This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

2934 

Vol. 83, No. 14 

Monday, January 22, 2018 

1The Commission promulgated the R-value Rule 

pursuant to section 18 of the Federal Trade 

Commission Act (‘‘FTC Act’’), 15 U.S.C. 57a. The 

Rule became effective on September 30, 1980. See 

44 FR 50218 (Aug. 27, 1979). 

2Additional Commission rules or guides may also 

apply to home insulation sellers. See, e.g., 16 CFR 

parts 701 and 702 (warranty-related rules), and 16 

CFR part 260 (Guides for the Use of Environmental 

Marketing Claims). Further, Section 5 declares that 

unfair or deceptive acts or practices are unlawful, 

and requires that advertisers and other sellers have 

a reasonable basis for advertising and other 

promotional claims before they are disseminated. 

See Deception Policy Statement, appended to 

Cliffdale Assoc., Inc., 103 FTC 110, 174 (1984); and 

FTC Policy Statement on Unfairness, appended to 

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

and Policy Statement Regarding Advertising 

Substantiation, 49 FR 30999 (1984), reprinted in 

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

3See 16 CFR 460.2. 4The Rule does not cover pipe insulation or any 

type of duct insulation except for duct wrap. See 

44 FR at 50238, n. 170 (the Commission explained 

that pipe insulation is used primarily to reduce 

condensation). 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 460 

[RIN 3084–AB40] 

Labeling and Advertising of Home 

Insulation: Trade Regulation Rule 

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’) seeks 

comments on proposed amendments to 

its Trade Regulation Rule Concerning 

the Labeling and Advertising of Home 

Insulation (‘‘R-value Rule’’ or ‘‘Rule’’). 

This document provides background on 

the R-value Rule and this proceeding; 

and discusses public comments 

received by the Commission and solicits 

further comments on the proposed 

amendments to clarify, streamline, and 

improve the Rule’s requirements. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before March 23, 2018. 

Parties interested in an opportunity to 

present views orally, should submit a 

request to do so as explained below, and 

such requests must be received on or 

before March 23, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may file a 

comment online or on paper, by 

following the instructions in the 

Request for Comment part of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below. Write ‘‘R-value Rule (No. 

R811001)’’ on your comment, and file 

your comment online at https://

ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/Rvalue, by following the instructions on 

the web-based form. If you prefer to file 

your comment on paper, mail your 

comment to the following address: 

Federal Trade Commission, Office of the 

Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue 

NW, Suite CC–5610 (Annex E), 

Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your 

comment to the following address: 

Federal Trade Commission, Office of the 

Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th 

Street SW, 5th Floor, Suite 5610, 

Washington, DC 20024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Hampton Newsome, Attorney, (202) 

326–2889, Division of Enforcement, 

Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal 

Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania 

Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20580. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The Commission promulgated the Rvalue Rule in 1979 to address the failure 

of the home insulation marketplace to 

provide essential pre-purchase 

information to consumers, primarily an 

insulation product’s ‘‘R-value.’’ 1 An 

insulation product’s ‘‘R-value’’ rates the 

product’s ability to restrict heat flow 

and, therefore, reduce energy costs. The 

higher the R-value, the better the 

product’s insulating ability. R-value 

ratings vary among types and forms of 

home insulations and even among 

products of the same type and form. 

For insulation marketed for use in 

residential structures, the Rule requires 

R-value disclosures, directs 

manufacturers to substantiate the claims 

made in these disclosures, and prohibits 

certain claims unless they are true and 

non-misleading. Specifically, the Rule 

requires insulation sellers to disclose 

the insulation product’s R-value and 

related information based on uniform, 

industry-adopted test procedures.2 This 

information enables consumers to 

evaluate the performance and costeffectiveness of competing products. 

A. Products Covered 

The R-value Rule covers all ‘‘home 

insulation products.’’ Under the Rule, 

the term ‘‘insulation’’ includes any 

product ‘‘mainly used to slow down 

heat flow’’ from, for example, a heated 

interior through exterior walls to the 

outside.3 The Rule covers most types of 

insulation marketed for use in 

residential structures.4 It does not cover 

insulation marketed for use in 

commercial (including industrial) 

buildings. In addition, it generally does 

not apply to non-insulation products 

with insulating characteristics, such as 

storm windows or storm doors. 

Home insulation falls into two basic 

categories: ‘‘mass’’ and ‘‘reflective.’’ 

Mass insulations reduce heat transfer by 

conduction (through the insulation’s 

mass), convection (air movement 

within, and through, the air spaces 

inside the insulation), and radiation. 

Reflective insulations (primarily 

aluminum foils) reduce heat transfer by 

radiation, when the insulation is 

installed facing an airspace. Within 

these basic categories, home insulation 

is made from various materials (e.g., 

fiberglass, cellulose, polyurethane, 

aluminum foil) and forms (e.g., batt, 

dry-applied loose-fill, spray-applied, 

board stock, multi-sheet reflective). 

B. Covered Parties 

The Rule applies to home insulation 

manufacturers, professional installers, 

retailers who sell insulation for do-ityourself installation, and new home 

sellers, including sellers of 

manufactured housing (‘‘covered 

entities’’). It also applies to laboratories 

that conduct R-value tests for those who 

base their R-value claims on these test 

results. 

C. The Rule’s Basis 

The Commission first issued the Rvalue Rule in response to a variety of 

unfair or deceptive acts or practices in 

the insulation industry. Specifically, the 

Commission found that many sellers: (1) 

Failed to disclose R-values, impeding 

informed purchasing decisions and 

misleading consumers who based their 

purchases on price or thickness alone; 

(2) exaggerated R-value disclosures and 

often failed to account for material 

factors (e.g., aging, settling) that reduce 

thermal performance; (3) failed to 

inform consumers about an R-value’s 

meaning and importance; (4) 

exaggerated fuel bill savings and failed 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 14 / Monday, January 22, 2018 / Proposed Rules 2935 

5 44 FR at 50222–24. 

6The Rule (Section 450.5) incorporates by 

reference ASTM test procedures, which ASTM 

reviews and revises periodically. For mass 

insulations, the required tests are ASTM C177, 

C236, C518, and C976. 44 FR at 50226, n. 189. 

7The Rule requires that the R-value of a singlesheet reflective insulation product be tested under 

ASTM E408 or another test method that provides 

comparable results. 

8 44 FR at 50219–20, 50227–28. 

9 16 CFR 460.12(c). 

10See Section 16 CFR 460.19. 

11 44 FR at 50233–34. 

12 70 FR 31258 (May 31, 2005). 

13 81 FR 35661 (June 3, 2016). 

14The comments are located at: https://

www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments/initiative-649. 

American Chemistry Council (ACC) (#00016 and 

#00006); EPS Industry Alliance (#00017); North 

American Insulation Manufacturers Association 

(NAIMA) (#00011 and #00018); Icynene 

Corporation (#00019); Conner (#00022); 

Polyisocyanurate Insulation Manufacturers 

Association (PIMA) (#00015); Insulation 

Contractors Association of America (ICAA) 

(#00013); Vinyl Siding Institute (VSI) (#00014); 

Extruded Polystyrene Foam Association (XPSA) 

(#00012); California Investor Owned Utilities (CA 

IOUs) (#00009); AFM Corp. (#00010); EPS Industry 

Alliance (#00011); Strauch (#00007); Turk (#00004); 

and Graen (#00003). 

15The amendments also make a non-substantive 

change to section 460.2 (i.e., changing the term 

‘‘slow down’’ to ‘‘slow’’). 

to disclose that savings vary depending 

on consumers’ particular circumstances; 

or (5) falsely claimed that consumers’ 

insulation purchases would qualify for 

tax credits, or that products had been 

‘‘certified’’ or ‘‘favored’’ by federal 

agencies.5

D. The Rule’s Requirements 

The Rule requires covered entities to 

disclose R-value and related information 

(e.g., thickness, coverage area per 

package) on package labels and 

manufacturers’ fact sheets. Covered 

entities must derive these disclosures 

from tests conducted according to one of 

four specified American Society of 

Testing and Materials (‘‘ASTM’’) test 

procedures that measure thermal 

performance under ‘‘steady-state’’ (i.e., 

static) conditions.6 Industry members 

must conduct tests for mass insulation 

products on the insulation material 

alone (excluding any airspace) at a mean 

temperature of 75 °F. The Rule requires 

testing for reflective insulation products 

according to either ASTM C 236 or 

ASTM C 976, which generate R-values 

for insulation systems (such as those 

that include one or more air spaces).7

The Rule’s R-value tests account for 

factors that can affect insulation’s 

thermal performance. For example, tests 

for polyurethane, polyisocyanurate, and 

extruded polystyrene insulation account 

for aging, and tests for loose-fill 

insulation products reflect the effect of 

settling.8

The Rule also requires specific 

disclosures on manufacturer product 

labels and fact sheets, installer receipts, 

and new home seller contracts. For 

example, insulation labels must display 

the product’s R-value and the statement 

‘‘R means resistance to heat flow. The 

higher the R-value, the greater the 

insulating power.’’ 9 The Rule also 

requires that certain affirmative 

disclosures appear in advertising and 

other promotional materials (including 

those on the internet) containing an Rvalue, price, thickness, or energy-saving 

claim, or comparing one type of 

insulation to another. For example, if an 

advertisement contains an R-value, it 

must disclose the type of insulation 

being sold and the thickness needed to 

obtain that R-value, as well as the 

statement: ‘‘The higher the R-value, the 

greater the insulating power. Ask your 

seller for the fact sheet on R-values.’’ In 

addition, if an advertisement contains 

an energy saving claim, it must disclose: 

‘‘Savings vary. Find out why in the 

seller’s fact sheet on R-values. Higher Rvalues mean greater insulating power.’’ 

The Rule also requires manufacturers 

and other sellers to have a ‘‘reasonable 

basis’’ for any energy-saving claims they 

make on labels or in advertising.10

Although the Rule does not specify how 

they must substantiate such claims, the 

Commission explained when issuing the 

Rule that scientifically reliable 

measurements of fuel use in actual 

houses, or reliable computer models or 

methods of heat flow calculations, 

would meet the reasonable basis 

standard.11 Sellers other than 

manufacturers can rely on the 

manufacturer’s claims unless they 

know, or should know, that the 

manufacturer lacks a reasonable basis 

for their claims. 

II. Regulatory Review 

The Commission reviews its rules and 

guides periodically to ascertain their 

costs and benefits, regulatory and 

economic impact, and general 

effectiveness in protecting consumers 

and helping industry avoid deceptive 

claims. These reviews assist the 

Commission in identifying rules and 

guides that warrant modification or 

rescission. As part of its last review in 

2005, the Commission issued several 

amendments to update and improve the 

Rule. For example, the Commission 

added a temperature differential 

requirement for testing, updated tests 

for reflective insulation, and required 

new initial installed thickness 

disclosures for loose-fill insulation.12

In 2016, the Commission initiated this 

regulatory review through the 

publication of an Advance Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR).13 In that 

Notice, the Commission sought 

comments on, among other things, the 

economic impact of, and the continuing 

need for, the Rule; the Rule’s benefits to 

consumers; and the burdens it places on 

industry members, including small 

businesses, subject to its requirements. 

The Commission received 16 comments 

in response.14 In the present Notice, the 

Commission discusses those comments 

and proposes several related 

amendments. 

Specifically, the Commission 

proposes to: (1) Clarify that the Rule 

covers products marketed for residential 

applications, even if those products are 

originally developed for the commercial 

market; (2) require marketers to use the 

Rule’s testing requirements to 

substantiate any R-value claims for noninsulation products; (3) add information 

about air sealing and installation to fact 

sheets; (4) clarify that online retailers 

must provide labels and fact sheets; (5) 

eliminate reference to an outdated aging 

specification; (6) revise the Rule’s 

provisions addressing the incorporation 

by reference of ASTM test procedures; 

(7) eliminate a Rule provision that 

automatically updates ASTM test 

procedures; and (8) exempt spaceconstrained advertising from certain 

affirmative disclosures.15

III. Issues Raised by Commenters 

A. Need for and Costs and Benefits of 

the Rule 

Background: In the ANPR, the 

Commission sought comment on the 

continuing need for the Rule and its 

benefits and costs to consumers as well 

as industry members (including small 

businesses). 

Comments: As detailed below, the 

commenters generally identified a 

continuing need for the Rule and urged 

the Commission to retain it. No 

commenter advocated its repeal. The 

commenters also described several 

benefits from the Rule. Finally, though 

commenters acknowledged that the Rule 

imposes some costs on industry and 

recommended several improvements, no 

commenter argued that these costs 

outweigh the Rule’s benefits. 

Most commenters supported retaining 

the Rule. For example, XPSA stated that 

the Rule ‘‘protects consumers by setting 

an even playing field’’ for insulation 

advertising claims. The ACC added that 

the Rule ‘‘helps protect consumers from 

misleading advertising claims and 

promotes fair competition among 

manufacturers of residential insulation 

products.’’ Others expressed similar 

views. According to commenter Craig 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
2936 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 14 / Monday, January 22, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

16See also ICAA comments. AFM added that the 

Rule has been instrumental in ‘‘providing 

consumers a simple and effective means to compare 

the R-value of insulations under . . . standard 

conditions.’’ 

17Commenter Strauch observed that the Rule 

‘‘has provided very good benefit to consumers in 

their selection of insulation.’’ Though Strauch 

questioned whether manufacturers would continue 

to provide R-value information in the Rule’s 

absence, the commenters did not specifically 

recommend eliminating the Rule. 

18NAIMA similarly asserted the Rule helps 

consumers by allowing competitors to easily 

challenge deceptive claims. The California IOUs 

cited to Department of Energy estimates regarding 

residential energy costs and potential consumer 

savings from insulation and home sealing. 

19NAIMA also stated that the Rule provides ‘‘an 

effective tool for leveling the playing field.’’ 

20 ICAA, representing insulation installers, 

explained that it has not seen ‘‘any significant’’ 

compliance costs associated with the requirements. 

21 XPSA added that, for small businesses, the 

Rule clearly defines conditions on participating in 

the residential market. 

22See section III.B. of this Notice. 

23Commenter Turk also mentioned experiences 

with a contractor that did not provide the Rule’s 

required disclosures. 

24The California IOUs urged FTC to coordinate 

with insulation manufacturers ‘‘on a regular basis 

to ensure compliance’’ with the Rule’s labeling 

requirements. 

Conner, the Rule helps consumers 

compare products and predict energy 

savings, and, without the requirements, 

‘‘exaggerated and inconsistent’’ claims 

would be common. EPS Industry 

Alliance remarked that the Rule ‘‘is 

essential to the competitive 

marketplace’’ because it ensures 

uniform and accurate information for 

consumers and industry members.16

NAIMA asserted that the Rule may be 

even more important today than when 

initially promulgated given record 

installation numbers; the emergence of 

new, inexperienced, or irresponsible 

advertisers; and the growing emphasis 

on environmental responsibility, energy 

savings, and pollution reduction. 

NAIMA warned that, in the Rule’s 

absence, problematic claims would 

decrease consumer trust in insulation 

products and potentially decrease their 

use. Similarly, the EPS Industry 

Alliance explained that, with residential 

and commercial buildings consuming 

40% of the country’s energy, the Rule 

helps ensure consumers use the right 

insulation amounts to meet energy 

efficiency and comfort targets. 

Commenters also noted the Rule’s 

requirements have broader implications. 

XPSA and the California IOUs 

explained the Rule’s provisions are 

commonly used in the commercial 

market, and its required disclosures 

help ensure compliance. XPSA even 

noted that the Rule is referenced in the 

International Energy Conservation Code 

(IECC), the model energy code adopted 

by most states.17

Commenters also identified many 

consumer benefits. According to the 

California IOUs, clearly marked Rvalues help consumers make educated 

purchasing decisions, taking into 

account energy savings and increased 

home comfort from insulation.18 EPS 

Industry Alliance added that the Rule’s 

enforceable and uniform baseline helps 

consumers make energy decisions. 

Commenters pointed to several 

specific industry benefits. According to 

NAIMA, the Rule creates a level playing 

field and promotes industry selfregulation measures.19 NAIMA also 

argued that the Rule defines ‘‘the 

standard of conduct without debate or 

uncertainty.’’ While describing the 

Rule’s benefits, commenters did not 

identify any significant or unwarranted 

costs imposed by the Rule on industry. 

