or (202) 326-3035 (voice), or (202) 326-3259 (FAX).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
According to the U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE''), the typical
U.S. family spends close to $1,300 each year on energy bills. DOE
statistics show that, typically, 44% of a homeowner's utility bill goes
for heating and cooling costs. DOE states that homeowners may be able
to reduce their energy bills from 10% to 50% by taking certain
steps.\1\ One of the major steps is increasing the amount of thermal
insulation in their existing homes, or purchasing additional insulation
when purchasing new homes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The amount of energy savings a particular homeowner can
save, of course, will vary depending on individual circumstances.
DOE provides recommendations about the amount of insulation
homeowners need, based on local heating and cooling costs and
climate conditions. DOE's recommendations are based on the cost-
effectiveness of the recommended insulation levels. for more
information, see http://www.eren.doe.gov/consumerinfo/
energy__>savers/ on the Internet, or telephone the U.S.
Department of Energy's Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Clearinghouse (``EREC'') at (800) 363-3732.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To assist consumers in reducing energy bills, the President of the
United States announced in 1998 the Partnership for Advancing
Technology in Housing (``PATH''). PATH is a public/private sector
initiative that seeks to expand the development and utilization of new
technologies in order to make American homes stronger, safer and more
durable; more energy efficient and environmentally friendly; easier to
maintain and less costly to operate; and more comfortable and exciting
to live in. The PATH effort is expected to result in, among other
things, improved energy efficiency and the increased market acceptance
of new housing technologies.
The FTC has long recognized the importance of energy expenditures
on housing to homeowners and other consumers. In 1979, the Commission
promulgated the R-value Rule, 16 CFR Part 460. The R-value Rule
requires that thermal insulation manufacturers and other sellers
disclose the thermal performance of their products, based on uniform
testing procedures adopted by the thermal insulation industry. The
purpose of this Rule is to provide consumers with information about
thermal insulation products, based on uniform standards, that allows
them to make meaningful, cost-based purchasing decisions among
competing products. As part of its ongoing program to review all its
rules and guides to ensure that they provide the maximum benefits at
the lowest cost, the Commission reviewed the R-value Rule in 1995 and
adopted amendments in 1996 to support the use of the most current
testing procedures available and to streamline the Rule.
To increase further the benefits of the Rule, reduce its costs, and
support PATH's goals to make American homes more energy efficient, and
less costly to operate, the Commission now proposes to consider
amending the Rule to recognize the latest technology available. At this
time the Commission proposes only a few limited amendments, which are
designed to clarify the Rule, make disclosure requirements consistent
for competing types of loose-fill insulation products, require the most
current procedures for preparing R-value test specimens and conducting
R-value tests, delete disclosures for a type of insulation that no
longer is sold, and reduce disclosure requirements for retailers.
Regarding these issues, the Commission believes that there is
sufficient information to propose amendments. Regarding other issues,
the Commission is not proposing amendments at this time, but seeks
additional comment that could ultimately result in proposed amendments.
The Commission, therefore, requests comments on additional issues, such
as whether the Commission should revise the Rule to cover additional
products or to require the disclosure of in-use performance values (as
opposed to laboratory tests that are conducted under static, uniform
conditions) or of the performance of building systems. In addition, the
Commission requests comments on whether it should adopt additional test
specimen preparation requirements for specific types and forms of
insulation products to account for various factors that affect R-
values; adopt additional or updated testing requirements; and revise
the disclosure requirements for manufacturers' label and fact sheets,
advertisements and other promotional materials, and for professional
installers, new home sellers, and retailers.
II. The R-Value Rule
The Commission promulgated the R-value Rule on August 29, 1979 \2\
under section 18 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (``FTC Act''), 15
U.S.C. 57a. The Rule became effective on September 30, 1980. The Rule
specifies substantiation and disclosure requirements for those who sell
thermal insulation products for use in the residential market, and
prohibits certain claims unless they are true. The primary
[[Page 48025]]
disclosure required is the insulation product's ``R-value'' ``R-value''
is the recognized numerical measure of the ability of an insulation
product to restrict the flow of heat and, therefore, to reduce energy
costs. R-values may be expressed per unit of thickness (e.g., one inch)
or for the total thickness of a particular insulation product or
installation. The higher the R-value, the better the product's
insulating ability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Final trade regulation rule (``Statement of Basis and
Purpose'' or ``SBP''), 44 FR 50218 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 6, 1995, as part of its ongoing regulatory review program,
the Commission solicited public comments about the economic impact of
and current need for the R-value Rule.\3\ 60 FR 17492 (1995). At the
same time, the Commission solicited comments on a petition
(``Petition'') from Ronald S. Graves, who at that time was a Research
Staff Member, Materials Analysis Group, Martin Marietta Energy System,
Inc. (which operates Oak Ridge National Laboratory (``ORNL'') for the
U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'')). The Petition requested that the
Commission approve an additional (fifth) R-value test procedures, as an
optional test procedure for determining the R-value of home insulation
under the Rule. The test procedure had been issued by the American
Society for Testing and Material (``ASTM''), a voluntary industry
standards organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The Commission previously reviewed the Rule in 1985 under
the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 610, to determine the
economic impact of the Rule on small entities. Based on that review,
the Commission determined that: there was a continuing need for the
Rule; there was no basis to conclude that the Rule had a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities; there was no basis
to conclude that the Rule should be amended to minimize its economic
impact on small entities; the Rule did not generally overlap,
duplicate, or conflict with other regulations; and technological,
economic, and other changes had not affected the Rule in any way
that would warrant amending the Rule. 50 FR 13246 (1985).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the request for comments, the Commission received 42
comments from manufacturers of cellular plastics, cellulosic, mineral
fiber, and reflective insulation products; manufacturers of structural
insulated panels; trade associations comprised of manufacturers of
insulation products and structural insulated panels, professional
installers, and roofing contractors; independent technical consultants
to industry; a government contractor; and individual consumers.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The April 6, 1995 request for comments is filed as document
number B172394. The comments filed in response to the request for
comments are listed in the attached Appendix, alphabetically
according to the citation abbreviations used in this notice. The
comments are filed as document numbers B17239400001, B17239400002,
etc. In today's notice, the comments are cited as #01, #02, etc.
They are available for inspection in Room 130 at the Commission's
Headquarters at 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thirty of the 31 comments that addressed the current need for the
Rule stated that there is a continuing need for the Rule (and its
requirements that manufacturers and other sellers substantiate and
disclose the R-values of home insulation products). Twenty-four
comments described benefits that the current Rule, and the disclosure
of R-values and related information, confer on consumers and home
insulation sellers, including: (1) Giving consumers the basic thermal
performance information (i.e., R-values) they need to select products
with the R-value they want; (2) giving consumers R-value information in
a uniform manner that facilitates easy comparison of competing
products; (3) requiring that R-value claims be substantiated so
consumers receive what they are promised; (4) helping consumers save
energy (and heating and cooling costs) by preventing misrepresentations
about R-values of insulation products; (5) saving consumers money by
eliminating marketing practices that lead them to over- or
underinsulate; (6) improving the quality and consistency of home
insulation and encouraging the development of advanced products; and
(7) creating a ``level playing field'' for competing insulation
sellers.\5\ Most of the comments stated that the costs the Rule imposes
on consumers and sellers are minimal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ In addition to these benefits, one comment explained that
utility companies have embraced the Rule and developed their own
energy savings programs that depend on the Rule to protect
consumers. The comment also stated that state departments of
consumer affairs have used the Rule as a model in writing their
regulations, which has led to state enforcement that has generated
publicity and educated consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the comments, the Commission determined that there is a
continuing need for the Rule, published its determination to retain it,
and adopted several technical, non-substantive amendments to support
the use of the most current testing procedures available and to
streamline the Rule.\6\ 61 FR 13659, at 13659-62, 13665 (1996). The
comments also discussed other issues and recommended that the
Commission consider additional Rule amendments. These comments, the
Commission's discussion of the issues the comments raised, proposed
revisions to the Rule, and objectives and regulatory alternatives to
the proposed revisions, are summarized in Part IV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ These amendments: (1) Revised section 460.5 of the Rule to
allow the use of an additional ASTM test procedure as an optional,
but not required, test procedure to determine the R-value of home
insulation; (2) revised section 460.5 to require the use of current,
updated versions of other ASTM R-value test methods cited in the
rule; (3) added an Appendix summarizing the exemptions from specific
requirements of the Rule that the Commission previously granted for
certain classes of persons covered by the Rule; and (4) revised
section 460.10 of the Rule to cross-reference the Commission's
enforcement policy statement for foreign language advertising in 16
CFR 14.9 and deleted the previous Appendix to the Rule because it
merely repeated the text of 16 CFR 14.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Overview of the Rule \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ This part of the notice outlines the coverage and
requirements of the R-value Rule. Home insulation sellers should be
aware, however, that additional Commission rules or guides may also
apply to them. For example, the Commission's rules concerning
Disclosure of Written Consumer Product Warranty Terms and
Conditions, and the Pre-sale Availability of Written Warranty Terms,
16 CFR Parts 701 and 702, specify requirements concerning warranties
for home insulation products; the Commission's Guides for the Use of
Environmental Marketing Claims, 16 CFR Part 260, address the
application of section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45, to
environmental advertising and marketing claims (e.g., claims
concerning the amount of recycled material a product contains).
Further, section 5 of the FTC Act declares that unfair or deceptive
acts or practices are unlawful, and requires that advertisers and
other sellers have a reasonable basis for advertising and other
promotional claims before they are disseminated. See Deception
Policy Statement, Letter from the Commission to the Honorable John
D. Dingell, Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, U.S. House
of Representatives (Oct. 14, 1983), reprinted in Cliffdale Assocs.,
Inc., 103 F.T.C. 110 (1984); Statement of Policy on the Scope of the
Consumer Unfairness Jurisdiction, Letter from the Commission to the
Honorable Wendell H. Ford, Chairman, Consumer Subcommittee,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Honorable John C. Danforth, Ranking
Minority Member, Consumer Subcommittee, Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation, U.S. Senate (Dec. 17, 1980), reprinted
in International Harvester Co., 104 F.T.C. 949 (1984); and Policy
Statement Regarding Advertising Substantiation, 49 FR 30999 (1984),
reprinted in Thompson Medical Co., 104 F.T.C. 839 (1984).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Products Covered
The R-value Rule covers all ``home insulation products.'' Under the
Rule, ``insulation'' is any product mainly used to slow down the flow
of heat from a warmer area to cooler area, for example, from the heated
interior of a house to the exterior during the winter through exterior
walls, attic, floors over crawl spaces, or basement. ``Home
insulation'' includes insulation used in all types of residential
structures. The Rule automatically covers new types or forms of
insulation marketed for use in the residential market, whether or not
they are specifically referred to in the Rule. The Rule does not cover
pipe insulation, or any type of duct insulation except for duct wrap.
The Rule does not cover insulation products sold for use in commercial
(including industrial) buildings. It does not apply to other products
with insulating characteristics, such as storm windows or storm doors.
Home insulation includes two basic categories: ``mass'' insulations
and
[[Page 48026]]
``reflective'' insulations. Mass insulations reduce heat transfer by
conduction (through the insulation's mass), convection (by air movement
within and through the air spaces inside the insulation's mass), and
radiation. Reflective insulations (primarily aluminum foil) reduce heat
transfer not through the mass of the product, but, when installed
facing an airspace, by increasing the thermal resistance of the
airspace by reducing heat transfer by radiation through it. 44 FR at
50219. Within these basic categories, home insulation is sold in
various types (``type'' refers to the material from which the
insulation is made, e.g., fiberglass, cellulose, polyurethane, aluminum
foil) and forms (``form'' refers to the physical form of the product,
e.g., batt, dry-applied loose-fill, spray-applied, boardstock, multi-
sheet reflective).
B. Parties Covered
The Rules applies to home insulation manufacturers, professional
installers, retailers who sell insulation to consumers for do-it-
yourself installation, and new home sellers (including sellers of
manufactured housing). It also applies to testing laboratories that
conduct R-value tests for home insulation manufacturers or other
sellers who use the test results as the basis for making R-value claims
about home insulation products.
C. Purpose of the Rule
The main reason consumers purchase home insulation is to reduce
energy expenditures to heat and cool their homes. To assist consumers,
the Rule requires sellers (including insulation manufacturers,
professional installers, new home sellers, and retailers) to disclose
the insulation product's R-value and related information, prior to
retail sale, based on uniform, industry-adopted standards. This
information enables consumers to evaluate how well a particular
insulation product is likely to perform, to determine whether the cost
of the insulation is justified, and to make meaningful, cost-based
purchasing decisions among competing products.
D. Basis for the Rule
The Commission issued the R-value Rule to prohibit, on an industry-
wide basis, specific unfair or deceptive acts or practices. When it
issued the Rule, the Commission found that the following acts or
practices were prevalent in the home insulation industry and were
deceptive or unfair, in violation of section 5 of the FTC Act, 15
U.S.C. 45: (1) Sellers had failed to disclose R-value, and caused
substantial consumer injury by impeding the ability of consumers to
make informed purchasing decisions, 44 FR at 50222-23; (2) the failure
to disclose R-values, which vary significantly among competing home
insulation products of the same thickness and price, misled consumers
when they bought insulation on the basis of price or thickness alone,
Id. at 50223; (3) sellers had exaggerated R-values, often failing to
take into account factors (e.g., aging, settling) known to reduce
thermal performance, Id. at 50223-24; (4) sellers had failed to inform
consumers about the meaning and importance of R-value, which consumers
need to understand R-values, Id. at 50224; (5) sellers had exaggerated
the amount of savings of fuel bills that consumers could expect, and
often failed to disclose that savings will vary depending on the
consumer's particular circumstances, Id.; and (6) sellers had falsely
claimed that consumers would qualify for tax credits through the
purchase of home insulation, or that products had been ``certified'' or
``favored'' by federal agencies, Id.
E. Requirements of the Rule
The Rule requires that manufacturers and others who sell home
insulation determine and disclose each product's R-value (and related
information--e.g., thickness, coverage area per package) on package
labels and manufacturers' fact sheets. R-value ratings vary among
different types and forms of home insulations and among products of the
same type and form. The Rule requires that R-value claims to consumers
about specific home insulation products be based on uniform R-value
test procedures that measure thermal performance under ``steady-state''
(i.e. ``static'') conditions.\8\ Mass insulation products may be tested
under any of the test methods, reflective insulation products must be
tested according to either ASTM C 236-89 (1993) or ASTM C 976-90, which
can determine the R-value of insulation systems (such as those that
include one or more air spaces).\9\ The tests must be conducted at a
mean temperature of 75 deg.F. The tests on mass insulation products
must be conducted on the insulation material alone (excluding any
airspace).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Section 460.5 of the Rule requires that the R-values of home
insulation products be based on one of the following R-value test
procedures adopted by ASTM: (1) ASTM C 177-85 (Reapproved 1993):
Standard Test Method for Steady-State Heat Flux Measurements and
Thermal Transition Properties by Means of the Guarded-Hot-Plate
Apparatus (``ASTMC C 177-85 (1993)''or ``Guarded Hot Plate''); (2)
ASTM C 236-89 (Reapproved 1993): Standard Test Method for Steady-
State Thermal Performance of Building Assemblies by Means of a
Guarded Hot Box (``ASTM C 236-89 (1993)'' or ``Guarded Hot Box'');
(3) ASTM C 518-91: Standard Test Method for Steady-State Heat Flux
Measurements and Thermal Transmission Properties by Means of the
Heat Flow Meter Apparatus (``ASTM C 518-91'' or ``Heat Flow
Meter''); (4) ASTM C 976-90; Standard Test Method for Thermal
Performance of Building Assemblies by Means of a Calibrated Hot Box
(``ASTM C 976-90'' or ``Calibrated Hot Box'')); and (5) ASTM C 1114-
95; Standard Test Method for Steady-State Thermal Transmission
Properties by Means of the Thin-Heater Apparatus (``ASTM C 1114-
92''or ``Thin-Heater Apparatus''). R-values determined according to
ASTM C 177-85 (1993) or ASTM C 518-91 must be reported in accordance
with ASTM C 1045-90: Standard Practice for Calculating Thermal
Transmission Properties from Steady-Heat Flux Measurements (``ASTM C
1045-90''). The Commission gave manufacturers and others the option
of choosing among those test procedures because it determined that
all are highly accurate and reproducibly steady-state test methods
that yield uniform and reliable results. 44 FR at 50226; Final rule,
55 FR 10053, at 10054 (1990); Final rule, 61 FR 13659, at 13662-63
(1996). ASTM reviews and revises each of these procedures
periodically. Under section 460.7 of the Rule, the Commission will
accept, but not require, the use of a revised version of any of
these standards 90 days after ASTM adopts and publishes the
revision. The Commission may, however, reopen the rulemaking
proceeding during a 90-day period or at any later time to consider
whether it should require use of the revised procedure or reject it
under section 460.5 of the Rule. 61 FR at 13663.
\9\ The R-value of a single-sheet reflective insulation product
may be determined according to an alternative method. See Part
IV.D.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When it promulgated the Rule, the Commission found that certain
factors, such as aging or settling, affect the thermal performance of
home insulation products. 44 FR at 50219-20, 50227-28. To ensure that
R-value claims take these factors into account, the Rule mandates that
the required R-value tests for polyurethane, polyisocyanurate, and
extruded polystyrene insulation products be conducted on test specimens
that fully reflect the effect of aging,\10\ and for loose-fill
insulation products on test specimens that fully reflect the effect of
settling.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Part IV.C.1.a, infra.
\11\ See Part IV.C.2.a, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specific disclosures must be made: (1) By manufacturers on product
labels and manufacturers' fact sheets; (2) by professional installers
and new home sellers on receipts or contracts; and (3) by
manufacturers, professional installers, and retailers in advertising
and other promotional materials (including those on the Internet) that
contain an R-value, price, thickness, or energy-savings claim, or
compare one type of insulation to another. Manufacturers and other
sellers must have a ``reasonable basis'' for any energy savings claims
they make.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Although the Rule does not specify how energy savings
claims must be substantiated, the Commission explained that
scientifically reliable measurements of fuel use in actual houses or
reliable computer models or methods of heat flow calculations would
meet the reasonable basis standard. 44 FR at 50233-334. Sellers
other than manufacturers can rely on the manufacturer's claims
unless they know or should know that the manufacturer does not have
a reasonable basis for the claims.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 48027]]
IV. Discussion of Comments, Proposed Amendments, Objectives, and
Regulatory alternatives
This part of the notice summarizes and discusses the issues raised
by the comments, including suggestions that the Commission revise the
Rule. In analyzing the comments, the Commission has considered whether
the suggested revisions would further the Commission's objective of
ensuring that consumers receive information about home insulation
products prior to purchase in a uniform, reliable, and substantiated
manner, so that they can evaluate how well a particular product is
likely to perform and make meaningful, cost-based purchasing decisions.