NAIMA, for example, concluded that 

the Rule does not impose ‘‘significant 

costs on business unless the business 

violates the Rule and is fined.’’ 20 It 

added that, while legal reviews 

necessary to ensure compliant 

advertising impose some costs, they 

save costs associated with violations 

and litigation. AFM added that 

compliance costs are ‘‘low in proportion 

to sales revenue and thus do not impose 

significant cost on either manufacturers 

or consumers.’’ PIMA also observed that 

the Rule imposes ‘‘little or no cost to the 

suppliers of home insulation or to 

consumers themselves.’’ Additionally, 

XPSA asserted that the Rule’s 

compliance costs outweigh its benefits 

and that its testing and labeling 

requirements are ‘‘fair and reasonable.’’ 

It also noted that the absence of uniform 

disclosures would increase industry 

costs significantly.21 While commenters 

did not identify any significant costs for 

consumers, XPSA stated that even if 

some manufacturers pass compliance 

costs onto consumers, such costs are 

small compared to the cost to 

consumers associated with deceptive 

claims in the absence of the Rule. 

Discussion: As the commenters 

indicated, the Rule benefits consumers 

and industry members by combating 

deceptive and unfair practices, creating 

a level playing field that promotes 

competition, helping create a 

marketplace in which industry can more 

easily self-regulate,22 furnishing 

guidelines to industry for product 

testing and evaluation, and promoting 

consumer confidence. Commenters also 

indicated the Rule does not impose 

significant, unwarranted costs on 

industry members or consumers. Given 

these benefits and apparent minimal 

costs, the Commission has determined 

to retain the Rule. 

B. Prevalence of Misleading Claims 

Background and Comments: In 

response to the ANPR, several 

comments addressed the prevalence of 

false or misleading claims in the 

marketplace. For example, XPSA stated 

there is a ‘‘great deal of compliance’’ 

with the Rule, and PIMA added that the 

Rule has ‘‘generated a high degree of 

industry compliance.’’ Though the 

comments noted general compliance 

with the Rule, NAIMA indicated that 

the Rule also provides an effective tool 

for industry self-regulation to address 

those deceptive practices still appearing 

in the market.23 NAIMA noted its 

monitoring of potential compliance 

problems has revealed some sellers who 

promote and compare insulation using 

unlawful or inaccurate claims. NAIMA 

frequently challenges claims identified 

through monitoring by sending letters to 

companies and other entities promoting 

insulation. According to NAIMA, these 

warnings have been effective in bringing 

many claims into compliance. Such 

efforts, in NAIMA’s opinion, ‘‘would 

likely be meaningless if there were not 

an R-value Rule in place with 

enforcement provisions behind it.’’ 

NAIMA discussed some of the issues 

revealed by its monitoring. For instance, 

certain industry segments rely on 

‘‘outdated studies’’ or analysis that may 

not apply to their product. NAIMA also 

mentioned other problems, including 

marketers who fail to provide required 

disclosures (e.g., ‘‘savings vary’’ for 

savings claims), omitting the basis for 

comparative claims, and disseminating 

exaggerated savings claims. NAIMA also 

noted that some sellers falsely claim 

their products are tested, approved, and 

even endorsed by government agencies, 

such as the Consumer Product Safety 

Commission and the Occupational 

Safety and Health Administration. 

Finally, NAIMA asserted that some 

industry members provide R-value per 

inch of thickness claims, thus falsely 

implying that their product’s R-value is 

linear (e.g., the R-value of 4-inches of 

insulation is twice that of 2-inches).24

NAIMA stressed that these practices can 

erode public trust and confidence and 

reduce consumer investments in these 

energy-savings products. 

One commenter, Conner, identified 

additional issues. Conner provided 

testing data for batt insulation 

purchased on the open market that, in 

his view, suggest the labeled R-values 

were overstated. The measured R-value 

for all six samples ranged between 92% 

and 98% of the stated R-values. Though 

he acknowledged the results might be 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 14 / Monday, January 22, 2018 / Proposed Rules 2937 

25Conner’s results do not necessarily identify 

Rule violations; the R-values appear to meet the 

Rule’s tolerance provision. See Section 460.8 (‘‘no 

individual specimen of the insulation you sell can 

have an R-value more than 10% below the R-value 

shown in a label, fact sheet, ad, or other 

promotional material’’). Nevertheless, the results 

suggest that the stated R-values for the tested 

products may be consistently low. The Commission 

invites further comments on these issues. 

26See, e.g., United States v. Enviromate, LLC, No. 

09–CV–00386 (N.D. Ala. Mar. 2, 2009); United 

States v. Meyer Enters., LLC, No. 09–CV–1074 (C.D. 

Ill. Mar. 2, 2009); and United States v. Edward 

Sumpolec, No. 6:09–cv–378–ORL–36KRS (M.D. Fla. 

Jan. 9, 2013). 

27See, e.g., https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/ 

articles/0107-home-insulation-its-all-about-r-value. 

28See, e.g., Applegate Insulation (Cellulose 

Insulation Products), Case #5961, NAD/CARY Case 

reports (June 2016) (press release at http://

www.asrcreviews.org/nad-recommends-applegatediscontinue-certain-claims-for-cellulose-insulationfinds-company-can-support-certain-claims). 

29See 16 CFR 460.2. 

30See, e.g., 45 FR 68920 (Oct. 17, 1980) (staff 

guidance). 

31United States v. Edward Sumpolec, No. 6:09– 

cv–378–ORL–36KRS (M.D. Fla. Jan. 9, 2013); In the 

Matter of Kryton Coatings International, Inc. and 

Procraft, Inc., FTC Matter/File Number: 012 3060. 

Docket Number: C–4052 (June 18, 2002); and 

Federal Trade Commission v. Innovative Designs, 

Inc., 2:16–cv–01669–NBF (W.D. Pa. Nov. 4, 2016). 

anomalies, he argued that was 

improbable. ‘‘It is more likely,’’ he 

asserted ‘‘that testing products ‘off the 

shelf’ gives different results [than 

labeled R-values] for some reason.’’ 

Conner noted that other studies have 

demonstrated similar results. The 

‘‘Thermal Metric Project’’ conducted six 

tests of fiberglass insulation and found 

that the measured R-value averaged 

about 97% of the labeled R-value. In 

that study, manufacturers provided the 

tested samples. The commenter raised 

several possibilities for these results, 

including compression in the packaging 

and the selection of better samples by 

manufacturers for studies. Conner urged 

the Commission to conduct additional 

testing of samples for fiberglass and 

other insulation types.25 If the testing 

demonstrates that compression affects 

the results, the commenter 

recommended the Rule require that test 

results reflect the R-value of products 

‘‘that reach the market.’’ 

Discussion: The comments suggest 

that, while compliance is generally 

high, the Rule and associated 

enforcement efforts help to address 

violations still occurring in the 

marketplace. Since the last regulatory 

review, the Commission has brought 

enforcement action under the Rule.26

The FTC also prepares consumer and 

business education materials to help 

consumers with their purchasing 

decisions and aid businesses with their 

compliance efforts.27 In addition, as the 

commenters indicated, industry 

members currently use the Rule to help 

identify and address violations. Finally, 

some competitors have resolved 

advertising disputes through the 

National Advertising Division of the 

Better Business Bureau.28 The 

Commission therefore plans to retain 

the Rule and continue to promote 

compliance through enforcement and 

business education. 

C. Coverage 

Background: The R-value Rule covers 

all ‘‘home insulation products.’’ The 

term ‘‘insulation’’ includes any product 

‘‘mainly used to slow down heat flow’’ 

from, for example, a heated interior 

through exterior walls to the outside.29

The Rule covers most types or forms of 

insulation marketed for use in 

residential structures. It also applies to 

insulation sold for use in all types of 

residential structures, including old or 

new houses, condominiums, 

cooperatives, apartments, modular 

homes, and mobile homes. It does not 

cover insulation sold for use in 

commercial (including industrial) 

buildings; nor does it apply to noninsulation products with insulating 

characteristics, such as storm windows 

and doors, caulking, weather stripping, 

garage doors, or draperies.30

Comments: In response to the ANPR, 

several commenters suggested the 

Commission expand the Rule’s 

coverage. First, the Vinyl Siding 

Institute (VSI) recommended 

broadening the Rule’s coverage to 

include insulated siding. VSI explained 

that builders commonly use insulated 

siding in the residential market to 

improve energy performance and to 

comply with the International Energy 

Conservation Code (IECC). According to 

VSI, the IECC recognizes insulated 

siding as a ‘‘form of continuous 

insulation.’’ VSI recommended the 

Commission adopt ASTM C1363–97, 

‘‘Standard Test Method for the Thermal 

Performance of Building Assemblies by 

Means of Hot Box Apparatus’’ for testing 

the thermal performance of siding. It 

also offered specific Rule language for 

testing, representative thickness (‘‘Rvalues . . . must be established for the 

specific siding profiles using typical 

installation configuration’’), and 

disclosures on labels. 

Second, XPSA and ICAA 

recommended the Rule cover insulation 

sold in the commercial market. 

Supporting expansion, ICAA noted that 

commercial building energy use 

represents 19% of all U.S. consumption. 

XPSA added that expanded coverage 

‘‘would not add cost or burden’’ because 

the commercial market already 

generally follows the R-value Rule 

requirements. 

NAIMA also addressed this issue but 

did not advocate wholesale expansion 

into the commercial market. Instead, it 

urged the Commission to clarify that the 

Rule covers traditional commercial and 

industrial products to the extent such 

products are used in residential 

applications. According to NAIMA, the 

traditional line between residential and 

commercial products has blurred. 

NAIMA’s members have reported that 

certain rigid board products previously 

reserved exclusively for commercial and 

industrial applications appear with 

greater frequency in residential 

construction. According to NAIMA, 

some industry members selling such 

products in the residential market do 

not follow the R-value Rule, claiming 

their products are commercial or 

industrial products. To address such 

practices, NAIMA urged the 

Commission to clarify that ‘‘if a product 

is used in residential insulation 

applications, there must be compliance 

with the Rule, even if the lion share of 

the product’s use is in the commercial 

and industrial market.’’ 

Discussion: Based on the record, the 

Commission proposes two Rule 

coverage amendments. First, it proposes 

to amend the Rule to apply the testing 

requirements to R-value claims made for 

any product marketed to reduce energy 

use by slowing heat flow in residential 

buildings. The current Rule only applies 

to products marketed primarily as 

insulation. However, the Commission 

has challenged R-value claims under the 

FTC Act based on false or 

unsubstantiated R-value claims for 

products sold primarily for reasons 

other than insulation and thus not 

covered by the Rule.31 These cases 

suggest there is a pattern of false or 

unsubstantiated R-value claims for 

products other than insulation, such as 

coatings, siding, and housewrap. The 

amendment should provide a more 

effective means to reduce deceptive 

claims. Marketers acting in good faith 

will have clear notice of the test 

procedures they should use to 

substantiate their R-value claims. At the 

same time, the amendment will provide 

the FTC with a more efficient and direct 

means to challenge R-value claims 

based on inadequate substantiation. 

This amendment would not impose 

any disclosure, labeling, or additional 

requirements for non-insulation 

products beyond the testing 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
2938 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 14 / Monday, January 22, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

32Specifically, as indicated in the proposed 

amendment to the Rule’s Appendix, the 

requirements of sections 460.6 through 460.21 

would not apply to R-value claims for such 

products. 

33The proposal excludes fenestration and 

fenestration attachments because these products are 

covered under the rating and certification activities 

of entities such as the National Fenestration Rating 

Council (NFRC) and DOE. See Energy Policy Act of 

1992 (Section 121 of Pub. L. 102–486). 

34 Icynene noted that DOE has funded the 

development of the ‘‘Thermal Metric,’’ which is 

designed to convey the thermal performance of wall 

assemblies. In addition, the National Research 

Council of Canada (NRCC) funded the development 

of the Wall Energy Rating (WER), a similar method 

used to illustrate the R-value metric’s shortcoming, 

and ways in which it could be adapted to better 

simulate ‘‘real-world’’ energy performance. 35 Icynene also noted that R-values are put to a 

variety of uses, including in building energy codes 

and computer modeling for energy performance. It 

expressed concern that the R-value Rule unduly 

affects construction industry practices, to the 

detriment of other factors that are important to 

thermal performance. 

36 Icynene referenced technical documents 

purporting to show that: (1) Air leakage can cause 

as much as a 70% reduction in R-value performance 

in full thermal testing of wall assemblies; (2) it is 

unlikely batt-type insulation products will be 

installed properly and perform anywhere near the 

rated performance; and (3) even if air permeable 

insulation products are of a high density, and well 

installed with a proper air barrier, but are not 

enclosed on the interior, their performance will 

decrease by 25–40%. 

37 Icynene further asserted the term ‘‘Insulating 

Power,’’ used in the Rule’s disclosures, is 

‘‘extremely misleading’’ for it assumes that a 

continuous air barrier exists and that air permeable 

materials are fully encapsulated and will yield 

stated R-value. 

38ACC asserted ‘‘the use of spray foam insulation 

(and other air impermeable foam insulations) can 

lead to greater energy savings by eliminating air 

leakage in parts of the home where the insulation 

is installed.’’ ACC cited to the Building Science 

Corporation’s Thermal Metric project, which is 

available at: http://buildingscienceconsulting.com/ 

project/thermal-metric-project. 

requirements.32 Instead, it would 

simply require that any voluntary Rvalue claim made in advertising for a 

non-insulation product be based on the 

appropriate tests referenced in section 

460.5 of the Rule (i.e., the standard 

ASTM tests incorporated into the Rule 

and currently applicable to R-value 

disclosures for insulation). The 

Commission can challenge false or 

unsubstantiated energy efficiency 

claims as violating Section 5 of the FTC 

Act. In particular, the Commission has 

already challenged energy savings 

claims as unsubstantiated where 

marketers did not have competent and 

reliable scientific evidence to support 

those claims. Accordingly, the 

Commission expects that most 

marketers who choose to make R-value 

claims for various non-insulation 

products already rely on the appropriate 

ASTM testing standards. As a result, the 

Commission anticipates that this 

amendment would pose little or no 

additional burden. However, the 

amendment would promote clarity for 

marketers regarding their obligation to 

substantiate R-value claims and provide 

a check on unscrupulous sellers who 

seek to gain an unfair advantage by 

exaggerating their product’s R-value 

based on faulty tests. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

various issues related to this proposal, 

including whether deceptive R-value 

claims outside of the Rule’s current 

product scope are prevalent (i.e., 

widespread) (see 15 U.S.C. 57a(b)(3)), 

whether such an amendment is 

necessary to address deceptive and 

unfair practices, whether the test 

procedures listed in the Rule are 

applicable and adequate for such 

claims, whether the proposal would 

create conflicts with how R-values are 

generally derived for certain products, 

and whether such a requirement would 

impose undue burdens on marketers.33

Second, in response to NAIMA’s 

concerns about commercial insulation 

in the residential market, the 

Commission proposes to amend the 

Rule to clarify that products marketed 

for residential applications are subject 

to the Rule’s requirement. The 

comments suggest that some products 

developed and marketed primarily for 

commercial or industrial structures are 

also being marketed for residential 

applications. Such products already fall 

within the Rule’s existing coverage of 

‘‘home insulation.’’ However, the 

proposed amendments would clarify 

this fact to ensure that industry 

members understand their compliance 

obligations. The Commission seeks 

comments on this proposal. 

The Commission does not propose 

extending the Rule to cover insulation 

marketed and sold solely in the 

commercial or industrial market 

because the Commission lacks sufficient 

evidence of widespread deception to 

warrant proposing such an expansion. 

D. Additional R-Value Disclosures 

Background and Comments: Some 

commenters argued that the Rule fails to 

adequately inform consumers and 

industry of factors important to 

insulation performance, particularly air 

infiltration and installation. As 

discussed below, some urged additional 

explanatory information on required 

labels and fact sheets to ensure 

consumers understand the impacts of 

these additional factors. Others 

expressed support for the current 

disclosures. 

Two commenters claimed the Rule 

emphasizes R-value to the detriment of 

other factors. ACC, representing spray 

foam manufacturers, argued that too 

much focus on R-value can ‘‘inhibit the 

public’s understanding of building 

energy efficiency.’’ ACC also asserted 

that industry has generally assumed that 

a higher R-value is better, believing, for 

instance, that a perception exists that 

‘‘twice the amount of insulation will 

deliver twice the energy savings.’’ 

According to ACC, such ‘‘thinking is 

outdated and incorrect’’ because 

building codes now recognize that wall 

and roof assembly performance can be 

as important as the amount of insulation 

installed. 

Icynene, a foam manufacturer, added 

that, ‘‘by focusing on the limited metric 

of R-value, the Rule’s disclosures give 

the impression that this metric alone is 

enough to gauge energy efficiency, 

thermal performance, and building 

comfort.’’ Icynene explained that, 

although R-value provides a good 

comparative metric among similar 

product categories (e.g., batt to batt, 

board product to board product), it is 

inadequate for comparing different 

product types because a number of ‘‘off 

the page’’ assumptions are necessary to 

make such comparisons.34 In its view, 

‘‘the attempt to force all product types 

to compete solely on the basis of Rvalue is itself a deceptive practice.’’ 35

Specifically, Icynene contended that Rvalue comparisons among different 

product categories mislead consumers 

because some products with low Rvalues provide adequate energy 

performance through other attributes, 

such as reduced thermal bridging and 

air sealing.36

Icynene and ACC also argued that the 

Rule’s disclosures do not adequately 

address air infiltration. Icynene 

contended that laboratory-derived Rvalues fail to take into account ‘‘real 

world’’ (i.e., installed) performance 

impacted by factors such as air leakage 

or convection. According to Icynene, 

improper air sealing is often the biggest 

single cost or lost opportunity 

associated with construction or 

renovations.37 Thus, in its view, the 

‘‘focus on R-value alone leads to 

product selections that hurt the 

consumer.’’ ACC added that an 

insulation’s air sealing properties can 

dramatically impact energy savings by 

reducing or eliminating convective heat 

transfer (air flow) through walls and 

roof assemblies. Citing to studies, ACC 

noted inherent differences in air sealing 

performance among various 

insulations.38

To address these shortcomings, ACC 

and Icynene urged the Commission to 

amend the Rule to provide additional 

information about R-value, insulation, 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 14 / Monday, January 22, 2018 / Proposed Rules 2939 

39 Icynene also argued that packaging for most 

products should provide a date of manufacture, lot 

number for traceability, and shelf life. Such 

disclosures would, for example, allow consumers to 

determine the age of batt insulation. According to 

Icynene, this insulation does not expand to full 

thickness if compressed for transport for more than 

three months. Icynene, however, did not provide 

any information about whether existing practices 

are widespread or otherwise unfair or deceptive. 

Absent such evidence, the Commission declines to 

increase the Rule’s regulatory burden to require the 

disclosure of such information. 

40 Icynene noted that the International Residential 

Code (IRC) and the International Building Code 

(IBC) have already identified categories for air 

impermeability and vapor permeability. Icynene 

suggested the Commission reference these Code 

requirements to determine if products perform as 

Code-compliant air impermeable materials. For 

instance, ‘‘Class A: Air Impermeable’’ would 

include ‘‘air impermeable’’ products used to bridge 

gaps between other materials; ‘‘Class B: Air 

Impermeable’’ would include boardstock products 

that would contribute to air barrier systems; and 

‘‘Class C: Air Permeable’’ would include products 

that must rely on other elements for air sealing. 

41According to NAIMA, some advertisements 

wrongly ‘‘dismiss R-value as a reliable indicator of 

thermal performance’’ and encourage consumers to 

rely on air infiltration performance. 

42Citing to Thermal Metric Summary Report, 

Building Science Corporation (September 23, 2013) 

(http://buildingscienceconsulting.com/project/ 

thermal-metric-project). 

43Citing to 70 FR at 31262. 

44The California IOUs also noted that installation 

inconsistent with manufacturer’s instructions 

violates building codes. In addition, both the 

California IOUs and Conner noted that the 

Residential Energy Services Network (RESNET) has 

a grading scale to help identify the quality of 

insulation installation. 

and air infiltration. To combat R-value 

misperceptions, ACC recommended the 

Rule clarify that increasing insulation 

yields diminishing returns and that Rvalue is only one ‘‘way to quantify one 

physical property’’ of insulation 

products.39 Specifically, ACC suggested 

the Commission change the label 

statement ‘‘The higher the R-value, the 

greater the insulating power’’ to read: ‘‘R 

means resistance to heat flow in 

laboratory testing. Higher R-values can 

result in greater insulating power. As 

installed, other physical properties of 

insulation like air permeance, air 

sealing and quality of installation will 

impact performance.’’ ACC also 

recommended the Rule’s disclosures 

inform consumers that R-value 

comparisons for dissimilar materials are 

‘‘less useful.’’ Icynene suggested that the 

Rule’s statement be removed altogether. 

Icynene recommended new (or 

revised) consumer Rule disclosures 

regarding air sealing to ensure that 

designers, contractors, and others can 

‘‘take appropriate action on 

specification of products, air sealing, 

and encapsulation of materials to get 

required performance.’’ In its view, 

labeling that ‘‘goes beyond R-value’’ 

would inform consumers about 

important issues such as ‘‘continuity of 

insulation, air tightness and moisture 

control.’’ It urged suitable disclaimers 

for various energy efficiency 

characteristics of insulation products 

such as air impermeability, vapor 

impermeability, or solar reflectance. 

Icynene also recommended the 

Commission establish ‘‘categories of 

performance’’ for characteristics such as 

air impermeability and vapor 

permeability to ensure consumers know 

that attributes other than R-value ‘‘are 

important to energy efficient and 

durable construction.’’ 40 It also 

suggested the Rule require sellers to 

disclose the conditions necessary to 

achieve the stated R-value or thermal 

performance, such as whether an air 

space is required on one or more sides 

or whether air sealing is necessary. 

Not all commenters advocated for 

additional disclosures. Several 

supported the Rule’s current focus on Rvalue. EPS Industry Alliance, for 

example, explained that ‘‘[a]lthough 

there is much more information 

necessary for a fully informed choice, 

thermal resistance [R-value] is a start 

and is a valuable common 

denominator.’’ XPSA recommended the 

current affirmative disclosures remain 

in place and explained that R-values 

‘‘offer product comparison and quality 

control measures’’ and ‘‘should not be 

used to predict building performance.’’ 

In fact, it observed that testing standards 

often clearly state that they do ‘‘not 

purport to address all possible end-use 

concerns.’’ 

NAIMA, which represents both 

fiberglass and foam manufacturers, 

argued against any amendment on this 

issue. NAIMA complained that some 

industry members overemphasize 

insulation’s air infiltration performance 

and therefore these claims can be 

misleading. For example, it asserted that 

various manufacturers claim that 

‘‘stopping air infiltration with 

insulation’’ is ‘‘what really matters.’’ 

Some also claim that their insulation 

will seal entire buildings. In addition, 

marketers often use the terms ‘‘effective 

R-value’’ or ‘‘real world R-value,’’ 

which, according to NAIMA, are 

purportedly based on ‘‘some ad hoc and 

unscientific method that somehow 

combines insulation and air sealing in a 

single value.’’ NAIMA stated that these 

claims incorrectly imply that a 

product’s ability to block air infiltration, 

and not its R-value, is paramount and 

that insulation that limits air infiltration 

performs better overall than other 

insulations.41

In fact, according to NAIMA, the air 

blocking benefits of particular 

insulations are often overstated. It cited 

to a recent study indicating that ‘‘sealed 

walls of the same R-value perform 

equally well regardless of the type of 

insulation used.’’ In addition, the 

research indicated that no tested wall 

assemblies, regardless of the insulation 

type used, acted as a complete air 

barrier.42 Furthermore, according to 

NAIMA, no elements of a building’s 

thermal envelope—whether walls, attic, 

foundation, and insulation—‘‘can 

deliver the desired thermal performance 

on its own’’ despite what some 

advertisements claim. NAIMA stated 

that insulation cannot solve all air 

infiltration problems because it is never 

applied in a way to halt all possible air 

leakage. Indeed, according to NAIMA, 

‘‘insulation plays no major role in 

blocking total air infiltration in a 

home.’’ Instead, other materials such as 

‘‘gypsum board, sheathing, house wrap, 

and sealing of joints and holes’’ usually 

accomplish that function. NAIMA 

further observed that the FTC has 

declined to incorporate air infiltration 

or air leakage into the R-value Rule 

because of the absence of a reliable, 

uniform means to measure air leakage, 

and the fact that thermal performance 

cannot be measured by leakage alone.43

In addition to air infiltration, 

commenters discussed the relationship 

between insulation performance and 

installation. ACC, for instance, argued 

that inadequate installation can 

significantly affect performance. For 

example, compression of fibrous 

insulation can reduce its effectiveness, 

and improper depths or failure to ensure 

contact with proper surfaces can impact 

spray foam performance. The California 

IOUs added that installation problems, 

such as ‘‘missing insulation, gaps, or 

compression,’’ can lead to lower Rvalue, and thus higher energy costs and 

lower home comfort. For instance, 

failure to cover even small gaps will 

have a disproportionate effect on 

thermal envelope performance.44

Conner also emphasized the 

importance of proper installation 

instructions, particularly for ‘‘do it 

yourself’’ users. He noted a recent DOE 

field study conducted in six states 

demonstrating that about 45% of 

insulation was poorly installed. He also 

specifically addressed R–19 fiberglass 

insulation batts, which are generally 

6.25 inches thick and commonly 

installed in wall cavities measuring 2 x 

6 inches. Conner stated that installers 

must compress these batts to 5.5 inches 

to fit them into these wall spaces, thus 

reducing the R-value by one. Conner 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
2940 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 14 / Monday, January 22, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

45Alternatively, Conner recommended that 

manufacturers produce R–19 batts that fit in a 2 × 

6-inch cavity. 

46See 44 FR at 50226; and 68 FR 41872, 41877– 

41879. 47 DOE’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory provides 

the following, which also raises questions about the 

importance of insulation’s ability to limit air 

movement: ‘‘The ability of insulation to limit air 

movement should not be confused with ‘‘air 

sealing.’’ The insulation reduces air movement only 

within the space it occupies. It will not reduce air 

movement through other cracks between building 

parts. For example, controlling air movement 

within a wall cavity will not stop air that leaks 

between the foundation and the sill plate or 

between the wall joists and a window frame.’’ See 

http://web.ornl.gov/sci/buildings/tools/insulation/rvalue/intro. 

48The EPS Industry Alliance indicated that aging 

for closed-cell foam insulation is defined as, ‘‘the 

change in thermophysical properties of rigid closedcell foam plastic with time.’’ 

49See 44 FR at 50227–50228. The GSA 

‘‘accelerated’’ procedure was designed to age these 

insulations in a shorter period than under real-time 

conditions. GSA rescinded the specification (along 

with other insulation specifications) and then 

required that federally purchased insulations 

comply with ASTM insulation standards. 68 FR at 

41879. 

also noted that, because manufacturers 

disclose this fact on their packaging in 

much ‘‘smaller print,’’ consumers are 

not likely to notice them. 

These commenters therefore urged the 

Commission to require disclosures 

about the need for proper installation. 

The California IOUs recommended 

labels state: ‘‘Consumers should be 

aware that insulation must be installed 

properly to maintain its rated 

performance; poorly installed insulation 

will reduce the rated R-value and 

negatively impact the thermal 

performance of the building.’’ Finally, to 

address issues with R19 batts, Conner 

recommended the FTC require both R18 

and R19 to appear equally prominently 

on the label (e.g., ‘‘R19 in floors/R18 in 

2 x 6 wall cavities’’).45

Discussion: Based on the record, the 

Commission proposes changing the 

Rule’s fact sheet disclosures to better 

alert consumers to factors that may 

affect their heating and cooling costs. 

The current fact sheets generally advise 

consumers that their fuel savings 

depend on a variety of factors, including 

their climate, type of house, fuel use, 

and family size. Commenters, however, 

emphasized that proper insulation 

installation and home air sealing can 

also affect fuel costs. Accordingly, the 

Commission proposes to amend the fact 

sheets to specifically address these two 

factors. The Commission, however, does 

not propose adding this information to 

product labels because such details 

would significantly increase the label’s 

scope and size, potentially decreasing 

its effectiveness and increasing its 

burden. The Commission seeks 

comment on the proposed fact sheet 

changes, including the amount of time 

manufacturers would require to make 

such changes. 

The Commission also seeks comment 

on whether the Rule should require 

specific disclosures for R–19 batt 

insulation, as suggested by the 

comments. Specifically, commenters 

should address whether labels for these 

products should disclose that the 

product’s rating is R–18 when installed 

in typical wall cavities. Alternatively, 

commenters should address whether 

such disclosures should appear on fact 

sheets instead, or whether any 

additional disclosures are necessary at 

all. 

The Commission does not propose 

addressing the air infiltration 

performance of insulation products. In 

addition, the Commission does not 

propose amending label and fact sheet 

disclosures stating ‘‘The higher the Rvalue, the greater the insulating power.’’ 

The Commission has long recognized 

that the Rule’s uniform R-value test 

methods do not account for all variables 

applicable to insulation performance. 

Despite the R-value rating’s limitations, 

it provides an important baseline from 

which consumers can compare various 

insulation products. The Commission 

has addressed these and related 

concerns repeatedly since it first issued 

the Rule in 1979. Indeed, there are a 

variety of factors not accounted for in Rvalue tests, such as the design 

characteristics and geographic location 

of the building, the specific application 

in which the product is installed, 

outside and inside temperatures, air and 

moisture movement, installation 

technique, and others.46 However, 

quantifying and providing uniform 

comparative ratings to reflect these 

various factors would significantly 

complicate the Rule’s disclosures and 

likely confuse consumers, without 

providing commensurate benefits. 

Furthermore, commenters expressed 

significant disagreement regarding air 

infiltration disclosures.47

Although the Commission declines to 

propose mandatory label or fact sheet 

disclosures, industry members may 

voluntarily provide additional 

information in their advertising about 

the manner in which their products (or 

their competitors’ products) perform so 

long as the information is truthful and 

non-misleading. For example, if a 

manufacturer’s product performs better 

under specific, on-site conditions 

compared to competing products, the 

manufacturer may convey that fact in its 

advertising. 

Finally, the Commission proposes to 

amend section 305.14 to clarify that 

online insulation sellers must post 

labels and fact sheets for covered 

insulation products they sell directly to 

consumers. Large retailers commonly 

offer insulation for purchase through 

their websites. Though the Rule requires 

retailers to ‘‘make fact sheets available 

to your customers,’’ it does not specify 

that fact sheets must be provided for 

online sales. This amendment will 

simply effectuate the Rule’s original 

intent by ensuring online shoppers have 

access to the same information (both 

fact sheets and labels) as shoppers in 

stores. Retailers can make these 

disclosures through a variety of means, 

such as by providing information with 

expandable thumbnail images of 

package labels and fact sheets or 

conspicuous links directly to the 

information. The Commission seeks 

comment on this change, including on 

the prevalence of online insulation 

sales, any burdens associated with 

providing such information online, and 

any other associated issues. 

E. Aging of Cellular Plastics 

Background: The ANPR solicited 

comments on whether to update the 

Rule’s requirements for testing aging 

cellular plastics. Specifically, the 

Commission asked whether it should 

amend the Rule to require industry to 

estimate the long-term R-value of these 

products using ASTM C1303 (‘‘Standard 

Test Method for Predicting Long-Term 

Thermal Resistance of Closed-Cell 

Foam’’). 

Certain types of cellular plastics 

insulations (e.g., polyurethane, 

polyisocyanurate, and extruded 

polystyrene boardstock insulations) 

contain gas that gives them an initial Rvalue, which decreases over time as the 

gas diffuses from the material. The 

length of this aging process depends on 

factors such as whether the product is 

faced or unfaced, the permeability of the 

facing, and the product’s thickness.48

The current Rule addresses this process 

by requiring R-value tests on specimens 

that ‘‘fully reflect the effect of aging on 

the product’s R-value.’’ In addition, 

section 460.5(a)(1) directs industry 

members to use a portion of the 

‘‘accelerated aging’’ procedure in the 

Government Services Administration 

(GSA) Purchase Specification HH–I– 

530A or ‘‘another reliable procedure.’’ 