In addition, the Commission has considered alternatives to amending the
Rule to impose new requirements on an industry-wide basis, such as
dealing with questionable claims or practices on a case-by-case basis,
or exploring other mechanisms such as consumer and business education
or industry self-regulation. Below, the Commission explains, on an
issue-by-issue basis, whether it proposes amending the Rule as
suggested by the comments. Both Parts IV and V include specific issues
and questions on which the Commission solicits public comments.
A. Disclosing Thermal Performance of Additional Products
1. Residential Pipe and Duct Insulations
Comments
Dr. Kenneth E. Wilkes, for ORNL, recommended amending the Rule to
include pipe insulations and all types of duct insulations, and listed
the applicable ASTM test methods that apply to these products. Dr.
Wilkes stated that the disclosure of R-value information would provide
important information for purchasers of these products.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ ORNL/Wilkes, #29, at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion
The Commission excluded pipe insulation based on uncontroverted
evidence in the original rulemaking proceeding that it was used
primarily to prevent moisture condensation on low temperature lines,
not for energy conservation; that R-value was not a reliable basis for
comparing the performance of pipe insulations; and that pipe
insulations were not commonly advertised in terms of energy-savings
potential.\14\ Similarly, it excluded duct insulations other than duct
wrap because only duct wrap was used extensively in the residential
setting. 44 FR at 50238 n.170. The Commission's staff has reviewed
current consumer advertising for these products and found no
information to indicate that these facts have changed. Unless
interested parties have information that sellers are misrepresenting
the thermal performance of these products to consumers, the Commission
will not propose extending the Rule to cover them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Final Staff Report to the Federal Trade Commission and
Proposed Trade Regulation Rule (16 CFR Part 460), July 1978 (``Staff
Report''), at 21-22, 188.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Non-residential Insulations
Comments
Two comments suggested extending the Rule to cover insulation
products used in all buildings, not just residential applications. Dr.
David W. Yarbrough, for Tennessee Technological University (``TN
Tech.''), asserted that extending the Rule to cover commercial building
insulations would improve the energy efficiency of buildings and would
contribute to the nation's energy conservation effort without imposing
a measurable increased cost on manufacturers.\15\ Dr. Wilkes, for ORNL,
stated that the Rule has improved both the marketplace and the
technology for home insulations and contended that similar improvements
are needed in the commercial market and would occur if the Rule's
coverage were expanded.\16\ In contrast, Celotex stated that the
Commission should not extend the Rule to cover commercial applications
because commercial insulations are purchased primarily by professional
architects, engineers, and specification writers.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ TN Tech, #26, at 1.
\16\ ORNL/Wilkes, #29, at 3.
\17\ Celotex, #25, at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion
Although applying the Rule to thermal insulation products used in
commercial buildings might provide information to purchasers that could
improve the energy efficiency of buildings, and otherwise prove useful,
the comments do not demonstrate that sellers of commercial insulations
are engaged in unfair or deceptive acts or practices that would justify
expanding the Rule. Furthermore, in many instances, thermal insulation
purchasing decisions for commercial building applications are made by
architects or engineers. These professionals may require R-value and
other performance information based on circumstances different than the
uniform approach the Commission determined was necessary to provide
accurate and understandable information to individual consumers to
compare competing products and make purchasing decisions.
In limiting the disclosure requirements to materials distributed
``for consumer use,'' the Commission recognized that insulation
manufacturers often prepare detailed, technical data for building
industry professionals, who should already be informed concerning
thermal insulation performance. The Commission also recognized that
manufacturers may wish to provide these professionals with additional
information or with information in a different form from that required
for consumer use. 44 FR at 50225.
For these reasons, the Commission does not propose extending the
Rule to cover sales to the commercial market. If interested parties
have evidence that sellers in this market are misrepresenting the
thermal performance of insulation products or are engaging in other
unfair or deceptive practices, however, the Commission invites them to
submit this information.
B. Disclosing In-Use Thermal Performance Values
1. Performance of Insulations in Actual Use
Eleven comments discussed seasonal and other variables that can
affect the R-value of insulation products in actual use, and suggested
that the Rule does not sufficiently account for these factors.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Benchmark #04, at 1; Regal, #16, at 3; CIMA, #19, at 3-5;
GreenStone/Tranmer, #20, at 2; BASF, #21, at 1; Hamilton, #22, at 1-
2; ECI, #23, at 1; Superior, #27, at 1; ORNL/Wilkes, #29, at 4-5;
GreenStone/Smith, #32, at 2: Tascon, #35, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments Regarding Factors That Affect Performance in Attics During
Winter Conditions
Ten of these comments discussed the reduction in R-value of very
low density fibrous insulations (e.g., those at approximately 0.7
pounds per cubic foot or less) installed in open or vented attics that
can result from convective currents when the outside temperature (and
that in the attic) is particularly low.\19\ CIMA stated that when the
Rule was promulgated it was assumed that R-
[[Page 48028]]
value was relatively unchanging over a wide range of temperatures. CIMA
asserted that subsequent research by ORNL has shown a reduction of
steady-state R-values caused by convective heat loss in very low
density fiber insulation materials during very cold periods, when the
temperature difference (delta T) between the heat area of a home and
its cold attic becomes particularly great. CIMA stated that this
phenomenon can reduce the steady-state R-value of affected products
from 10% of a delta T of 50 deg.F to 55 deg.F (17 deg.F to 25 deg.F
in the attic of a home heated to 72 deg.F) to as much as 40% at a
delta T of 90 deg.F (-18 deg.F in the attic of a home heated to 72
deg.F), which can occur during the most severe winter conditions in
some portions of the United States. CIMA recommended that the
Commission require that insulation manufacturers provide winter design
correction factors in coverage charts to compensate for R-value erosion
due to convective heat loss, and require that, if insulation material
is not subject to R-value loss under cold conditions, the manufacturer
state on the package label that the insulation is not subject to
convective heat loss at winter attic temperatures above -20 deg.F.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Regal, #16, at 3; CIMA, #19, at 3-5; GreenStone/Tranmer,
#20, at 2; Hamilton, #22, at 1-2; ORNL/Wilkes, #29, at 4-5;
GreenStone/Smith, #32, at 2; Tascon, #35, at 2.
\20\ CIMA, #19, at 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Wilkes, for ORNL, pointed out that tests on very low density
loose-fill fiberglass insulations with an airspace above the insulation
(as in an open attic application) gave R-values that decreased by more
than 50% from those determined at a mean test temperature of 75 deg.F
value, when they were tested with a delta T greater than 72 deg.F and
a mean test temperature of 70 deg.F. Dr. Wilkes explained that ASTM is
developing a method of determining the thermal performance of attic
insulations during winter conditions, ASTM C 1373,\21\ and suggested
that the Commission incorporate it into the Rule when it is adopted.
This method is still under consideration by ASTM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Standard Practice for Determination of Thermal Resistance
of Attic Insulation Systems Under Simulated Winter Conditions
(``ASTM C 1373'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Tranmer, for GreenStone, asserted that several factors in
addition to R-values that are determined under steady-state conditions
have a major effect on product performance, such as air permeability
and temperature differential. Mr. Tranmer stated that a measurement
known as the Rayleigh number \22\ provides a more complete indication
of the effect that the combination of R-value, air permeability, and
temperature differential have on insulation materials under specific
conditions, and that it represents a more accurate measure of
insulating capabilities than R-value alone. He suggested that the
Commission require the Rayleigh number on packages and promotional
materials to give consumers a better measure of the overall
effectiveness of insulation products.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ The Rayleigh number is a measure of the tendency of air to
move. In the context of very low density thermal insulations
installed on the floor of an open attic during very cold periods,
the Rayleigh number is a ratio between the buoyant force of warmer
air (the air at the bottom of the insulation near the heated
interior of the house) attempting to move upward and the resistance
of the insulation fibers against that upward air movement. The
higher the number, the stronger the buoyant force, and the greater
the reduction of the insulation's steady-state R-value.
\23\ GreenStone/Tranmer, #20, at 2-3, See also GreenStone/Smith,
#32, at 2 (Rule leads consumers to believe that R-value is the most
important factor in comparing insulations; not sufficient merely to
state that other factors may affect insulation thermal performance
if other important factors can be quantified; require testing for
air permeability, R-value, and temperature difference to enable
disclosure of a relative insulation performance factor (Rayleigh
Number)), Hamilton, #22, at 2 (effects of convective heat loss on R-
value could be communicated to consumers by an ``air resistance
index'' number to give them a reference to compare insulation for
certain applications; bag label should include warning about
convection effect on lighter-density materials below 20 deg.F);
Tascon, #35, at 1-2 (require determination of the effects of air
convection on R-value and depiction of that effect at representative
temperatures on coverage charts; require disclosure of the Rayleigh
number); Regal, #16, at 3 (insulation performance and cost
effectiveness should address not only R-value, but also resistance
to heat flow and to convective effects under winter design
conditions.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Tranmer also recommended that the Commission specify testing
with the ORNL Large Scale Climate Simulator to provide more accurate
information for all attic insulation products, and that these products
be tested at temperatures from -20 deg.F to +120 deg.F to provide
consumers with performance information specific to a particular climate
zone. He stated that, while the cost of testing in this apparatus is
approximately $20,000 (significantly more than the usual R-value test),
the benefits through increased energy savings would more than offset
the increase in testing costs.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ GreenStone/Tranmer, #20, at 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citing research that heating energy consumption can vary 25% to 38%
in structures insulated to the same nominal R-value with different
insulation materials, CIMA similarly asserted that, by focusing only on
R-value, the current Rule has the effect of misleading consumers into
thinking that R-value is the only consideration when buying or
specifying insulation. Recognizing that presently there is no perfect
solution to this dilemma, CIMA suggested that Commission expand the
Rule to require manufacturers to disclose Rayleigh numbers for
materials under specific conditions. CIMA asserted that the Rayleigh
number combines the effects of R-value, air permeability, and
temperature difference to produce an expression of relative insulation
performance.
Comments Regarding Factors That Affect Performance Under Winter Versus
Summer Conditions
One commenter, Superior, contended that the R-value test procedures
presently required as the primary means of identifying heat transfer
are no longer valid, because they were developed almost exclusively for
winter conditions. Superior asserted that, with the post-World War II
advent of air conditioning and a higher concern for summer comfort, the
primary mode of heat transfer that should be measured is radiant heat.
Superior explained that R-value is a component of conductive heat
transfer, while radiant heat should be measured by its emissivity,\25\
and contended that reflective insulations with one-half or less the
steady-state R-value of fiberglass will stop more heat transfer into
the home during summer conditions. Superior recommended that the
Commission require manufacturers of all insulations to disclose winter
and summer performance values, with the summer value determined
according to a test procedure other than R-value tests, which have very
little significance for radiant heat transfer during summer
conditions.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ ``Emissivity'' is a numerical measurement of the ability of
a surface to reflect back radiant heat transfer. It is expressed as
a number between 0.0 and 1.0. The lower the emissivity, the greater
the ability to reflect radiant heat back. The inverse of emissivity
is the product's ``reflectivity'' (also called the ``reflectance'').
\26\ Superior, #27, at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion
The Rule requires that R-values be determined according to ASTM
test methods that provide R-value measurements under ``steady-state''
or ``static'' laboratory conditions. These test methods do not take
into account transient environmental factors, such as air circulation,
that can have a significant effect on insulation performance in actual
use (i.e., on site, or in situ). When it promulgated the Rule, the
Commission determined that, notwithstanding this limitation, these
steady-state tests were the most reliable and accurate test methods
available. In addition, evidence on the rulemaking record indicated
that, although environmental conditions might affect the R-value number
determined in steady-state tests, these conditions would affect
competing home insulation products in approximately the same manner.
Accordingly, the Commission
[[Page 48029]]
determined that use of the ASTM steady-state R-value test methods would
permit fair comparisons of product R-values on a standardized basis to
provide consumers with a reliable, uniform, and comparative base for
their purchasing decisions. 44 FR at 50225-26. At the same time, while
the Rule requires that R-values claimed must be based on the uniform
test methods specified in the Rule, manufacturers and other sellers may
provide additional, truthful, substantial information voluntarily to
consumers about the manner in which their products perform in actual
use.
The Commission recognizes that the testing of insulation products
by means of steady-state laboratory testing procedures may not
duplicate precisely the performance of an insulation product in situ.
The thermal performance of any insulation product in actual use,
however, is a highly complex subject that involves a broad range of
parameters, including the design characteristics of the building and
the specific application in which the product is installed (e.g., open
attic, enclosed wall cavity), the geographical location, outside and
inside temperatures, air and moisture movement, proper installation,
and other variables. Determining the disclosing R-values under these
varying circumstances, only some of which may apply to a particular use
by a specific consumer, could result in multiple R-value disclosures
that might overload rather than assist consumers in comparing
insulation products and making purchase decisions. For these reasons,
the Commission does not at this time propose specific amendments to
require disclosures regarding in situ performance or multiple R-values
for different uses.
Consumers, however, could benefit from the most up-to-date,
accurate, and useful information, based on the best available research
and substantiation. For example, in areas where a significant delta T
is predictable, consumers might want to install additional insulation
to take into account the reduction in R-value that might occur during
extreme conditions, or consider installing a higher density product.
The Commission, therefore, solicits comments on the alternatives to
steady-state R-values (e.g., Rayleigh numbers, R-value disclosures
based on temperature ranges for different regions of the country or for
different applications) suggested by the commenters, or other
alternatives, that would provide consumers with accurate, meaningful,
and understandable information relevant to their individual
circumstances. The Commission requests that commenters address: (1)
Specific alternative measurements that are available to describe the in
situ use of home insulation products better than the steady-state R-
values required by the rule; (2) which in situ conditions should be
accounted for (and why); (3) whether (and how and to what extent)
different types or forms of home insulation products perform
differently under specific in situ conditions, and how significant this
different performance is under specific circumstances (e.g., how much
would the difference in performance in actual use make on the
consumer's annual fuel bill); (4) whether accepted test methods are
available to measure in situ performance (and the identity of specific
test methods); (5) how the results of in situ performance measurements
could be described in a meaningful manner to consumers; and (6) the
benefits and costs to consumers and sellers that would be associated
with the use of the alternatives. Among other things, comments are
requested to include data such as consumer research that demonstrate
whether disclosures of in situ performance would be meaningful and
understandable to consumers.
2. Performance of Building System Components That Include Insulation
Comments
Four manufacturers of structural insulation panels (building
systems products that include insulation as a major component) \27\ and
a trade association representing such manufacturers \28\ supported
requiring the thermal efficiency testing of insulation systems, rather
than testing only individual insulation products. These comments
asserted that the Structural Insulated Panel (``SIP'') industry is
penalized by reporting R-values of the insulation components as the
measure of the thermal efficiency of panel system because such R-values
do not adequately represent the energy efficiency and thermal
effectiveness of the panel systems in comparison to insulated panels
may appear to have the same total R-value as some fiberglass batts used
in stick construction, ``[in a typical installation, using EPS foam in
a structural insulated panel, the EPS panel outperforms [a] fiberglass
batt by 20%.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Porter, #03; BASF, #21; Insulspan, #33; Fischer Sips, #36.
\28\ SIPA, #11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three of the manufacturers \29\ and the trade association, however,
apparently recognized that additional research and development would be
necessary before the Commission could require the testing and
disclosure of systems performance values. These comments recommended
that the Commission, along with several other federal agencies, work
with industry to develop consensus testing procedures to consider
factors such as air infiltration, thermal bridging, and moisture
effects on the performance of building systems, and provide resources
for testing and evaluation of the thermal performance and energy
efficiency of construction systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ BASF, #21; Insulspan, #33; FischerSips, #36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion
The Rule covers home insulation products, including products made
up of home insulation and other components (such as structural
insulation panels) when they are marketed primarily to slow down the
flow of heat. These comments appear to be concerned primarily that the
Rule may penalize them by requiring that they disclose the R-value of
the insulation component of their panels, instead of the thermal
performance of their panels compared to the use of competing home
insulation products in other types of building construction. Although
the Rule requires that those who market home insulation test and
disclose the R-value of their insulation, it does not restrict sellers
from providing additional information about how their products perform
in actual use, if they are able to substantiate their claims. The
comments acknowledge that additional research would be required to
develop the procedures necessary to implement a requirement that
sellers include in their R-value disclosures information about how
their products perform in various types of construction, which would
depend on multiple variables. Even if such procedures were developed,
as a practical matter, it might be extremely difficult, and perhaps
impossible, to draft testing and disclosure requirements that could
take such variables into account in a manner that would be meaningful
to consumers, and where the benefits (e.g., better information for
consumers) outweighed the additional costs (e.g. for additional testing
and disclosures) that would be imposed.
Accordingly, while the commission acknowledges the concerns
underlying these comments, it has determined not to propose amending
the Rule at this time to require the disclosure of insulation
performance based on testing of home insulation products in different
types of applications. The Commission
[[Page 48030]]
encourages interested parties to pursue the additional testing and
research that support a system-type disclosure format, and the
Commission's staff is available to provide advice about the type of
documentation that would be necessary for the Commission to propose
formal testing and disclosure requirements that include these
applications.
C. Disclosing R-values that Account for Factors Affecting R-value
The comments described in this section addressed issuers relating
to the Rule's R-value test specimen preparation requirements for
specific types and forms of home insulation products. All home
insulation products are covered by the Rule, regardless of whether they
are specifically referred to in the test specimen preparation
requirements or other provisions of the Rule. That is, they must be
tested for R-value under the test procedures specified in section 460.5
of the Rule and the R-value results of those tests must be disclosed to
consumers. In some instances the Rule specifies how test specimens must
be prepared for R-value tests. In other instances it does not, either
because the Commission determined it was not necessary to specify R-
value test specimen preparation requirements, or because those products
were not being sold when the Commission conducted the original
rulemaking. These comments suggested adopting updated test specimen
preparation requirements or specifying test specimen preparation
requirements not currently required by the Rule.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ In some instances, comments suggested that a specific test
specimen preparation procedure, although appropriate for the most
products of a certain type and form, might not be appropriate for a
specific product, for example, a loose-fill cellulose insulation
product with a lower than normal initial density. In such instances,
these comments suggested that use of in situ data to determine test
specimen preparation might be preferable to the specific procedure
designated in the Rule. Although the Commission is not proposing to
amend specific test specimen preparation requirements in the Rule to
include such a provision, manufacturers may file petitions for
exemption from the Rule's test specimen preparation requirements
under section 18(g) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a(g). Petitioners
should submit evidence substantiating why the test specimen
preparation procedure required by the Rule is not appropriate for a
particular product and why an alternative procedure or method would
be appropriate. The Commission will determine whether to grant an
exemption based on the petition, substantiating evidence submitted
with the petition, and public comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Aging
a. Cellular Plastics Insulations
Certain types of cellular plastics insulations (polyurethane,
polyisocyanurate, extruded polystyrene boardstock insulations) are
manufactured in a process that results in a gas other than normal air
being incorporated into the voids in the products. This gives the
product an initial R-value higher than it would have if it contained
normal air (as do other types of insulations). A chemical process,
known as aging, causes the R-value of these insulations to decrease
over time as the gas is replaced by normal air. 44 FR at 50219-20. The
length of this aging process, which may continue over several years,
depends on whether the product is faced or unfaced, the permeability of
the facing, how well the facing adheres to the product, and other
factors.
The Rule addresses this aging process by requiring that R-value
tests be performed on specimens that ``fully reflect the effect of
aging on the product's R-value.'' Section 460.5(a)(1) of the Rule
accepts the use of the ``accelerated aging'' procedure in General
Services Administration (``GSA'') purchase Specification HH-I-530A
(which was in effect at the time the Commission promulgated the Rule)
as a permissible ``safe harbor'' procedure, but also allows
manufacturers to use ``another reliable procedure.'' 44 FR at 50227-28.
The ``accelerated'' procedure was designed to age these insulations in
a shorter period than they would age under normal usage conditions.
Under the ``accelerated aging'' method in the GSA specification, test
specimens are aged for 90 days at 140 deg.F dry heat.
GSA amended its specification in 1982 to allow the use of an
optional aging procedure (in addition to the ``accelerated'' method)
under which test specimens are aged for six months at 73
deg.F 4 deg.F and 50 percent 5 percent
relative humidity (with air circulation to expose all surfaces to the
surrounding environmental conditions). An industry group, the Roof
Insulation Committee of the Thermal Insulation Manufacturers
Association (``RIC/TIMA''), specified the use of similar conditions in
a technical bulletin it adopted at about the same time. In response to
adoption of the alternative aging procedure by GSA and RIC/TIMA, the
Commission's staff advised home insulation sellers that the alternative
procedure appeared to be reliable and could be used to age cellular
plastics insulations. The staff cautioned, however, the manufacturers
of insulations faced with materials that significantly retard aging may
need to age test specimens for a longer period of time, and that the
staff would consider whether the alternative procedure was acceptable
for specific products on a case-by-case basis.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See, e.g., staff opinion letter dated May 5, 1983, to
Manville Corporation. GSA thereafter rescinded its specification
(along with other insulation specifications) and now requires that
insulations purchased by the federal government comply with ASTM
insulation material specifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments Regarding Which Aging Procedures Should Be Required
Ten comments addressed how the Rule should treat the reduction in
R-values that occurs when cellular plastics insulation products
age.\32\ Two recommended requiring the use of aging procedures in
current ASTM specifications; one recommended requiring the use of a
different method being developed by ASTM; and one association
(representing 37 manufacturers) and two manufacturers appear to
question the accuracy of current aging procedures in determining long-
term performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Plymouth, #01, at 1; Big Sky, #05, at 1; Anderson, #08, at
2-3; EPSMA, #13, at 1; Western, #14, at 1-2; NAIMA, #24, at 2,
Celotex, #25, at 4; ORNL/Wilkes, #29, at 3-4; PIMA, #30, at 5-6;
AFM, #35, at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Celotex and PIMA \33\ recommended deleting the reference to the
aging procedures in former GSA Specification HH-I-530A and instead
requiring the use of the aging procedures in ASTM C 1289-95 (for faced
polyisocyanurate and faced polyurethane),\34\ ASTM C 591-85 (for
unfaced polyisocyanurate and unfaced polyurethane),\35\ and ASTM C 578-
92 (for polystyrene).\36\ The aging procedures in these ASTM
specifications are essentially the same as the optional procedures
contained in the revised GSA specification, although ASTM C 591-94
specifies that aging must be conducted according to the 180-day
procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Celotex, #25, at 4; PIMA, #30, at 5-6.
\34\ Standard Specification for Faced Rigid Cellular
Polyisocyanurate Thermal Insulation Board (``ASTM C 1289-95'').
\35\ Standard Specification for Unfaced Preformed Rigid Cellular
Polyisocyanurate Thermal Insulation (``ASTM C 591-94''). This is the
current version of the specification cited by Celotex and PIMA.
\36\ Standard Specification for Rigid, Cellular Polystyrene
Thermal Insulation (``ASTM C 578-92'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Wilkes, for ORNL, stated that the Rule's aging requirement
should be improved and modified to account for technological changes.
He reported that ASTM was developing a new method of determining the
aged R-value of unfaced cellular plastics board stock insulations and
those with permeable facings based on R-value tests of thin samples
sliced from the center of the boards (which ASTM has now adopted as
ASTM C 1303-95).\37\ Under this method, a thin
[[Page 48031]]
test specimen is sliced from close to the center of the insulation
board. R-value measurements are taken over time, normally a 180-day
period, and the test specimen is kept in an environmental chamber when
R-value tests are not being conducted. The resulting R-values over time
are converted into an average value according to a specific
mathematical formula. Dr. Wilkes recommended that the Commission adopt
this ASTM method as the required procedure for deriving aged R-values
for these insulation products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Standard Test Method for Estimating the Long-Term Change in
the Thermal Resistance of Unfaced Rigid Closed Cell Plastic Foams by
Slicing and Scaling Under Controlled Laboratory Conditions (``ASTM C
1303-95'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Wilkes asserted that a satisfactory aging method for these
boardstock insulations with impermeable facers (e.g., aluminum) has not
yet been developed. He recommended that the Rule state this fact and
require ``direct'' aging of products with impermeable facers (i.e.,
aging over time of samples as they are produced--at full thickness and
with facers attached). Finally, Dr. Wilkes recommended that the
Commission delete the phrase ``or another reliable procedure'' because
of its lack of specificity.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ ORNL/Wilkes, #29, at 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMF, for itself and its 37 manufacturing partners, stated that the
reporting of different R-values for insulations that use gases, and
that are known to lose R-value over time as those gases diffuse, has
frustrated the original objective of the Rule to provide, a ``level
playing field.'' \39\ Plymouth Foam Products complained that ``[s]ome
[cellular plastics] foam insulation manufacturers are allowed to
represent their products with installed R-values of as high as eight
per inch, when, in fact, that value will reduce substantially over the
life of the product/structure.'' \40\ These comments recommended that
the Rule require testing and disclosure of R-values that more
accurately reflect the effect of aging on the R-value of cellular
plastics insulation products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ AFM, #38, at 1.
\40\ Plymouth, #01, at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big Sky and Western contended that the practice of aging a test
specimen for six months, even at an elevated temperature, does not
provide a true picture of the R-value a consumer can expect over the
full life of the product.\41\ Big Sky suggested three options: (1) A
six-month accelerated aging process, with an additional 18-month hold
on the test specimens before they are tested for R-value; (2)
accelerated aging for 18 months; or (3) holding the test specimens for
three years. Western suggested that the Commission adopt an accelerated
aging test either from ASTM methods or the Corps of Engineers System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Big Sky, #05 (many manufacturers advertise what they call
an aged R-value, when in fact it is only an R-value for insulation
aged for six months at elevated temperatures; this R-value is not a
true indication of the in-service R-value, which can drop over 30%
within three years); Western, #14, at 1-2 (because polyisocyanurate
insulation has been sold based on R-values derived after six months
of aging under RIC/TIMA 281 or PIMA 100, consumers have been duped
into believing they are purchasing insulation that will deliver an
R-value of 7.2 per inch for the duration of its service; although
the true aged R-value of polyisocyanurate cannot be agreed upon,
5.56 per inch is often used and would be a more realistic figure).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion Regarding Which Aging Procedures Should Be Required
Requiring manufacturers to age their insulation products for
several years before being able to test and market them would impose a
significant burden. Instead, the Rule allows the use of the GSA
``accelerated aging'' procedure, or another reliable procedure. Because
some of the comments question whether the GSA accelerated aging
procedure or the procedures in ASTM specifications are adequate for all
types of cellular plastics insulation products (particularly those with
less permeable facers), the Commission solicits comments regarding the
length of time over which specific types and forms of cellular plastics
insulations age (including both unfaced products and those with
different kinds of facings); the effect of the aging process on
specific types and forms of cellular plastics insulations (i.e., the
overall reduction of R-value over time); the accuracy of different
aging procedures to reflect long-term aging of specific types and forms
of cellular plastics insulation products; which aging procedures the
Commission should require for which types of cellular plastics
insulation products; the burdens that would be imposed on manufacturers
and other sellers by requiring the use of specific aging procedures;
and how the Commission should deal with products for which adequate
aging procedures do not currently exist (e.g., those with relatively
non-permeable facings).
Comments Regarding Which Cellular Plastics Insulations Should Be Aged
for R-value Testing
NAIMA recommended requiring R-value testing on aged samples of
``other foam plastic insulation'' products (in addition to the types
currently enumerated) and recordkeeping of the age of the test
specimen. NAIMA asserted that present and future foam insulations not
currently covered by the aging requirement should be tested and labeled
to reflect the effects of aging, but did not submit data to demonstrate
whether other existing cellular plastics, or foam, insulations are
subject to aging. According to NAIMA, the requirement would impose no
extra testing or labeling burdens on manufacturers of insulations that
are not subject to aging.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ NAIMA, #24, at 2, 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion Regarding Which Cellular Plastics Insulations Should Be Aged
for R-value Testing
The Commission required R-value testing of aged specimens only for
extruded polystyrene, polyurethane, and polyisocyanurate insulations
because these were the only types of insulations discussed during the
rulemaking proceeding that included blowing agents subject to the aging
process. The Commission agrees that manufacturers of additional types
of cellular plastics, or foam, insulations that are subject to the
aging process should be required to test aged specimens and disclose
aged R-values, and to maintain testing records identifying the aging
procedure used. The Commission, therefore, solicits comments on what
additional types or forms of insulations are subject to the aging
process.
b. Reflective Insulations
Comments
NAIMA recommended that the Commission require that reflective
(aluminum foil) insulation products be tested for emissivity and R-
value ``using samples that fully reflect the effect of aging'' on the
product's emissivity and R-value. NAIMA asserted that thermal
performance claims for reflective insulations, as for cellular plastics
insulations, should reflect the effects of aging (in this case, the
accumulation of dust or corrosion of the foil). NAIMA did not submit
evidence that dusting or corrosion is a problem that degrades the R-
value of reflective insulations in actual applications, and did not
suggest a specific test method or procedure that should be used to
determine the effects of this type of aging on reflective
insulations.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Id. at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion
The Commission believes that claims for all types of home
insulation products should take into account factors that affect the
products' thermal performance. The Commission, therefore, invites
interested parties to comment on whether dusting or
[[Page 48032]]
corrosion of reflective insulations in actual applications is a problem
resulting in lower R-values than claimed, the extent of any degradation
of R-value, and how the effect of dusting or corrosion on R-value could
most accurately be determined.
2. Settling
a. Loose-fill and Stabilized Insulations in Attics
In the original rulemaking proceeding, the Commission determined
that all dry-applied loose-fill insulation products tend to settle
after being installed in open (or unconfined) areas such as attics.
Settling lowers the product's thickness, increases its density, and
affects its total R-value.\44\ The amount of settling depends on
several factors, including the raw materials and manufacturing process
used, and the installer's application techniques (which affect the
insulation's initial thickness and density).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ Settling of loose-fill cellulose insulation reduces the
product's total R-value, often decreasing it proportionate to the
amount of settling. Settling of loose-fill mineral fiber insulation
also affects the product's total R-value, but the reduction in total
R-value may be less than the reduction in thickness. E.g., ORNL/
Yarbrough, #28, at References 1, 2; ORNL/Wilkes, #29, at References
9, 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To ensure that claims made to consumers are based on long-term
thickness and density after settling, the Rule requires that the R-
value of each dry-applied loose-fill home insulation product for these
applications be determined at its ``settled density.'' The Rule
requires that manufacturers of dry-applied loose-fill cellulose
insulation for attic applications test and disclose the R-value (as
well as coverage area and related information) at the long-term,
settled density determined according to paragraph 8 of ASTM C 739-91,
commonly referred to as the ``Blower Cyclone Shaker'' (``BCS'')
test.\45\ Because a consensus-based test procedure had not been adopted
for determining the long-term, settled density of dry-applied loose-
fill mineral-fiber insulation for this type of application, the Rule
does not specify the procedure for determining the density of the R-
value test specimen, but it requires that R-values claimed to consumers
be based on long-term thickness and density after settling.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ Standard Specification for Cellulosic Fiber (Wood-Base)
Loose-Fill Thermal Insulation (``ASTM C 739-91'').
\46\ At the time the Commission promulgated the Rule, GSA had
proposed adopting a settled density test procedure for loose-fill
mineral fiber insulation products similar to the one it had adopted
for loose-fill cellulose insulation products. Mineral fiber
manufacturers contended, however, that they took settling into
account in their coverage charts, and that if their insulations were
installed according to their coverage charts, consumers would
receive the R-values they claimed. The Commission imposed a general
requirement that R-values of dry-applied loose-fill mineral fiber
insulations be based on tests that take the adverse effects of
settling into account, but did not specify how the settled density
was to be determined. 44 FR at 50228. GSA never adopted a procedure
for determining the settled density of mineral fiber insulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the Commission promulgated the Rule, new forms of loose-fill-
type home insulation products have been introduced for use in attic
applications, including ``stabilized'' cellulose. ``Stabilized''
cellulose refers to a form of loose-fill cellulose insulation that
contains a glue binder and is applied on attic floors with a small
amount of liquid. Application of the insulation with the glue binder
and liquid purportedly results in lower-density cellulose insulations
that do not settle like dry-applied loose-fill cellulose insulations.
The Rule does not currently specify a procedure for determining the
long-term, settled density of stabilized cellulose insulation.
Comments
Dry-applied Loose-Fill Cellulose. Dr. Wilkes, for ORNL, stated that
settling decreases the R-value obtained when a loose-fill insulation
product is applied, although limited information exists about the
amount of settling that occurs. Dr. Wilkes supported use of the BCS
test procedures to determine the settled density of dry-applied loose-
fill cellulose insulation. He suggested that the BCS procedure may be
inappropriate for new products such as those with initial densities as
low as 1.0 to 1.5 pounds per cubic foot. For such products, Dr. Wilkes
stated that in situ data would be more appropriate than the BCS
procedure in determining long-term, settled density, and recommended
that the Commission permit manufacturers to submit in-situ data to
demonstrate the actual settled density of their products.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ ORNL/Wilkes, #29, at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dry-applied Loose-Fill Mineral Fiber. Eleven comments addressed how
the settled density of dry-applied loose-fill mineral fiber insulation
products in open attic applications should be determined for R-value
testing.\48\ Regal contended that the Rule's objective of creating a
level playing field has been compromised because of the failure of GSA,
ASTM, and the mineral fiber industry to develop a uniform standard for
determining the settled density of dry-applied loose-fill mineral fiber
insulations.\49\ Other comments agreed.\50\ Three stated that this
uneven playing field (i.e., requiring cellulose manufacturers, but not
mineral fiber manufacturers, to use a specific test procedure) imposes
a competitive disadvantage for the cellulose industry.\51\ CIMA, for
example, stated that the BCS test typically produces 30% settling for
loose-fill cellulose, while long-term studies of actual installations
rarely find cellulose settling as much as 20%. CIMA asserted that the
Rule places the cellulose industry at a competitive disadvantage of as
much as 10% to 15% compared to loose-fill fiberglass, and that, if this
discrimination has affected the cellulose market share by as little as
5%, it has resulted in an annual revenue loss of approximately $50
million for cellulose producers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\Regal #16, at 1-2; England, #18, at 3; CIMA, #19, at 2-3;
GreenStone/Tranmer, #20, at 2-3; Hamilton, #22, at 3; NAIMA, #24, at
2; TN Tech/Yarbrugh, #26, at 4-5; ORNL/Wilkes, #29, at 4;
GreenStone/Smith, #32, at 2; Clayville, #34, at 1-2; Tascon, #35, at
1.
\49\ Regal, #16, at 1-2.
\50\ England, #18, at 3 1-2; CIMA, #19, at 2-3; GreenStone/
Tranmer, #20, at 2-3; Hamilton, #22, at 3; GreenStone/Smith, #32, at
2; Clayville, #34, at 1-2; Tascon, #35, at 1.
\51\ CIMA, #19, at 2-3; GreenStone/Tranmer, #20, at 2-3;
Clayville, #34, at 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Four comments stated this uneven treatment is unfair to
consumers.\52\ GreenStone/Smith, for example, stated that mineral fiber
manufacturers have not developed a standard test method to measure the
settling of loose-fill mineral fiber insulations, but instead claim
that if their products are installed at the density they recommend, the
amount of settling will be minimal (less than 5%). He asserted that the
mineral fiber manufacturers construct coverage charts at this density
and represent to consumers that no settling is expected. According to
GreenStone/Smith, installers who desire to minimize costs can install
loose-fill mineral fiber insulations at less than the density claimed
by manufacturers (and at a lower total R-value than claimed), without
consumers' knowledge, and thereby save time and material and defraud
consumers of the energy savings they anticipate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ GreenStone/Tranmer, #20, at 2-3; Hamilton, #22, at 3;
GreenStone/Smith, #32, at 2; Clayville, #34, at 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a short-term solution, five comments recommended that the
Commission impose a settlement factor of up to 10% or more for dry-
applied loose-fill mineral insulation products, pending the adoption of
a suitable industry standard to address how much these products
settle.\53\ Dr. Yarbrough,
[[Page 48033]]
for TN Tech., and Dr. Wilkes, for ORNL, suggested that, until a uniform
test procedure is developed, manufacturers should determine settled
density based on in situ data.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ Regal, #16, at 1-2; England, #18, at 3; CIMA, #19, at 2-3
(impute 10% settling for all loose-fill insulations for which there
is no standard settled density methodology published by a
recognized, independent materials-standards organization);
GreenStone/Tranmer, #20, at 2 (impute 5% to 10% settling);
GreenStone/Smith, #32, at 2-3 (absent a standard test method,
require disclosures based on at least 10% settling; if a product has
been determined not to settle, require disclosure of that fact as an
assurance to consumers); Tascon, #35, at 1 (impute settlement not
less than 10% if a technically supportable method of determining
settlement has not been established within a reasonable time, e.g.,
5 years).
\54\ TN Tech/Yarbrough, #26, at 4-5; ORNL/Wilkes, #29, at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stablized Cellulose. Dr. Wilkes, for ORNL,\55\ and Dr. Yarbrough,
for TN Tech., \56\ stated that the BCS test is inappropriate for
determining the settled density of stabilized cellulose insulation. Dr.
Yarbrough explained that ``stabilized'' cellulose insulation contains a
binder, or other means, for bonding particles in the insulation to
reduce settling, and that the fan used in the BCS test breaks the bond.