However, GSA has rescinded its 

specification, rendering the reference 

obsolete.49

In the 1990’s, joint industry and 

government research efforts generated 

new test methods (ASTM C1303 and 

CAN/ULC S770) for estimating aging, 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 14 / Monday, January 22, 2018 / Proposed Rules 2941 

50ASTM C1303, ‘‘Standard Test Method for 

Predicting Long-Term Thermal Resistance of 

Closed-Cell Foam Insulation’’); and CAN/ULC S770, 

‘‘Standard Test Method for Determination of LongTerm Thermal Resistance of Closed-Cell Thermal 

Insulating Foams.’’ 

51 70 FR at 31262–4. 

52According to EPS Industry Alliance, ASTM 

C1303 is now well-established as the test method 

for predicting long-term thermal resistance of rigid 

board insulation incorporating blowing agents other 

than air. The test is administered by an adequate 

number of laboratories, and has been incorporated 

into several other standards, including ASTM C578, 

ASTM C591, ASTM C1029, ASTM C1126, ASTM 

C1289, as well as several CAN/ULC Standards (e.g., 

CAN/ULC S701; CAN/ULC S704, CAN/ULC 

S705.1). 

53ACC expressed concern ‘‘that insufficient data 

has been generated to demonstrate that ASTM 

C1303 is an appropriate method for estimating longterm thermal performance for all closed-cell 

insulation products.’’ 

54ACC offered to provide updates on this 

research as it nears completion. Icynene, which also 

noted that HH–I–530A1 is obsolete, suggested the 

use of ASTM E1029 or ICC–ES Evaluation Criteria 

AC377 for spray polyurethane products. 

55See ACC and PIMA comments. PIMA and ACC 

noted, for instance, that the C1303 itself states that 

its application is ‘‘limited to unfaced or permeably 

faced, homogeneous materials,’’ which covers many 

rigid closed-cell foam insulation types, including 

extruded polystyrene, polyurethane, 

polyisocyanurate, and phenolic. The method, 

however, does not apply to ‘‘impermeably faced 

rigid closed-cell foams . . . .’’ According to PIMA, 

the majority of closed-cell foam insulations 

available to consumers are unfaced or permeablyfaced products covered by the test. 

56According to PIMA, several widely-used 

closed-cell foam insulation products with 

impermeable facers, typically aluminum foil or an 

aluminum foil laminate, exist on the market. These 

impermeable faced products include: ASTM C1289 

Type 1, Class 1 (Polyisocyanurate with aluminum 

foil facers over a non-reinforced core foam); and 

ASTM C1289 Type 1, Class 2 (Polyisocyanurate 

with aluminum foil facers over a glass fiber 

reinforced core foam). PIMA also indicated that 

ASTM C518, the test used for almost all other 

building thermal insulation products, continues to 

be recognized as the thermal performance test 

method for the aluminum foil faced 

polyisocyanurate products identified above. PIMA 

recommended the Rule incorporate ASTM C1303 as 

the R-value test method for all closed-cell foam 

products that are either unfaced or incorporate a 

permeable facer. However, it also recommended 

ASTM C518 for products that incorporate an 

impermeable or gas-tight facer. 

often collectively referred to as the 

LTTR (‘‘long-term thermal resistance’’) 

or the ‘‘slicing and scaling’’ method.50

Unlike the older tests, the LTTR method 

measures the R-value of thin slices of 

material. These results are then adjusted 

with a scaling factor to estimate the Rvalue of full thickness boards. The test 

avoids problems with the accelerated 

aging tests, such as high temperature 

damage to specimens, but is limited in 

scope. Specifically, the LTTR method 

generally applies only to unfaced or 

permeably-faced polyisocyanurate 

(polyiso), polyurethane, and extruded 

polystyrene foam plastic insulations. 

During the 2005 regulatory review, 

the Commission considered whether to 

amend the Rule to require the LTTR 

method.51 Ultimately, the Commission 

declined to do so because commenters 

significantly disagreed on the adequacy 

of these tests and the need for additional 

development. The Commission 

concluded it was premature to mandate 

the tests but indicated it had no 

objection to the voluntary use of these 

tests to estimate long-term R-values. 

Comments: Several commenters 

addressed whether the Commission 

should amend the Rule to include the 

LTTR method. Like the 2005 review, the 

comments split, with some urging 

incorporation and others opposing such 

a change due to issues with the test 

procedures. 

Several commenters urged the 

Commission to adopt the LTTR method 

because, in their view, the test is now 

well-established and would ensure that 

R-value disclosures for cellular plastic 

insulations accurately reflect aging 

effects. For instance, the EPS Industry 

Alliance acknowledged the 

Commission’s past concerns about the 

LTTR method, but explained that the 

method is now ‘‘widely accepted and 

referenced by the consensus standard 

authorities in the United States and 

Canada.’’ 52 Others (e.g., PIMA, AFM) 

argued that earlier objections to the 

method’s adoption no longer hold 

because the method has undergone, as 

AFM put it, ‘‘continuous improvement’’ 

since its initial introduction. In May 

2012, for example, ASTM published an 

interlaboratory research report (RR:C16– 

1038), which has been used to update 

ASTM C1303. Several ASTM 

specifications now reference C1303 

(e.g., ASTM C578, ASTM C591, ASTM 

C1029, ASTM C1126, ASTM C1289, 

ASTM C1427). Similarly, PIMA 

explained that Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory (ORNL) conducted a 

‘‘ruggedness’’ study of the test 

procedure between 2007 and 2012, 

which led to ‘‘a few minor changes in 

sampling procedures,’’ increasing 

consistency and reliability. PIMA 

asserted that, in the wake of this 

activity, the test is now ‘‘recognized 

throughout North America as the best 

and most reliable measure of the longterm thermal performance of closed cell 

foam insulation.’’ EPS Industry Alliance 

further explained that, since the LTTR 

method’s introduction more than 20 

years ago, ASTM committees have met 

twice annually to ‘‘share data, propose 

modifications, increase accuracy and 

generally improve and verify the test 

method.’’ In addition, experts have 

compared test data against both 

predictive mathematical models and 

long-term verification. Given these 

improvements, commenters urged the 

Commission to require ASTM C1303 for 

determining the R-value for products 

covered by the test. 

Others, however, opposed 

incorporating the LTTR method into the 

Rule, questioning the method’s R-value 

results, coverage, and timeframe. ACC, 

for example, stated that the spray 

polyurethane foam (SPF) industry 

continues to doubt the accuracy of Rvalue results derived from the method 

for its products due to faulty 

assumptions underlying the 

procedure.53 Specifically, SPF 

manufacturers have hypothesized that 

‘‘the skin formed on the surface of 

closed-cell spray polyurethane foam 

acts as an impermeable facer’’ that 

increases (or enhances) the product’s 

long-term thermal performance. Further, 

these commenters suspect that 

specimen preparation under ASTM 

C1303 may destroy this skin, 

eliminating its benefits. Accordingly, in 

ACC’s view, the test method may 

underestimate SPF’s long-term thermal 

performance. To test this hypothesis, 

industry members have initiated a fiveyear research project to measure longterm thermal performance. According to 

the comments, interim study results 

presented in 2015 suggest discrepancies 

between values generated by ASTM 

C1303 and real-time thermal 

performance measurements. Given these 

preliminary findings, ACC argued 

against adopting the test.54 XPSA added 

that since ‘‘the standard deviation 

around the various iterations of the test 

method is significant,’’ the method has 

not been demonstrated to provide ‘‘a 

uniform means of accurately comparing 

different cellular plastic thermal 

insulations.’’ 

Commenters also discussed the 

procedure’s limited coverage. As noted 

above, ASTM C1303 and CAN/ULC 

S770 applies only to unfaced or 

permeably-faced, materials.55 PIMA, an 

advocate of ASTM C1303’s adoption, 

explained that because the 

impermeable, or gas-tight, nature of 

aluminum foil significantly restricts the 

diffusion of blowing agent gasses from 

the product over time, ASTM C1303 is 

not an appropriate test for measuring 

long-term R-value for such products. 

Advocates of the method’s adoption 

acknowledged limitations in its 

coverage, but recommended the 

Commission tailor the Rule’s scope by 

product type.56 However, XPSA 

reported that confusion persists in the 

industry about the LTTR method’s 

scope. Despite longstanding efforts 

within ASTM and CAN/ULC standards 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
2942 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 14 / Monday, January 22, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

57 Icynene noted that R-value is not easily 

measured in the field for spray foam insulation and 

asked whether the tolerance requirement should be 

written in terms of density to cover field 

enforcement. However, it offered no details 

regarding such an amendment or whether such 

prescriptive requirements in the Rule is necessary 

to address ongoing deception in the market. 

58 44 FR at 50227. 

committees, XPSA indicated that no 

clear consensus has emerged about the 

procedures’ appropriate coverage, and 

industry members have been unable to 

agree on a method for all foamed plastic 

products, impermeably faced and 

unfaced. 

In addition, several commenters noted 

that ASTM C1303 contains two separate 

timeframes for measuring R-value 

results. The first, referred to as the 

‘‘prescriptive’’ method, predicts R-value 

after five years, while the second, the 

‘‘research’’ method, calculates R-value 

at any point in the insulation’s life. 

Because the life of these insulation 

products is generally much longer than 

five years, the prescriptive method does 

not fully reflect the impacts of aging on 

R-values. To reduce confusion and 

potential deception, AFM recommended 

the Commission either require industry 

disclosure of the test’s predicted R-value 

at a 25-year period under the research 

method or allow the five-year figure 

from the prescriptive method with a 

mandatory disclosure such as ‘‘This 

product will have an R-value lower than 

the stated R-value after 5 years.’’ XPSA 

recommended the Rule require 

measurement of the product’s R-value 

over its serviceable life and not merely 

a five-year estimate. 

XPSA raised two additional concerns. 

It warned that adopting C1303 or CAN/ 

ULC S770 would eliminate the use of 

C177 as a ‘‘referee method’’ to address 

disputed thermal values. Additionally, 

it argued that, since these tests do not 

address foams that incorporate pentane 

as a blowing agent, their adoption 

would create an unfair advantage for 

such products. 

Finally, several commenters (AFM, 

EPS Industry Alliance, and ACC) 

recommended deletion of Rule 

references to the obsolete HH–I–530A 

(GSA Standard). ACC explained that it 

is an ‘‘an outdated and unnecessary 

method for aging foam insulation 

specimens.’’ 

Discussion: The Commission plans to 

continue requiring tests on cellular 

plastic insulations that fully reflect 

aging on the product’s R-value, as 

currently indicated in section 460.5. In 

addition, the Commission proposes 

eliminating the Rule’s reference to the 

rescinded GSA aging standard, which 

appears to be obsolete. However, for the 

reasons discussed below, the 

Commission does not propose requiring 

industry to use only ASTM C1303 or 

CAN/ULC S770 to measure aging. 

The record demonstrates that 

significant disagreements remain about 

various aspects of ASTM C1303 and 

CAN/ULC S770, including their 

accuracy, scope of coverage, and 

applicable timeframe. In light of these 

lingering questions, the Commission is 

reluctant to mandate that manufacturers 

use these methods. The Commission 

invites further comments on all aspects 

of this issue, including the criticisms 

raised about ASTM C1303 and CAN/ 

ULC S770 in response to the ANPR, the 

results of any additional research on the 

issue, and any other relevant issues. 

Commenters should address any 

adverse impacts associated with the 

proposed removal of the reference to the 

GSA standard, the impacts from the 

continued absence of a specific FTCmandated aging test, whether the Rule 

should identify ASTM C1303 and CAN/ 

ULC S770 as a safe harbor, the identity 

and reliability of any tests (other than 

ASTM C1303 and CAN/ULC S770) 

currently used by various manufacturers 

to comply with the Rule’s aging 

requirement, and whether the 

Commission should provide any 

additional clarification regarding the 

aging requirement. 

F. Tolerance, Sampling, and Inspection 

Background: In the ANPR, the 

Commission sought comment on the 

Rule’s testing requirements, including 

the ‘‘tolerance’’ provision. The Rule’s 

principal testing provision (§ 460.5) lists 

the ASTM test procedures that industry 

members must use to derive R-values. 

The tolerance provision (§ 460.8) states 

that no individual insulation specimen 

can have an R-value more than 10% 

below the rating displayed on the 

product’s label. The Commission 

developed this provision as an 

alternative to more detailed quality 

control standards. A violation of this 

provision indicates that the 

manufacturer’s quality control 

procedures are insufficient to 

reasonably assure consumers they are 

receiving the represented R-value. The 

provision does not give industry a 

license to inflate their R-values above 

the amount determined through R-value 

testing. Instead, under the Rule, stated 

R-values on labels and advertisements 

must reflect the results of tests 

performed in accordance with the Rule. 

Comments: No commenter addressed 

the Rule’s tolerance provision. However, 

NAIMA requested that the Commission 

identify ASTM C390 (‘‘Standard 

Practice for Sampling and Acceptance of 

Thermal Insulation Lots’’) as an optional 

testing method for all insulation 

products. NAIMA stated that this 

standard’s sampling and inspection 

provisions provide purchasers a 

practical level of quality assurance.57

Discussion: The Commission does not 

propose amending the tolerance 

provision or referencing new sampling 

requirements. While ASTM C390 

contains a procedure for sampling and 

inspection, the commenters did not 

identify a widespread pattern of 

noncompliance with the Rule that 

would justify imposing such additional 

requirements. In addition, the benefits 

of listing ASTM C390 as an optional 

method are unclear. Manufacturers are 

responsible for ensuring their products 

comply with the Rule’s testing, 

tolerance, and labeling provisions. They 

must also ensure that their advertised Rvalues are consistent with their test 

results and that their products perform 

as advertised, within the Rule’s 

parameters. Nothing in the Rule 

prohibits manufacturers from using 

ASTM C390 to help them meet these 

requirements. 

G. Mean Temperature 

Background: Since its promulgation 

in 1979, section 460.5 of the Rule has 

required R-value testing at a 75 °F mean 

temperature for most insulation 

products. In initially issuing this 

requirement, the Commission explained 

that ‘‘[t]he choice of this particular 

temperature is based on a significant 

volume of record evidence that 75 °F is 

already a widely-used test temperature 

and is incorporated in many voluntary 

industry standards and federal 

procurement specifications.’’ 58 Section 

460.5 requires testing at a 50 °F 

temperature differential (i.e., the 

difference between the hot and cold 

surface during testing). 

Comments: Some commenters (e.g., 

AFM, EPS Industry Alliance, and 

Icynene) recommended the Rule address 

insulation performance at mean 

temperatures lower than 75 °F. As 

discussed below, they suggested the 

Commission consider either requiring 

an additional R-value disclosure at a 

low mean temperature or requiring 

disclosures about the cold weather 

performance of certain insulations. 

These commenters raised concerns 

that the Rule’s current mean 

temperature does not reflect typical 

conditions. For instance, EPS Industry 

Alliance argued that the 75 °F mean 

temperature is not a representative 

condition for most consumer 

applications. Similarly, AFM contended 

that the 75 °F mean is most typical of 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 14 / Monday, January 22, 2018 / Proposed Rules 2943 

59EPS Industry Alliance explained that the 

National Fenestration Rating Council (NFRC) 

requires that product labels for windows report 

thermal transmission at 35 °F mean temperature. 

60 In initially issuing the Rule, the Commission 

did not attempt to specify a mean test temperature 

representative of any particular geographical region 

or season. Indeed, it reasoned that any attempt to 

do so would yield results inappropriate for other 

regions or seasons. Accordingly, the Commission 

chose a single temperature widely used in industry 

standards, recognizing the fact that it is not 

perfectly representative. See 64 FR at 48037; and 44 

FR at 50219, 50227. In this proceeding, some 

commenters contend that a 75 °F mean is not 

representative. However, it is likely a 40 °F mean 

is probably similarly unrepresentative. 

61See 68 FR at 41878–41879. 62See 64 FR 48024, 48038–48039 (Sep. 1, 1999). 63For reflective systems with more than one 

sheet, section 460.5(b) requires the use of ASTM C 

1363–97, ‘‘Standard Test Method for the Thermal 

Performance of Building Assemblies by Means of a 

Hot Box Apparatus,’’ in a test panel constructed 

according to ASTM C1224–03, ‘‘Standard 

Specification for Reflective Insulation for Building 

Applications,’’ and under the test conditions 

specified in ASTM C1224–03. 

64 68 FR at 41889–90. 

65 XPSA claimed that the cost to such disclosures 

should not be more than it has been for 

manufacturers of ‘‘mass’’ insulation. 