Dr. Wilkes and Dr. Yarbrough recommended allowing the use of in situ
observations of the degree of settling to establish the settled density
at which the R-value of a stabilized cellulose product must be
determined. Dr. Yarbrough stated that a methodology for obtaining in
situ data is available.\57\ He explained that an ASTM task group is
working on a material specification for stabilized cellulose insulation
that he expects will include a method for determining settled density,
and recommended that the Commission consider requiring the use of the
ASTM standard when it has been adopted by ASTM.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ ORNL/Wilkes, #29, at 3.
\56\ TN Tech/Yarbrough, #26, at 2.
\57\ Id. at 2, references 1, 2.
\58\ Id. at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAIMA recommended requiring that R-value tests on stabilized
cellulose insulations be ``done on samples that fully reflect the
effect of settling on the product's R-value.'' NAIMA stated that ASTM C
1149 \59\ has been modified to include products containing an adhesive
that is mixed with water during installation and is intended for use in
attic applications. NAIMA stated that a task group is developing a
method to determine and quantify the amount of settling.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ ASTM C 1149-90: Standard Specification for Self-Supported
Spray Applied Cellulosic Thermal/Acoustical Insulation (``ASTM C
1149'').
\60\ NAIMA, #24, at 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion
Dry-applied Loose-fill Cellulose. Although the rule requires
manufacturers of dry-applied loose-fill cellulose to determine the R-
values and coverage of their products at the settled density determined
according to the BCS procedure, manufacturers who can demonstrate that
the BCS procedure is inappropriate for their products can petition the
Commission for an exemption that would allow them to determine the
settled density of their products according to a more appropriate
methods. See note 30, above.
Dry-Applied Loose-fill Mineral Fiber. The Rule specifies the
procedures to be used in determining the settled density only for
cellulosic, and not mineral fiber, insulation products. When the
Commission promulgated the Rule in 1979, it expected that GSA soon
would adopt a specific test procedure for determining the settled
density of dry-applied loose-fill mineral fiber insulation products. 44
FR at 50228, 50239 n.239. GSA did not do so, and now accepts the use of
ASTM standards, which do not specify procedures for determining the
settled density of dry-applied loose-fill mineral fiber insulations.
Reports of studies conducted by Oak Ridge National Laboratory
during the 1980s demonstrate that certain loose-fill mineral fiber
insulation products can settle following installation, resulting in a
reduction of R-value.\61\The results differed in the amount of
settling, and the effect of settling on the R-values of the specific
insulation products studied, depending on the type of mineral fiber
insulations studied (fiberglass versus rock wool products) due to
differences in density.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ ORNL/Yarbrough, #28, at Refs. 1, 2; ORNL/Wilkes, #29, at
Refs. 9, 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission agrees that it would be preferable to specify a
uniform procedure for determining the long-term, settled density of
dry-applied loose-fill mineral fiber insulation products.
Unfortunately, none of the comments suggested a specific procedure that
the Commission could adopt at this time. In addition, the comments that
suggested requiring an across-the-board settlement factor of 10% have
not submitted documentation that would justify the Commission imposing
it on all dry-applied loose-fill mineral fiber insulation products.
The Commission, therefore, solicits comments on specific reliable
and uniform procedures that would be appropriate for determining the
long-term, settled density of dry-applied loose-fill mineral fiber
insulation products, and the submission of data to demonstrate that
those procedures will result in uniform and accurate results. For
example, the Commission requests any data that demonstrate that any of
the following, currently available test procedures, or others, would
produce accurate and reliable, long-term settled density results for
mineral fiber insulation products in attic applications: the BCS test
procedure in ASTM C 739-91 (which currently is required for dry-
applied, loose-fill cellulose insulation products); the ``Canadian drop
box procedure,'' which previously was proposed by GSA for loose-fill
mineral fiber insulations under Federal Specification HH-I-1030B; \62\
the British Standard Vibration Test; and the procedure developed in
Scandinavia by Dr. Svennerstedt. In the meantime, the Commission will
continue to examine the data specific manufacturers use to substantiate
their R-value, long-term settled density, and coverage claims.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ See 44 FR at 50228, 50239 n.239.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stabilized Cellulose. Because of the manner in which stabilized
cellulose insulation is installed, the Commission agrees that the BCS
test procedure may not be appropriate for determining its long-term,
settled density. Further, the Commission does not believe that the
procedure for determining density in ASTM C 1149, which NAIMA
suggested, is the appropriate measure of the long-term, settled density
of stabilized cellulose insulations installed in attic applications.
ASTM C 1149 is designed for insulations sprayed onto walls (most often
being applied to metal walls in commercial buildings, where they are
left exposed, without being covered by an internal wall), and requires
that these insulations be able to support themselves in that type of
application. The settling characteristics of stabilized cellulose
insulations in attic applications are different from those of self-
supported insulations sprayed onto walls. ASTM has not yet adopted a
specific method for determining the long-term density of stabilized
cellulose insulation for attic applications. When ASTM, or others,
adopt an appropriate procedure, the Commission will consider whether to
require its use. In the meantime, under section 5 of the FTC Act,
manufacturers must have a reasonable basis for the density at which
they conduct the R-value tests required by the Rule and make R-value
claims to consumers.
Loose-fill and Stabilized Insulations Used in Manufactured Housing
Attics. No comments addressed whether the procedures currently used to
determine the settled density of dry-applied loose-fill insulations or
stabilized insulations when they are used in attics of site-built homes
are appropriate for determining
[[Page 48034]]
their settled density when they are used in attics of manufactured
housing. Industry members have raised this question separately,
however, with the Commission's staff. At issue is whether these
insulations, which are installed in attic assemblies in a factory and
then transported to the site where the manufactured home will be
located, settle more, or differently, than those used in site-built
homes because of additional vibrations and other factors during
transportation. The Commission solicits comments regarding the extent
of settling of dry-applied loose-fill insulations and stabilized
insulations when they are used in attics of manufactured housing, the
density at which the R-value of these insulations should be determined
for use in attics of manufactured housing, and how that density should
be determined.
b. Loose-fill and Self-supported Insulations in Walls
Dry-applied loose-fill insulations and spray-applied, self,
supported insulations can be installed in walls in residential
applications. Dry-applied loose-fill insulations normally can only be
applied to existing wall cavities (primarily in retrofit applications).
Spray-applied, self-supported insulations can be applied to open wall
cavities before installation of internal walls.
Dry-applied loose-fill insulations may settle when blown into a
confined area, such as an enclosed wall cavity, leaving a gap at the
top of the wall cavity if they are not sufficiently compressed during
installation. Manufacturers who claim an R-value for a dry-applied
loose-fill insulation must disclose the R-value at the applied density,
determined according to the R-value test procedures specified in the
Rule. The Rule, however, does not specify how manufacturers must
determine that density because there was no standard procedure for
measuring the applied density in wall applications for all products at
the time the Commission promulgated the Rule. Because dry-applied
loose-fill insulations installed in closed wall cavities must be
compressed during application to ensure that they do not settle, the
applied density in wall applications is likely to be greater than the
settled density of the product when it is installed in an open attic.
Self-supported, spray-applied insulations, mixed with water and
adhesives (also referred to as ``wet-spray'' insulations), are
installed pneumatically on-site by professional installers. They may be
made of either cellulose or mineral fiber. When applied, this form of
insulation requires no support other than the insulation itself or the
substrate to which it is attached. These products most often are used
in walls in commercial applications, where they may be left exposed
after they are installed. They are rarely used in residences, primarily
because this application requires the use of more insulation material
for a given thickness (i.e. the insulation is installed at a higher
density and cost), often without any increase in total R-value, and
sometimes at a reduced R-value. They are not used in attics because of
their additional weight (and cost). Because these products are applied
at a greater density than either dry-applied loose-fill or stabilized
insulations, they are not likely to settle. Although this form of
insulation was not discussed during the original rulemaking proceeding
and the Rule does not specify how R-value these specimens must be
prepared, it is covered by the Rule if it is sold for use in the
residential market. Because the density at which these insulations are
applied affects their R-values, the Commission's staff has advised
industry members that they should prepare test specimens according to
the manufacturer's installation instructions, using equipment,
materials, and procedures representative of the manner in which the
insulation is applied in the field.
Comments Regarding the Use of Dry-applied Loose-fill Insulations in
Wall Cavities
Two comments recommended requiring the disclosure of R-values and
related information for loose-fill insulations intended in walls or
other enclosed cavities. NAIMA recommended requiring that coverage
charts for these products include R-values maximum net coverage area,
and minimum weight per square foot for the thicknesses of common
cavities (e.g. 3\1/2\''). NAIMA asserted that separate disclosures for
installations of these insulation products in enclosed cavities is
necessary to provide guidance about the proper amount of material that
must be installed.\63\ Mr. Smith, for GreenStone, agreed and suggested
requiring disclosure of a coverage chart for ``Gross Coverage,'' for
cavities using 2x4 and 2x6 on 16'' center construction. He recommended
requiring the disclosure of the density at which the loose-fill
insulation should be installed, along with a statement that
applications below this density may be subject to settling and may
create gaps at the top of or within wall cavities that may
significantly reduce the insulating value of the product. Lastly, he
stated that the R-value for each of the wall thicknesses claimed must
be determined at the applied density the manufacturer recommends.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ NAIMA, #24, at 5.
\64\ GreenStone/Smith, #32, at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion Regarding the Use of Dry-applied Loose-fill Insulations in
Wall Cavities
The Commission agrees that specific requirements for determining
the appropriate density for the R-value test specimen and for
disclosures on coverage charts for applications in enclosed wall
cavities would be appropriate and desirable. GreenStone's suggestion of
requiring a statement of ``applied density'' could provide helpful
information to installers in determining whether they have installed
the requisite amount of insulation material, but it does not address
how that density should be determined. The Commission, therefore,
solicits comments on whether there are reliable procedures that could
be used to determine the density of dry-applied loose-fill insulations
when installed in enclosed wall cavities, and the specific disclosures
that should be required (e.g., how coverage area for enclosed wall
cavities should be described).
Comments Regarding the Use of Self-Supported Insulations in Wall
Cavities
ECI recommended adopting the test specimen preparation procedures
in ASTM C 1149 when testing insulations that are sprayed into wall
cavities.\65\ England recommended requiring use of either HUD UM-80
\66\ or ASTM C 1149, both of which apply to spray-applied cellulose
insulation, to ensure that R-value and related information is
accurate.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ ECI, #23, at 1.
\66\ U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Materials
Bulletin No. 80 (``HUD UM-80''), dated October 31, 1979. This
specification includes additional requirements, e.g., the surface to
which the specimen is to be applied, and post-preparation
conditioning.
\67\ England, #18, at 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion Regarding the Use of Self-supported Insulations in Wall
Cavities
The procedures in paragraph 5.1 of ASTM C 1149-90 and in paragraph
9.1.1 of HUD UM-80, which require the R-value test specimens be
prepared using the maufacturer's recommended equipment and procedures
and at the manufacturer's maximum recommended thickness, appear to be
appropriate procedures for preparing R-value test specimens of self-
supported, spray-applied cellulose insulation products.
[[Page 48035]]
Accordingly, the Commission proposes amending the Rule to require
preparation of R-value test specimens of self-supported, spray-applied
cellulose insulation products according to either of these
specifications. The Commission solicits public comments regarding the
accuracy and reliability of the two procedures, whether the Commission
should allow use of either procedure or only one, how the Commission
should define specifically the products to which the procedures apply,
and whether the same procedures (or others) should be required for
other types of spray-applied insulations (e.g., mineral fiber
insulations) that are used in residential applications.
Discussion Regarding the Use of Loose-fill Insulations and Self-
supported Insulations in Wall Cavities of Manufactured Housing
No comment addressed whether the procedures currently used to
determine the settled density of dry-applied loose-fill insulations or
self-supported insulations when they are used in wall cavities of site-
built homes are appropriate for determining their settled density when
they are used in wall cavities of manufactured housing. Industry
members have raised this question separately, however, with the
Commission's staff. At issue is whether the settling of these
insulations, which are installed in wall assemblies in a factory and
then transported to the site where the manufactured home will be
located, settled more, or differently, than those used in site-built
homes because of additional vibrations and other factors during
transportation. The Commission solicits comments regarding the extent
of settling of dry-applied loose-fill insulations and self-supported
insulations when they are used in wall cavities of manufactured
housing, the density at which the R-value of these insulations should
be determined for use in wall cavities of manufactured housing, and how
that density should be determined.
3. Density Variations
The Rule's testing and labeling requirements assume that the long-
term settled density of a dry-applied loose-fill insulation product
does not change with variations in thickness. The Rule, therefore,
simply requires that manufacturers of dry-applied loose-fill cellulose
insulation determine the settled density of each product according to
the BCS test procedure and test it for R-value at that density, and
that manufacturers of dry-applied loose-fill mineral fiber insulation
determine the R-value of each product on samples that fully reflect the
effect of settling on R-value. As long as the R-value test has been
conducted at that density and at the product's ``representative
thickness,'' \68\ the manufacturer can construct the required coverage
chart for various total R-value levels based on the R-value result at
the tested density.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ The mathematical extrapolation of R-value for a mass
insulation product from thin-sample tests can be misleading because
it fails to recognize that, up to at least some thickness, R-value
does not increase linearly with increases in thickness. This is
referred to as the ``thickness effect.'' To account for the
thickness effect, section 460.6 requires that R-value tests of mass
insulations be conducted at the product's ``representative
thickness,'' which it defines as the thickness at which the R-value
per unit will vary no more than plus or minus two percent with
increases in thickness. For thicknesses less than the representative
thickness, however, the R-value claimed may be based on testing at
the claimed thickness. 44 FR at 50226.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments
Ivan Smith, for GreenStone, recommended revising section 460.6 of
the Rule to require testing of loose-fill insulations at each thickness
shown on a label unless there is a limitation caused by the physical
constraints of the test equipment. Mr. Smith believes it is likely that
density will be different at each different thickness of loose-fill
material, and that this variation of density potentially affects the
thickness necessary to obtain the claimed total R-value. He contended
that this requirement would not result in a substantial expense to the
manufacturer.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ GreenStone/Smith, #32, at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion
The Commission cannot determine whether it would be appropriate to
propose amending the Rule as Mr. Smith recommended without specific
data to demonstrate whether or how much the density of particular types
of loose-fill insulations varies with differences in thickness. The
Commission solicits comments and data, therefore, on whether, and how
much, the density of specific loose-fill insulations varies with
thickness, the effect of any such variations on the total R-value at
different thickness, and how the Commission should amend the Rule to
ensure that R-values and related claims for loose-fill insulation
products are accurate.
4. Installation in Closed Cavities of Variable Thickness
Comments
Dr. Yarbrough, for TN Tech, stated that the evaluation of the
thermal performance of insulations used in attics of manufactured
housing represents a special challenge because, in some cases, the roof
cavity (and the insulation installed in it) varies in thickness and
density. For example, these roof cavities often slope to the edge of
the roof assembly, where the cavity may be only 1\1/2\'' to 2'' thick.
Any insulation (whether it is a batt or blanket, dry-applied loose-
fill, or stabilized product) installed in such an application can vary
in thickness across the cavity, and may be compressed more than normal
in the thinnest portions of the cavity. These factors result in
different total R-values at different places. Dr. Yarbrough recommended
specifying how R-values for such variable thickness and density
applications should be calculated, and suggested using a method such as
the one he and others have described in a paper published by the
American Society of Mechanical Engineers.\70\ He stated that the manner
in which R-values are expressed for this type of application could
affect a major portion of new manufactured homes and could determine
whether insulations installed in these applications achieve the total
R-values claimed.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ D.W. Yarbrough, R.S. Graves, and D.L. McElroy,
Effectiveness of Thermal Insulation in Attic Spaces of Manufactured
Homes, Collected Papers in Heat Transfer 1988, K.J. Yang, Ed., The
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, HTD-Vol. 104 (1988), at
71-80.
\71\ TN Tech/Yarbrough, #26, at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion
The Commission agrees that it is important to address how R-values
should be determined and disclosed to consumers where the insulation
varies in thickness and/or density in particular applications, so that
R-values claimed to consumers under these circumstances will be
accurate and determined according to a uniform standard. The Commission
solicits comments, therefore, regarding the method (such as that
recommended by Dr. Yarbrough) that should be used to determine and
disclose R-values under these circumstances, and how different
variables (e.g., thickness, density) should be accounted for in the
determination.
D. Other Testing Requirements
1. Accreditation of Testing Laboratories
Comments
The Celotex Corporation recommended requiring that testing
laboratories either be accredited by the National Voluntary Laboratory
Accreditation Program (``NCLAP''), administered by the U.S. Department
of Commerce's National Institute of
[[Page 48036]]
Standards and Technology (``NIST''), for the specific test methods
listed in the Rule, or by the International Organization for
Standardization (``ISO'') as an ISO/IEC Guide 25 Testing Laboratory.
Further, Celotex stated that accreditation as an ISO/IEC Guide 25
Laboratory provides global acceptance of a laboratory's test
results.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ Celotex, #25, at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion
Although accreditation of testing laboratories by a qualified,
professional accreditation program generally is useful and important,
the Commission is not aware of any significant testing problems with
unaccredited laboratories that would justify the Commission's imposing
this additional burden under the Rule. Further, to the extent that
accreditation of a laboratory provides either domestic or global
acceptance of that laboratory's test results, manufacturers and other
sellers should already have sufficient incentive to use accredited
laboratories, and testing laboratories should have sufficient incentive
to seek accreditation, without the Commission imposing an accreditation
requirement.
The Rule already includes several interrelated safeguards to ensure
testing integrity that make a separate accreditation requirement
unnecessary, absent evidence of testing abuse. First, the Rule requires
manufacturers to test or have their products tested to substantiate the
R-values they claim, and to maintain specific records concerning the
testing methods and results. Second, it enables the Commission to
analyze the substantiation tests by evaluating the required testing
records. Third, it includes a quality control requirement, under which
industry members must ensure that the R-value of the insulation they
sell is not more than 10% below the R-value they claim. Thus, even if
the manufacturer or other covered party has a test result that purports
to verify the claimed R-value, the Commission can obtain samples and
conduct its own testing to ensure that accurate, properly determined R-
values are being disclosed to consumers.
Although the Commission is not proposing to require laboratory
accreditation at this time, it solicits comments on the extent to which
manufacturers presently use accredited versus nonaccredited labs. In
addition, the Commission seeks comments on whether it should require
additional recordkeeping to make the records more clearly demonstrate
whether the tests have been conducted accurately and in accordance with
the required procedures.
2. Test Temperature Requirements
Several test temperature parameters are involved in R-value
testing: (1) The temperature on the cold side of the testing apparatus;
(2) the temperature on the hot side of the testing apparatus; (3) the
mean (or average) test temperature within the test chamber; and (4) the
temperature differential (i.e., the temperature spread between the cold
and hot sides). The record in the original rulemaking proceeding
indicated that variations in these test parameters affected the ASTM
steady-state R-value results for mass insulations and reflective
insulations differently.
For mass insulations, the record indicated that R-values decreased
as the mean test temperature rose, and that this inverse relationship
between R-value and mean test temperature was approximately the same
for all mass insulations. On the other hand, the record indicated that
variations in the temperature differential between the hot and cold
sides did not significantly affect the R-value results. For these
reasons and other explained below, the Commission determined the R-
value tests of mass insulations should be conducted at a mean test
temperature of 75 deg.F, but that it was not necessary to specify a
required test temperature differential for testing mass insulations.
For traditional reflective foil insulations, on the other hand, the
record indicated that variations in mean test temperature did not
affect the R-value results, but that variations in the temperature
differential between the hot and cold sides did affect the R-value
results. At least at smaller temperature differentials, the record
indicated that there was an inverse relationship between R-value and
the temperature differential, as the temperature differential
increased, the R-value result went down. The Commission determined,
therefore, that it was necessary to specify both the mean test
temperature and the temperature differential for R-value testing of
reflective insulations.
The R-value of a reflective insulation is related to its
emissivity.\73\ Based on evidence that single-sheet reflective foil
insulation products with a given emissivity installed in an airspace of
the same thickness and configuration will have the same R-value, the
Commission minimized manufacturers' testing burdens by allowing them to
use the R-values for those products listed in a specific table
published by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
Conditioning Engineers, Inc. (``ASHRAE''). Thus, manufacturers of
single-sheet reflective insulation products need only to measure the
product's emissivity according to a specific ASTM test procedure (or an
alternative procedure that provides comparable results) \74\ and find
the appropriate R-value in the ASHRAE table for that emissivity.\75\
The ASHRAE table contained R-values for only certain mean test
temperatures and temperature differentials. To ensure that claims were
based, to the extent possible, on a standard that would allow
comparison on a uniform basis of R-values for single-sheet reflective
insulations and mass insulations, the Commission specified that single-
sheet reflective insulation manufacturers must use the R-value in the
ASHRAE table for a mean test temperature of 50 deg.F (the table did
not include a mean test temperature of 75 deg.F, so the Commission
selected the mean test temperature closest to 75 deg.F) and a
temperature differential of 30 deg.F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ See note 25, supra.
\74\ See Part IV.D.5.a.i., infra
\75\ The values in the table apply only to air spaces of uniform
thickness bounded by plane, smooth, parallel surfaces with no
leakage of air to or from the space. Further, the table lists only
certain emissivities and airspace thicknesses. The Rule specifies
that the emissivity must be determined according to ASTM E 408, or
another test method that provides comparable results. The R-value of
a traditional single-sheet reflective foil insulation product that
will be installed in an air space that is not of uniform thickness
bounded by plane, smooth, parallel surfaces with no leakage of air
to or from the space should be tested according to the Rule's
requirements for traditional multi-sheet reflective foil
insulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For multi-sheet reflective foil insulations (used to create
multiple airspaces), the record indicated that extrapolation of a total
R-value from the ASHRAE R-value for a single airspace was unreliable.
44 FR at 50228. The Commission, therefore, required that R-values be
determined through R-value testing according to specific ASTM
procedures. So that the results of these tests would be comparable to
those for single-sheet insulations and for mass insulations, the
Commission determined that the tests must be conducted at a mean test
temperature of 75 deg.F and a temperature differential of 30 deg.F.
a. Mean Temperature
Comments
Plymouth Foam Products asserted that a mean test temperature of 40
deg.F would more accurately represent the climate(s) for the majority
of the United
[[Page 48037]]
Sates than the required 75 deg.F mean test temperature.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ Plymouth, #01, at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion
The Commission addressed this issue when it originally promulgated
the Rule.\77\ To ensure that R-values claimed to consumers are made on
a uniform basis, the Commission required that R-values disclosed to
consumers be based on steady-state ASTM R-value tests conducted at a
mean temperature of 75 deg.F. The Commission concluded that 75 deg.F
(which was incorporated in many voluntary industry standards and
federal procurement specifications) would be as effective as any other
mean temperature in providing a standard mean test temperature for R-
value comparison purposes, although it otherwise had not particular
advantage over any other temperature. By requiring that R-value testing
be conducted at this mean test temperature, the Commission did not
intend to specify a mean test temperature that would be representative
of any particular geographical region, or particular season or of
actual performance conditions. Indeed the Commission concluded that
requiring sellers to test and disclose R-values at a mean temperature
representative of any specific geographical region, or season of the
year, would yield R-value results that would be inappropriate for other
regions or seasons. Further, it concluded that requiring sellers to
test and disclose R-values separately for different regions of seasons
would yield multiple disclosures that could confuse consumers and
discourage them from using R-values in making purchasing decisions.
Thus, the Commission selected a single mean test temperature to
establish a uniform standard for disclosing R-values. Although the
Commission received no new information that would indicate that any
other single mean test temperature would be preferable to 75 deg.F,
the Commission invites public comments on this issue, along with
comments regarding the testing and the disclosure of in situ
performance information. See also the discussion in Part IV.B.1, above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ 44 FR at 50219, 50227.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Temperature Differential
Comments
One comment recommended amending the Rule to specify the
temperature differential. NAIMA recommended requiring not only that R-
value tests be preformed at the mean temperature of 75 deg.F, but also
requiring a test temperature differential of ``50 deg.F 10
deg.F.'' NAIMA explained that the thermal properties of a specimen may
change both with mean temperature and with the temperature difference
across the test specimen, and that data and information at standard
temperatures are therefore necessary for valid comparison of thermal
properties. NAIMA stated that ASTM C 1058 \78\ specifies a temperature
difference of 50 deg.F #10 deg.F when conducting tests at
a mean temperature of 75 deg.F according to ASTM test methods C 177, C
236, C 581, and C 1114.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ Standard Practice for Selecting Temperatures for Evaluating
and Reporting Thermal Properties of Thermal Insulation (``ASTM C
1058-92'').
\79\ NAIMA, #24, at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion
The Commission agrees that, if current evidence demonstrates that
different test temperature differentials affect R-value results, it may
be appropriate to consider specifying a test temperature differential
in the Rule to ensure the comparability of R-value claims for competing
home insulation products. The Commission, therefore, solicits comments
on whether, to what extent, and for what types and forms of insulation,
variations in the test temperature differential affect R-value results;
and what specific test temperature differential(s) the Commission
should impose for tests conducted according to each of the R-value test
procedures cited in the Rule. See also the discussion in Part IV.B.1,
above.
3. Tolerance
Comments Regarding Responsibilities of Manufacturers Versus Installers
NAIMA \80\ and ICAA \81\ proposed limiting application of the
Rule's 10% tolerance limit to manufacturers by replacing the words
``industry member'' with ``manufacturer.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ Id. at 4.
\81\ ICCA/1, #17, at 8. See also Rock Wool Mfg./1, #06 (fully
supports ICAA's submittal).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion Regarding Responsibilities of Manufacturers Versus
Installers
The Commission designed the tolerance limit provision to apply to
the manufacturer. Strictly speaking, the tolerance does not apply to
professional installers or new home sellers. The Rule requires that
professional installers and new home sellers apply loose-fill
insulations according to the manufacturer's installation instructions,
but allows them to rely on the accuracy of the manufacturer's R-value
and installation instructions. Installers and new home sellers
therefore have the benefit of the 10% tolerance limit for variances
occurring in the manufacturing process. But the tolerance is not
intended to allow installers or new home sellers to deviate from the
manufacturer's installation instructions. Consequently, the Commission
proposes amending the Rule to clarify that the tolerance provision
applies solely to claims made by manufacturers.
Comments Regarding How the Tolerance Limit Will Be Applied
NAIMA and Dow suggested clarifying the Rule to state more precisely
how the tolerance limit would be applied. NAIMA suggested specifically
requiring manufacturers to design their products to 100% of the claimed
R-value, rather than aiming at the tolerance. NAIMA further recommended
that the section require that the R-value of home insulation to be no
more than 5% below the listed R-value for the average of four randomly
selected samples, and that the R-value of any single sample to be no
more than 10% below the listed R-value. NAIMA explained that limiting
the tolerance to the average of four samples would make this section of
the Rule consistent with current ASTM material standards. Dow asked
that the Commission clarify the intent of Sec. 460.8, and suggested the
following language to allow some variability in a production lot
(rather than simply permitting an R-value of up to 10% below the
claimed value):
The mean R-value of sampled specimens of a production lot must
meet or exceed the R-Value shown in a label, fact sheet, ad or other
promotional material. No individual specimen can have an R-Value
more than 10% below the claimed R-Value.\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ Dow, #37, at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion Regarding How the Tolerance Limit Will Be Applied
The tolerance limit provision was designed to give manufacturers
the flexibility to use the most effective and least burdensome or
costly quality control procedures necessary to maintain each product's
R-value (and the density necessary to obtain the claimed R-value)
within an acceptable limit. At this time, however, the Commission
agrees that it would be appropriate to consider whether the Commission
should include in the Rule additional, more specific, guidance about
how manufacturers should apply the tolerance limit. Possible
alternatives include the suggestions made by NAIMA and Dow.
Consequently, the
[[Page 48038]]
Commission solicits comments on whether and how it should propose
amending the tolerance provision, and the benefits and burdens such an
amendment would confer on consumers and insulation sellers.
Comments Regarding Sampling Procedures for the Tolerance Limit
NAIMA recommended amending Sec. 460.8 to require manufacturers to
select test specimens in accordance with ASTM C 390-79 \83\ which is
the sampling procedure required by all ASTM thermal insulation
standards.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ The current version of this specification is ASTM C 390-79
(Reapproved 1995): Standard Criteria for Sampling and Acceptance of
Preformed Thermal Insulation Lots (``ASTM C 390-79 (1995)'').
\84\ NAIMA, #24, at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion Regarding Sampling Procedures for the Tolerance Limit
In the original rulemaking proceeding, the Commission concluded
that the available sampling standards--specifically ASTM C 390 and
Military Standard 105 \85\--were not suitable for inclusion as
requirements of the Rule because they were extremely complex and were
not designed for sampling from a continual production process but,
instead, were ``lot'' sampling procedures designed for use in
individual transactions. Accordingly, the Commission left the choice of
specific sampling methods to the manufacturer's discretion. Likewise,
paragraph 3.1.6 of the current ASTM sampling specification, ASTM C 390-
79 (1995), establishes sampling standards applicable to a specific
``lot'' or ``batch'' (which is defined as ``a definite quantity of some
product manufactured under conditions of production that are considered
uniform''). Although the Rule does not require specific sampling
procedures, it requires that manufacturers be able to prove that test
samples they select are representative of ongoing production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ The version of the military standard in effect at that time
was: Sampling Procedures and Tables for Inspection by Attributes,
MIL-STD-105D (``Military Standard 105'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To address this issue, the Commission solicits comments on whether
manufacturers currently use sampling procedures that do not result in
the selection of test specimens that are representative of ongoing
production; which specific procedures currently are available for use
in sampling from continuing production (or how sampling procedures
designed for specific lots could be used to select samples from
continuing production); and whether the Commission should require the
use of specific sampling procedures.
4. Use of Current Test Data
Comments
Dr. Yarbrough, for TN Tech, asserted that required R-Value
disclosures should be based on test data no more than two years old. He
contended that normal quality control activities should require more
frequent thermal tests than are currently performed, and that this
would not unduly burden the industry. He also recommended that, because
the properties of thermal insulation can change when the manufacturing
process changes, thermal test data should be based on the current
manufacturing process and equipment being used.\86\ Dr. Yarbrough would
exclude reflective insulations from this requirement because the
thermal measurements for these products are much more expensive than
tests for mass insulations. He recommended that a test on a reflective
insulation be considered current if it conforms to ASTM C 1224 and the
measurements were made on the product being marketed.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ TN Tech/Yarbrough, #26, at 2.
\87\ Id. at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion
When the Commission promulgated the Rule, it considered, but
rejected, a recommendation in the Staff Report that the Commission
require manufacturers to repeat their R-value substantiation tests
every 60 days, coupled with a 5% tolerance limit. The Commission
explained that the rulemaking record pointed no single retesting
frequency that would be superior for all manufacturers, regardless of
the type and amount of insulation they produce and sell and regardless
of the variables that might affect the production of each type of
insulation product. In addition, the record indicated that there was a
limited availability of testing laboratories and testing equipment at
that time to conduct the required testing for all manufacturers on a
frequent basis.
Instead, the Commission determined to rely on a tolerance limit
provision as the governing quality control mechanism.\88\ It specified
10% as the acceptable tolerance limit, and required manufacturers to
institute in-plant quality control procedures necessary to stay within
that tolerance limit. This mechanism was designed to give manufacturers
the flexibility to use whatever quality control procedures are
necessary to ensure the accuracy of their R-value claims, using the
most effective and efficient, but the least burdensome or costly, means
possible within their technical expertise. If the manufacturer changed
the raw materials used or the manufacturing process, however, the
resulting insulation product would be a new home insulation product.
The Rule requires manufacturers to conduct a new R-value test on each
new home insulation product, and to disclose the R-value (and related
information) of each new product based on the new test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ 44 FR at 50229.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission agrees that it is appropriate to consider whether
current conditions would justify the Commission's requiring a more
specific retesting quality control mechanism. In this regard, the
Commission is interested in comments regarding how frequently
manufacturers currently test their insulation products, how much the R-
value of current production varies,\89\ how frequently manufacturers
change their products, whether they retest products that have changed,
and what retesting schedule would be most appropriate to ensure the
accuracy of R-value claims made to consumers. After considering the
comments, the Commission will determine whether it should propose
requiring a specific retesting schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ For example, is the R-value of the insulation being
produced consistently below the R-value claimed and previously
determined, even if it is within the Rule's 10% tolerance?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Determining the Thermal Performance of Reflective Insulations
Two basic forms of reflective insulation products are marketed for
use in the residential market: (1) Traditional single-sheet and multi-
sheet reflective insulations; and (2) single-sheet radiant barrier
reflective insulations. Traditional reflective insulation products
normally are installed in closed cavities, such as walls. As explained
in Part IV.D.2, above, the Rule requires that manufacturers of
traditional reflective insulation products use specific test procedures
to determine the R-values of their products, and that manufacturers and
other sellers disclose R-values to consumers for specific applications.
Radiant barrier reflective insulations, on the other hand, are
installed in attics facing the attic's open airspace. Although radiant
barrier reflective insulations are covered by the R-value Rule, R-value
claims are not appropriate for them because no generally accepted test
procedure exists to determine the R-value of a radiant barrier
reflective insulation in an open attic. Sellers who make energy savings
claims for radiant barrier insulations, however, must have
[[Page 48039]]
a reasonable basis for the claims under Section 460.19(a) of the Rule.
a. Traditional Reflective Insulations
i. Single-sheet Products
Comments
Three comments recommended allowing the use of updated or
alternative test procedures to measure the emissivity of traditional
single-sheet reflective insulations.\90\ Celotex and PIMA \91\
recommended requiring that emissivity be determined under ASTM E 408-71
(1990),\92\ ASTM C 835-82 (1988),\93\ or another method that provides
comparable results. Dr. Wilkes, for ORNL, reported that ASTM is in the
final stages of developing a procedure to measure the emittance of foil
sheets with a portable Emissometer, and recommended that the Commission
include this procedure in section 460.5(c) when ASTM adopts it.\94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ NAIMA, #24, at 3; Celotex, #25, at 4; PIMA, #30, at 6-7.
See Part IV.D.2, supra, for a discussion regarding the use of
emissivity in determining the R-value of a single-sheet reflective
insulation product.
\91\ Celotex, #25, at 4; PIMA, #30, at 6-7.
\92\ The current version of this specification is ASTM E 408-71
(Reapproved 1996): Standard Test Methods for Total Normal Emittance
of Surfaces Using Inspection Meter Techniques (``ASTM E 408-71
(1996)'').
\93\ The current version of this specification is ASTM C 835-95:
Standard Test Method for Total Hemispherical Emittance of Surfaces
from 20 to 1400 deg. C (``ASTM C 835-95'').
\94\ ORNL/Wilkes, #29, at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion
ASTM now has adopted the procedure (ASTM 1371-97) \95\ that Dr.
Wilkes recommended Dr. Wilkes informed the Commission's staff that the
procedure is a very simple, quick measurement, using an instrument that
costs about $1,000. He also informed the staff that, while there is no
meaningful statistical difference between the results of measurements
under ASTM C 1371-97 and ASTM C 835-95, the ASTM C 835-95 procedure is
considerably more complicated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\ Standard Test Method for Determination of Emittance of
Materials Near Room Temperature Using Portable Emissometers (``ASTM
C 1371-97'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission solicits comments on the accuracy, reliability, and
consistency of each of these procedures in measuring emissivity; the
costs of conducting the procedures; and whether the Commission should
require the emissivity be measured by only one procedure to ensure that
measurements of emissivity are accurate and reliable.
ii. Multi-sheet Products
Comments
The five comments that addressed the Rule's R-value testing
requirements for traditional multi-sheet reflective foil insulations
recommended requiring that R-values be determined according to the
procedures specified in ASTM C 1224-93, either in addition to or
instead of the two ASTM R-value test procedures specified in the
Rule.\96\ Dr. Wilkes, for ORNL, explained that ASTM C 1224-93 requires
R-value testing according to ASTM C 236 or ASTM C 976, but specifies
additional instrumentation for the tests and a method of calculating R-
values based on the R-value test procedure measurements. He further
recommended requiring that the tests be conducted at the mean test
temperature and temperature differential specified in ASTM C 1224-
93.\97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ NAIMA, #24, at 3 (ASTM C 1224-93 was not developed when the
Rule was issued; reference in the Rule to C 236 and C 976 is
unnecessary because those standards are incorporated into C 1224);
Celotex, #25, at 4; TN Tech, #26, at 3; ORNL/Wilkes, #29, at 6;
PIMA, #30, at 6.
\97\ ORNL/Wilkes, #29, at 6. ASTM C 1224-93 requires testing at
a cavity mean test temperature of 754 deg.F
(242 deg.C) with a temperature difference across the
insulated cavity of 302 deg.F (16.51
deg.C). These temperature requirements are similar to those
currently required by the Rule, but ASTM C 1224-93 specifies that
the temperatures are those within the cavity (not including the
cavity walls, or the air temperatures inside or outside the house)
and incorporates tolerances to allow minor temperature variations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion
Traditional multi-sheet reflective insulations must be tested in an
enclosed cavity system that includes air spaces. Testing such a system
requires the construction of a test panel to contain the reflective
insulation. R-values determined in these systems tests may vary
depending on the size and configuration of the test panel, the
materials used to construct the test panel, how mean temperature and
temperature differential are measured, and the corrections for
components such as framing members used in the test panel that are made
in the calculation of R-values based on the test results. ASTM C 1224-
93 includes requirements concerning the construction of the test panel,
verification of the R-value measurement, and calculation of the R-value
of the reflective insulation from the R-value measurement of the entire
system. The Commission concludes that requiring standardization of
these variables would be comparable to the Rule's requirements that
test specimens of certain mass insulation products be prepared
according to specified procedures and that R-values determined under
ASTM C 177-85 (1993) or ASTM C 518-91 be reported in accordance with
the requirements of ASTM C 1045-90, and would benefit consumers by
making R-value claims for these products more accurate and reliable.