66Citing to Chapter 26 of the 2013 ASHRAE 

Handbook of Fundamentals (page 26.12). 

warm climates and thus not 

representative of conditions commonly 

associated with ‘‘residential home 

heating and cooling needs.’’ Icynene 

added that insulation used in a warm 

climate should be tested at a higher 

temperature, while insulation used in a 

colder climate should be tested at a 

lower temperature. 

In addition, AFM and EPS Industry 

Alliance explained that some 

insulations have much lower R-values 

under cold conditions, a fact not 

revealed from the R-values derived with 

a 75 °F mean nor disclosed on FTCrequired labels. According to EPS 

Industry Alliance, some insulation lost 

15% of their R-value at a 40 °F mean 

temperature. In its view, the failure to 

require the affirmative disclosure of 

such differences misleads consumers 

and frustrates the Rule’s purpose.59 To 

address this issue, both AFM and EPS 

Industry Alliance suggested the Rule 

require testing and disclosures at a 40 °F 

mean temperature in addition to the 

disclosures derived from a 75 °F mean. 

Alternatively, AFM and EPS Industry 

Alliance suggested the Commission 

consider a new mandatory disclosure 

for products that exhibit lower values at 

cold temperatures (e.g., when tested at 

a 40 °F mean temperature). For example, 

AFM recommended the following 

statement: ‘‘This product has an R-value 

lower than the stated R-value in cold 

conditions.’’ 

Discussion: The Commission does not 

propose revising the Rule’s mean test 

temperature requirement, nor does it 

propose requiring specific affirmative 

disclosures for insulation products that 

may exhibit lower R-values at low 

temperatures. Given the temperature 

differences throughout the country, no 

one temperature is likely to be 

sufficiently representative of consumer 

experiences.60 To address this problem, 

the Commission could require two Rvalue disclosures, derived at two 

separate mean temperatures, or require 

additional disclosures for products that 

exhibit decreased R-values at lower 

temperatures as some commenters 

suggest. Although useful information 

may be derived by testing at multiple 

temperatures, the Commission 

concludes that requiring additional tests 

would increase the burden to 

manufacturers without a corresponding 

benefit to consumers. Specifically, it is 

not clear that two disclosures would 

adequately represent the variety of 

temperatures to which insulation may 

be exposed. Moreover, it is unclear 

whether multiple R-value disclosures 

would improve consumer 

understanding of the energy efficiency 

of insulation products. For example, 

would consumers put more weight on 

the prevailing mean temperature in their 

area, the extreme temperatures for their 

area, or some other factor? Thus, 

multiple disclosures may result in 

consumer confusion or discourage 

consumers from using R-values in their 

purchases. Therefore, the Commission 

declines to revise the Rule to require 

testing at mean temperatures other than 

75 °F. Finally, nothing in the FTC Act 

or the Rule prohibits sellers from 

promoting their products’ performance 

in low temperatures in their advertising. 

If a seller’s products have better Rvalues than others at low temperatures, 

they may make truthful, substantiated 

comparative claims conveying their 

products’ advantages.61 The 

Commission seeks further comment on 

these issues. 

H. Disclosures for Reflective Insulation 

Background: Reflective insulations, 

primarily aluminum foils, work by 

reducing heat transfer when installed 

facing an airspace. The Rule requires 

reflective insulation manufacturers to 

use specific tests to determine R-values, 

and to disclose those ratings to 

consumers for particular applications.62

Section 460.5(c) requires industry 

members to test single sheet systems 

using ASTM E 408–71 (‘‘Standard Test 

Methods for Total Normal Emittance of 

Surfaces Using Inspection-Meter 

Techniques’’), or ASTM C 1371–04a 

(‘‘Standard Test Method for 

Determination of Emittance of Materials 

Near Room Temperature Using Portable 

Emissometers’’).63 Section 460.12 of the 

Rule also requires that labels for 

reflective insulation include ‘‘. . . the 

number of foil sheets; the number and 

thickness of the air spaces; and the Rvalue provided by that system when the 

direction of heat flow is up, down, and 

horizontal. 

The Rule also covers radiant barrier 

insulations, which are generally 

installed in attics facing the open 

airspace. However, as the Commission 

has stated, R-value claims are not 

appropriate for these products because 

no generally accepted test procedure 

exists to determine their R-value.64

Comments: XPSA raised several 

issues about reflective insulation 

marketing. Specifically, it argued that 

reflective insulation sellers do not have 

adequate performance standards, 

provide insufficient information to 

consumers about installation, or use 

inadequate existing test methods. In 

addition, XPSA recommended the 

Commission change the Rule’s 

terminology for these products and add 

language stating that these products are 

not ‘‘insulation.’’ 

XPSA explained that reflective 

insulation performance heavily relies on 

proper installation and use. Specifically, 

according to XPSA, R-value claims for 

reflective insulations require sealed air 

spaces with little leakage and proper 

configuration to match specific heat 

flow direction for horizontal air-space 

applications. Though such conditions 

exist during testing, XPSA indicated 

that sellers do not always adequately 

disclose the installation instructions 

needed for such conditions. Without 

clear, comprehensive instructions, 

consumers may improperly install these 

products and fail to achieve the 

represented thermal performance. In 

XPSA’s opinion, the lack of such 

information ‘‘opens the door for 

unreasonable claims or misguided 

applications which create a deterrent to 

the competitive and appropriate use of 

these materials.’’ XPSA therefore 

recommended the ‘‘reflective 

insulation’’ industry provide additional 

guidance about testing, the air spaces 

necessary to achieve the claimed 

performance, the long-term emissivity of 

reflective surfaces, and the direction of 

heat flow effects on the claimed R-value 

for different seasons.65

XPSA further noted that reflective 

products installed behind siding 

‘‘should not be considered reflective 

insulation’’ because of the significant air 

exchange in those applications.66 The 

Rule and test procedures, however, do 

not clearly identify such limitations. As 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
2944 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 14 / Monday, January 22, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

67 XPSA also noted recent Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) efforts to address these 

issues in the Energy Star program. 

68 XPSA also argued that some market 

participants misunderstand the air-flow provisions 

in ASTM C1363. According to XPSA, the 

procedure’s airflow provisions assure the mixing of 

air in the test chamber. However, some understand 

these provisions to replicate or simulate airexchange across or within portions of the tested 

assemblies. See ASTM C1363, Appendix X1. This 

concern is primarily an issue when evaluating 

whether or not air spaces within an assembly will 

result in the desired or claimed performance. XPSA 

suggested the development of a new test method or 

the inclusion of appropriate air exchange rates on 

airspaces during ASTM C1363 testing. In its view, 

such changes will ensure that claimed reflective 

airspace R-values are reasonably consistent with 

end-use conditions likely to affect thermal value. 

69 XPSA noted that the EPA’s Energy Star 

program excludes radiant barriers, in part, because 

these products are not assigned an R-value and their 

cost effectiveness is ‘‘highly variable across climate 

zones and across various installation scenarios.’’ 

70See, e.g., ASTM C1224–03, ‘‘Standard 

Specification for Reflective Insulation for Building 

Applications;’’ and ‘‘Insulation Fact Sheet,’’ 

Department of Energy, DOE/CE–0180, 2008 at 

https://www1.eere.energy.gov/library/pdfs/

insulation_fact_sheet.pdf. 

71 68 FR at 41890. 

a result, many of these products are 

installed in spaces with significant 

airflow, eroding their thermal 

performance. According to XPSA, 

guidance regarding these issues has 

appeared ‘‘by consensus with newly 

added criteria and limitations to the 

2016 ASHRAE Standard 90.1, Section 

9.4.’’ 67

XPSA also alleged that the reflective 

insulation industry ‘‘has not produced 

adequate performance standards or 

research to guide the industry in the use 

of these products to ensure that false or 

exaggerated claims or inappropriate 

applications are not made.’’ In addition, 

it asserted that the industry has not 

provided data related to product aging, 

including the impacts of dust 

accumulation and water pitting on longterm performance.68 XPSA urged the 

Commission to request this data or ‘‘not 

allow R-value to be claimed for the 

airspaces associated with these 

products.’’ At a minimum, XPSA 

recommended these products ‘‘include 

transparent statements’’ about air space 

construction, the placement of the air 

barrier in relationship to the airspace 

and other building envelope enclosure 

components, the effects of heat flow 

direction in relation to airspace 

orientation, and the expected rate of 

degraded performance over time. These 

factors, in its view, are known to 

significantly affect the reflective 

insulation performance and thus should 

be disclosed. 

In addition, XPSA asked the 

Commission to reconsider use of the 

term ‘‘reflective insulation.’’ In its 

opinion, the term potentially deceives 

consumers by implying that reflective 

products deliver the same conductive 

thermal resistance as mass insulation. In 

fact, according to XPSA, these products 

perform differently from mass 

insulation, and using the term 

‘‘insulation’’ tends to obscure the 

important differences between the two 

products. It also argued that these 

products are not necessarily 

‘‘aluminum’’ (a term used in the Rule) 

but are rather products that generally 

have a high emissivity value, regardless 

of whether they are aluminum or 

another material. XPSA suggested the 

term ‘‘reflective film’’ instead. 

Finally, XPSA asked the Commission 

to clarify that radiant barriers and 

radiation control coatings are not 

insulation. Like other excluded 

products, such as storm windows and 

doors, radiant barriers and radiation 

control coatings behave differently from 

mass insulation products in different 

climates.69 In addition, XPSA explained 

that existing tests do not generate Rvalues for these products or quantify 

their benefits in all applications. 

Therefore, it urged the FTC to provide 

guidance indicating that energy savings 

for radiant barrier products are not ‘‘in 

any way equivalent to that of insulation 

products bearing an R-value.’’ 

Discussion: The Commission does not 

propose any new requirements related 

to reflective insulations. The Rule 

already requires labels for these 

products to disclose the number and 

thickness of the air spaces and the Rvalue provided by that system 

depending on whether the direction of 

heat flow is up, down, or horizontal. In 

addition, the Rule requires disclosures 

related to proper installation. 

Specifically, labels must contain the 

statement: ‘‘To get the marked R-value, 

it is essential that this insulation be 

installed properly. If you do it yourself, 

follow the instructions carefully.’’ If 

instructions are not included, the labels 

require a statement that ‘‘To get the 

marked R-value, it is essential that this 

insulation be installed properly. If you 

do it yourself, get instructions and 

follow them carefully. Instructions do 

not come with this package.’’ 

Absent evidence of a clear pattern of 

deceptive practices or flaws in current 

requirements, the Commission does not 

propose adding additional regulatory 

requirements. Because installation often 

involves issues specific to particular 

product types, instructions may vary 

from product to product. Therefore, the 

Rule does not generally mandate 

specific installation instructions for 

insulation products. Moreover, Section 

5 of the FTC Act already addresses 

deceptive claims. If industry sellers 

make deceptive claims concerning 

installation instructions, the FTC could 

bring an enforcement action alleging 

violations of Section 5. Moreover, 

should future evidence indicate 

persistent, deceptive installation claims 

regarding these products, the 

Commission may consider whether 

additional Rule provisions are needed to 

protect consumers. 

The Commission also does not 

propose changes to the current testing 

requirements for these reflective 

insulations. Although XPSA claimed 

that some industry members 

misunderstand certain aspects of ASTM 

C1363, there is no clear evidence that 

this test, which the Rule has required 

since 1979, is defective or opens the 

door to false or misleading claims. In 

addition, the Commission does not 

generally develop or modify test 

procedures. Instead, the Rule 

incorporates consensus industry 

standards developed by ASTM and 

similar bodies that have the required 

expertise to address improvements in 

test methods. 

Furthermore, the Commission does 

not propose to remove the term 

‘‘insulation’’ from the Rule as a 

descriptor for these products. The 

record provides no clear evidence that 

the term confuses consumers or should 

otherwise be changed. In fact, 

‘‘reflective insulation’’ is the term 

routinely used in ASTM procedures as 

well as in Department of Energy 

publications.70 While the Commission 

does not propose to change references to 

‘‘insulation,’’ it seeks comment on 

whether to replace the term 

‘‘aluminum’’ with ‘‘reflective material’’ 

or a similar term because these 

insulation systems may not always 

involve aluminum. 

Finally, the Commission does not 

propose to require warnings that radiant 

barriers and radiant control coatings are 

not ‘‘insulation.’’ It is unclear whether 

such statements would benefit 

consumers or even how they would 

interpret such a disclosure. 

Nevertheless, as the Commission has 

stated, R-value claims are not 

appropriate for radiant barrier reflective 

insulations, and sellers of radiant 

barriers, reflective coatings, and similar 

products must have competent and 

reliable scientific evidence to 

substantiate any energy savings claims 

they make.71

I. Updating Test References 

Background and Comments: In the 

ANPR, the Commission asked whether 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 14 / Monday, January 22, 2018 / Proposed Rules 2945 

72 61 FR at 13663. 

73See 1 CFR 51.1(f). 

74 44 FR at 50231. Icynene also questioned the 

basis for the Rule’s exclusion of pipe insulation. In 

promulgating the original Rule, the Commission 

noted that, although it can serve to reduce heat loss, 

pipe insulation is used primarily to prevent 

condensation on low-temperature pipelines. See 44 

FR at 50238, n. 170 (‘‘Pipe insulation . . . has 

unique qualities... .’’); and Final Staff Report to 

the Federal Trade Commission and Proposed Trade 

Regulation Rule (16 CFR part 460), July 1978 (‘‘Staff 

Report’’) at 21, 188. 

75 16 CFR 460.19(b). 

76See 70 FR at 31271; 51 FR 39650 (Oct. 30, 

1986). 

it should amend the Rule to update the 

tests currently incorporated by 

reference. Under section 460.7, the 

Commission will accept, but not 

require, the use of a revised version of 

any of these standards 90 days after 

ASTM adopts and publishes the 

revision. The Commission may, 

however, reopen the rulemaking 

proceeding during the 90-day period, or 

at any later time, to consider whether it 

should require use of the revised 

standards or reject them under section 

460.5.72 Two commenters (Icynene and 

ACC) recommended the Commission 

update the referenced tests. ACC further 

recommended the Rule allow for ‘‘the 

continual incorporation of new or 

amended consensus-based material 

specifications.’’ It explained that the 

current Rule requires outdated 

specifications and may create a 

disincentive to improve existing 

standards. 

Discussion: The Commission proposes 

to update section 460.5 reflect the most 

recent versions of the ASTM test 

procedures. It also proposes to remove 

section 460.7 to eliminate automatic 

updates to the ASTM test procedures 

incorporated by reference in the Rule. 

Doing so ensures the Rule is consistent 

with the Office of Federal Register 

(OFR) regulations. Specifically, OFR 

requires that incorporation by reference 

is ‘‘limited to the edition of the 

publication that is approved. Future 

amendments or revisions of the 

publication are not included.’’ 73 The 

proposed amendment will also ensure 

that the Rule provides notice and an 

opportunity to comment on test updates 

before they are incorporated into the 

regulation. The Commission 

periodically will review the test 

procedures incorporated by reference to 

ensure the Rule contains the most recent 

versions. 

J. Fibrous Insulation 

Background and Comments: ACC and 

Icynene suggested the Rule’s 

compression warning, currently 

applicable to duct insulation 

(§ 460.13(d)), should also apply to all 

fibrous insulation because compression 

is not unique to air duct insulation. 

Discussion: The Commission does not 

propose to change the fact sheet 

disclosure related to compression. 

When the Rule was first promulgated in 

1979, the Commission considered 

compression disclosures for both air 

duct and other insulations. In issuing 

the final Rule, it explained that air duct 

insulation ‘‘must be wrapped around 

the air duct during installation, causing 

significant compression at the edges of 

the duct,’’ while mineral wool batts, 

when installed properly, are not 

similarly compressed. In fact, 

commenters at the time indicated that 

special disclosures for such products 

would ‘‘be overly simplified’’ and 

would apply only to the performance of 

improperly installed insulation. The 

Commission has determined not to alter 

this original determination based on the 

information in new comments.74

K. Limited Format Disclosures 

Background and Comments: NAIMA 

urged the Commission to exempt 

Twitter and mobile sources from Rule 

provisions requiring insulation 

advertisements to contain statements 

such as ‘‘Savings vary. Find out why in 

the seller’s fact sheet on R-values. 