For these reasons, the Commission proposes requiring that R-values
for reflective insulations be tested according to ASTM C 236-89 (1993)
or ASTM C 976-90 in a test panel constructed according to ASTM C 1224-
93, and under the test conditions specified in ASTM C 1224-93, and that
the R-values be calculated according to the formula specified in ASTM C
1224-93, from the results of those R-value tests. The Commission
solicits comments on this proposal.
b. Radiant Barrier Products
Comments
Dr. Wilkes, for ORNL, states that ASTM is developing a method for
evaluating the thermal performance of low-emittance foils used in
residential attics to reduce radiative transport across the attic air
space. He recommended that the Commission incorporate this method into
the Rule once ASTM adopts it.\98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ Id. at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion
ASTM has now adopted the standard referred to by Dr. Wilkes. The
standard, ASTM C 1340-96,\99\ incorporates a complicated calculation
(and computer program) to determine the heat flux through an attic
containing a radiant barrier. The results do not determine an R-value
rating, but instead a performance value that might serve as a
reasonable basis for energy savings claims (and related performance
claims) made about radiant barrier insulations. The Commission solicits
comments concerning the specific type of performance the standard
measures, how the standard may be used to substantiate energy savings
claims or other performance claims for radiant barrier insulations, the
types of installations of radiant barrier insulations for which the
standard may be used, the accuracy of the determinations made under the
standard, and whether the Commission should require that energy savings
or other performance claims for radiant
[[Page 48040]]
barrier insulations be based on the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\99\ Standard Practice for Estimation of Heat Gain or Loss
through Ceilings Under Attics Containing Radiant Barriers by Use of
Computer Program (ASTM C 1340-96'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Additional Laboratory Procedures for Testing Loose-fill Insulations
Comments
NAIMA recommended that the Commission require testing of loose-fill
insulations ``in full conformance with ASTM C 687-93.'' \100\ NAIMA
explained that C 687 has been significantly improved since the Rule
became effective and that it now deals more specifically with test
specimen preparation techniques, stabilization times, and measurement
of the specimen density in the test area, resulting in a significant
improvement in test precision.\101\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ The current specification is: Standard Practice for
Determination of Thermal Resistance of Loose-fill Building
Insulation (``ASTM C 687-95'').
\101\ NAIMA, #24, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion
ASTM C 687-95 (the current ASTM specification) is a standard
practice, rather than a test procedure. It specifies procedures to be
followed in testing a variety of loose-fill insulations to be used in
other than enclosed applications. It is a detailed laboratory
procedures guide that appears to be both comprehensive and complicated.
In an attempt to minimize burdens imposed by the rule, the Commission
limited its testing requirements to the minimums necessary to ensure
the accuracy and reliability of test results. The Rule, therefore,
specifies only the basic R-value test procedures and test specimen
preparation procedures for certain products that are necessary to
account for factors that can significantly affect R-value results
(e.g., aging, settling). In the original rulemaking proceeding, the
Commission considered, but rejected as unnecessary, requiring adherence
to more detailed standard practice or standard guide specifications,
such as ASTM C 687. Without data substantiating the need to specify
detailed laboratory operating procedures, for these insulations or
others, the Commission is reluctant to consider imposing additional
requirements. The Commission invites public comments, however, on
whether and why there is a need to specify in more detail the
laboratory procedures that should be followed in preparing test
specimens and conducting R-value test procedures, for loose-fill
insulations as well as other forms of insulations, and the benefits and
burdens from such additional requirements.
E. Other Disclosure Issues
1. Disclosures on Labels and Fact Sheets
a. ``What You Should Know About R-values''
Comments
The Rule requires the manufacturer's fact sheet to include a
specific statement entitled ``What You Should Know About R-values''
that explains the meaning of R-value and lists factors consumers should
consider when purchasing insulation.\102\ Regal suggested that this
statement should be more specific in explaining how consumers can
determine the amount of insulation they need. Regal commended the
Insulation Fact Sheet published by the DOE for providing the best such
information for consumers, but contended that it is not readily
available in the marketplace. Regal also explained that the DOE ZIP
Computer Program can be used to make a cost-benefit analysis for
specific insulation products based on their cost per R-value and
expected benefits.\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\102\ The required statement is:
READ THIS BEFORE YOU BUY
What You Should Know About R-values.
The chart shows the R-value of this insulation, R means
resistance to heat flow. The higher the R-value, the greater the
insulating power. Compare insulation R-values before you buy.
There are other factors to consider. The amount of insulation
you need depends mainly on the climate you live in. Also, your fuel
savings from insulation will depend upon the climate, the type and
size of your house, the amount of insulation already in your house,
and your fuel use patterns and family size. If you buy too much
insulation, it will cost you more than what you'll save on fuel.
To get the marked R-value, it is essential that this insulation
be installed properly.
\103\ Regal, #16, at 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corbond suggested that the current Rule has four negative effects
that the Commission should address: (1) The Rule codifies the least
effective measure of insulation performance, conductivity, as the sole
measure widely used for comparing insulation value; (2) the Rule's
emphasis on a product's R-value, as opposed to factors that affect
installed performance, retards the development and acceptance of new
products that perform better than fiberglass insulations because their
performance appears the same when measured by R-value alone; (3) energy
codes that require the installation of specific R-values favor products
such as fiberglass insulations because the code requirements do not
recognize the superior performance of insulations that are not subject
to degradation of R-value in actual use due to factors such as venting,
wind, convection, and moisture accumulation; and (4) the Rule
perpetuates the use of an obsolete product, fiberglass insulation,
which requires supplementation by other products and techniques (e.g.,
foam caulk, house-wrap, sheet vapor barriers, foam insulation
sheathing, and venting) to help it do the job it should be able to do
on its own.\104\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\ Carbond, #41, at 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CIMA and Corbond recommended that the Commission add language to
the required statement to address these concerns. CIMA recommended the
following statement: \105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\105\ CIMA, #19, 4-5.
R-value is important, but it is only one of many factors that
affect the actual performance of insulation as installed. Other
important factors to consider include air permeability, ability of
the insulation to ``tighten'' the building against air infiltration,
susceptibility to convective heat loss under cold conditions, and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
proper installation.
Corbond supported CIMA's suggestion, but recommended the use of an
expanded version of the statement:
R-value is important, but it is only one of the many factors
that affect the actual performance of insulation as installed. Other
important factors to consider include air permeability, ability of
the insulation to ``tighten'' the building against air infiltration,
susceptibility to convective heat loss under cold conditions, the
potential for moisture permeation and accumulation and its
deteriorating effects, and proper installation. Consult your
insulation manufacturer for information regarding the true
performance efficiency of the insulation under conditions
appropriate to your climate.
Discussion
The original purpose of the required explanation in fact sheets was
to minimize disclosure burdens on industry members who advertise energy
or fuel savings. Instead of requiring them to provide lengthy
disclosures in ads that claim energy savings, the ad simply could refer
consumers to information in the manufacturer's fact sheet.\106\ This
approach would ensure that the explanatory information would be made
available to consumers, while keeping advertisements less cluttered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\ 44 FR at 50233-34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission recognizes that, as the comments have indicated,
more information could be provided in the explanation about how
consumers can purchase the most cost-effective amount of insulation,
and that there are additional factors that can affect R-value and
performance in actual use. The Commission drafted the statement to
balance consumers' need for information against keeping the statement
simple enough to be useful and not detract from its basic purpose--
making consumers aware that there are
[[Page 48041]]
various factors they should consider when purchasing products to make
their homes more energy efficient.
Because new information may be available about the factors that
affect insulation performance, the Commission is willing to consider
revising the explanation. The Commission is concerned, however, that
many consumers would not understand the meaning or impact of a general
cautionary statement that contains terms such as ``air permeability,''
``susceptibility to convective heat loss under cold conditions,'' ``the
potential for moisture permeation and accumulation and its
deteriorating effects.'' The Commission, therefore, solicits comments
regarding how the explanation could be revised to provide the most
useful information to assist consumers in making purchasing decisions.
In particular, the Commission is interested in receiving information
about the factors that should be included, why those factors are
important, how the information could be explained in a meaningful and
helpful manner, and how the information would assist consumers in
making purchasing decisions. Among other things, commenters are
requested to include data such as consumer perception studies that
demonstrate whether suggested alternative disclosures would be
meaningful to consumers.
b. Disclosures for Batt, Blanket, and Boardstock Insulations
Subsections 460.12(b)(1) and 460.12(B)(4) of the Rule require that
manufacturers label all packages of batt/blanket insulations and
boardstock insulations, respectively, with a chart showing the R-value,
length, width, thickness, and square feet of insulation in the package,
and 460.13(c)(1) requires that they include the chart on the
manufacturer's fact sheets.
Comments Regarding Batt and Blanket Insulations
NAIMA recommended amending 460.12(b)(1) to apply to all batt and
blanket insulation products by deleting the reference to ``mineral
fiber.'' NAIMA asserted that batts and blankets made of other
materials, such as cotton, other cellulosic materials, and plastic
fiber, have been introduced into the marketplace and that the Rule
should specify labeling requirements for these new batt and blanket
products.\107\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\107\ NAIMA, #24, at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion Regarding Batt and Blanket Insulations
The Commission agrees that all types of batt and blanket
insulations should be labeled with the same basic R-value and coverage
area information, and that manufactures' fact sheets for these
insulation products should include these disclosures. Like other basic
coverage chart disclosure requirements in section 460.12(b), the
Commission designed this coverage chart disclosure requirement to apply
to the form of the product (batt or blanket), not the type (e.g.,
mineral fiber). The Rule refers to ``mineral fiber'' batts and blankets
because when the Rule was promulgated the batt and blanket insulation
products being sold in the residential market were mineral fiber
insulation products, primarily fiberglass. The Commission, therefore,
proposes amending the Rule to clarify the requirement by deleting the
phrase ``mineral fiber'' from section 460.12(b)(1), and solicits
comments on this proposal.
Comments Regarding Disclosures to Assist Installers and Post-
Installation Inspectors
ICAA recommended that the Commission require manufacturers of batt
and blanket insulations to mark their products with the R-value in
numerical terms only. ICAA contended that the method some manufacturers
use of applying stripes on unfaced batt and blanket products to
indicate the product's R-value is not understood by installers, code
compliance officials, and others in the building inspection
community.\108\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\108\ ICAA/1, #17, at 3. ICAA provided an article from
Insulation Contractors Monthly (Appendix A to the comment)
describing guidelines, issued by NAIMA, for identifying, by means of
stripes, the R-values of unfaced fiberglass insulation. See also
NAIMA, #24m at 6-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To assist building code officials and others who perform post-
installation inspections in determining whether the correct R-value has
been installed, ICAA also recommended that the Commission require
manufacturers of unfaced batt and blanket insulation products to
include the following statement on their product packages:
The unfaced batt should be installed so that the R-value
identification is visible for inspection. ICAA reported that the 1955
version of the Model Energy Code (``CABO/MEC''), issued by the Council
of American Building Officials (``CABO''), recommends that insulation
be installed in a manner that will permit inspection of the
manufacturer's R-value identification mark. ICAA asserted that that is
important that contractors who install unfaced batts and blanket do so
in a way that will make it possible to verify R-value quickly and
easily.\109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\109\ ICAA/1, #17, at 2. See also Rock Wool Mfg./1, #06, at 1
(fully supportin ICAA's submittal).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion Regarding Disclosures To Assist Installers and Post-
Installation Inspectors
The R-value Rule does not require that individual pieces of
insulation be marked, but instead requires point-of-sale disclosures to
consumers prior to purchase on manufacturers' package labels and fact
sheets, and on receipts or contracts professional installers and new
home sellers must give to consumers. These prepurchase disclosures
enable consumers to compare competing insulation products and make
purchasing decisions. As ICAA's comment suggests, however, many
manufacturers also mark individual insulation products such as faced or
unfaced batts and blankets and boardstock products in some way to
identify their R-value.
Under provisions of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1992,
DOE, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (``HUD''),
and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (``USDA'') have adopted the
CABO/MEC for federal residential buildings or federally insured
residential housing, and 33 states have adopted, at some level, some
version of the CABO/MEC, or its equivalent. The CABO/MEC (including the
1995 version) requires for new residential construction (including new
additions to existing residential buildings), that, among other things:
(1) An R-value identification mark appear on each piece of insulation
that is 12 inches wide or greater; and (2) individual pieces of
insulation be installed in attics, floors, and wall cavities in a
manner that permits post-installation inspection of the manufacturer's
R-value identification mark. These requirements assist building
inspectors in determining, after installation, whether the proper
amount of insulation has been installed to meet the minimum thermal
performance requirements of the CABO/MEC.
Marking individual batt, blanket, and boardstock insulation
products with R-values would not provide additional prepurchase
information to consumers (beyond the required disclosures on product
packages, manufacturers' fact sheets, and in contracts or receipts). It
would, however, facilitate R-value verification. But, the CABO/MEC
already requires such marking and it has
[[Page 48042]]
been adopted for new residential construction by other agencies of the
federal government and the majority of states. Thus, it does not appear
necessary for the Commission to amend the Rule to require that
individual batts, blankets, or other insulation products be marked. The
Commission solicits comments, however, regarding whether this
additional disclosure requirement in the Rule would assist consumers in
making purchasing decisions, whether (and why) CABO/MEC requirements
are insufficient to provide this information to building inspectors,
and whether (and to what extent) there currently are abuses in the sale
and installation of home insulation that could be remedied by
duplicating the CABO/MEC requirements in the R-value Rule, as well as
the costs that such an amendment would impose on manufacturers.
Comments Regarding Disclosure of Thickness
Celotex and PIMA recommended requiring the disclosure, on the
required coverage charts on manufacturer's package labels and fact
sheets for boardstock insulations, of the ``nominal thickness'' of the
boards in the package. The comments asserted that boardstock
insulations are produced in nominal (or average) thicknesses and
expressed concern that the current wording of the section implies exact
thickness.\110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\110\ Celotex, #25, at 5; PIMA, #30, at 7. The Commission
understands that, by ``nominal thickness,'' the comments mean the
``average thickness'' of each board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion Regarding Disclosure of Thickness
Subsections 460.12(b)(1) and 460.12(b)(4) of the Rule require the
disclosure of ``thickness'' for batts, blankets, and boardstock
products, without defining whether the thickness disclosed must be the
actual, minimum, nominal, or average thickness.\111\ Although
variations in the manufacturing process may make it difficult for
manufacturers to ensure that they produce products of exact thickness,
it is essential that the thickness delivered to consumers be within a
reasonable tolerance because the total R-value of a batt, blanket or
boardstock insulation product is directly related to its thickness. In
order to provide guidance to sellers, the Commission solicits comments
on: (1) Whether it should propose amending the Rule to specify
individual tolerances for the required thickness disclosure (as well as
required disclosures of net weight and other dimensions of packaged
insulation products) and procedures for determining whether products
are within those tolerances; (2) what tolerances and procedures it
should consider, for example, the procedures and tolerances adopted by
the National Conference of Weights and Measures (``NCMW'');\112\ and
(3) the benefits and burdens to consumers and sellers of specifying
individual tolerances and procedures for these measurements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\111\ The Commission, on the other hand, required the disclosure
of ``minimum thickness'' for loose-fill insulations in subsections
460.12(b)(2)-(3) to address the issue of settling, which is
discussed supra.
\112\ See ``Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods,'' NBS/
NIST Handbook 133, Third Edition (including Supplements 1, 2, and 3)
(Sept. 1998), and ``Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods,''
NIST Handbook 133, Third Edition, Supplement 4 (Oct. 1994). The NCWM
procedures provide mean and maximum allowable variations for the net
contents of packaged items, including weight, dimensions, and other
measurements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Disclosures for Loose-fill Insulations
Section 460.12(b) of the rule requires that labels on loose-fill
insulation packages disclose the minimum net weight of the insulation
in the package and include a coverage chart disclosing minimum
thickness (after settling), maximum net coverage area, minimum weight
per square foot, and (for loose-fill cellulose insulation only) number
of bags per 1,000 square feet for each of several specified total R-
values for installation in open attics. The Rule currently specifies
different total R-values for which the disclosures must be made for
loose-fill cellulose insulations and other types of loose-fill
insulations. The rule requires professional installers to calculate the
number of square feet to be insulated and to install the number of bags
indicated on the manufacturer's coverage chart that are necessary for
the desired R-value (commonly referred to as ``bag count'').
Comments Regarding Required Disclosures
Four comments recommended that the Commission amend section
460.12(b) to require the same total R-value and other disclosures for
all types of loose-fill insulations.\113\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\113\ Hamilton, #22, at 2 (recommending disclosures at R-13, R-
19, R-30, R-38, and R-42, and recommending that the combined
subsection require that mineral fiber loose-fill coverage charts
list number of bags per 1000 square feet); ICAA/1, #17, at 9 (R-11,
R-19, R-30, and R-38); NAIMA, #24, at 5 (recommending disclosures at
R-13, R-19, R-30, R-38--these are the common R-values typically
installed to satisfy the roof/ceiling requirements of the CABO/MEC
and many state energy codes; also recommending disclosures at all
other R-values listed on the chart); GreenStone/Smith, #32, at 3
(recommending disclosures at R-11, R-13, R-19, R-22, R-24, R-30, R-
32, R-38, and R-40). See also Rock Wool Mfg./1, #06 (fully
supporting ICAA's submittal).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion Regarding Required Disclosures
The Commission agrees that it would be appropriate to require the
same disclosures for all types of loose-fill insulations for
application in attics or other open areas. The Commission originally
prescribed separate disclosure requirements for loose-fill cellulose
insulations and other types of loose-fill insulations (primarily
material fiber loose-fill insulations) in response to requests that the
Rule, where possible, apply labeling requirements consistent with GSA's
purchasing specifications. 44 FR at 50230. GSA's specifications at that
time required that labels for loose-fill cellulose insulation disclose
the number of bags required to cover 1,000 square feet, but did not
require this disclosure on labels for loose-fill mineral fiber
insulation, and it required that the mandatory disclosures be made at
different total R-values for the two types of loose-fill
insulations.114 After the Commission promulgated the Rule,
GSA eliminated its own specifications and now uses ASTM material
specifications for determining which insulation products may be
purchased by the federal government (or in connection with programs
operated by the federal government).115 The Commission
believes that there no longer is any justification for requiring
different disclosures for different types of loose-fill insulations for
application in attics or other open areas, and proposes to apply a
single set of disclosures requirements for all types. The Commission
solicits comments regarding this proposal, including the total R-values
for which it would be most appropriate to require the disclosures, and
whether the same disclosures should apply to both dry-applied loose-
fill insulations and stabilized insulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\114\ Consistent with the GSA specification, subsection
460.12(b)(2) requires that the disclosures be made at R-values of
11, 19, and 22 and all loose-fill insulation except cellulose, and
subsection 460.12(b)(3) requires the disclosures at R-values of 13,
19, 24, 32, and 40 for loose-file cellulose insulation.
\115\ In its compliance guidelines published in 1980, the
Commission's staff explained that GSA had eliminated its own
specifications and recommended that manufacturers of mineral fiber
and other loose-file insulations other than cellulose include a
column disclosing number of bags per 1,000 square feet in their
coverage charts. Staff compliance guidelines, 45 FR 68920, at 68923-
24 (1980). The Commission believes that virtually all manufacturers
of loose-file insulation currently includes this information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 48043]]
Comments Regarding Disclosure of ``Minimum Net Weight''
One comment recommended requiring the disclosure of ``net weight''
on loose-fill insulation packages, instead of ``minimum net weight.''
116
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\116\ GreenStone/Smith, #32, at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion Regarding Disclosure of ``Minimum Net Weight''
Subsections 460.12(b)(2) and 460.12(b)(3) require that ``minimum
net weight'' be disclosed on package labels of all types of loose-fill
insulations, but do not require all the disclosure be made in those
exact words. Some state weights and measures regulations, on the other
hand, require the disclosure of ``net weight'' or ``nominal net
weight,'' using specific words. To ensure that manufacturers and other
sellers can conform to the requirements of both the Rule and the
states' regulations, the Commission's staff had advised home insulation
manufacturers that the Rule does not require that the word ``minimum''
appear in the disclosure, and that they can use the terms required by
the state regulations. The Commission affirms the staff's advice.
Further, the Commission intended the term ``minimum net weight'' in
the Rule to mean that the package contains at least the weight claimed,
because the accuracy of the information in the coverage chart depends
on the package containing that amount of insulation material. Terms
such as ``net weight'' or ``nominal net weight'' in state weights and
measures regulations, on the other hand, have been interpreted to mean
average weight per package, within a specific tolerance, over a given
lot of packages or production runs. As with the thickness of batt,
blanket, and boardstock insulations, discussed in Part IV.E.1.b, above
variations in the manufacturing process may make it difficult for
manufacturers to ensure that they produce loose-fill insulation
packages filled with an exact weight of material; but it is essential
that sufficient loose-fill insulation material be installed for
consumers to received the total R-value they are purchasing. If an
insufficient amount of material is contained in the packages used to
install insulation in a particular consumer's home, even if the average
weight is correct over the sampling lot considered, that consumer will
receive less insulation R-value than promised.
The Commission is committed to ensuring that consumers receive what
they are promised, while also minimizing unnecessary burdens and costs
on sellers. The Commission, therefore, solicits comments on: (1)
Whether it should propose amending the Rule to specify individual
tolerances for the required net weight disclosure for loose-fill
insulation and procedures for determining whether packages are within
those tolerances; (2) what tolerances and procedures it should
consider, for example, the tolerances and procedures adopted by the
NCWN;117 and (3) the benefits and burdens to consumers and
sellers of specifying individual tolerances and procedures for the
measurement of net weight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\117\ See note 112, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments Regarding Disclosure of ``Minimum Thickness''
Seven comments discussed issues relating to the requirement in
subsections 460.12(b)(2)-(3) that labels include a coverage chart
disclosing, among other information, the ``minimum thickness'' \118\ of
loose-fill insulations for application in attics and other open
areas.\119\ ICAA proposed that the Commission amend the Rule to require
that manufacturers of loose-fill cellulose insulations disclose
``minimum initially installed thickness'' in addition to ``minimum
thickness.'' ICAA contended that this additional information would
assist installers by preventing them from mistakenly initially
installing loose fill cellulose insulation only to the ``minimum
thickness'' currently shown on the coverage chart (that is, the minimum
thickness required to obtain the claimed total R-value after the
product has settled). ICAA believes that is a long-standing industry
practice that violates the Rule. ICAA asserted that CIMA agrees that
this additional information would result in a marked improvement in
consumer protection. ICAA contended that manufacturers' failure to
provide this information on coverage charts effectively results in the
installation of loose-fill insulation at total R-values below what is
claimed.\116\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\118\ The term ``minimum thickness'' in subsections
460.12(b)(2)-(3) refers to the thickness of installed loose-fill
insulation after settling, not to the thickness of a packaged
product. The discussion in the text of tolerances and procedures for
measuring the thickness of packaged products, therefore, does not
apply to the discussion of ``minimum thickness'' in subsections
460.12(b)(2)-(3).
\119\ ICAA/1, #17, at 3-4; Hamilton, #22, at 2-3; NAIMA, #24, at
5: GreeneStone/Smith, #32, at 2; Clayville, #34, at 2-3; Tascon,
#35, at 2; Rock Wool Mfg./2, #39, at 1-3.
\116\ ICAA/1, #17, at 3-4. See also Rock Wool Mfg./1, #, #06
(fully supporting ICAA's submittal.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAIMA supported ICAA's proposal and recommended requiring
disclosures on coverage charts of the ``minimum initial installed
thickness,'' in addition to ``minimum settled thickness,'' for products
that settle enough to reduce the total R-value by more than five
percent. NAIMA reported that ICAA has requested that loose-fill
cellulose insulation manufacturers include ``initial installed
thickness'' disclosures on coverage charts, that several manufacturers
currently put this information on their coverage charts, and that ASTM
has developed a test method to determine initial installed thickness to
support ICAA's initiative.\117\ Mr. Smith, for GreenStone, similarly
recommended requiring the disclosure of both ``minimum settled
thickness' and ``approximate initial installed thickness'' on coverage
charts of loose-fill insulations.\118\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\117\ NAIMA, #24, at 5. NAIMA stated that the ASTM C 16
committee has developed a test method to determine initial installed
thickness, and that ASTM C 16.23 has developed a draft standard
guide for development of coverage charts for loose-fill insulation
that includes the initial installed thickness language NAIMA
recommended
\118\ GreenStone/Smith #32, at 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two comments specifically opposed requiring the disclosure of
initial installed thickness. Hamilton contended that it is very
difficult to arrive at a single thickness that will apply to all
installation blowing equipment and installers' application techniques,
and suggested that manufacturers should place more emphasis on training
and instructions for professional installers instead of emphasizing an
initially installed thickness.\119\ Clayville commented that the issue
of disclosing an initial installed thickness has been raised primarily
by ICAA, whose members installed predominantly mineral fiber
insulation, and that the proposal appears calculated to take advantage
of the lack of a recognized test procedure to determine the settlement
of (dry-applied) loose-fill mineral fiber insulations after
installation. Clayville contended that requiring the addition of an
initial installed thickness column would create even more confusion in
the industry and would not benefit consumers.\120\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\119\ Hamilton, #22, at 2-3.
\120\ Clayville, #34, at 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tascon stated that the thickness of loose-fill insulation does not
accurately determine its total R-value because there are different
types of installation equipment and application techniques, including
some that deliberately ``fluff'' (dry-applied) loose-fill insulation
products; that is, that increase a product's thickness (by applying it
with more air at a lower density) at the expense of its density and
total R-value. Tascon recommended that the Commission continue to
emphasize bag
[[Page 48044]]
account to ensure that installers apply the necessary amount of loose-
fill insulation in attics to attain the desired total R-value.\121\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\121\ Tascon, #35, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As an alternative to disclosing minimum installed thickness for
their products, several manufacturers now guarantee that the installer
will attain the claimed total R-value (and the weight per square foot
and density necessary for that R-value) by initially applying at least
a specific ``guaranteed thickness.'' ICAA proposed requiring
manufacturers who offer this guarantee to add a ``Guaranteed
Thickness'' column to the required coverage charts.\122\ Rock Wool Mfg.
supported ICAA's proposal as one method of assuring that consumers
receive the total R-value claimed for (dry-applied) loose-fill
insulations in attics and other open areas.\123\ ICAA also proposed
adding the following language to section 460.8 to spell out the
obligations of manufacturers and installers regarding how the Rule's
tolerance provision applies where manufacturers guarantee that the
claimed R-value will be obtained when the installer applies at least
the ``guaranteed thickness'':
\122\ ICAA/1, #17, at 9.
\123\ Rock Wool Mfg./2, #39, at 1-3. Seel also Rock Wool
Manufacturing's comments concerning bag tabs, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you are a manufacturer of loose-fill insulation and you
guarantee R-value based upon thickness, your ``guaranteed
thickness'' must be an installed thickness that will result in at
least the minimum weight per square foot indicated on your label.
If you are an installer, you must install at least the minimum
thickness and the minimum weight per square foot as indicated on the
manufacturer's label. If you install a ``Guaranteed Inches equal R-
value'' loose-fill insulation product, you must install at least the
minimum thickness for the corresponding R-value as indicated of the
manufacturer's label.
Disussion Regarding Disclosure of ``Minimum Thickness''
ICAA has long taken the position that installers have difficulty
using bag count (or weight of insulation material installed) as the
measure of their compliance with the Rule (and of whether they have
installed the required amount of insulation material). ICAA contends
that the reason for this problem is that the person applying loose-fill
insulation through a blowing hose in the attic has no way of knowing at
any given point how many bags have been loaded into the hopper of the
blowing machine located in the truck outside. Requiring manufacturers
to add a disclosure of ``initial installed thickness'' to coverage
charts would give installers an additional tool to help them when they
are applying dry-applied loose-fill insulation products. This
additional information would not, however, allow installers to comply
with the Rule simply by installing the claimed initial installed
thickness, without having to count the number of bags they have
installed (or otherwise ensure they have applied the required amount of
insulation material) that is necessary, along with thickness, to
achieve the claimed total R-value. Because dry-applied loose-fill
insulation products normally settle after installation, the Rule
requires: (1) That each manufacturer determine the R-value of its home
insulation product at settled density and construct coverage charts
showing the minimum settled thickness, minimum weight per square foot,
and coverage area per bag for various total R-values; and (2) that
installers measure the area to be covered and install the number of
bags (and weight of insulation material) indicated on the insulation
product's coverage chart for the total R-value desired. These
requirements are necessary because the claimed total R-value for a
specific dry-applied loose-fill insulation can be attained only when
the requisite amount of insulation material in both thickness and
density has been installed.
Further, it does not appear that recognized procedures are
currently available that could be used to determine, on a uniform
basis, a required initial thickness for all types of dry-applied loose-
fill insulations. The settled density test procedure in ASTM C 739-91,
which is required for determining the R-value test specimen density for
dry-applied cellulose insulation, includes an initial blown step that
could serve as the basis for determining an initial installed thickness
for cellulose; but ASTM has not adopted a similar test procedure for
dry-applied loose-fill mineral fiber insulations. Without reliable
procedures to determine initial installed thickness, claims on coverage
charts of competing insulations might not be consistent, and could be
misleading. Further, because the initial thickness applied may vary
with the blowing equipment and application technique used, even for
cellulose (where a standardized test procedure is available to use in
determining an initial installed thickness), an installer who applied
the initial thickness determined under the required settled density
test procedure would still have to ensure that he had applied the
necessary amount of insulation material.
Requiring (or allowing) manufacturers who claim a ``guaranteed
thickness'' for their dry-applied loose-fill insulations to include a
``guaranteed thickness'' column in their coverage charts on labels and
fact sheets required by the Rule, as suggested by ICAA and Rock Wool
Mfg., raises similar, but even more complicated, issues. Adding this
disclosure might provide useful information. Without a uniform,
verifiable means of determining an initial thickness that will achieve
the claimed total R-value in all applications,\124\ however, the
Commission does not believe it would be appropriate to require, or
allow, manufacturers to add this information to the required
manufacturers' coverage charts, or to allow installers to rely on the
``guaranteed thickness'' alone (and not also on bag count) in
determining the amount of insulation to apply to achieve the claimed
total R-value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\124\ From a practical standpoint, providing a ``guaranteed
thickness'' may make many insulation products less competitive.
Because of variabilities in blowing equipment and application
techniques among installers, manufacturers making such a guarantee
may have to claim on their coverage chart that a considerably
greater thickness (and more insulation material) than normal is
necessary to guarantee that if the installer applies the
``guaranteed thickness,'' the claimed total R-value will be achieved
under all possible circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For these reasons, the Commission does not propose amending the
Rule to require the disclosure of an ``initial installed thickness'' or
of a manufacturer's voluntary ``guaranteed thickness'' at this time.
The Commission, however, solicits comments regarding how manufacturers
of all types of dry-applied loose-fill insulations and stabilized
insulations could determine an initial installed thickness, or a
guaranteed thickness, for each total R-value claimed, whether the
Commission should require the addition of this information to the
required coverage chart for either dry-applied loose-fill insulations
or stabilized insulations, and under what circumstances installing the
``initial installed thickness'' or ``guaranteed thickness'' of
insulation could be a sufficient basis alone for installers to ensure
that they have applied the requisite amount of insulation material.
Comments Regarding the Use of Tabs or Seals on Packages
NAIMA recommended requiring manufacturers to attach to or print on
each bag of loose-fill insulation a single, unique tab or seal
identifying the product, and that installers clip the tabs from each
bag used and attach them to the customer's receipt. \125\ Tascon
asserted that requiring installers to give the consumer the tabs or
labels from
[[Page 48045]]
each bag installed would be an effective way to prevent cheating. \126\
Rock Wool Mfg. and ICAA opposed requiring the use of bag tabs. \127\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\125\ NAIMA, #24, at 5-7.
\126\ Tascon, #35, at 2.
\127\ ICAA/2, #40, at 1; Rock Wool Mfg./2, 39, at 1-3
(any method of R-value verification dependent on an installer
correctly measuring the dimensions of a house and calculating the
attic's square footage to be insulated with loose-fill insulation is
inherently flawed because even the best installers make errors in
measuring and arithmetic, suggested alternatives it considered
superior for assuring the accuracy of R-value representations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion Regarding the Use of Tabs or Seals on Packages
The Commission does not believe that sufficient evidence has been
presented that requiring the use of bag tabs would add materially to
the Rule's existing requirements that installers install the
appropriate amount the insulation and disclose, in receipt to
customers, the number of bags of loose-fill insulation installed. The
Commission, therefore, does not propose amending the Rule to require
the use of tabs.
Comments Regarding Advising Consumers How To Verify R-value Installed
ICAA recommended that the Commission amend the Rule to include a
statement in fact sheets for loose-fill insulations advising consumers
that ICAA can provide them with information about how they can verify
the total R-value of loose-fill insulations installed in attics of new
homes or added to existing attics. \128\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\128\ ICAA/1, #17, at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion Regarding Advising Consumers How To Verify R-value Installed
To the extent that the CABO/MEC already includes requirements and
procedures for building inspectors to determine whether the required
amount of insulation has been installed in new construction, it may not
be necessary or appropriate for the Commission to require additional
disclosures in manufacturers' fact sheets or elsewhere. For this
reason, the Commission does not propose amending the Rule to require
this additional disclosure, although this information may be provided
voluntarily in other promotional materials. The Commission solicits
comments, however, regarding whether (and in what manner) the proposed
disclosure would provide benefits beyond the CABO/MEC requirements and
procedures relating to building inspections, and whether (and to what
extent) there currently are abuses in the sale and installation of home
insulation that could be remedied by requiring this additional
disclosure, and the costs of manufacturers that would be imposed by a
requirement that they include this disclosure on labels or in fact
sheets.
d. Disclosures for Urea-based Foam Insulations
Comments
In the original rulemaking proceeding, the Commission determined
that the inherent qualities of urea-formaldehyde (``UF'') foam
insulations, which were being installed at that time in wall cavities
only by professional installers, would cause the products to lose
volume, or ``shrink.'' This shrinkage caused the insulation to pull
away from the wall cavity in all three directions after installation,
leaving the wall partially uninsulated and resulting in a lower than
claimed R-value. Although both the rate and extent of shrinkage
depended somewhat on the the quality of the chemicals and the product's
on-site formulation and application, even if a UF insulation product
was installed perfectly, it would shrink and its R-value would
decrease. To address this problem, the Rule requires that
manufacturers' disclosure the product's R-value in a manner that
accounts for the product's shrinkage, or include a specific disclosure
about the effect of shrinkage on R-value. 44 FR at 50220, 50231.
Celotex and PIMA recommended that the Commission revise the
statement to refer to ``urea-based form insulation,'' because the
reference to ``foam insulation'' implies that all foam-type insulation
products (including other types of cellular plastics insulations)
shrink after installation, resulting in lower R-values than claimed.
\129\ PIMA stated that UF insulation is no longer sold, and that this
disclosure is unnecessary and may cause consumer confusion about other
foam-type insulations. \130\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\129\ Celotex, #25, at 5; PIMA, 30, at 7-8.
\130\ PIMA, #30, AT 8 n.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion
The Commission intended to limit this disclosure to UF insulations.
Because it appears that UF foam insulation no longer is being sold,
however, instead of clarifying this reference, the Commission proposes
amending the Rule to delete this obsolete requirement. The Commission
solicits commends on this proposal, especially regarding whether any UF
insulation products are still being sold, and whether there are other
insulation products currently on the market that may be subject to
shrinkage that affects R-value.
2. Disclosures in Advertising and Other Promotional Materials
1. Disclosures Required
Background
Sections 460.18 and 460.19 of the Rule specify disclosure
requirements for advertisements and other promotional materials
(including those on the Internet) for home insulation products aimed at
consumers that are distributed by manufactures, professional
installers, or retailers. They require disclosures only if the
advertisement or other promotional material includes certain claims
about a specific insulation product. The disclosure requirements do not
apply to advertisements on television. In general, any advertisement or
other promotional material that includes an R-value, thickness, or
price must disclose the type of insulation, the product's R-value and
the thickness needed to get that R-value, and the following R-value
explanatory statement: ``The higher the R-value, the greater the
insulating power. Ask your seller for the fact sheet on R-values.\131\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\131\ All labels and fact sheets must include a version of the
R-value explanatory statement, specifically: ``R means resistance to
heat flow. The higher the R-value, the greater the insulating
power.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advertisements and other promotional materials that state a price
also must include the coverage area at the stated thickness. Those that
state the price per square foot need not disclose the coverage area. If
the advertisement or other promotional material compares one type of
insulation to another, the comparison must be based on the same
coverage area and the R-value of each at a specific thickness must be
disclosed. It it includes the price of each insulation, it must include
the coverage area for the price and thickness claimed. If it claims
only price per square foot, it need not disclose coverage area.
Advertisements, labels, and other promotional materials that
contain an energy savings claim for an insulation product (e.g., ``save
25% on heating bills'') must include the following energy savings
explanatory statement: ``Savings vary. Find out why in the seller's
fact sheet on R-values. Higher R-values mean greater insulating
power.'' When both the energy savings explanatory statement and the R-
value explanatory statement are triggered by the claims, the seller
need only include the energy savings explanatory statement.