Higher R-values mean greater insulating 

power.’’ 75 NAIMA explained that 

disclosures of such length are not suited 

to smaller formats. In addition, it noted 

that the Rule already exempts radio and 

television advertisements from these 

disclosures. Like those formats, NAIMA 

argued that Twitter and mobile source 

advertising ‘‘demand pithy and concise 

messages—clever enough to catch the 

audience’s attention in a very short 

amount of time.’’ 

Discussion: The Commission agrees 

that the required disclosures may be 

infeasible or impractical for some 

methods of advertising. Therefore, the 

Commission proposes to amend the 

Rule to exempt space-constrained 

advertising from the required 

disclosures in sections 460.18 and 

460.19. The Rule already excludes 

television and radio advertising from 

the more detailed disclosures 

requirements because meaningful 

disclosures are probably not effective in 

those media.76 The same rationale 

would seem to apply to spaceconstrained advertisements in Twitter 

and mobile sources. 

Accordingly, the Commission 

proposes to exempt any ‘‘spaceconstrained advertisement’’ from the 

disclosures in sections 460.18 and 

460.19. The proposed Rule defines 

‘‘space-constrained’’ as any 

communication made through 

interactive media (such as the internet, 

online services, and software, including 

but not limited to internet search results 

and banner ads) that has space, format, 

size or technological limitations or 

restrictions that effectively prevent 

marketers from making the required 

disclosures. Industry members would 

have the burden of showing that there 

is insufficient space for the required 

disclosure. This amendment would 

appear to reduce burden on companies 

without decreasing the Rule’s 

effectiveness. The Commission seeks 

comments on this proposal. 

L. Distribution of Fact Sheets 

Background and Comments: 

Commenter Robin Turk argued that the 

Rule should require sellers to give a 

copy of their fact sheets to consumers 

instead of merely ‘‘showing’’ the fact 

sheets as currently required by sections 

460.14 and 460.15. Turk recommended 

consumers ‘‘sign off’’ on the fact they 

received the sheet and acknowledge 

they were made aware of the R-value 

requirements under the building code. 

The Commission is not proposing these 

amendments. It is not clear the Rule’s 

current approach results in consumers 

receiving inadequate information. 

Moreover, the suggested approach 

would impose burdens on industry, and 

it is not clear the benefits of the 

approach would justify such burdens. 

M. Efficiency Claims for New Homes 

Background and Comment: NAIMA 

recommended that sellers who advertise 

homes as ‘‘energy efficient’’ disclose the 

basis for such claims, including ‘‘the 

products used (appliances, insulation, 

windows), the R-value of the products 

used, and the location in the home in 

which they were used.’’ NAIMA argued 

that such disclosures would prevent 

sellers from misleading buyers with 

unsubstantiated claims. 

Discussion: The Commission does not 

propose to amend the Rule to cover 

‘‘energy efficient’’ claims for homes. 

Such a change would substantially 

expand the Rule’s scope. Energy 

efficiency claims for homes involve 

many factors, including air sealing, 

windows, appliances, lighting, and 

HVAC equipment. The number of 

variables thus requires a case-by-case 

analysis of a home’s components. Such 

variables make it difficult to provide a 

broad disclosure that would be 

generally meaningful. For example, 

certain factors, such as significant air 

leakage, can substantially limit the 

benefits of high efficiency heating and 

cooling equipment, appliances, and 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
2946 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 14 / Monday, January 22, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

77 In past cases, the Commission has required that 

marketers have competent and reliable scientific 

evidence to support their energy savings claims. 

See, e.g., In re Gorell Enterprises Inc., FTC File No. 

112–3053 (May 16, 2012); In re Long Fence & Home 

LLLP, FTC File No. 112–3005 (Apr. 5, 2012); In re 

Serious Energy Inc., FTC File No. 112–3001 (May 

16, 2012); In re THV Holdings LLC, FTC File No. 

112–3057 (May 16, 2012); and In re Winchester 

Industries, FTC File No. 102–3171 (May 16, 2012). 

In addition, the Commission already administers 

labeling programs for the energy use of many 

products important to home efficiency. 16 CFR part 

305. 

78The Commission may not issue a notice of 

proposed rulemaking unless it has ‘‘reason to 

believe that the unfair or deceptive acts or practices 

which are the subject of the proposed rulemaking 

are prevalent.’’ 15 U.S.C. 57a(b)(3). The 

Commission may find prevalence where available 

information ‘‘indicates a widespread pattern of 

unfair or deceptive acts or practices.’’ Id. at 

57a(b)(3)(B). 

79See Applegate Insulation (Cellulose Insulation 

Products), Case #5961, NAD/CARY Case reports 

(June 2016). 

80 44 FR at 50234. 

81 Icynene asked whether section 460.6 translates 

into a minimum or an average thickness required 

for spray in or blown in products. On its face, the 

provision does not exclude such products. In 

addition, in initially issuing the provision, the 

Commission discussed its application to loose fill 

products. See 44 FR at 50226. 

82 44 FR at 50234. 

83For example, some products may, in fact, 

exhibit a linear relationship between R-value and 

thickness. Indeed, in the case noted by NAIMA, 

NAD concluded the company in question 

‘‘provided a reasonable basis for its ‘R-value per 

inch claims,’ noting that the evidence in the record 

supports a finding that [the company’s] cellulose 

insulation meets the exception to the FTC’s R-value 

rule and therefore . . . is not prohibited by that rule 

from making ‘R-value per inch’ claims.’’ See http:// 

www.asrcreviews.org/nad-recommends-applegatediscontinue-certain-claims-for-cellulose-insulationfinds-company-can-support-certain-claims/. 

84 XPSA and EPS Alliance also expressed concern 

about an ongoing Department of Energy proceeding 

involving efficiency standards for walk-in coolers 

and freezers. XPSA explained that the proposed 

DOE regulation is potentially inconsistent with the 

International Energy Conservation Code for 

Commercial Buildings (Section C303.1.4), which 

follows the FTC R-value Rule on the issues of aging 

and mean temperatures. XPSA and other 

commenters have brought these concerns to DOE’s 

attention in that proceeding. 

windows. Furthermore, Section 5 of the 

FTC Act already covers such home 

energy representations, and the 

Commission can bring enforcement 

actions when appropriate to address 

deceptive claims.77 Finally, commenters 

provided no evidence that deceptive 

claims regarding home energy efficiency 

were prevalent in the housing market to 

warrant the Rule’s expansion.78

N. Acoustic Performance Claims 

Background and Comments: NAIMA 

also urged the Commission to expand 

the Rule to cover acoustic performance 

claims for insulation. According to 

NAIMA, these claims have increased, 

and a recent National Advertising 

Division (‘‘NAD’’) case addresses 

them.79 Specifically, NAIMA 

recommended the Rule require 

‘‘manufacturers to have competent and 

reliable test data per appropriate ASTM 

methods’’ to support such claims. 

Discussion: The Commission does not 

propose to expand the Rule to cover 

acoustic performance claims because it 

lacks evidence regarding the prevalence 

of misleading acoustical performance 

claims. In addition, as with energy 

efficiency claims, Section 5 of the FTC 

Act already requires manufacturers to 

substantiate any claims regarding 

insulation’s acoustic performance, and 

the FTC may bring enforcement actions 

against those who violate Section 5. 

O. R-Value per Inch Claims 

Background: Section 460.20 of the 

Rule prohibits R-value per inch claims 

unless test results prove that the 

product’s R-value per inch does not 

drop at greater thicknesses. The 

Commission previously explained that 

the basis for this provision is that Rvalue per inch claims lead ‘‘consumers 

to believe that insulation R-values are 

linear,’’ when, in fact, they often are not. 

For most insulation, R-value does not 

increase proportionally with thickness. 

Accordingly, unqualified R-value per 

inch claims are often deceptive.80

Comments: NAIMA recommended the 

Commission amend the Rule to clarify 

the rationale for the R-value per inch 

prohibitions in section 460.20. Although 

NAIMA supported the existing 

restrictions, it suggested that many 

consumers do not understand that the 

relation between R-value and inches is 

not linear. Specifically, NAIMA argued 

the Commission’s focus on the term 

‘‘linear’’ may be confusing. Accordingly, 

it recommended new Rule language 

stating that, while adding thickness may 

increase the total R-value, each added 

inch will not add the same ‘‘amount’’ of 

R-value. It also cited a recent NAD case, 

rejecting a challenge to an R-value per 

inch claim because of the lack of 

consumer perception evidence 

indicating consumers believe the 

relationship between R-value and 

thickness is linear. NAIMA noted that 

the FTC has long assumed this to be the 

case because the Rule’s ‘‘per inch’’ 

section rests on that understanding.81

Recommendation: The Commission 

declines to propose amendments to 

section 460.20. When it adopted this 

provision, the Commission recognized 

that many consumers believed the 

relationship between R-value and 

thickness was linear, particularly when 

interpreting certain claims (i.e., per inch 

claims). Specifically, in first issuing this 

provision, the Commission explained 

that misleading ‘‘references to the Rvalue for a one-inch thickness of the 

material will encourage consumers to 

think that it is appropriate to multiply 

this figure by the desired number of 

inches, as though the R-value per inch 

was constant.’’ 82 However, there is 

insufficient evidence to indicate that the 

Rule’s current language is ambiguous or 

confusing. Section 460.20 simply 

explains that industry members should 

not advertise R-value for one inch or the 

‘‘R-value per inch’’ unless ‘‘actual test 

results prove that the R-values per inch 

of your product does not drop as it gets 

thicker.’’ The Commission declines to 

revise this language as suggested 

because the explanatory language 

proposed by NAIMA may not apply to 

all insulation products and thus may 

create consumer confusion.83

Furthermore, the Rule itself does not 

include the term ‘‘linear,’’ which 

NAIMA identifies as particularly 

confusing. The Commission will 

consider whether to issue additional 

consumer and business education 

materials relating to R-value per inch 

claims. 

P. Preemption and Other Laws 

Background: Section 460.23(b) of the 

Rule provides that ‘‘[s]tate and local 

laws and regulations that are 

inconsistent with, or frustrate the 

purposes of, the provisions of this 

regulation are preempted. However, a 

state or local government may petition 

the Commission, for good cause, to 

permit the enforcement of any part of a 

State or local law or regulation that 

would be preempted by this section.’’ 

Comments: NAIMA urged the 

Commission to retain the Rule’s 

preemption provision and, to the extent 

possible, clarify it. Specifically, it noted 

that the Rule (section 460.23(b)) allows 

a state or local government to petition 

the Commission, for good cause, ‘‘to 

permit the enforcement of any part of a 

State or local law or regulation that 

would be preempted by this section.’’ 

NAIMA urged the FTC to revise the 

Rule to make clear that the Commission 

will provide the public and the affected 

industry with notice and opportunity to 

comment before the Commission makes 

any decision to waive preemption.84

Discussion: The Commission does not 

propose to amend the existing 

preemption provision. The Commission 

has already indicated that it will seek 

public comment when considering such 

preemption-related requests from states, 

just as NAIMA has requested. 

Specifically, in promulgating the Rule 

in 1979 (44 FR at 50235), the 

Commission stated that any action to 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 14 / Monday, January 22, 2018 / Proposed Rules 2947 

grant such a petition will be conducted 

in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553, 

providing notice and opportunity to 

comment for affected parties. 

H. Effective Date of Amendments 

The Commission proposes to make 

these amendments effective 180 days 

after publication. The Commission seeks 

comment on whether such an effective 

date provides those subject to the 

amendments sufficient time to come 

into compliance. 

IV. Request for Comment 

You can file a comment online or on 

paper. For the Commission to consider 

your comment, we must receive it on or 

before March 23, 2018. Write ‘‘R-value 

Rule (No. R811001)’’ on your comment. 

Your comment—including your name 

and your state—will be placed on the 

public record of this proceeding, 

including, to the extent practicable, on 

the public FTC website, at https://

www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments. 

Postal mail addressed to the 

Commission is subject to delay due to 

heightened security screening. As a 

result, we encourage you to submit your 

comments online. To make sure that the 

Commission considers your online 

comment, you must file it at https://

ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/Rvalue, by following the instruction on 

the web-based form. When this Notice 

appears at http://www.regulations.gov, 

you also may file a comment through 

that website. 

If you file your comment on paper, 

‘‘R-value Rule (No. R811001)’’ on your 

comment and on the envelope, and mail 

your comment to the following address: 

Federal Trade Commission, Office of the 

Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue 

NW, Suite CC–5610 (Annex E), 

Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your 

comment to the following address: 

Federal Trade Commission, Office of the 

Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th 

Street SW, 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex 

E), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, 

please submit your paper comment to 

the Commission by courier or overnight 

service. 

Because your comment will be placed 

on the publicly accessible FTC website 

at https://www.ftc.gov, you are solely 

responsible for making sure that your 

comment does not include any sensitive 

or confidential information. In 

particular, your comment should not 

include any sensitive personal 

information, such as your or anyone 

else’s Social Security number; date of 

birth; driver’s license number or other 

state identification number, or foreign 

country equivalent; passport number; 

financial account number; or credit or 

debit card number. You are also solely 

responsible for making sure that your 

comment does not include any sensitive 

health information, such as medical 

records or other individually 

identifiable health information. In 

addition, your comment should not 

include any ‘‘[t]rade secret or any 

commercial or financial information 

which is . . . privileged or 

confidential’’—as provided by section 

6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and 

FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2)— 

including in particular competitively 

sensitive information such as costs, 

sales statistics, inventories, formulas, 

patterns, devices, manufacturing 

processes, or customer names. 

Comments containing material for 

which confidential treatment is 

requested must be filed in paper form, 

must be clearly labeled ‘‘Confidential,’’ 

and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c). 

In particular, the written request for 

confidential treatment that accompanies 

the comment must include the factual 

and legal basis for the request, and must 

identify the specific portions of the 

comment to be withheld from the public 

record. See FTC Rule 4.9(c). Your 

comment will be kept confidential only 

if the FTC General Counsel grants your 

request in accordance with the law and 

the public interest. Once your comment 

has been posted on the public FTC 

website—as legally required by FTC 

Rule 4.9(b)—we cannot redact or 

remove your comment from the FTC 

website, unless you submit a 

confidentiality request that meets the 

requirements for such treatment under 

FTC Rule 4.9(c), and the General 

Counsel grants that request. 

Visit the FTC website to read this 

NPRM and the news release describing 

it. The FTC Act and other laws that the 

Commission administers permit the 

collection of public comments to 

consider and use in this proceeding, as 

appropriate. The Commission will 

consider all timely and responsive 

public comments that it receives on or 

before March 23, 2018. You can find 

more information, including routine 

uses permitted by the Privacy Act, in 

the Commission’s privacy policy at 

https://www.ftc.gov/site-information/

privacy-policy. 

V. Rulemaking Procedures 

The Commission finds that using 

expedited procedures in this rulemaking 

will serve the public interest. Expedited 

procedures will support the 

Commission’s goals of clarifying and 

updating existing regulations without 

undue expenditure of resources, while 

ensuring that the public has an 

opportunity to submit data, views, and 

arguments on whether the Commission 

should amend the Rule. Because written 

comments should adequately present 

the views of all interested parties, the 

Commission is not scheduling a public 

hearing or workshop. However, if any 

person would like to present views 

orally, he or she should follow the 

procedures set forth in the DATES, 

ADDRESSES, and SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION sections of this document. 

Pursuant to 16 CFR 1.20, the 

Commission will use the procedures set 

forth in this document, including: (1) 

Publishing this Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking; (2) soliciting written 

comments on the Commission’s 

proposals to amend the Rule; (3) 

holding an informal hearing such as a 

workshop, if requested by interested 

parties; (4) obtaining a final 

recommendation from staff; and (5) 

announcing final Commission action in 

a document published in the Federal 

Register. Any motions or petitions in 

connection with this proceeding must 

be filed with the Secretary of the 

Commission. 

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 

5 U.S.C. 601 through 612, requires that 

the Commission provide an Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) 

with a proposed rule and a Final 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA), 

if any, with the final rule, unless the 

Commission certifies that the rule will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. See 5 U.S.C. 603 through 605. 

The Commission does not anticipate 

that the proposed amendments will 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

The Commission recognizes that some 

of the affected manufacturers may 

qualify as small businesses under the 

relevant thresholds. Because the R-value 

Rule covers home insulation 

manufacturers and retailers, 

professional installers, new home 

sellers, and testing laboratories, the 

Commission believes that any 

amendments to the Rule may affect a 

substantial number of small businesses. 