Advertisements, labels and other promotional materials that contain
a
[[Page 48046]]
claim that a combination of products including insulation can cut fuel
bills or fuel use must also list the products used and state how much
of the savings comes from each product, in addition to giving the
energy savings explanatory statement. If the advertiser cannot give
exact or approximate figures, it must give a ranking of the products.
Discussion
No comment addressed the required disclosures for advertisements
and other promotional materials or suggested amending the rule to
eliminate any of them. The Commission, however, wants to ensure that
the rule does not impose unnecessary burdens on advertising and other
promotional materials. When the Commission promulgated the Rule, it
considered but rejected a proposal that it limit the required
disclosure of the R-value explanatory statement to a specific period of
time following the rule's effective date. Because insulation is a very
infrequently purchased commodity, the Commission was uncertain that the
R-value concept would become widely and permanently understood in a
short period of time. The Commission stated it would reexamine in the
future the need to continue requiring the R-value explanatory statement
in advertisements. 44 FR at 50233. The Commission, therefore, solicits
comments on whether it should propose amending the rule to eliminate
the requirement that advertisements and other promotional materials
that include the triggering claims specified in the Rule include the R-
value explanatory statement, or the portion of the savings explanatory
statement that explains the meaning of R-value.
In raising this issue for comment, the Commission is not
considering eliminating the other disclosures for advertisements and
other promotional materials that include an R-value, thickness, price,
comparison claim, or energy savings claim. Those required disclosures
are necessary to prevent the triggering claims from being unfair or
deceptive. Further, the Commission is not considering eliminating the
required disclosure of the meaning of R-value from labels or
manufacturers' fact sheets. The disclosure on labels and fact sheets is
necessary to ensure that consumers have the information they need to
understand the R-value information contained on labels, fact sheets,
and in advertising and other promotional materials; but the definition
on labels and fact sheets that are available to consumers at the point
of purchase may make the additional disclosure in advertisements and
other promotional materials unnecessary.
Comments should address specifically the current need for the
definition of R-value in advertisements and other promotional
materials, the current state of consumers' understanding of the term R-
value, and whether the availability of the meaning of R-value on labels
and manufacturers' fact sheets is sufficient to provide this necessary
information to consumers prior to purchase. Commenters are requested to
include data such as consumer perception studies that are relevant to
these questions.
b. Advertising on Radio
Comments
NAIMA recommended that the Commission exclude radio ads from the
Rule's disclosure requirements for advertisements. NAIMA contended that
radio advertisements are similar to television advertisements, which
the Rule excludes from any disclosure requirements.\132\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\132\ NAIMA, #24, at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion
The Rule originally applied the advertising disclosure
requirements, which require disclosures only in advertisements that
contain specific triggering claims, to television advertisements as
well as all other types of advertising and promotional materials.
Unlike other types of advertising, which simply must include the
required disclosures ``clearly and conspicuously,'' the Rule as
originally promulgated included very specific requirements regarding
the manner in which required disclosures would have to be made in
television advertising.\133\ Four insulation manufacturers appealed the
disclosure requirements for television advertising, asserting that the
requirements, particularly in light of the manner in which the
disclosures would have to be made, were particularly burdensome for
short television ads. The Commission settled the appeal by agreeing not
to impose disclosure requirements on television ads without conducting
further rulemaking proceedings, and rescinded the requirements without
conducting further proceedings.\134\ No evidence was presented in the
original rulemaking or in the appeal concerning any similar burdens
that the disclosure requirements would impose on radio ads.
Accordingly, the Commission does not propose revising the Rule to
exempt radio ads from making these important disclosures, but will
accept comments on how the costs of making the required disclosures in
radio ads compare to the benefits the disclosures provide to consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\133\ 44 FR at 5045 Appendix B (1979). For example, TV ads
containing triggering claims would have been required to make the
disclosures simultaneously in both the audio and video portions of
the ad, the video portion of the disclosure would have to have
appeared in letters of sufficient size to be easily seen and read on
television sets of all sizes, and the disclosures would have been
required each time a triggering claim was made. The Rule also would
have restricted the video background and other sounds during the
audio disclosures. The Rule contains no similar restrictions
concerning the manner in which disclosures must be made in radio
advertising, as long as they are made clearly and conspicuously.
\134\ Final rule, 51 FR 39650 (1986).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Disclosures by Installers or New Home Sellers
a. Fact Sheets
Comments
Celotex and PIMA recommended that the Commission require that
professional installers (under section 460.15) give a copy of the
manufacturer's fact sheet to consumers upon completion of the
installation, and that new home sellers (under section 460.16) give a
copy of the fact sheet to new home buyers.\135\ Celotex and PIMA
asserted that these requirements would ensure the dissemination of fact
sheets to consumers and promote the purpose of the Rule--that consumers
receive accurate and meaningful information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\135\ Celotex, #25, at 2; PIMA, #30, at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion
The Commission required fact sheets to provide pre-purchase
information to consumers who otherwise probably would not see the
information on package labels. Moreover, to minimize the burdens that
the Rule imposes on industry members, the Commission required only that
installers show the fact sheets to consumers prior to purchase and give
them specific disclosures in contracts or receipts about the insulation
installed. Similarly, it required new home sellers to disclose in the
sales contract, prior to purchase, specific information about the
insulation installed (or to be installed) in the new home. The
Commission has received no evidence that would justify requiring that
installers or new home sellers provide fact sheets, after the purchase,
that disclosure R-value information other than for the insulation the
consumer has purchased. Accordingly, the Commission does not propose
amending the Rule to require that the additional information suggested
by the comments be provided.
[[Page 48047]]
b. Attic Cards and Certificates
Comments
ICAA proposed that the Commission require new home sellers to make
disclosures to purchasers in attic cards signed by the new home seller,
builder, and/or building inspector. These attic cards would be used
only to make disclosures concerning the insulation installed in the
attic of the new home, would include the information required on the
package label of the insulation, and would be posted adjacent to the
attic access or scuttle. ICAA contended that attic cards would provide
consumers with pertinent information at no significant cost to industry
members, would reduce confusion for building inspectors and homeowners,
and would be a constructive tool to help ensure that installers meet
specifications. ICAA stated that attic cards have been required by the
State of Florida since 1991, by the Bonneville Power Administration, by
Georgia Power Company's energy efficiency program, and by several other
jurisdictions throughout the country. ICAA also stated that the 1995
CABO/MEC recommends that the installer provide a signed, dated, and
posted certification for insulation installed in each element of the
building envelope, listing the type of insulation, the manufacturer,
and the R-value.\136\ NAIMA similarly recommended that the Commission
amend the Rule to add language, similar to that in the 1995 CABO/MEC,
to require professional installers to provide certification of the
insulation installed and to post the certification in a conspicuous
place on the job site.\137\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\136\ ICAA/1, #17, at 7-10, See also Rock Wool Mfg./1, #06
(fully supporting ICAA's submittal).
\137\ NAIMA, #24, at 6-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion
Although the Commission's staff in the original rulemaking
recommended that the Commission require the use of attic cards to make
disclosures to consumers,\138\ the Commission determined that such a
requirement was not necessary in light of the Rule's requirement that
new home sellers and installers give consumers written disclosures in
contracts or written receipts. Attic cards are usually posted in the
attic near the access opening, for later reference by building code
inspectors and future owners of the home (as well as the original
purchaser), or by the homeowner who has insulation added to an existing
home. The Rule, on the other hand, already requires installers and new
home sellers to provide consumers with the same information in
contracts that would be disclosed on an attic card or in a
certification. If the seller or consumer prefers, the contract or
receipt can be posted in the form on an attic card after the seller has
given the written disclosures to the consumer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\138\ Staff Report at 237-38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, for insulations installed in attics of new residential
construction, the CABO/MEC requires that installers provide a signed
and dated certification for the insulation installed in each part of
the home, listing the type of insulation, the insulation manufacturer,
and the total R-value, and post the certification in a conspicuous
place on the job site.\139\ These requirements have been adopted for
use in federal government programs covering new residential
construction and by 33 states, at some level.\140\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\139\ For blown or sprayed insulation, the installer must also
provide the initial installed thickness, the settled thickness, the
coverage area, and the number of bags installed.
\140\ See Part III.E.1.b, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For these reasons, the Commission does not propose amending the
Rule to require additional certification or the use of attic cards. The
Commission solicits comments, however, regarding whether (and in what
manner, and to what extent) amending the Rule to require that
disclosures be made in certifications or attic cards would provide
benefits beyond those currently required by the Rule or the CABO/MEC
for consumers or building inspectors, and whether (and to what extent)
there currently are abuses in the sale and installation of home
insulation that could be remedied by including these additional
disclosure requirements in the Rule, and the costs to installers and
new home sellers of providing the disclosures in certifications and
attic cards.
c. Attic Rulers
Comments
ICAA recommended that the Commission require that new home sellers
and professional installers apply attic rulers (or thickness markers)
for every 500 square feet of attic space, with a minimum of three
rulers, when loose-fill insulation is installed in the attics of new or
existing homes. ICAA asserted that, like attic cards, attic rulers have
been required by the State of Florida since 1991, and are required
under the Georgia Power Company's program to encourage energy efficient
homes. ICAA contended that the rulers would assist inspectors and
consumers in evaluating settled thickness levels and determining
whether consumers received the R-value of loose-fill insulation
claimed. According to ICAA, the 1995 CABO/MEC proposes the use of attic
rulers, installed at least one for every 300 square feet in the attic,
and requires that they be affixed to the attic trusses or joists, be
marked with minimum initial thickness and minimum settled thickness,
and face the attic access.\141\ NAIMA similarly recommended that the
Commission amend the Rule to require that blown-in loose-fill and
spray-applied attic insulations be installed in a manner that would
permit verification that the necessary thickness of insulation was
installed; specifically, by requiring that thickness markers or attic
rulers labeled in inches be installed at least one for every 300 square
feet. NAIMA stated that this requirement is similar to requirements in
the 1995 CABO/MEC and to requirements of some states.\142\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\141\ ICAA/1, #17, at 4-5, 10. See also Rock Wool Mfg./1, #06
(fully supporting ICAA's submittal).
\142\ NAIMA, #, at 6-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion
It is essential that both the required density (and weight per
square foot) and thickness of loose-fill insulations and stabilized
insulations be installed to attain a specific total R-value. The use of
attic rulers could help installers apply a sufficient thickness to
achieve a specific total R-value, and to apply it in a level and
consistent manner (although they still would have to ensure that they
apply the required number of bags and weight of insulation material).
The use of attic rulers could be particularly beneficial if
manufacturers included a verified initial installed thickness
disclosure or a guaranteed thickness disclosure on the bag label
coverage chart.\143\ Attic rulers also could give consumers a ready
means of determining, both initially and over time, whether the
required minimum thickness has been installed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\143\ See Part III.E.1.c, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CABO/MEC already requires, for new residential construction,
that installers apply blown loose-fill or sprayed (e.g., stabilized)
insulation in atticks with the use of thickness markers labeled in
inches, attached to the trusses or joists at least one for every 300
square feet (28 m\2\), marked with the minimum initial installed
thickness and minimum settled thickness, and installed facing the attic
access. Because the CABO/MEC requires the use of attic rulers in new
construction, the Commission does not propose amending the Rule to
require their use. The Commission solicts comments, however, regarding
whether (and in what manner, and to what
[[Page 48048]]
extent) amending the Rule to require the use of thickness markers would
provide benefits beyond those currently required by the CABO/MEC for
consumers or building inspectors, whether (and to what extent) there
currently are abuses in the sale and installation of home insulation
that could be remedied by amending the Rule to require the use of
thickness markers, and the costs to installers and new home sellers of
installing and using thickness markers.
4. Disclosures by Retailers
Background
Section 460.14 of the Rule requires retailers who sell insulation
to do-it-yourself consumers to make the manufacturers' fact sheets for
the home insulation they sell available to consumers prior to purchase.
The retailer can decide how to do so, as long as consumers are likely
to notice the fact sheets. For example, the retailer can put them in
displays and let consumers take copies, or can keep them in a binder
and have a sign telling consumers where the fact sheets are. The
purpose of this requirement is to ensure that consumers have the
information they need about home insulation prior to purchase to enable
them to make cost-based purchasing decisions. When the Commission
promulgated the Rule, bulky insulation packages were not normally
available on the retailer's sales floor, so the consumer would not see
the disclosures on labels prior to purchase. In addition, the fact
sheets contain additional information about energy savings and other
factors the consumer should consider when purchasing home insulation.
See Part IV.E.1.a, above.
Discussion
No comment addressed the requirement that retailers make the
manufacturers' fact sheets available to consumers. In the years since
the Commission promulgated the Rule, however, the nature of retail
sales of home insulation to do-it-yourself consumers has changed.
Today, retailers often sell home insulation directly from warehouse-
type sales floors where consumers select the packages of insulation
they want. Therefore, the R-value and related information on the
packages is available to consumers prior to purchase. In response to
questions from retailers, the Commission's staff has advised that
retailers need not make separate fact sheets available at the point of
purchase if all the required fact sheet disclosures are made on the
insulation package and if the insulation packages are available on the
sales floor for the consumer to inspect prior to purchase. The
Commission affirms the staff's advice, proposes amending the Rule to
codify this option, and solicits comments on the proposal.
V. Questions for Comment
Members of the public are invited to comment on any issues or
concerns they believe are relevant or appropriate to the Commission's
consideration of the proposed amendments to the R-value Rule, or about
other issues and questions the Commission raises in the discussion in
Part IV, above. The Commission requests that factual data, including
consumer perception or survey data, upon which the comments are based
be submitted with the comments.
To assist commenters, the Commission provides the following list of
proposed amendments. The proposed amendments would: (1) Clarify
specific provisions of the Rule (Parts IV.D.3 and IV.E.1.b); (2)
require disclosure of the same R-value information for competing types
of loose-fill insulation products (Part IV.E.1.c); (3) specify the use
of current ASTM or other recognized procedures for preparing R-value
test specimens of spray-applied insulations (Part IV.C.2.b) and for
conducting R-value tests of multi-sheet reflective insulation products
(Part IV.D.5.a.ii); (4) delete specific disclosure requirements for
urea formaldehyde insulation, which no longer is sold (Part IV.E.1.d);
and (5) excuse retailers from making available to consumers separate
manufacturers' fact sheets under certain circumstances (Part IV.E.4).
The Commission also requests comments on whether the Commission
should propose amendments to: (1) Cover additional products (i.e.,
residential pipe and duct insulations, and insulation sold for use in
commercial buildings) (Part IV.A); (2) require the disclosure of in-use
performance values, as opposed to laboratory tests under static,
uniform conditions, or of the performance of building systems (Part
IV.B); (3) adopt additional test specimen preparation requirements to
account for various factors that affect R-values (Part IV.C); (4) adopt
additional or updated testing requirements (Part IV.D); and (5) revise
the disclosure requirements for manufacturers' labels and fact sheets,
advertisements and other promotional materials, and for professional
installers, new home sellers, and retailers (Part IV.E).
In addition to the specific questions regarding each of these
issues raised in the cited portions of this notice, the Commission
solicits comments on the questions below. The questions are designed to
assist the public and should not be construed as a limitation on the
issues on which public comments may be submitted.
To maximize the benefits and minimize the costs for consumers and
sellers (including specifically small businesses), for each amendment
proposed by the Commission, and by comments filed in response to this
notice, the Commission in general solicits views and data on the
following questions:
(1) What benefits would the proposed requirements confer, and on
whom?
(2) What paperwork burdens would the proposed requirements impose,
and on whom?
(3) What other costs or burdens would the proposed requirements
impose, and on whom?
(4) What regulatory alternatives to the proposed requirements are
available that would reduce the burdens of the proposed requirements,
while providing the same benefits?
(5) What impact, either positive or negative, would the proposed
requirements likely have on the environment?
List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 460
Advertising, Insulation, Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Trade practices.
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 41-58.
By direction of the Commission.
Benjamin I. Berman,
Acting Secretary.
Appendix--List of Comments
Name, Symbol, and Number
AFM Corporation (AFM)--# 38
Advanced Foil Systems (AFS)--# 02
Matt Anderson (Anderson)--# 08
BASF Corporation (BASF)--# 21
Benchmark Foam, Inc. (Benchmark)--# 04
Big Sky Insulations, Inc. (Big Sky)--# 05
The Celotex Corporation (Celotex)--# 25
Cellulose Insulation Manufacturers Association (CIMA)--# 19
Clayville Insulation (Clayville)--# 34
Corbond Corp (Corbond)--# 41
Dow Chemical Canada Inc. (Dow)--# 37
Energy Control, Inc. (ECI)--# 23
England & Associates (England)--# 18
EPS Molders Association (EPSMA)--# 13
Fi-Foil Co., Inc., by William Lippy (Fi-Foil/Lippy)--# 42
Fi-Foil Co., Inc., by Ed Nowman (Fi-Foil/Nowman)--# 15
FischerSips Inc. (FischerSips)--# 36
GreenStone Industries, by Ivan T. Smith (GreenStone/Smith)--# 32
GreenStone Industries, by Joel Tranmer (GreenStone/Tranmer)--# 20
[[Page 48049]]
Hamilton Mfg., Inc. (Hamilton)--# 22
Insulation Contractors Association of America (ICAA/1)--# 17
Insulation Contractors Association of America (ICAA/2)--# 40
Insulspan, Inc. (Insulspan)--# 33
Rose E. Kettering (Kettering)--# 07
James A. McGarry (McGarry)--# 10
Midwest Roofing Contractors Association (MRCA)--# 31
North American Insulation Manufacturers Association (NAIMA)--# 24
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, by Kenneth E. Wilkes, PhD, PE (ORNL/
Wilkes)--# 29
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, by David W. Yarbrough, PhD, PE (ORNL/
Yarbrough)--# 28
Polyisocyanurate Insulation Manufacturers Association (PIMA)--# 30
Plymouth Foam Products (Plymouth)--# 01
W.H. Porter, Inc. (Porter)--# 03
Marilyn Raeth (Raeth)--# 09
Regal Industries, Inc. (Regal)--# 16
Rock Wool Manufacturing Co. (Rock Wool Mfg./1)--# 06
Rock Wool Manufacturing Co. (Rock Wool Mfg./2)--# 39
Structural Insulated Panel Association (SIPA)--# 11
Superior Aluminum Insulation Inc. (Superior)--# 27
Tascon, Inc. (Tascon)--# 35
Tierra Consulting Group (Tierra)--# 12
Tennessee Technological University, by David W. Yarbrough, PhD, PE (TN
Tech/Yarbrough)--# 26
Western Insulfoam, Division of Premier Industries, Inc. (Western)--# 14
[FR Doc. 99-22577 Filed 8-31-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-M