However, the Commission does not 

expect that the economic impact of the 

proposed amendments will be 

significant because these amendments 

involve updates, clarifications and 

minor changes to the Rule. 

Accordingly, this document serves as 

notice to the Small Business 

Administration of the FTC’s 

certification of no effect. To ensure the 

accuracy of this certification, however, 

the Commission requests comment on 

whether the proposed rule will have a 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
2948 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 14 / Monday, January 22, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

85The PRA analysis for this rulemaking focuses 

strictly on the information collection requirements 

created by and/or otherwise affected by the 

amendments. Unaffected information collection 

provisions have previously been accounted for in 

past FTC analyses under the Rule and are covered 

by the current PRA clearance from OMB. 

86The proposed fact sheet amendments in 460.13 

do not constitute a ‘‘collection of information’’ 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501–3520) because they are a ‘‘public 

disclosure of information originally supplied by the 

government to the recipient for the purpose of 

disclosure to the public’’ as indicated in Office of 

Management and Budget regulations. 5 CFR 

1320.3(c)(2). 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities, including 

specific information on the number of 

entities that would be covered by the 

proposed rule, the number of these 

companies that are small entities, and 

the average annual burden for each 

entity. Although the Commission 

certifies under the RFA that the rule 

proposed in this notice would not, if 

promulgated, have a significant impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities, the Commission has 

determined, nonetheless, that it is 

appropriate to publish an IRFA in order 

to inquire into the impact of the 

proposed rule on small entities. 

Therefore, the Commission has prepared 

the following analysis: 

A. Description of the Reasons That 

Action by the Agency Is Being Taken 

The Commission is proposing 

improvements to the Rule to help 

consumers in their purchasing 

insulation by clarifying several 

provisions, updating requirements, 

ensuring proper test procedures are 

followed to determine the R-values of 

covered products, and exempting 

certain types of advertising from 

affirmative disclosures. 

B. Statement of the Objectives of, and 

Legal Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

The objective of the amendments is to 

improve the existing requirements for 

insulation labeling and advertising. The 

legal basis for the Rule is 15 U.S.C. 41 

et seq. 

C. Small Entities to Which the Proposed 

Rule Will Apply 

Because the R-value Rule covers home 

insulation manufacturers and retailers, 

professional installers, new home 

sellers, and testing laboratories, the 

Commission believes that any 

amendments to the Rule may affect a 

substantial number of small businesses. 

Nevertheless, the proposed amendments 

would not appear to have a significant 

economic impact upon such entities. 

The FTC seeks comment and 

information regarding the estimated 

number or nature of small business 

entities for which the proposed rule 

would have a significant economic 

impact. 

D. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping 

and Other Compliance Requirements 

The changes under consideration 

would not increase reporting or 

recordkeeping requirements. 

E. Duplicative, Overlapping, or 

Conflicting Federal Rules 

The Commission has not identified 

any other federal statutes, rules, or 

policies that would duplicate, overlap, 

or conflict with the proposed rule. The 

Commission invites comment and 

information on this issue. 

F. Significant Alternatives to the 

Proposed Rule 

The Commission seeks comment and 

information on the need, if any, for 

alternative compliance methods that, 

consistent with the statutory 

requirements, would reduce the 

economic impact of the rule on small 

entities. For example, the Commission 

is currently unaware of the need to 

adopt any special provisions for small 

entities. However, if such issues are 

identified, the Commission could 

consider alternative approaches such as 

extending the effective date of these 

amendments for catalog sellers to allow 

them additional time to comply beyond 

the labeling deadline set for 

manufacturers. Nonetheless, if the 

comments filed in response to this 

notice identify small entities that are 

affected by the proposed rule, as well as 

alternative methods of compliance that 

would reduce the economic impact of 

the rule on such entities, the 

Commission will consider the feasibility 

of such alternatives and determine 

whether they should be incorporated 

into the final rule. 

VII. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The current Rule contains 

recordkeeping, disclosure, testing, and 

reporting requirements that constitute 

information collection requirements as 

defined by 5 CFR 1320.3(c), the 

definitional provision within the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) 

regulations that implement the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). OMB 

has approved the Rule’s existing 

information collection requirements 

through January 31, 2018 (OMB Control 

No. 3084–0109). The proposed 

amendments make changes in the Rule’s 

labeling requirements that will increase 

the PRA burden as detailed below. 

Accordingly, FTC staff will submit this 

notice of proposed rulemaking and 

associated Supporting Statement to 

OMB for review under the PRA.85

The Commission is proposing to 

adopt a small number of rule 

amendments designed to clarify the 

Rule, reduce its burdens, and require 

specific testing procedures for noninsulation products. In the 

Commission’s view, the proposed 

amendments will not increase the 

paperwork burden associated with the 

Rule’s requirements. Under the current 

requirements, any marketer making an 

R-value claim must have competent and 

reliable evidence to back that claim. 

Accordingly, it is likely that such 

marketers already conduct testing for 

claims under the normal course of 

business. Thus, the proposed 

requirement should not increase those 

burdens. Similarly, with regard to 

online insulation sales and fact sheet 

amendments, the Rule already requires 

retailers to provide fact sheets to their 

consumers. Accordingly, the 

amendments regarding the small 

changes to fact sheets and online 

displays of fact sheets and labels should 

not create any significant increase in the 

Rule’s current burden. In addition, any 

potential increase from those 

amendments is likely to be offset by the 

amendment exempting spaceconstrained advertising from the 

affirmative disclosures in section 460.18 

and 460.19.86

Consequently, there are no additional 

‘‘collection of information’’ 

requirements included in the proposed 

amendments to submit to OMB for 

clearance under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. Although the 

Commission has tentatively concluded 

the proposed amendments would not 

increase the paperwork burden 

associated with compliance with the 

Rule, to ensure that no significant 

paperwork burden is being overlooked, 

the Commission requests comments on 

this issue. 

VIII. Communications by Outside 

Parties to the Commissioners or Their 

Advisors 

Pursuant to Commission Rule 

1.18(c)(1), the Commission has 

determined that communications with 

respect to the merits of this proceeding 

from any outside party to any 

Commissioner or Commissioner advisor 

shall be subject to the following 

treatment. Written communications and 

summaries or transcripts of oral 

communications shall be placed on the 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 14 / Monday, January 22, 2018 / Proposed Rules 2949 

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

88Quoted descriptions of ASTM standards from 

www.astm.org. 

rulemaking record if the communication 

is received before the end of the 

comment period on the staff report. 

They shall be placed on the public 

record if the communication is received 

later. Unless the outside party making 

an oral communication is a member of 

Congress, such communications are 

permitted only if advance notice is 

published in the Weekly Calendar and 

Notice of ‘‘Sunshine’’ Meetings.87

IX. Incorporation by Reference 

Consistent with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 

CFR part 51, the Commission proposes 

to incorporate the specifications of the 

following documents published by the 

American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning 

Engineers, Inc. and ASTM 

International: 88

• 2017 ASHRAE Handbook— 

Fundamentals, I–P Edition (published 

2017) (ASHRAE Handbook covers basic 

principles and data used in the heating, 

ventilation, air conditioning and 

refrigeration industry); 

• ASTM C 177–13, ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Steady-State Heat Flux 

Measurements and Thermal 

Transmission Properties by Means of 

the Guarded-Hot-Plate Apparatus 

(published October 2013)’’ (‘‘This test 

covers the measurement of heat flux and 

associated test conditions for flat 

specimens. The guarded-hot-plate 

apparatus is generally used to measure 

steady-state heat flux through materials 

having a ‘‘low’’ thermal conductivity 

and commonly denoted as ‘‘thermal 

insulators.’’); 

• ASTM C 518–15, ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Steady-State Thermal 

Transmission Properties by Means of 

the Heat Flow Meter Apparatus 

(published December 2015)’’ (‘‘This test 

method covers the measurement of 

steady state thermal transmission 

through flat slab specimens using a heat 

flow meter apparatus’’); 

• ASTM C 739–17, ‘‘Standard 

Specification for Cellulosic Fiber LooseFill Thermal Insulation’’ (August 2017) 

(‘‘This specification covers the 

composition and physical requirements 

of chemically treated, recycled 

cellulosic fiber loose-fill type thermal 

insulation for use in attics or enclosed 

spaces in housing, and other framed 

buildings within the ambient 

temperature range from ¥45 to 90 °C by 

pneumatic or pouring application.’’); 

• ASTM C 1045–07 (reapproved 

2013), ‘‘Standard Practice for 

Calculating Thermal Transmission 

Properties from Steady-State Conditions 

(published January 2014)’’ (‘‘This 

practice is intended to provide the user 

with a uniform procedure for 

calculating the thermal transmission 

properties of a material or system from 

standard test methods used to determine 

heat flux and surface temperatures.’’); 

• ASTM C 1114–06 (Reapproved 

2013), ‘‘Standard Test Method for 

Steady-State Thermal Transmission 

Properties by Means of the Thin-Heater 

Apparatus (published January 2014)’’ 

(‘‘This test method covers the 

determination of the steady-state 

thermal transmission properties of flatslab specimens of thermal insulation 

using a thin heater of uniform power 

density having low lateral heat flow.’’); 

• ASTM C 1149–11, ‘‘Standard 

Specification for Self-Supported Spray 

Applied Cellulosic Thermal Insulation 

(published August 2011)’’ (‘‘The 

specification covers the physical 

properties of self-supported spray 

applied cellulosic fibers intended for 

use as thermal insulation or an 

acoustical absorbent material, or both.’’); 

• ASTM C 1224–15, ‘‘Standard 

Specification for Reflective Insulation 

for Building Applications (published 

November 2015)’’ (‘‘This specification 

covers the general requirements and 

physical properties of reflective 

insulations for use in building 

applications.’’); 

• ASTM C 1363–11, ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for the Thermal Performance of 

Building Assemblies by Means of a Hot 

Box Apparatus (published June 2011)’’ 

(‘‘This test method establishes the 

principles for the design of a hot box 

apparatus and the minimum 

requirements for the determination of 

the steady state thermal performance of 

building assemblies when exposed to 

controlled laboratory conditions. This 

method is also used to measure the 

thermal performance of a building 

material at standardized test conditions 

such as those required in ASTM 

material Specifications C739, C764, 

C1224 and Practice C1373.’’); 

• ASTM C 1371–15, ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Determination of Emittance 

of Materials Near Room Temperature 

Using Portable Emissometers (published 

June 2015)’’ (‘‘This test method covers a 

technique for determination of the 

emittance of opaque and highly 

thermally conductive materials using a 

portable differential thermopile 

emissometer. The purpose of the test 

method is to provide a comparative 

means of quantifying the emittance of 

materials near room temperature.’’); 

• ASTM C 1374–14, ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Determination of Installed 

Thickness of Pneumatically Applied 

Loose-Fill Building Insulation’’ 

(published May 2014) (‘‘This test 

method covers determination of the 

installed thickness of pneumatically 

applied loose-fill building insulations 

prior to settling by simulating an open 

attic with horizontal blown 

applications.’’); 

• ASTM E 408–13, ‘‘Standard Test 

Methods for Total Normal Emittance of 

Surfaces Using Inspection-Meter 

Techniques (published June 2013)’’ 

(‘‘These test methods cover 

determination of the total normal 

emittance of surfaces by means of 

portable, as well as desktop, inspectionmeter instruments.’’). 

The ASHRAE Handbook and the 

ASTM standards are reasonably 

available to interested parties. Members 

of the public can obtain copies of ASTM 

C 177–13, ASTM C 518–15, ASTM C 

739–11, ASTM C 1045–07, ASTM C 

1114–06, ASTM C 1149–11, ASTM C 

1224–15, ASTM C 1363–11, ASTM C 

1371–15, ASTM C 1374–14, and ASTM 

E 408–13 from ASTM International, 100 

Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, 

PA 19428; telephone: 1–877–909–2786; 

internet address: http://www.astm.org. 

Members of the public can obtain copies 

of the 2017 ASHRAE Handbook— 

Fundamentals, I–P Edition (2017) from 

ASHRAE Headquarters 1791 Tullie 

Circle, NE Atlanta, GA 30329; telephone 

(404) 636–8400; internet address: 

https://www.ashrae.org. These 

standards are also available for 

inspection at the FTC Library, (202) 

326–2395 Federal Trade Commission, 

Room H–630, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue 

NW, Washington, DC 20580. 

IX. Proposed Rule Language 

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 460 

Advertising, Incorporation by 

reference, Insulation, Labeling, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Trade practices. 

For the reasons set out in this 

document, the Commission proposes 

adopting the following amendments to 

16 CFR part 460. 

PART 460—LABELING AND 

ADVERTISING OF HOME INSULATION 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 460 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 38 Stat. 717, as amended (15 

U.S.C. 41 et seq.). 

■ 2. Revise § 460.1 to read as follows: 

§ 460.1 What this regulation does. 

This regulation deals with R-value 

claims, as well as home insulation 

labels, fact sheets, ads, and other 

promotional materials in or affecting 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
2950 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 14 / Monday, January 22, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

commerce, as ‘‘commerce’’ is defined in 

the Federal Trade Commission Act. If 

you are covered by this regulation, 

breaking any of its rules is an unfair and 

deceptive act or practice or an unfair 

method of competition under section 5 

of that Act. You can be fined heavily (up 

to the civil monetary penalty amount 

specified in § 1.98 of this chapter) each 

time you break a rule. 

■ 3. Revise § 460.2 to read as follows: 

§ 460.2 What is home insulation. 

Insulation is any material mainly used 

to slow heat flow. It may be mineral or 

organic, fibrous, cellular, or reflective 

(aluminum foil). It may be in rigid, 

semirigid, flexible, or loose-fill form. 

Home insulation is for use in old or new 

homes, condominiums, cooperatives, 

apartments, modular homes, or mobile 

homes. It does not include pipe 

insulation. It does not include any kind 

of duct insulation except for duct wrap. 

It also includes insulation developed 

and marketed for commercial or 

industrial buildings that is also 

marketed for and used in residential 

buildings. 

■ 4. Revise § 460.3 to read as follows: 

§ 460.3 Who is covered. 

You are covered by this regulation if 

you are a member of the home 

insulation industry. This includes 

individuals, firms, partnerships, and 

corporations. It includes manufacturers, 

distributors, franchisors, installers, 

retailers, utility companies, and trade 

associations. Advertisers and 

advertising agencies are also covered. So 

are labs doing tests for industry 

members. If you sell new homes to 

consumers, you are covered. If you 

make R-value claims for non-insulation 

products described in § 460.22 of this 

part, you are covered by the 

requirements of that section. 

■ 5. Revise § 460.4 to read as follows: 

§ 460.4 When the rules apply. 

You must follow these rules each time 

you import, manufacture, distribute, 

sell, install, promote, or label home 

insulation. You must follow them each 

time you prepare, approve, place, or pay 

for home insulation labels, fact sheets, 

ads, or other promotional materials for 

consumer use. You must also follow 

them each time you supply anyone 

covered by this regulation with written 

information that is to be used in labels, 

fact sheets, ads, or other promotional 

materials for consumer use. Testing labs 

must follow the rules unless the 

industry members tells them, in writing, 

that labels, fact sheets, ads, or other 

promotional materials for home 

insulation will not be based on the test 

results. You must follow the 

requirements of § 460.22 of this part 

each time you make an R-value claim 

for non-insulation products marketed in 

whole or in part to reduce residential 

energy use by slowing heat flow. 

■ 6. Revise § 460.5 to read as follows: 

§ 460.5 R-value tests. 

R-value measures resistance to heat 

flow. R-values given in labels, fact 

sheets, ads, or other promotional 

materials must be based on tests done 

under the methods listed below. They 

were designed by the American Society 

of Testing and Materials (ASTM). The 

test methods are: 

(a) All types of insulation except 

aluminum foil must be tested with 

ASTM C177–13, ‘‘Standard Test Method 

for Steady-State Heat Flux 

Measurements and Thermal 

Transmission Properties by Means of 

the Guarded-Hot-Plate Apparatus;’’ 

ASTM C518–15, ‘‘Standard Test Method 

for Steady-State Thermal Transmission 

Properties by Means of the Heat Flow 

Meter Apparatus;’’ ASTM C1363–11, 

‘‘Standard Test Method for the Thermal 

Performance of Building Assemblies by 

Means of a Hot Box Apparatus’’ or 

ASTM C1114–06, ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Steady-State Thermal 

Transmission Properties by Means of 

the Thin-Heater Apparatus.’’ The tests 

must be done at a mean temperature of 

75 degrees Fahrenheit and with a 

temperature differential of 50 degrees 

Fahrenheit plus or minus 10 degrees 

Fahrenheit. The tests must be done on 

the insulation material alone (excluding 

any airspace). R-values (‘‘thermal 

resistance’’) based upon heat flux 

measurements according to ASTM 

C177–13 or ASTM C518–15 must be 

reported only in accordance with the 

requirements and restrictions of ASTM 

C1045–07, ‘‘Standard Practice for 

Calculating Thermal Transmission 

Properties from Steady-State 

Conditions.’’ 

(1) For polyurethane, 

polyisocyanurate, and extruded 

polystyrene, the tests must be done on 

samples that fully reflect the effect of 

aging on the product’s R-value. 

(2) For loose-fill cellulose, the tests 

must be done at the settled density 

determined under paragraph 8 of ASTM 

C739–17, ‘‘Standard Specification for 

Cellulosic Fiber Loose-Fill Thermal 

Insulation.’’ 

(3) For loose-fill mineral wool, selfsupported, spray-applied cellulose, and 

stabilized cellulose, the tests must be 

done on samples that fully reflect the 

effect of settling on the product’s Rvalue. 

(4) For self-supported spray-applied 

cellulose, the tests must be done at the 

density determined pursuant to ASTM 

C1149–11, ‘‘Standard Specification for 

Self-Supported Spray Applied 

Cellulosic Thermal Insulation.’’ 

(5) For loose-fill insulations, the 

initial installed thickness for the 

product must be determined pursuant to 

ASTM C1374–04, ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Determination of Installed 

Thickness of Pneumatically Applied 

Loose-Fill Building Insulation,’’ for Rvalues of 13, 19, 22, 30, 38, 49 and any 

other R-values provided on the 

product’s label pursuant to § 460.12. 

(b) Single sheet systems of aluminum 

foil must be tested with ASTM E408–13, 

‘‘Standard Test Methods for Total 

Normal Emittance of Surfaces Using 

Inspection-Meter Techniques,’’ or 

ASTM C1371–15, ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Determination of Emittance 

of Materials Near Room Temperature 

Using Portable Emissometers.’’ This 

tests the emissivity of the foil—its 

power to radiate heat. To get the R-value 

for a specific emissivity level, air space, 

and direction of heat flow, use the tables 

in ASHRAE Handbook—Fundamentals, 

I–P Edition, if the product is intended 

for applications that meet the conditions 

specified in the tables. You must use the 

R-value shown for 50 degrees 

Fahrenheit, with a temperature 

differential of 30 degrees Fahrenheit. 

(c) Aluminum foil systems with more 

than one sheet, and single sheet systems 

of aluminum foil that are intended for 

applications that do not meet the 

conditions specified in the tables in the 

ASHRAE Fundamentals Handbook, 

must be tested with ASTM C1363–11, 

‘‘Standard Test Method for the Thermal 

Performance of Building Assemblies by 

Means of a Hot Box Apparatus,’’ in a 

test panel constructed according to 

ASTM C1224–15, ‘‘Standard 

Specification for Reflective Insulation 

for Building Applications,’’ and under 

the test conditions specified in ASTM 

C1224–15. To get the R-value from the 

results of those tests, use the formula 

specified in ASTM C1224–15. 

(d) For insulation materials with foil 

facings, you must test the R-value of the 

material alone (excluding any air 

spaces) under the methods listed in 

paragraph (a) of this section. You can 

also determine the R-value of the 

material in conjunction with an air 

space. You can use one of two methods 

to do this: 

(1) You can test the system, with its 

air space, under ASTM C1363–11, 

‘‘Standard Test Method for the Thermal 

Performance of Building Assemblies by 

Means of a Hot Box Apparatus,’’ which 

is incorporated by reference in 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 14 / Monday, January 22, 2018 / Proposed Rules 2951 

paragraph (a) of this section. If you do 

this, you must follow the rules in 

paragraph (a) of this section on 

temperature, aging and settled density. 

(2) You can add up the tested R-value 

of the material and the R-value of the air 

space. To get the R-value for the air 

space, you must follow the rules in 

paragraph (b) of this section. 

(e) The standards required in this 

section are incorporated by reference 

into this section with the approval of 

the Director of the Federal Register 

under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. 

All approved material is available for 

inspection at the FTC Library, (202) 

326–2395, Federal Trade Commission, 

Room H–630, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue 

NW, Washington, DC 20580. It is also 

available for inspection at the National 

Archives and Records Administration 

(NARA). For information on the 

availability of this material at NARA, 

call 202–741–6030 or go to 

www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ 

ibr-locations.html: 

(1) ASHRAE Headquarters, 1791 

Tullie Circle, NE, Atlanta, GA 30329; 

telephone (404) 636–8400; https://

www.ashrae.org. 

(i) 2017 ASHRAE Handbook— 

Fundamentals, I–P Edition (published 

2017) 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(2) ASTM Int’l, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, 

P.O. Box C700, West Conshocken, PA 

19428–2959, 877–909–2786, 

www.astm.org/ (i) ASTM C 177–13, 

‘‘Standard Test Method for Steady-State 

Heat Flux Measurements and Thermal 

Transmission Properties by Means of 

the Guarded-Hot-Plate Apparatus 

(published October 2013).’’. 

(ii) ASTM C 518–15, ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Steady-State Thermal 

Transmission Properties by Means of 

the Heat Flow Meter Apparatus’’ 

(published December 2015). 

(iii) ASTM C 739–11, ‘‘Standard 

Specification for Cellulosic Fiber LooseFill Thermal Insulation.’’ (May 2011). 

(iv) ASTM C 1045–07 (reapproved 

2013), ‘‘Standard Practice for 

Calculating Thermal Transmission 

Properties from Steady-State 

Conditions’’ (published January 2014). 

(v) ASTM C 1114–06 (Reapproved 

2013), ‘‘Standard Test Method for 

Steady-State Thermal Transmission 

Properties by Means of the Thin-Heater 

Apparatus’’ (published January 2014). 

(vi) ASTM C 1149–11, ‘‘Standard 

Specification for Self-Supported Spray 

Applied Cellulosic Thermal Insulation’’ 

(published August 2011). 

(vii) ASTM C 1224–15, ‘‘Standard 

Specification for Reflective Insulation 

for Building Applications’’ (published 

November 2015). 

(viii) ASTM C 1363–11, ‘‘Standard 

Test Method for the Thermal 

Performance of Building Assemblies by 

Means of a Hot Box Apparatus’’ 

(published June 2011). 

(ix) ASTM C 1371–15, ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Determination of Emittance 

of Materials Near Room Temperature 

Using Portable Emissometers’’ 

(published June 2015). 

(x) ASTM C 1374–14, ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Determination of Installed 

Thickness of Pneumatically Applied 

Loose-Fill Building Insulation’’ 

(published May 2014). 

(xi) ASTM E 408–13, ‘‘Standard Test 

Methods for Total Normal Emittance of 

Surfaces Using Inspection-Meter 

Techniques’’ (published June 2013). 

(2) [Reserved] 

§ 460.7 [Removed and Reserved] 

■ 7. Remove and reserve § 460.7. 

■ 8. Revise paragraph (e) of § 460.13 to 

read as follows: 

§ 460.13 Fact Sheets 

* * * * * 

(e) After the chart and any statement 

dealing with the specific type of 

insulation, ALL fact sheets must carry 

this statement, boxed, in 12-point type: 

READ THIS BEFORE YOU BUY 

What You Should Know About R-Values 

The chart shows the R-value of this 

insulation. R means resistance to heat flow. 

The higher the R-value, the greater the 

insulating power. Compare insulation Rvalues before you buy. 

There are other factors to consider. The 

amount of insulation you need depends 

mainly on the climate you live in. Also, your 

fuel savings from insulation will depend 

upon the climate, the type and size of your 

house, the amount of insulation already in 

your house, your fuel use patterns and family 

size, proper installation of your insulation, 

and how tightly your house is sealed against 

air leaks. If you buy too much insulation, it 

will cost you more than what you’ll save on 

fuel. 

To get the marked R-value, it is essential 

that this insulation be installed properly. 

■ 9. Revise § 460.14 to read as follows: 

§ 460.14 How retailers must handle labels 

and fact sheets. 

If you sell insulation to do-it-yourself 

customers, you must have fact sheets for 

the insulation products you sell. You 

must make the fact sheets available to 

your customers, whether you offer 

insulation products for sale offline or 

online. You can decide how to do this, 

as long as your insulation customers are 

likely to notice them. For example, you 

can put them in a display, and let 

customers take copies of them. You can 

keep them in a binder at a counter or 

service desk, and have a sign telling 

customers where the fact sheets are. You 

need not make the fact sheets available 

to customers if you display insulation 

packages on the sales floor where your 

insulation customers are likely to notice 

them and each individual insulation 

package offered for sale contains all 

package label and fact sheet disclosures 

required by §§ 460.12 and 460.13. If you 

are offering products for sale online, the 

product labels and fact sheets required 

by this part, or a direct link to this 

information, must appear clearly and 

conspicuously and in close proximity to 

the covered product’s price on each web 

page that contains a detailed description 

of the covered product and its price. 

■ 10. Revise paragraph (e) of § 460.18 to 

read as follows: 

§ 460.18 Insulation ads. 

* * * * * 

(e) The affirmative disclosure 

requirements in § 460.18 do not apply to 

television or radio advertisements or to 

space-constrained advertisements. For 

the purposes of this part, ‘‘spaceconstrained advertisement’’ means any 

communication made through 

interactive media (such as the internet, 

online services, and software, including 

but not limited to internet search results 

and banner ads) that has space, format, 

size or technological limitations or 

restrictions that prevent industry 

members from making disclosures 

required by this part clearly and 

conspicuously. Industry members 

maintain the burden of showing that 

there is insufficient space to provide the 

disclosures that this part otherwise 

requires be made clearly and 

conspicuously. 

■ 11. Revise paragraph (g) of § 460.19 to 

read as follows: 

§ 460.19 Savings claims. 

* * * * * 

(g) The affirmative disclosure 

requirements in § 460.19 do not apply to 

television or radio advertisements or to 

space-constrained advertisements. 

‘‘Space-constrained advertisement’’ is 

defined in § 460.18(e). 

■ 12. Redesignate §§ 460.22 through 

460.24 as §§ 460.23 through 460.25 and 

add a new § 460.22 to read as follows: 

§ 460.22 R-value Claims for Non-Insulation 

Products 

If you make an R-value claim for a 

product, other than a fenestrationrelated product, that is not home 

insulation and is marketed in whole or 

in part to reduce residential energy use 

by slowing heat flow, you must test the 

product pursuant to § 460.5 of this part 

using a test or tests in that section 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
2952 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 14 / Monday, January 22, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

appropriate to the product. Any 

advertised R-value claims must fairly 

reflect the results of those tests. For the 

purposes of this section, fenestrationrelated products include windows, 

doors, and skylights as well as 

attachments for those products. 

■ 14. In Appendix to Part 460— 

Exemptions, add paragraph (d) to read 

as follows: 

In Appendix to Part 460—Exemptions 

* * * * * 

(d) The requirements in §§ 460.6 through 

460.21 of this part do not apply to R-value 

claims covered by § 460.22. 

By direction of the Commission. 

Donald S. Clark, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2017–26569 Filed 1–19–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Food and Drug Administration 

21 CFR Part 15 

[Docket No. FDA–2017–N–5319] 

Devices Proposed for a New Use With 

an Approved, Marketed Drug; Public 

Hearing; Reopening of the Comment 

Period 

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, 

HHS. 

ACTION: Notification of public hearing; 

reopening of the comment period. 

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA, the Agency, or 

we) is reopening the comment period 

for the document published in the 

Federal Register on September 26, 2017, 

announcing a public hearing on a 

potential approach for device sponsors 

who seek to obtain marketing 

authorization for their products that are 

intended for a new use with an 

approved, marketed drug when the 

sponsor for the approved, marketed 

drug does not wish to pursue or 

collaborate on the new use. In the 

document, in addition to seeking 

comments on the potential approach, 

FDA also welcomed comments on 

public health, scientific, regulatory, or 

legal considerations relating to other 

medical products intended for new uses 

with approved, marketed medical 

products of a different type where the 

sponsor for the approved, marketed 

product does not wish to pursue or 

collaborate on the new use. We are 

reopening the comment period in 

response to a request for an extension to 

allow interested persons additional time 

to submit comments. 

DATES: FDA is reopening the comment 

period on the document published on 

September 26, 2017 (82 FR 44803). 

Submit either electronic or written 

comments by February 21, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

as follows. Please note that late, 

untimely filed comments will not be 

considered. Electronic comments must 

be submitted on or before February 21, 

2018. The https://www.regulations.gov 

electronic filing system will accept 

comments until midnight Eastern Time 

at the end of February 21, 2018. 

Comments received by mail/hand 

delivery/courier (for written/paper 

submissions) will be considered timely 

if they are postmarked or the delivery 

service acceptance receipt is on or 

before that date. 

Electronic Submissions 

Submit electronic comments in the 

following way: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Comments submitted electronically, 

including attachments, to https://

www.regulations.gov will be posted to 

the docket unchanged. Because your 

comment will be made public, you are 

solely responsible for ensuring that your 

comment does not include any 

confidential information that you or a 

third party may not wish to be posted, 

such as medical information, your or 

anyone else’s Social Security number, or 

confidential business information, such 

as a manufacturing process. Please note 

that if you include your name, contact 

information, or other information that 

identifies you in the body of your 

comments, that information will be 

posted on https://www.regulations.gov. 

• If you want to submit a comment 

with confidential information that you 

do not wish to be made available to the 

public, submit the comment as a 

written/paper submission and in the 

manner detailed (see ‘‘Written/Paper 

Submissions’’ and ‘‘Instructions’’). 

Written/Paper Submissions 

Submit written/paper submissions as 

follows: 

• Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for 

written/paper submissions): Dockets 

Management Staff (HFA–305), Food and 

Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers 

Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. 

• For written/paper comments 

submitted to the Dockets Management 

Staff, FDA will post your comment, as 

well as any attachments, except for 

information submitted, marked and 

identified, as confidential, if submitted 

as detailed in ‘‘Instructions.’’ 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the Docket No. FDA– 

2017–N–5319 for ‘‘Devices Proposed for 

a New Use With an Approved, Marketed 

Drug; Public Hearing; Request for 

Comments.’’ Received comments, those 

filed in a timely manner (see 

ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket 

and, except for those submitted as 

‘‘Confidential Submissions,’’ publicly 

viewable at https://www.regulations.gov 

or at the Dockets Management Staff 

between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday 

through Friday. 

• Confidential Submissions—To 

submit a comment with confidential 

information that you do not wish to be 

made publicly available, submit your 

comments only as a written/paper 

submission. You should submit two 

copies total. One copy will include the 

information you claim to be confidential 

with a heading or cover note that states 

‘‘THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS 

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.’’ The 

Agency will review this copy, including 

the claimed confidential information, in 

its consideration of comments. The 

second copy, which will have the 

claimed confidential information 

redacted/blacked out, will be available 

for public viewing and posted on 

https://www.regulations.gov. Submit 

both copies to the Dockets Management 

Staff. If you do not wish your name and 

contact information to be made publicly 

available, you can provide this 

information on the cover sheet and not 

in the body of your comments and you 

must identify this information as 

‘‘confidential.’’ Any information marked 

as ‘‘confidential’’ will not be disclosed 

except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 

and other applicable disclosure law. For 

more information about FDA’s posting 

of comments to public dockets, see 80 

FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access 

the information at: https://www.gpo.gov/ 

fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015- 

23389.pdf. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or the 

electronic and written/paper comments 

received, go to https://

www.regulations.gov and insert the 

docket number, found in brackets in the 

heading of this document, into the 

‘‘Search’’ box and follow the prompts 

and/or go to the Dockets Management 

Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, 

Rockville, MD 20852. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Barlow Weiner, Office of Combination 

Products, Food and Drug 

Administration, 10903 New Hampshire 

Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 5129, Silver Spring, 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS