[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 137 (Monday, July 19, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41696-41724]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-16895]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 305

[RIN 3084-AB03]


Appliance Labeling Rule

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission (``FTC'' or ``Commission'').

ACTION: Final rule; opportunity for comment.

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

SUMMARY: Section 321 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 
2007 requires the Commission to consider the effectiveness of current 
labeling requirements for lamps (commonly referred to as light bulbs) 
and alternative labeling approaches. After holding a public meeting, 
conducting consumer research, issuing proposed changes to existing 
labeling requirements, and reviewing public comments, the Commission 
announces final amendments to the lamp labeling requirements in the 
Appliance Labeling Rule. The Commission also seeks further comment on 
several issues for consideration in any subsequent rulemaking.

DATES: The amendments published in this document will become effective 
July 19, 2011 except for the amendments to Sec.  305.8 which will 
become effective August 18, 2010. Comments must be received on or 
before September 20, 2010.

[[Page 41697]]


ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of this document should be sent to: 
Public Reference Branch, Room 130, Federal Trade Commission, 600 
Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. The complete record 
of this proceeding is also available at that address. Relevant portions 
of the proceeding, including this document, are available at (http://www.ftc.gov.)
    Interested parties are invited to submit written comments 
electronically or in paper form by following the instructions in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. Comments in electronic form 
should be submitted by using the following weblink: (https://public.commentworks.com/ftc/lamplabels) (and following the instructions 
on the web-based form). Comments filed in paper form should be mailed 
or delivered to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office 
of the Secretary, Room H-135 (Annex N), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20580, in the manner detailed in the Request for 
Comment part of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hampton Newsome, (202) 326-2889, 
Lemuel Dowdy, (202) 326-2981, or Matthew Wilshire, (202) 326-2976, 
Attorneys, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, 
Federal Trade Commission, Room M-8102B, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20580.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction
II. Background
III. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
IV. Effectiveness of Current Labeling Requirements
V. Public Comments and Final Amendments
 A. Product Coverage
 B. Package Labeling
 1. Two-Panel Format
 2. Package Disclosures
 a. Brightness/Light Output
 b. Energy Use/Efficiency
 c. Bulb Life
 d. Color Appearance
 e. Voltage
 f. Mercury
 g. Color Rendering Index (Not Included on Label)
 h. Total Lifecycle Cost (Not Included on Label)
 i. Other Disclosures (Not Included on Label)
 3. Off-Label Package Claims
 C. Product Labeling
 1. Mercury
 2. Lumens
 D. Reporting Requirements
 E. Testing Requirements
 F. Website and Paper Catalog Requirements
 G. Consumer Education
 H. Effective Date of Labeling Requirements
VI. Section by Section Description of Final Amendments
VII. Request for Comment
VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act
IX. Regulatory FlexibilityAct
X. Final Rule Language

I. Introduction

    The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-140) 
(``EISA'') directs the Commission to consider the effectiveness of its 
current labeling requirements for ``lamps,'' commonly referred to as 
light bulbs, and alternative labeling approaches.\1\ Pursuant to this 
mandate, on November 10, 2009, the Commission sought comment on 
proposed revisions to existing labeling requirements.\2\ Having 
reviewed the comments submitted, the Commission now publishes final 
amendments to the Appliance Labeling Rule (``Rule'') (16 CFR Part 
305).\3\ The amendments require manufacturers to provide brightness and 
energy-cost information on the front of light bulb packages and a 
detailed ``Lighting Facts'' label on the side or rear. In addition to 
these package labeling disclosures, the amendments also require certain 
disclosures on the product. These new labeling requirements should help 
consumers choose energy efficient bulbs that meet their lighting needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This document uses the terms lamp, lightbulb, and bulb 
interchangeably.
    \2\ 74 FR 57950 (Nov. 10, 2009).
    \3\ The Rule's full title is ``Rule Concerning Disclosures 
Regarding Energy Consumption and Water Use of Certain Home 
Appliances And Other Products Required Under The Energy Policy And 
Conservation Act'' (``Appliance Labeling Rule'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In effectuating these changes, this document provides background on 
the EISA provisions and the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (``NPRM''), 
discusses the public comments received in response to the NPRM, 
reaffirms the Commission's intention to work with other agencies to 
promote consumer education, explains the effective date for the 
amendments, describes section-by-section the amendments to the Rule, 
requests comment on certain issues, and analyzes the impact of the 
amendments pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction and Regulatory 
Flexibility Acts.

II. Background

    EISA directs the Department of Energy (``DOE'') to issue stringent 
energy efficiency standards for lighting products. These standards, 
which begin in 2012, will eliminate low efficiency incandescent light 
bulbs from the market.\4\ The remaining higher efficiency light bulbs 
will include products widely available now, such as compact fluorescent 
lamps (``CFLs''), as well as products likely to become increasingly 
available in the future, such as high efficiency solid-state lighting 
(e.g., light-emitting diode (``LED'') products).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 42 U.S.C. 6295(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In conjunction with these new efficiency standards, EISA directs 
the FTC to consider the effectiveness of its current light bulb 
labeling requirements and possible alternatives to help consumers 
understand and choose new high efficiency bulbs that meet their needs. 
In particular, EISA directs the Commission to consider labeling 
disclosures addressing light level, light quality, lamp life, and total 
lifecycle cost.
    In response, on July 18, 2008, the Commission published an Advance 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (``ANPR'') (73 FR 40988) seeking comment 
on potential label changes.\5\ The Commission then held a public 
roundtable on September 15, 2008.\6\ Commenters and roundtable 
participants discussed the effectiveness of current labeling 
requirements, as well as whether labeling alternatives would help 
consumers in their purchasing decisions. Finally, the Commission 
conducted consumer research to assess potential revisions to its 
labeling requirements.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The comments received in response to the ANPR are at (http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/lightbulbs/index.shtm).
    \6\ A transcript of the roundtable can be found at (http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/workshops/lamp/transcript.pdf).
    \7\ See 73 FR 72800 (Dec. 1, 2008); 74 FR 7894 (Feb. 20, 2009). 
Study results are available at (http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/lightbulbs/index.shtm).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    After reviewing the ANPR and Roundtable comments, as well as the 
consumer research, the Commission published a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (``NPRM'') on November 10, 2009. The NPRM proposed a two-
panel labeling format for light bulb packages: a front panel displaying 
brightness and energy-cost information, and a rear or side panel 
displaying a ``Lighting Facts'' label with additional information.\8\ 
The proposed mandatory disclosures included brightness, energy cost, 
bulb life, color appearance, wattage, mercury content, and voltage for 
nonstandard voltage bulbs. The proposal also gave

[[Page 41698]]

manufacturers the discretion to place the ENERGY STAR logo on the 
Lighting Facts label for products covered by that program.\9\ However, 
the Commission did not propose disclosures addressing a bulb's 
lifecycle or color rendering index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See 74 FR at 57953, Figure 2.
    \9\ ENERGY STAR is a voluntary government program administered 
by the Environmental Protection Agency that identifies high-
efficiency products. See (www.energystar.gov). See also ENERGY STAR 
logo on Sample Label 11 in Appendix L of the Final Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to changing the disclosures on package labels, the 
proposed amendments required a brightness disclosure on all the 
products themselves and a mercury disclosure on products containing 
mercury. Finally, the proposed amendments prescribed disclosures for 
the assumptions manufacturers use to calculate voluntary operating cost 
and life claims for bulbs, if they differ from the assumptions used to 
calculate those disclosures on the label.

IV. Effectiveness of Current Labeling Requirements

    In its NPRM, the Commission explained that the current labeling 
requirements, which mandate disclosures for light output in lumens, 
energy use in watts, and life in hours, are not effective for high 
efficiency bulbs. The primary problem with the current label is that 
many consumers use wattage to measure brightness, even though wattage 
actually measures energy use.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See 74 FR at 57952.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consumers' use of watts, and not lumens, to gauge light output 
worked in a market dominated by incandescent bulbs because the wattage 
of these bulbs provides a consistent proxy for brightness. For example, 
a ``100 watt'' incandescent bulb typically provides enough light for 
reading, while a ``40 watt'' incandescent bulb typically provides 
sufficient brightness to light a hallway. However, as discussed in the 
NPRM, wattage does not provide a consistent measure of light output for 
high efficiency bulbs because a particular wattage can provide 
substantially different light output across technologies. For example, 
a traditional, standard incandescent bulb typically uses 100 watts to 
provide 1,600 lumens of light output. A CFL, on the other hand, can 
provide 1,600 lumens using only 25 watts, and an LED lamp can produce 
the same light output using even fewer watts.
    No comments disputed the Commission's conclusion that the current 
label needs to be changed to better inform consumers about high 
efficiency bulbs, including addressing consumer reliance on watts as a 
proxy for brightness. However, as discussed below, commenters offered 
various opinions about the proposed changes.

V. Public Comments and Final Amendments

    The Commission received 24 comments in response to the NPRM.\11\ As 
discussed in more detail below, the comments addressed the proposed 
product coverage, the proposed package label format and content, ``off 
label'' claims on the package, labeling on the product, reporting and 
testing requirements, consumer education, and the compliance 
burden.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Unless otherwise stated, comments discussed in this 
document refer to the following: Buchanan, Robert 545052-
00004; Burns-DeMelo, Heather 545052-00005; Consortium for 
Energy Efficiency (``CEE'') 545052-00027; DOE 
545052-00029; Earthjustice 545052-00024; East 
China Hi-tech Industrialization Park (``ECHIP'') 545052-
00018; Edison Electric Institute 545052-00023; 
Environmental Council of the States 545052-00021 (also 
known as the Quicksilver Caucus or ``QSC''); Estes, Steve 
545052-00007; Gainesville Regional Utilities 
545052-00016; Gannon 545052-00003; GE Consumer and 
Industrial--Lighting (``GE'') 545052-00013; Green Seal 
545052-00019; Lutron Electronics Co., Inc. 545052-
00010; a committee of the state environmental agencies of 
Connecticut, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, 
Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington (collectively referred to as 
IMERC) 545052-00012; Malpass 545052-00009; 
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (``MPCA'') 545052-00028; 
Energy Efficiency Advocates (submitted by Natural Resources Defense 
Council) 545052-00017; National Electrical Manufacturers 
Association (``NEMA'') 545052-00026; OSRAM SYLVANIA 
545052-00022; Rubinfield, Adam 545052-00008; Ryan, 
Sean 545052-00011; Environmental Protection Agency 
(``EPA'') 545052-00014; Vranich, John 545052-
00015. All these comments are available at (http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/lamplabeling/index.shtm).
    \12\ The comments did not address the issue of lifecycle cost. 
As explained in section V.B.2.h, the Commission is not requiring a 
lifecycle cost disclosure. See also 74 FR at 57959.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Product Coverage

    In its NPRM, the Commission proposed applying the new labeling 
requirements to three types of common household (medium screw base) 
light bulbs: general service incandescents,\13\ CFLs, and general 
service LEDs.\14\ The Commission also sought comment on whether it 
should include other types of consumer lamps under the new labeling 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The final amendments require labeling for two types of 
incandescent bulbs that the EISA definitions do not cover: reflector 
lamps and 3-way incandescent lamps. As explained in the NPRM, prior 
to EISA, the Commission's labeling rules covered these bulbs because 
they were defined as ``general service incandescent lamps.'' 74 FR 
at 57953 n. 27. EISA excluded them from that definition and thus 
appears to have inadvertently removed these products from the law's 
labeling requirements. See 42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(D). However, using our 
general authority under 42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(6), the Commission is 
continuing to require labeling for these products because for more 
than a decade the FTC has required consumer labels on these common 
products for which continued labeling would assist consumers. No 
comments suggested excluding them from the amended Rule.
    \14\ 74 FR at 57952-3. Although the EISA amendments do not 
expressly require LED labeling, see 42 U.S.C. 6294, the Commission 
proposed to cover them using its general authority to label consumer 
products under 42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(6). See 74 FR at 57953 n. 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: The Commission received two significant comments about 
product coverage. First, the Energy Efficiency Advocates\15\ urged the 
Commission to expand the labeling requirements to include any screw-
base lamp regardless of base size, bulb size, bulb shape, or 
technology. In particular, they argued that consumers who buy 
intermediate and candelabra screw bulbs should receive the same 
information about light output and operating cost as proposed for 
medium screw-base bulbs.\16\ Second, GE and NEMA urged the Commission 
to exempt lamps that will no longer be sold after updated energy 
standards are issued. Specifically, beginning in 2012, new energy 
standards will phase out the sale of inefficient incandescent bulbs 
that do not meet specific efficiency standards. Because the timing of 
these standards is staggered, some incandescent bulbs will come off the 
market in 2012, others in 2013, and additional types 2014.\17\ In GE 
and NEMA's view, requiring label changes for bulbs scheduled to be 
discontinued over the next few years would waste manufacturing 
resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The Energy Efficiency Advocate comments, which were filed 
by the Natural Resources Defense Council (``NRDC''), also 
represented the views of the Alliance to Save Energy, American 
Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (``ACEEE''), NRDC, Northeast 
Energy Efficiency Partnerships, and the Northwest Energy Efficiency 
Alliance.
    \16\ In addition, Edison Electric Institute urged the Commission 
to require labeling of fossil fuel lamps such as natural gas lights, 
propane lights, and kerosene lights because of their high energy 
costs. For example, Edison Electric Institute estimated that a gas 
lamp using 2500 Btu/hr could cost approximately $262.80 per year to 
operate.
    \17\ See GE and NEMA comments. See also (http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/lighting_legislation_fact_sheet_03_13_08.pdf) (DOE 
schedule for efficiency standards).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Discussion: The final amendments cover the same bulb types 
described in the NPRM. However, the Energy Efficiency Advocates' 
suggestion that the Commission require labeling for all screw-based 
bulbs deserves further consideration. Many non-medium screw-based 
bulbs, such as intermediate and candelabra-based bulbs, are available 
to consumers for household use. The Commission, however, cannot cover 
these products without additional information about the costs and 
benefits

[[Page 41699]]

to businesses and consumers. Specifically, in order to require labeling 
for these products, the FTC would need information identifying the 
particular bulbs proposed for coverage, as well as information 
concerning: 1) whether these bulbs use significant amounts of energy; 
2) whether competing bulb models vary in light output, energy use, 
life, and color temperature; 3) whether consumers are likely to use in-
store package labels to compare products; and 4) whether package size 
or other factors create undue burdens for manufacturers.
    Therefore, the Commission seeks comment on these issues.\18\ Under 
the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (``EPCA''), the Commission must 
consider reopening this rulemaking at least 180 days before the 
effective dates of the new DOE energy standards for incandescent lamps 
if the Commission determines that further labeling changes would help 
consumers.\19\ Based on this authority, the Commission seeks comment on 
these and other issues discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The Commission also seeks comment on whether the label 
should require beam spread information for reflector lamps as 
suggested by the Energy Efficiency Advocates, and, if so, how beam 
spread should be measured and described. In addition, the Commission 
seeks comment on fossil fuel lamps, including whether they meet the 
definition of consumer product in the statute, 42 U.S.C. 6291, and 
whether they are commonly used by consumers. Finally, the definition 
of ``incandescent lamp'' in the final rule has been corrected to 
track the current statutory language in EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6291).
    \19\ 42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(2)(D)(iii)(II)(bb).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to GE and NEMA's comments, the Commission exempts two 
categories of incandescent bulbs that will not meet 2012 energy 
efficiency standards.\20\ The 2012 standards are scheduled to take 
effect just six months after the effective date for the new FTC 
labeling requirements.\21\ Imposing new requirements on bulbs that will 
be in production for only six months would entail significant short-
term costs for manufacturers with limited benefit to consumers. 
Therefore, manufacturers must continue to use the current labeling 
requirements for these bulbs until production ceases in 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The two categories are: greater than 72 watt incandescent 
bulbs with lumen ranges between 1490 and 2600 and greater than 72 
watt modified spectrum incandescents with lumen ranges of 1118 to 
1950. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(i).
    \21\ The effective date is discussed in section V.H.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is not exempting bulbs subject to the 2013 and 2014 
efficiency standards. Because these bulbs will remain in production for 
more than a year after the effective date of the final amendments, and 
because Congress has identified them as inefficient, applying the new 
labeling requirements to the bulbs will provide benefits to consumers 
that outweigh any additional cost to industry.

B. Package Labeling

    In its NPRM, the Commission also solicited comment on proposed 
changes to the package-label format and disclosures.\22\ Having 
considered the comments, the Commission: explains why the final 
amendments retain the proposed two-panel labeling scheme with some 
minor adjustments; prescribes the required package disclosures; 
discusses certain disclosures not included on the label; and, finally, 
sets out particular disclosure requirements for ``off-label'' energy 
and bulb life claims.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 74 FR at 57953-60.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Two-Panel Format
    In its NPRM, the Commission proposed a two-panel labeling format: a 
front panel with brightness (light output) and energy-cost information, 
and a side or rear panel with a Lighting Facts label containing 
additional information.\23\ The Commission explained that this two-
panel approach provides the most important information on the front and 
more detailed information on the side or rear, each in a simple-to-read 
format. The Commission sought comment on this two-panel approach, 
including whether smaller packages require alternative formats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 74 FR at 57953-4. ``Lighting Facts'' is a trademark held by 
the U.S. Government through the DOE solid-state lighting program. 
The FTC and DOE will work together to coordinate DOE's voluntary 
Lighting Facts program for LED products with the FTC's mandatory 
labeling for general service lamps. DOE explained in its comments 
that, to ensure a clear separation between the two agencies' 
activities, DOE's consumer-packaging efforts would address pin-based 
LED replacement lamps and LED luminaires, and not the medium screw-
base LED bulbs covered by the FTC Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: GE and NEMA asserted that the Commission should not 
require disclosures on the front panel, leaving that panel free for 
marketing messages. Conversely, CEE agreed with the proposed 
amendments, arguing that the proposed front-panel disclosures highlight 
``important product attributes for consumers to quickly understand.''
    GE and NEMA also raised concerns about the amount of package space 
required for the proposed disclosures. Specifically, they urged the 
Commission to allow manufacturers to modify the label format to fit 
small packages, as long as the information is clear and legible. In 
addition, NEMA noted that limited space could make it difficult to 
provide multilingual labels and provided examples of proposed bilingual 
labels in French and Spanish.
    Finally, two commenters discussed multi-bulb packaging. GE 
commented that the final amendments should provide guidance for 
labeling packages containing more than one type of bulb. Earthjustice 
objected to an existing provision allowing manufacturers to place 
labels on bulk shipping cartons when the entire carton is sold at 
retail (Sec.  305.15(c)(4)). It asserted that retailers could take 
individual (unlabeled) packages out of the bulk container and display 
them separately without the required information.
    Discussion: The final amendments retain the two-panel format.\24\ 
As explained in the NPRM, consumer research identified brightness and 
energy information as particularly important to consumers.\25\ The 
disclosure of these two key pieces of information on the front panel 
will allow consumers to make quick ``on the shelf'' comparisons. If 
only the Lighting Facts label were available, consumers would have to 
remove packages from the shelves to access this important information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Section 305.15(b)(1)-(3).
    \25\ 74 FR at 57954. Participants in the FTC focus group 
identified ``brightness'' as the most important bulb attribute. 
Moreover, in the FTC label study, respondents gave high scores to 
the importance of brightness as well as energy information. 
Similarly, other research conducted by Natural Resources Canada 
(``NRCan'') indicated that the ``two top pieces of information 
people look for on light bulb packaging are brightness and energy 
usage or efficiency.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, the Commission's two-panel approach does not differ 
significantly from the FDA's well-established food labeling 
requirements, which, along with the Nutrition Facts label on the back 
or side package panel, require that the net weight and product name be 
provided on the primary package panel.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 21 CFR 101.3(d) and 101.105(a). FDA currently is exploring 
rule changes that would require additional front-of-package 
nutrition disclosures. 74 FR 62786 (Dec. 1, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to manufacturer concerns about bilingual labeling, the 
final amendments allow, but do not require, bilingual labeling. The 
Lighting Facts label may appear in a second language either on a 
separate label or on the same label following the English 
disclosures.\27\ This approach will allow manufacturers to meet the 
need for bilingual packaging when necessary without creating an undue 
burden.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Section 305.15(b)(6). Appendix L contains an example of a 
bilingual Lighting Facts label.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In contrast, FDA requires a bilingual label when a manufacturer 
makes a claim in a non-English language on a

[[Page 41700]]

package.\28\ In light of the substantial marketing directed at non-
English speakers, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should 
impose a similar requirement for bulb labeling when manufacturers make 
non-English package claims.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 21 CFR 101.15(c)(2). In addition, in a variety of contexts, 
the Commission requires disclosures to be made in the language in 
which products or services are marketed. See 16 CFR 14.9 (foreign 
language disclosures in advertising); 16 CFR 308.3(a)(1) (foreign 
language disclosures under Pay Per Call Rule); 16 CFR 429.1(a) 
(foreign language disclosure of right to cancel door-to-door sales); 
16 CFR 455.5 (Spanish language version of FTC's used car 
disclosures); and 16 CFR 610.4(a)(3)(ii) (foreign language 
disclosures in marketing free credit reports).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To address commenter concerns about fitting the Lighting Facts 
label on small packages, the final amendments contain three changes. 
First, as discussed in sections V.B.2.b.i and V.B.2.f, the Commission 
shortened the explanatory text for both the cost assumptions and 
mercury disclosures. Second, the final amendments allow manufacturers 
to choose from three standard formats: a basic, rectangular format; a 
wide format; and a tall format.\29\ These three formats should allow 
manufacturers to fit the Lighting Facts label on most packages. Third, 
for particularly small packages, manufacturers may use a smaller, 
linear, text-only Lighting Facts label, if: 1) the total surface area 
available for labeling is less than 24 square inches;\30\ and 2) the 
package shape or size cannot accommodate any of the three standard 
formats (in English) on the rear or side panel.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Section 305.15(b)(4). Each of these formats uses the same 
font and text size. The Commission notes that the final amendments 
do not dictate the label's dimensions but instead specify the 
minimum font size and line thickness for the label. See Appendix L.
    \30\ Surface area is available to bear labeling if it is 
technologically feasible and practicable to put labeling information 
on the area and the area is likely to be seen by the consumer when 
handled.
    \31\ Section 305.15(b)(5). This linear label criteria is similar 
to the FDA requirements for use of its linear version of the 
Nutrition Facts label. See 21 CFR 101.9(j)(13)(ii). Specifically, 
FDA's requirements rest on the assumption that the FDA-mandated 
disclosures should occupy no more than 30 percent of the total 
package area. See 58 FR 2070, 2155 (Jan. 6, 1993). Here, the 
standard Lighting Facts label together with the front package 
disclosures uses no more than seven square inches of package space. 
Applying the same 30 percent analysis, the 24 square inch threshold 
for use of the linear light bulb label is reached when this seven 
square inches of required labeling space exceeds 30 percent of the 
overall package space, i.e. when the surface area of the package is 
24 square inches or less.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Commission is not altering the bulb shipping carton 
provision. In promulgating this provision more than a decade ago,\32\ 
the Commission explained that the bulk-carton option applies only when 
lamps ``are not packaged or labeled for individual retail sale'' and 
when they are displayed in a ``bulk shipping/retail display 
carton.''\33\ Because the individual bulbs subject to this provision 
are not labeled for individual retail sale, the problems foreseen by 
Earthjustice are not likely to arise. Indeed, the Commission has not 
received any evidence that this provision has caused problems.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 63 FR 38744 (July 20, 1998).
    \33\ See 63 FR at 38745.
    \34\ For packages containing more than one type of bulb (e.g., a 
CFL and an incandescent), manufacturers should provide front-panel 
disclosures and a Lighting Facts label for each bulb type indicating 
which information applies to each bulb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Package Disclosures
    The final amendments retain the seven package-labeling disclosures 
proposed in the NPRM: brightness, energy cost, bulb life, color 
temperature (appearance), wattage, and, in some cases, voltage and 
mercury information.\35\ The amendments do not include disclosures for 
color rendering index, total lifecycle cost, or several other 
disclosures suggested by the comments. Each of these disclosures is 
discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 74 FR at 57954.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Brightness/Light Output
    The NPRM proposed two changes to existing labeling requirements 
related to light output.\36\ First, it proposed removing wattage 
information from the front of the package while continuing to require a 
prominent lumen disclosure. The Commission explained that this change 
aims to focus consumers on lumens, instead of watts, to determine light 
output. The Commission proposed placing a less prominent wattage 
disclosure on the Lighting Facts label. Second, the proposed amendments 
changed the term describing lumens from ``light output'' to 
``brightness.'' Both the FTC focus group and NRCan research suggested 
that consumers prefer the term ``brightness'' to ``light output,'' and 
participants at the FTC's Roundtable routinely used the term 
``brightness'' when describing light output.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Id.
    \37\ See 74 FR at 57954 n. 37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NPRM did not propose requiring disclosure of watt equivalence, 
although manufacturers routinely communicate light output on CFL 
packages by providing conspicuous comparisons to incandescent lamps 
(e.g., ``this bulb is a `100 watt' equivalent'' or ``13W=60W'').\38\ 
The proposed amendments did not require such information because watt 
equivalence is likely to become much less important as the new DOE 
energy standards render most incandescent bulbs obsolete. Moreover, 
mandating a watt-equivalence disclosure could perpetuate consumer 
reliance on outdated information, thus hindering consumers' transition 
to lumens to determine brightness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Several comments in response to the ANPR recommended that 
the FTC require watt-equivalence information on the label. See, 
e.g., CEE, NRDC, and ACEEE. NRDC also suggested the creation of 
categories similar to batteries (such as A, AAA, C, etc.), to 
describe light output. Roundtable Tr. at 29 (Horowitz). However, the 
Commission declined to create an entirely new rating system. Rather, 
the Commission decided to focus on educating consumers about lumens, 
a descriptor that already existed and may have had some consumer 
recognition. 74 FR at 57955 n. 39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: The comments raised four primary issues regarding 
brightness/light output: 1) the use of the term ``brightness'' versus 
``light output;'' 2) rounding the lumen rating on package fronts; 3) 
whether to permit a voluntary watt-equivalence disclosure; and 4) 
standards for voluntary watt-equivalence claims.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ In addition, ECHIP urged the Commission to require 
disclosures (such as lumens) to reflect values measured with the 
bulbs' ballast. The amendments proposed in the NPRM would apply to 
bulbs with integrated ballasts exclusively. Under those amendments, 
manufacturers would measure lumens and other performance factors 
through testing of the bulbs with their ballasts. Therefore, there 
is no need to alter the proposed amendments in light of ECHIP's 
comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, CEE disagreed with the Commission's proposal to require the 
term ``brightness,'' arguing that ``light output'' is the technically 
correct term. CEE explained that the term ``brightness'' encompasses 
factors other than lumens, such as color temperature, and therefore 
could confuse consumers, particularly those who work with lighting 
designers or read product literature. No other commenters challenged 
the use of the term ``brightness'' to describe lumens on the label, and 
GE indicated that brightness was an acceptable term to describe the 
lumen rating.
    Second, both NEMA and GE urged the Commission to allow 
manufacturers to round lumen ratings on the front of the package to 
help consumers compare the brightness of bulbs. They stated that 
consumers now purchase bulbs with an eye toward a limited number of 
wattage categories, generally defined by 40, 60, 75, and 100-watt 
incandescents, and it will be difficult for consumers to transition 
from choosing bulbs in these discrete categories to choosing bulbs 
measured to a single lumen. Accordingly, NEMA and GE urged the 
Commission to allow rounding of lumen ratings to create similar 
``classes'' for high efficiency light bulbs. For example,

[[Page 41701]]

GE suggested rounding lumens on the package front to the nearest 
hundred (e.g., 849 would become 800; 850 would become 900), along with 
providing a more precise lumen measurement (e.g., 849) on the Lighting 
Facts label. To support this proposal, both NEMA and GE asserted that 
consumers cannot perceive differences in lumen output of ten percent or 
less.
    Third, although CEE agreed that a watt-equivalence disclosure 
should not be required, it recommended allowing a voluntary watt-
equivalence disclosure on the Lighting Facts label. CEE asserted that 
such a disclosure would assist consumers accustomed to measuring 
brightness in watts.
    Finally, the Energy Efficiency Advocates urged the Commission to 
set specific watt-equivalency standards for voluntary, off-label watt-
equivalence claims on the package.\40\ In particular, they identified 
the current ENERGY STAR standards as a source for such 
requirements.\41\ Similarly, the Energy Efficiency Advocates urged the 
Commission to require distinct watt-equivalency standards for comparing 
the brightness of high efficiency reflector lamps to incandescent 
reflector lamps, which differ from standard incandescent bulbs in their 
lumen output.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ For example, such standards might require that any bulb 
touted as a ``60-watt equivalent'' must produce 800 or more lumens. 
NEMA also advocated for the Commission to set lumen-equivalence 
standards.
    \41\ See ENERGY STAR CFL Program Requirements and Criteria for 
CFLS - Version 4.0, available at (http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/product_specs/program_reqs/cfls_prog_req.pdf).
    \42\ Because reflector lamps aim light in a specific direction, 
the light output from these lamps differs from that of standard 
incandescents. For example, Osram Sylvania's 2008 Lamp and Ballast 
Catalog lists a 75 watt incandescent bulb as providing over 1100 
lumens, whereas it lists a reflector bulb of the same wattage as 
providing less than 700 lumens. See Osram Sylvania, Lamp and Ballast 
Catalog 22 (2008), available at (http://assets.sylvania.com/assets/documents/Complete-Catalog.b176dbb1-d6e0-40f0-ab92-e768e58f5dc1.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Discussion: The final amendments continue to require the term 
``brightness'' to describe the lumen rating.\43\ As explained in the 
NPRM, both the FTC focus group and Natural Resources Canada (``NRCan'') 
research suggest that consumers prefer the term ``brightness'' to 
``light output.''\44\ Indeed, participants in this proceeding, 
including industry members, commonly used the term ``brightness'' to 
refer to light output.\45\ The Commission recognizes that the technical 
term for lumen output is ``luminous flux,'' not ``brightness'' (or 
``light output''). However, as noted in the NPRM, consumers will not 
likely consider this technical distinction material. If manufacturers 
prefer to use more precise light output terminology, they may provide 
such information elsewhere on the package.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Gainesville Regional Utilities recommended that the label 
also contain a lumen scale to help consumers understand brightness. 
However, a lumen scale would take up too much package space. As 
discussed in the NPRM, the Commission will consider developing a 
lumen scale for consumer education efforts. 74 FR at 57961.
    \44\ 74 FR at 57954 nn. 37-8.
    \45\ See, e.g., Roundtable Tr. at 32, 35, 41, 67, and 121. See 
also NEMA and NRDC comments.
    \46\ NEMA noted that solid-state lighting manufacturers also 
typically disclose the directional light of reflector and PAR lamps 
(measured in candelas) and suggested that such a disclosure may be 
necessary for these lamps. The Commission seeks additional comment 
on whether to amend the Appliance Labeling Rule to include a 
directional light disclosure. Nothing in the Rule, however, 
prohibits manufacturers from providing this information off the 
label, so long as it is substantiated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also has decided to adopt, in part, NEMA and GE's 
rounding proposal by permitting rounding to the five lumen increment 
(e.g., 813 to 815) on the package front. Although this more limited 
rounding likely will not facilitate the creation of lumen ``classes'' 
as proposed by NEMA and GE, it should simplify on-the-shelf lumen 
comparisons for consumers if all the lumen numbers on the front of the 
package end in 0 or 5.\47\ In fact, manufacturers already routinely 
express lumen ratings for typical household bulbs in multiples of five.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ The FDA has recognized that rounding can ``make a label 
easier for a consumer to review and understand.'' 58 FR 2079, 2161 
(Jan. 6, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission declines to permit rounding to the nearest hundred 
because it is concerned that such rounding could result in lumen 
ratings significantly higher than actual lumen output. Indeed, while 
NEMA and GE suggested that consumers cannot discern ten percent 
differences in lumen output, this may not always be the case because a 
person's perception of light output varies depending on light 
intensity, color, and spacial considerations in the visual 
environment.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See Gunter Wyszecki, W. S. Stiles, Color Science: Concepts 
and Methods, Quantitative Data and Formulae 567-70 (2d ed. 1982). In 
addition, even assuming such ten percent differences are immaterial, 
rounding to the nearest 100 lumens would lead to lumen ratings with 
a greater than ten percent differential for bulbs with low light 
output (e.g., bulbs rounded from 351 to 400 lumens).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also declines to permit watt-equivalence disclosures 
on the Lighting Facts label, as suggested by CEE, because allowing such 
disclosures could encourage consumer reliance on watts to determine 
brightness. However, marketers have the freedom to make voluntary watt-
equivalence claims on packaging off of the label. These off-label 
claims also may encourage reliance on watts in the short term, but 
allowing marketers this flexibility strikes the right balance between 
providing consumers the short term watt-equivalence information they 
need and using the label to transition consumers in the long term to 
relying on lumens. Specifically, as the new labeling regime moves 
consumers toward lumens, marketers can alter their claims to meet 
consumers' changing expectations because they can adjust their watt-
equivalence claims more nimbly than the Commission can change its 
labeling rules.
    Finally, at this time, the Commission is not establishing standards 
for voluntary watt-equivalence claims by adopting the ENERGY STAR or 
any other standard. The Commission did not seek comment in the NPRM on 
whether a watt-equivalence standard is necessary to avoid consumer 
deception or on the efficacy of any particular standard. Moreover, 
establishing a standard is complicated by potential discrepancies in 
watt equivalence caused by variables such as color appearance. For 
example, while many 60 watt incandescent bulbs have an 800 lumen 
rating, a 60 watt bulb with a cooler light appearance could have a 
significantly lower rating. Accordingly, the Commission seeks 
additional comment on whether it should establish standards for watt-
equivalence claims, including whether watt-equivalence claims for bulbs 
that do not meet such standards can be qualified to avoid deception, 
and if so, how such claims should be qualified.
    To avoid deception, however, manufacturers must ensure they can 
substantiate their watt-equivalence claims. Such substantiation must 
take into account brightness, as well as other material factors, such 
as color appearance. In doing so, the ENERGY STAR watt-equivalence 
standards provide an important benchmark. Indeed, manufacturers making 
watt-equivalence claims that stray from the ENERGY STAR standard must 
possess another competent and reliable basis to substantiate their 
claims. Moreover, manufacturers that make watt-equivalence claims for 
bulbs with lower lumen ratings than those prescribed in the ENERGY STAR 
standards should strongly consider whether they need to qualify their 
claims to avoid deception. Put simply, deceptive watt-equivalence 
comparisons are subject to FTC law enforcement actions.
b. Energy Use/Efficiency
    The comments in response to the NPRM addressed four primary issues

[[Page 41702]]

related to the proposed energy use disclosure: 1) whether operating 
cost is the best energy use descriptor; 2) whether to require a five-
star rating system; 3) whether to permit a lumens per watt disclosure 
on the Lighting Facts label; and 4) where to locate any wattage 
disclosure. Each of these issues is addressed below.
i. Operating Cost
    In its NPRM, the Commission proposed requiring estimated annual 
operating cost as the primary energy disclosure on the front package 
panel and on the rear (or side) panel Lighting Facts label. 
Specifically, the NPRM required that the front panel display 
``estimated energy cost'' in an annual dollar figure (e.g., $7.49 per 
year).\49\ The proposed Lighting Facts label would provide this same 
cost information, along with the rate and usage assumptions used to 
calculate the disclosure (i.e., three hours per day and 11.4 cents per 
kWh),\50\ and a notice that ``Your costs will depend on your rates and 
use.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ 74 FR at 57955.
    \50\ The general consensus at the Roundtable was that three 
hours per day is a reasonable estimate. Roundtable Tr. at 54. The 
electricity cost figure is based on 2009 DOE data. See 74 FR 26675 
(June 3, 2009). Consistent with the FTC's approach on the 
EnergyGuide label, 16 CFR 305.10, the Commission would change the 
cost rate every five years based on DOE data. This approach 
minimizes label changes while ensuring that cost information 
reflects a reasonable estimate of national average electricity 
rates. However, as with appliance labeling, the Commission may 
revisit the energy-cost estimate more frequently should such costs 
change significantly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission provided three reasons for choosing annual energy 
cost as the primary energy disclosure. First, estimated annual energy 
cost provides a simple way to convey a bulb's energy usage. Second, in 
the label study, energy-cost information performed better than a five-
star rating system and a lumens per watt disclosure at communicating 
energy usage. Finally, unlike efficiency ratings (e.g., lumens per watt 
or a five-star system), an energy-cost disclosure should help consumers 
avoid buying bulbs that are brighter than necessary, and therefore, 
save energy.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ In many cases, a higher energy-efficiency rating for a 
particular bulb equates to lower energy use, and thus, lower energy 
cost--but not always. For example, a bright bulb with a high 
efficiency rating may cost much more to operate than a dimmer bulb 
with a lower efficiency rating.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: Several commenters supported the Commission's proposal to 
describe energy use via an operating-cost disclosure. For example, CEE 
stated that its members have extensive experience with communicating 
energy information and supported the operating-cost disclosure.\52\ The 
Energy Efficiency Advocates also strongly supported the cost disclosure 
and concurred with the rate and usage assumptions used to calculate the 
estimate. GE found the cost disclosure and rate and usage assumptions 
acceptable, but, along with NEMA, suggested that the FTC shorten the 
sentence accompanying the disclosure to read ``Will vary by your rates 
and use.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ In addition, CEE urged the Commission to develop standard 
definitions for terms like ``energy savings'' and ``energy 
efficient'' to prevent marketers from using those terms to describe 
products that are not energy efficient.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NEMA, however, raised concerns about the operating-cost disclosure. 
It questioned the disclosure's usefulness and long-term accuracy 
because electricity rates and usage vary by region and consumer and 
change over time. In NEMA's view, unless shoppers make a conscious 
effort to review the explanatory rate assumption language appearing on 
the Lighting Facts label, they will view the disclosed cost as their 
actual operating cost. In addition, NEMA stated that ``tracking the 
cost of power for accuracy and competitive fairness would be costly and 
laborious,'' which the Commission understands to mean that 
manufacturers frequently would have to adjust the rates used for the 
label. Thus, NEMA argued, the Commission should not require an 
operating-cost disclosure.
    Discussion: The final amendments maintain the operating-cost 
disclosure.\53\ First, the operating-cost disclosure is an effective 
comparative tool that will allow consumers to easily compare competing 
products across bulb types. Second, similar to the Commission's 
EnergyGuide label for appliances, the cost is disclosed as an 
``Estimated Energy Cost,'' clarifying that it is not their actual 
operating cost. Consumers seeking additional information about the rate 
assumption used to calculate this estimate can find it on the Lighting 
Facts label. Finally, the Commission finds that these benefits outweigh 
the disadvantages, including the need to adjust the rate assumption 
periodically over time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ Section 305.15(3)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final amendments include a minor change to the electricity cost 
rate used for the label. Instead of the proposed 11.4 cents per kWh, 
the amendments require the use of 11 cents per kWh. This simple, 
rounded cost figure should be easier for consumers to understand.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ GE suggested that the FTC indicate whether operating costs 
should be ``rounded up or down.'' Manufacturers should round costs 
to the nearest cent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, consistent with NEMA and GE's suggestion, the Commission 
has shortened the explanatory cost information on the label.\55\ 
Instead of ``Your cost will depend on your rates and use,'' the final 
amendments require the language ``Cost depends on rates and use.'' This 
revised language will provide the same message while using less space 
on the package.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ The final amendments, however, do not contain standard 
definitions for advertising terms such as ``energy savings'' or 
``energy efficient'' as suggested by CEE. The FTC declines to 
permanently fix the meanings of these terms. Under FTC law, 
advertising terms have the meaning that reasonable consumers ascribe 
to them, which can change over time. Thus, marketers must be 
cognizant of the meaning consumers take from advertising terms and 
must substantiate any expressed or implied advertising claims. See, 
e.g., FTC Policy Statement on Deception, appended to Cliffdale 
Associates, Inc., 103 F.T.C.110, 174 (1984).
    \56\ Rubinfield recommended that the Commission also require a 
scale on the label to further explain a bulb's estimated annual 
operating cost, either in addition to, or in place of, the proposed 
color appearance scale. An additional scale, however, is not 
feasible because there is room for only one scale on the label. 
Moreover, given that the label already includes a clear, prominent 
operating-cost disclosure, the benefits of an operating-cost scale 
do not outweigh the benefits of the color appearance scale, which 
are discussed in section V.B.2.d.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Five-Star Rating System
    In its NPRM, the Commission did not propose using a five-star 
rating system for the energy disclosure.\57\ While the research 
suggested some benefits, the Commission identified five problems with 
the five-star system.\58\ First, the system did not perform better than 
energy cost in helping study respondents answer energy questions. 
Second, the star system may have a greater tendency to convey 
inadvertent quality representations. Third, the five-star system could 
create confusion over time because some bulbs rated as efficient today 
may be rated as inefficient in the future. Fourth, in some contexts, 
the five-star system's interaction with ENERGY STAR may cause 
confusion. Fifth, as noted above (note 51), efficiency ratings 
sometimes can lead consumers to buy bulbs that are brighter, and thus 
use more energy, than is necessary.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ The Commission reached a similar conclusion in considering 
a star rating for appliance EnergyGuide labels. 72 FR 6836, 6844-
6846 (Feb. 13, 2007).
    \58\ 74 FR at 57956.
    \59\ See n. 51, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: The comments revealed mixed opinions about the adoption 
of a categorical (i.e., five-star) energy efficiency descriptor. CEE 
recommended against any star system because consumers might wrongly 
view the disclosure as an indicator of overall

[[Page 41703]]

bulb quality and because consumers might confuse the star-rating system 
with the ENERGY STAR logo. However, the Energy Efficiency Advocates 
supported the star rating. Specifically, they argued that the FTC's 
research demonstrates that a five-star system would complement the cost 
disclosure. In their view, the system would not only help consumers 
identify energy efficient bulbs, but would also be more useful and 
trustworthy than other disclosures. The Energy Efficiency Advocates 
noted these findings were consistent with research indicating that 
categorical labeling helps motivate consumers to identify and purchase 
higher efficiency products. With regard to consumer inferences about 
quality, they noted that all descriptors in the FTC study performed 
poorly on the quality question and that consumer education will be 
necessary regardless of the descriptor.
    The Energy Efficiency Advocates also questioned the FTC's 
interpretation of its consumer research. In particular, they noted that 
where respondents viewed labels bearing the ENERGY STAR logo, the FTC 
study found no differences in responses between the five-star rating 
system and other disclosures. The five-star rating system only 
performed poorly compared to the other disclosures where none of the 
labels in the question had an ENERGY STAR logo. In their view, the 
former scenario better represented the real shopping environment. 
Finally, they noted that the FTC's concerns about updating a star 
rating system over time also applies to any comparative label system, 
including those used for the FTC's EnergyGuide program.
    Discussion: The Commission declines to adopt a five-star rating 
system.\60\ While the Energy Efficiency Advocates raised important 
points, the Commission's NPRM addressed many of these issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ Earthjustice asserted that EPCA requires comparative 
efficiency information such as a star- rating system. EPCA, however, 
grants the Commission discretion to require bulb disclosures ``the 
Commission deems necessary to enable consumers to select the most 
energy efficient lamps which meet their requirements.'' 42 U.S.C. 
6294(a)(2)(D)(i) (emphasis added). The Commission does not deem this 
particular disclosure necessary for reasons outlined here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, the Commission's study raised valid concerns regarding the 
five-star system communicating bulb quality to consumers. Although all 
treatments (i.e., label designs) in the study yielded incorrect answers 
about quality, the study's main purpose was to identify performance 
differences between various label designs and not the significance of 
overall response rates. Looking at the differences between treatments, 
the star rating caused confusion more often than other energy 
disclosures.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ Specifically, as noted in the NPRM, when respondents were 
asked to identify the most reliable bulb, those who viewed the star 
descriptor on the front panel were somewhat less likely than those 
who viewed other energy descriptors to provide correct responses, 
which were ``can't tell'' or ``not sure.'' The percentages of 
respondents who answered correctly, grouped by front-panel energy 
descriptor, were: energy cost (29.36 percent), lumens per watt 
(26.16 percent), and stars (21.83 percent). 74 FR at 57956 n. 51.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the Commission finds that a five-star system could cause 
confusion for consumers over time. For example, DOE's upcoming EISA-
mandated efficiency standards would drastically alter any rating system 
developed by the Commission at this time. As a result of such changes, 
bulbs rated as four stars today may rate only one or two stars in the 
near future. Such changes could confuse consumers.
    Third, a star rating system would be more difficult to maintain 
than an operating-cost disclosure. Whereas changes to operating-cost 
estimates simply require mathematical calculations, changes to 
categorical rating systems require subjective judgments. For instance, 
the European Union recently had difficulty reaching consensus on how to 
recalibrate the rating categories for appliances in its energy-labeling 
program.\62\ This experience demonstrates the significant policy 
challenges that can complicate efforts to update rating systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ Specifically, policymakers had to determine whether to 
recalibrate their appliance ratings by lowering the A-G grade (e.g., 
A to C) on less energy efficient appliances, or creating new higher 
grades (e.g., A++) for more energy efficient appliances. See ``EU 
energy efficiency labelling: a debate that rages from A to G,'' 
Guardian.Co.Uk., Dec. 9, 2009, available at (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/dec/09/energy-efficiency-labelling/print).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Commission remains concerned that consumers would 
confuse a star rating with ENERGY STAR. In the study, the star rating 
system was more likely than other disclosures to create confusion with 
ENERGY STAR when no ENERGY STAR logo appeared on the product.\63\ The 
Energy Efficiency Advocates assert that light bulbs ordinarily are 
marked with the ENERGY STAR logo and that the study did not show 
confusion with ENERGY STAR in that circumstance. However, because 
ENERGY STAR currently covers only CFLs and LEDs, consumers will 
encounter many bulb packages without the ENERGY STAR logo. Indeed, if a 
retailer groups its bulbs by technology, a consumer examining a shelf 
of halogen bulbs will not see any products marked with the ENERGY STAR 
logo.\64\ As indicated in the study, these consumers may confuse a star 
rating with ENERGY STAR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ 74 FR at 57956 n. 52.
    \64\ Currently, halogen bulbs do not qualify as ENERGY STAR 
products. See (www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=products.pr_find_es_products) (listing ENERGY STAR covered lighting products).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Importantly, the FTC label aims to complement, not detract from, 
the ENERGY STAR rating. As the Commission explained in its NPRM, the 
combination of the FTC label and the ENERGY STAR program provides a 
sound framework for conveying energy information to consumers and 
promoting energy efficiency. Specifically, the FTC label displays 
detailed energy information about bulbs regardless of energy 
efficiency, while ENERGY STAR provides the U.S. Government's imprimatur 
for high efficiency products. This system, as a whole, provides a 
robust source of energy information for consumers.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ The Commission also rejects Green Seal's request to allow 
manufacturers to voluntarily place their certification logo on the 
label next to the ENERGY STAR logo. The appearance of such a logo on 
a required government label may imply government endorsement that 
does not exist and detract from ENERGY STAR. Nothing in the final 
amendments prohibits the use of certification marks on the package. 
However, the manufacturer must have substantiation for any express 
or implied claims generated by such certifications. See 16 CFR Part 
260 (FTC's ``Green Guides'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. Lumens Per Watt
    In its NPRM, the Commission did not propose requiring lumens per 
watt on the Lighting Facts label because, in its study, respondents 
viewing lumens per watt information were more likely to provide 
incorrect answers to most energy use and efficiency questions than 
respondents viewing other descriptors. In addition, lumens per watt 
information could lead consumers to choose brighter bulbs than 
needed.\66\ Lumens per watt, however, is a common efficiency metric 
used in the lighting industry and serves as the yardstick for DOE 
efficiency standards and performance criteria in the ENERGY STAR 
program. It also appears on the label developed by DOE for its LED 
program. Therefore, the Commission sought comment on whether to allow 
or require a lumens per watt disclosure on the Lighting Facts label.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ 74 FR at 57956.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: Most comments recommended a voluntary lumens per watt 
disclosure on the Lighting Facts label. For example, CEE agreed that 
the FTC should not require lumens per watt, but believed a voluntary 
disclosure should be permitted because lumens per watt is the standard 
metric for efficiency within the lighting

[[Page 41704]]

industry. The Energy Efficiency Advocates agreed, predicting that 
consumers will have greater recognition of and interest in lumens per 
watt in the future, especially after implementation of EISA's public 
education programs. OSRAM also favored a voluntary lumens per watt 
disclosure, asserting that this will eventually become the preeminent 
method for communicating energy efficiency for general service lamps. 
OSRAM explained that, like ``miles per gallon'' for fuel economy, 
lumens per watt allows consumers to compare efficiency across product 
types and brands.
    Discussion: Despite these comments, the final amendments do not 
allow lumens per watt on the Lighting Facts label. The FTC designed its 
Lighting Facts label for typical consumers, and, as demonstrated by the 
FTC's research, the inclusion of lumens per watt information likely 
will not assist these consumers. As detailed in the NPRM, lumens per 
watt performed poorly in helping respondents answer energy use and 
efficiency questions.\67\ Moreover, because consumers are not yet 
familiar with the basic concept of lumens, the more complex lumens per 
watt disclosure likely would be ignored or cause confusion, hindering 
consumers' transition to using lumens. Additionally, as discussed 
above, lumens per watt could lead consumers to choose bulbs that are 
brighter than needed. Nevertheless, nothing in the Rule prohibits 
manufacturers from providing lumens per watt information elsewhere on 
their packaging or in other marketing materials. In addition, once 
consumers become more familiar with the concept of lumens, the 
Commission can revisit whether to require, or allow, lumens per watt on 
the label.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ 74 FR at 57956.
    \68\ QSC and MPCA recommended that the final amendments require 
manufacturers to disclose a bulb's ``power factor'' rating on the 
label as a further indication of energy efficiency. Power factor, 
which is expressed as a number between 0 and 1, is a measure of the 
efficiency with which a device uses the power made available to it 
from the electric grid. Because of the way residential energy costs 
are calculated, a bulb's power factor rating does not impact a 
consumer's residential energy costs. However, the widespread use of 
bulbs with high power factor ratings could positively impact the 
overall efficiency of the electric grid and, thus, have a beneficial 
effect on the environment. It is not clear from these comments 
whether consumers understand this term or whether a bulb's power 
factor rating is, or will become, important to consumers. 
Accordingly, the Commission is not requiring this disclosure. 
However, the Commission seeks comment on whether this disclosure 
should be reconsidered if the Commission reopens the rulemaking as 
permitted by EPCA. See section V.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iv. Wattage
    In its NPRM, the Commission proposed requiring wattage on the 
Lighting Facts label and not on the front of the package.\69\ The 
Commission explained that, presently, consumers use wattage as a proxy 
for brightness. Therefore, a mandatory wattage disclosure on the 
package front could impede consumers' transition to lumens as the 
primary brightness indicator for high efficiency bulbs. At the same 
time, as noted in the NPRM, the proposed amendments retained a less 
prominent wattage disclosure on the Lighting Facts label because 
precise wattage information may be important to consumers seeking to 
ensure a bulb does not exceed the maximum wattage allowable for a 
particular fixture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ 74 FR at 57954.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: Gannon argued that by making the wattage disclosure less 
prominent, the Commission will make it difficult for consumers to 
determine whether a bulb meets the wattage ratings of certain lamp 
fixtures. Specifically, Gannon recommended that wattage appear as the 
second disclosure on the Lighting Facts label immediately after lumens.
    The Energy Efficiency Advocates argued that the Commission should 
change the proposed ``energy used'' descriptor for wattage to a more 
technically correct term such as ``power'' or ``electricity used.'' 
They argued that the proposed wording perpetuates consumer confusion 
about the difference between power and energy.\70\ In contrast, both 
NEMA and GE found ``energy used'' acceptable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ The Energy Efficiency Advocates noted that, technically, 
wattage is a measure of power while kWh is a measure of energy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Discussion: The final amendments continue to require wattage as the 
fifth disclosure on the Lighting Facts label.\71\ As discussed in the 
NPRM, many consumers use wattage as a proxy for brightness.\72\ To the 
extent the ranking of a descriptor on the Lighting Facts label makes it 
more likely that consumers will view that descriptor, the other 
descriptors listed before watts on the label--brightness, energy cost, 
life, and color appearance--are more important attributes for consumers 
to consider when choosing high efficiency bulbs. In any event, there is 
no evidence that the hierarchy of descriptors on the Lighting Facts 
label materially impacts consumers' perception of one descriptor over 
another.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ Section 305.15(b)(3)(v).
    \72\ 74 FR at 57952.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final amendments continue to require the term ``energy used'' 
to describe watts on the label.\73\ While the term ``power'' is 
technically accurate, ``energy used'' has appeared on the label for 
nearly two decades without any apparent problems. In addition, some 
consumers might incorrectly interpret the term ``power'' to relate to 
the strength of light output.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Bulb Life
    In its NPRM, the Commission proposed a bulb life disclosure stated 
in years (rounded to the nearest tenth of a year, e.g., 1.1 years), 
which would be calculated assuming usage of three hours per day.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ 74 FR at 57956-7; see Prototype Label 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: Several commenters supported the proposed bulb life 
disclosure.\75\ In particular, CEE noted that this approach ensures 
that all manufacturers would calculate life based upon the same 
assumptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ CEE, GE, and NEMA comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Energy Efficiency Advocates, however, objected to a bulb life 
disclosure stated in years, recommending a total-hours disclosure. 
First, they asserted that predicating a life disclosure on a usage 
assumption is misleading because such an assumption fails to account 
for substantial differences in usage among consumers. Second, they 
asserted that a disclosure stated in hours is more effective in 
conveying differences in bulb life than a disclosure in years.
    Discussion: Consistent with the NPRM, the final amendments require 
a bulb life disclosure stated in years rounded to the nearest tenth 
calculated assuming bulb usage of three hours per day.\76\ For the 
reasons stated in its NPRM, the Commission finds that this life 
disclosure will be more useful to consumers than a disclosure expressed 
in total hours. In particular, in the study, respondents showed a 
slight preference for life in years over life in hours and the NRCan 
research noted that consumers have difficultly relating hours of use to 
bulb life.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ Section 305.15(b)(3)(iii).
    \77\ 74 FR at 57957.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Energy Efficiency Advocates' observation that each consumer's 
bulb usage differs is undoubtedly correct. However, disclosure of the 
three-hour per day usage assumption on the Lighting Facts label will 
allow consumers to compare that assumption to their own expected use. 
Moreover, by rounding to the nearest tenth of a year, the disclosure 
will communicate significant differences in bulb life to consumers. For 
example, consumers will be able to choose between bulbs

[[Page 41705]]

with stated lives of 1.7 years and 1.2 years. Finally, relatively small 
differences in bulb life that may be captured better by a total-hours 
disclosure likely will become less important to consumers as high 
efficiency bulbs, some of which can last over a decade,\78\ become more 
prevalent.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ DOE noted that it is working to improve bulb life testing 
methodologies for LED lamps, which can last for many years and thus 
present unique testing challenges. The Commission strongly 
recommends that manufacturers use DOE guidance as it becomes 
available to substantiate life claims for LEDs.
    \79\ ECHIP urged the Commission to consider a bulb life 
disclosure that shows the number of hours a bulb will operate before 
it loses 50 percent of its initial lumen rating. ECHIP did not 
provide any evidence that bulb light output diminishes significantly 
over time, nor did it suggest a metric for measuring any such 
reduction in light output. Therefore, the Commission declines to 
adopt this disclosure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Color Appearance
    In its NPRM, the Commission proposed a color appearance disclosure 
on the Lighting Facts label consisting of a black and white scale 
labeled ``warm'' on one end and ``cool'' on the other.\80\ The scale 
also included the correlated color temperature of the bulb, measured in 
Kelvin.\81\ As discussed in the NPRM, this color appearance scale 
addresses the fact that some bulbs have a warm, yellow appearance, 
while others have a cooler, white or blueish appearance.\82\ The 
Commission proposed a scale to describe color appearance because, in 
the FTC label study, a scale performed better than word descriptors 
commonly used in bulb marketing such as ``soft white'' or ``daylight.'' 
However, the NPRM stated that manufacturers could use such descriptors 
elsewhere on the package.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ 74 FR at 57957.
    \81\ Light color appearance is evidenced scientifically by 
correlated color temperature, which is measured in Kelvin (``K''). 
Such color measurements generally range between 2700K and 6500K. 
Bulbs with lower measurements (e.g., 2700K) produce light that has a 
yellowish appearance. Bulbs with higher measurements produce light 
that is whiter (e.g., 4100K) or blueish (e.g., 6500K). Thus, a 
higher correlated color temperature actually results in a cooler 
bulb appearance.
    \82\ As discussed in the NPRM, many consumers may not understand 
the concept of color appearance. However, they are likely to learn 
about, and place more emphasis on, color appearance as new products 
emerge that provide a wider variety of color temperatures. Indeed, 
the research suggested that once respondents became aware of the 
concept of color appearance, it became an important issue to them. 
74 FR at 57957 n. 56.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Commission sought comment on whether the final 
amendments should require the scale be printed in color. In particular, 
the Commission sought comment on the costs color printing would impose 
on small manufacturers. Finally, the Commission asked whether this 
disclosure should be titled ``Light Appearance'' instead of ``Color 
Appearance'' to guard against the impression that the disclosure 
pertains to colored lights (e.g., red or green).
    Comments: No comments objected to requiring a color appearance 
scale on the Lighting Facts label. Several, however, urged the 
Commission to use the term ``light appearance'' instead of ``color 
appearance.''\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ CEE, NEMA, and GE comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The comments also offered several specific suggestions about the 
scale. First, NEMA preferred a scale printed in color, but suggested 
that manufacturers have the option of printing in black and white. 
Likewise, CEE suggested that a scale printed in color be optional. 
Second, both CEE and NEMA suggested that the highest and lowest Kelvin 
values appear on the ends of the scale, along with mid-range Kelvin 
value in the center. More specifically, NEMA stated that the numbers 
``2700K, 4100K and 6500K'' should appear below the scale to clarify the 
possible range and, in its view, protect against manufacturers trying 
to enhance the perception of a bulb's color appearance by manipulating 
the length of the scale. Third, NEMA suggested that the actual color 
temperature measured in Kelvin appear in bold on the top of the scale, 
rather than on the bottom of the scale as proposed. Finally, NEMA 
suggested that the Commission change the descriptors at the ends of the 
scale to ``warm white'' and ``cool white.''
    Discussion: As suggested by the comments, the final amendments use 
the term ``Light Appearance'' instead of ``color appearance'' to 
describe the disclosure on the label.\84\ This change will minimize the 
possibility that consumers will interpret the disclosure to convey 
information about colored lights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ Section 305.15(b)(3)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While there may be some benefit to a color version of the scale, 
the final amendments require the black and white version\85\ for two 
reasons. First, a single version ensures consistency, which is 
essential to building consumer recognition and confidence in the 
Lighting Facts label. Indeed, if the final amendments permit a scale 
printed in color, consumers may not understand why one package has a 
color scale and another has only black and white.\86\ Second, the black 
and white label requires less package space. As discussed in section 
V.B.1, this is an important consideration because of the limited space 
available for labeling on many bulb packages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ Section 305.15(b)(4)(i).
    \86\ The Commission also considered requiring the color version 
on all labels but rejected such a course because it would force 
manufacturers to use full color printing on the back or side package 
panels for all their covered products. The benefit yielded by the 
color scale does not justify this burden.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the final amendments do not require Kelvin 
measurements at the endpoints and middle of the scale. Rather, 
consistent with the NPRM, the final amendments maintain the ``warm'' 
and ``cool'' monikers at the ends of the scale, which will correspond 
to 2600K and 6600K, respectively.\87\ Given the small size of the 
scale, additional Kelvin numbering could make it difficult for 
consumers to identify the Kelvin number applicable to the bulb.\88\ 
Moreover, the final amendments require the light appearance scale to be 
proportional in size to the width of the label. Accordingly, the scale 
will be sufficiently uniform in size to prevent manufacturers from 
manipulating it in a way that could mislead consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ Section 305.15(b)(3)(iv).
    \88\ The Commission is not moving the Kelvin number disclosure 
to the top of the scale as suggested by NEMA. The number will be 
more prominent below the scale because it will be the only 
information listed there. If the number were moved to the top of the 
scale, a particularly low or high number could crowd the terms 
``warm'' or ``cool,'' respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the amendments do not label the ends of the scale ``cool 
white'' and ``warm white'' as suggested by NEMA and GE. Industry 
members already use these terms to refer to the specific color 
temperatures, 3000K and 4100K, respectively.\89\ As noted above, 
however, the ends of the scale correspond with 2600K and 6600K. Thus, a 
label that assigns these terms to the low and high end of the scale 
would in effect give them new meanings, potentially causing confusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ ANSI C78.376 (``American National Standard for 
Specifications for the Chromaticity of Fluorescent Lamps'') uses 
``warm white'' to refer to a 3000 K bulb and ``cool white'' to refer 
to a 4100 K bulb. See also 74 FR 7894, 7896 n. 9 (Feb. 20, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

e.Voltage
    In its NPRM, the Commission proposed a voltage disclosure on the 
Lighting Facts label consistent with current labeling requirements.\90\ 
Specifically, voltage only would be required on the label if it 
differed from the predominant U.S. residential voltage of 120.\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ 74 FR at 57958. Voltage is a measure of the electromotive 
force of electricity. See discussion at 59 FR 25176, 25184 (May 13, 
1994).
    \91\ Section 305.15(b)(3)(vii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: The Commission received no comments on this issue.

[[Page 41706]]

    Discussion: The final amendments continue to require manufacturers 
to disclose voltage on the Lighting Facts label only if it is not 120.
f. Mercury
    In its NPRM, the Commission proposed a mercury disclosure for CFLs 
on the Lighting Facts label to warn consumers of possible hazards from 
broken bulbs.\92\ That disclosure stated: ``Contains Mercury Hg 
[encircled]: Manage in accordance with local, state, and federal 
disposal laws. For information: epa.gov/bulbrecycling or 1-800-XXX-
XXXX.''\93\ The proposed language is similar to CFL disclosures 
currently required by the ENERGY STAR program and to those recommended 
by NEMA.\94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ Broken CFLs can release mercury vapor. Although 
manufacturers have greatly reduced the amount of mercury in CFLs, 
they have not eliminated it. CFLs contain, on average, about 5 
milligrams, or 1/100th of the amount of mercury found in a mercury 
fever thermometer. See (http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/wastetypes/universal/lamps/basic.htm).
    \93\ 74 FR at 57958. The NPRM also proposed a mercury disclosure 
on the product, which is discussed in section V.C.1.
    \94\ ENERGY STAR requires manufacturers to label their packages 
with: (1) the symbol ``Hg'' within a circle; (2) ``Lamp Contains 
Mercury;'' and (3) either (www.epa.gov/bulbrecycling) or the 
industry site (www.lamprecycle.org). NEMA recommends the following 
language:``Hg [encircled] - LAMP CONTAINS MERCURY; MANAGE IN 
ACCORDANCE WITH DISPOSAL LAWS; See (www.lamprecycle.org).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission intended the proposed amendments to work in 
conjunction with state mercury disclosure requirements, to the extent 
possible. Therefore, the Commission sought comment on the impact of the 
proposed disclosures on existing state requirements, including whether, 
how, and why the Commission should address any inconsistencies between 
its proposed disclosure and state requirements.
    Comments: Commenters agreed that the final amendments should 
require a mercury disclosure on the Lighting Facts label. Several, 
however, proposed revising the disclosure. CEE recommended adding the 
term ``recycle'' to remind consumers of the environmental benefits of 
recycling CFLs. NEMA, GE, and EPA recommended referencing ``clean-up'' 
procedures. NEMA and GE suggested: ``For Clean-Up and Disposal see: 
(www.lamprecycle.org) or 1-800-XXX-XXXX.''
    NEMA and GE favored giving manufacturers the option of including 
the industry website along with, or in lieu of, the EPA website 
proposed by the Commission because the industry website, 
(www.lamprecycle.org), has existed for ten years, is well known, and 
was redesigned recently to make it more consumer friendly. Similarly, 
NEMA and GE recommended that manufacturers have the option to include 
their toll-free numbers with, or in lieu of, EPA's toll-free number.
    EPA suggested revisions to encompass ``the entire lifecycle of the 
lamp and breakage.'' Specifically, EPA proposed, ``Contains Mercury: 
For proper handling, disposal, or clean-up, see epa.gov/cfl.''Additionally, it supported inclusion of an EPA website, but 
recommended the soon to be developed ``epa.gov/cfl.'' It also cautioned 
against including any toll-free telephone number because funding for 
public and private hotlines is uncertain.
    Commenters disagreed about the inclusion of the ``Hg'' symbol. EPA 
and state regulators objected to using the symbol, explaining that they 
have received feedback indicating that consumers ``ha[ve] no idea what 
the Hg symbol means.'' NEMA and GE supported the symbol because NEMA 
members already provide it on CFL packages and because it is recognized 
internationally.
    In addition, IMERC, QSC, and MPCA recommended increasing the type 
size of the disclosure.\95\ Based on its members' regulatory 
experience, IMERC stated that ``any font size less than 8 to 10 point 
font is not legible to the average consumer.'' Therefore, all three 
commenters recommended ten-point type for the entire disclosure, as 
generally required by state laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ The NPRM proposed 8 point type for the term ``Contains 
Mercury,'' 6 point for the ``Hg'' symbol, and 7 point for the 
remaining disclosure language.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenters expressed opposing views on state preemption.\96\ 
Commenters representing states--MPCA, QSC, and IMERC--asserted that the 
proposed amendments would not preempt state disclosure laws. On the 
other hand, NEMA expected that to the extent the Commission's 
amendments differed from state labeling requirements, it would preempt 
them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ IMERC noted that the following states require mercury 
disclosures on CFL packages: Connecticut, Louisiana, Maine, 
Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, 
Washington, Maryland, and Oregon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Discussion: In response to the comments, the final amendments 
revise the mercury disclosure on the Lighting Facts label to read: 
``Contains Mercury For more on clean up and safe disposal, 
visitepa.gov/cfl.''\97\ In doing so, the Commission made a number of 
changes suggested by commenters, declined to make others, and attempted 
to minimize potential conflicts with state requirements, as discussed 
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ Section 305.15(b)(3)(vii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission agrees with commenters CEE, NEMA, and GE that the 
mercury disclosure should alert consumers to follow certain steps when 
cleaning up and disposing of CFLs because improper clean up or disposal 
can release mercury vapor, which EPA describes as ``harmful to human 
and ecological health.''\98\ The final disclosure requirement 
specifically addresses ``clean up and safe disposal'' to alert 
consumers to this risk.\99\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ EPA, Mercury Releases and Spills, available at 
(www.epa.gov/hg/spills).
    \99\ ECHIP recommended requiring disclosure of the amount of 
mercury in a bulb. The Commission declines to do so because there is 
no evidence in the record demonstrating that this information would 
help consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The revised disclosure omits any reference to a toll-free number 
and contains a link to a new EPA website. The Commission agrees with 
EPA's comment that, due to the uncertainty of future funding, a toll-
free number should not be included in the disclosure. Moreover, the 
final disclosure directs consumers to the EPA website, which the EPA 
has determined is most appropriate. The disclosure does not include an 
industry website, as proposed by NEMA and GE, because EPA's expertise 
on environmental issues, as well as safe clean up and disposal, puts it 
in the best position to provide consumers with this important 
information.\100\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ IMERC recommended retaining the proposed disclosure's 
reference to ``local, state, and federal'' laws. However, the 
Commission concludes that the reference is unnecessary because the 
EPA website will provide consumers with legal compliance 
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the final amendments do not include CEE's suggestion 
that the disclosure instruct consumers to ``recycle'' CFLs. The 
Commission is concerned that the term ``recycle'' could lead consumers 
to dispose of CFLs in home recycling bins, a practice that may pose an 
environmental hazard from potential bulb breakage.\101\ Similarly, the 
final amendments do not use the term ``handle'' in addition to ``clean 
up'' and ``disposal'' as suggested by EPA. In the Commission's 
experience, vague terms such as ``handle'' do not add to consumer 
understanding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ EPA's website warns that because breaking CFLs will 
release mercury into the environment, consumers should recycle the 
bulbs through a ``household hazardous waste collection and recycling 
program[.]'' See ``Mercury-Containing Light Bulb (Lamp) Frequent 
Questions,''available at (www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/wastetypes/universal/lamps/faqs.htm).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The disclosure no longer requires the ``Hg'' symbol in light of the 
states' and EPA's comments that consumers do not

[[Page 41707]]

understand the symbol. However, manufacturers may voluntarily include 
the symbol in the disclosure after the term ``Contains Mercury.'' This 
flexibility will allow manufacturers to comply with state and ENERGY 
STAR requirements.\102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ ENERGY STAR currently requires the ``Hg'' symbol on 
packaging for qualifying CFLs. See ENERGY STAR Program Requirements 
and Criteria for CFLs - Version 4.0, available at 
(www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/product_specs/program_reqs/cfls_prog_req.pdf.) In addition, IMERC noted that Connecticut requires 
the Hg symbol. See Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec.  22a-619(g)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final amendments also increase the disclosure's minimum size to 
a uniform ten-point type.\103\ This minimum type size harmonizes the 
disclosure with several states' requirements.\104\ As discussed above, 
the final amendments attempt to minimize conflicts with state 
requirements while providing disclosure requirements that are practical 
and benefit consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ See Prototype Label 6.
    \104\ See, e.g., Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10 Sec.  7106(d) (Vermont); 
La. Admin. Code tit 33, Sec.  2713(F)(2) (Louisiana); 06-096 Me. 
Code. R. Ch. 870 Sec.  5(B) (Maine); 12-030-030 R.I. Code R. Sec.  
8.3.2.4 (ten-point font or larger presumed legible) (Rhode Island).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

g. Color Rendering Index (Not Included on Label)
    In its NPRM, the Commission did not propose a Color Rendering Index 
(``CRI'') disclosure.\105\ CRI measures, on a scale of 0 to 100, how 
the color of an object appears when illuminated by a bulb in comparison 
to a reference light source of the same color temperature.\106\ In 
short, a higher CRI rated bulb renders an object's color better than a 
lower rated bulb. As discussed in the NPRM, comments at the Roundtable 
and in response to the ANPR indicated that a CRI disclosure on the 
label would not help consumers. Specifically, commenters noted that, 
starting in 2012, EISA mandates a minimum CRI rating of 80 for all 
bulbs\107\ and consumers are not able to discern material differences 
in CRI above this threshold.\108\ Therefore, the Commission did not 
propose a CRI disclosure, but sought comment on whether to allow a 
voluntary CRI disclosure on the Lighting Facts label.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \105\ 74 FR at 57960.
    \106\ A standard incandescent bulb has a CRI of 100. Id.
    \107\ 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(B)(ii).
    \108\ See Roundtable Tr., Horowitz at 91 (``Within the lighting 
industry, it's assumed if you're 80, you're giving at least pretty 
good color rendering.''); Howley at 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: NEMA and CEE supported a voluntary disclosure. NEMA 
asserted that CRI will gain in importance with emerging LED technology, 
but did not explain why. CEE stated that manufacturers should have the 
discretion to include a CRI rating on the label. However, it did not 
explain why a voluntary disclosure would benefit consumers, and agreed 
that CRI did not warrant a mandatory disclosure. CEE also noted that 
the National Institute of Standards and Technology (``NIST'') is 
researching a color rendering measurement that may be superior to CRI.
    Discussion: The final amendments do not permit a CRI disclosure on 
the Lighting Facts label. As explained in the NPRM, consumers will not 
benefit from a CRI disclosure after the minimum CRI rating of 80 goes 
into effect in 2012. Furthermore, CEE noted that NIST is researching an 
alternative measurement for color rendering. If NIST develops such a 
measurement, the Commission will consider whether it sufficiently 
benefits consumers to warrant placing it on the label. In the meantime, 
nothing prohibits manufacturers from making substantiated off-label CRI 
claims on the package.
h. Total Lifecycle Cost (Not Included on Label)
    In its NPRM, the Commission did not propose a lifecycle cost 
disclosure on the label.\109\ Several Roundtable participants noted 
that calculating accurate lifecycle cost is impractical because of the 
uncertainty and fluctuation of costs that such a disclosure would be 
based on, such as retail and disposal costs.\110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ 74 FR at 57959-60. EISA directs the Commission to consider 
a total lifecycle cost disclosure. 42 U.S.C. 
6294(a)(2)(D)(iii)(I)(bb).
    \110\ See Roundtable Tr. at 50, 58-59 and NEMA Comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: The Commission received no comments on this issue.
    Discussion: The final amendments do not include a total lifecycle 
cost disclosure. Marketers making lifecycle cost claims must possess 
competent and reliable scientific evidence to support their claims.
    i. Other Disclosures (Not Included on Label)
    Three commenters suggested requiring additional disclosures not 
addressed in the NPRM.
    Comments: First, Lutron Electronics suggested a label disclosure 
indicating whether a bulb can be dimmed. It asserted that such a 
disclosure would reduce consumer disappointment with high efficiency 
bulbs, many of which do not dim. In contrast, NEMA asserted that a 
dimmer disclosure would unduly complicate the label and cause consumer 
confusion.\111\ Second, MPCA and QSC recommended requiring a lead-
content disclosure because lead is a toxic substance currently found in 
most bulbs. Finally, Buchanan asked whether cold temperatures 
negatively affect CFL performance, and suggested requiring a cold-
weather disclosure if that is the case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \111\ NEMA suggested that any on-label dimmer disclosure be 
voluntary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Discussion: The Commission does not adopt these proposed 
disclosures. Although some consumers may value dimmer information, 
there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the benefits of a 
dimmer disclosure justify using scarce label space. Manufacturers can 
make a dimmer disclosure elsewhere on the package, if necessary, to 
inform consumers about product performance.
    The Commission is also not requiring a lead-content disclosure. 
Although most light bulbs contain lead, unlike for the mercury in CFLs, 
the Commission has not received any details concerning any consumer 
risk from lead in bulbs or the benefits of any lead disclosure. 
Moreover, guidance published by EPA and the United States Consumer 
Product Safety Commission concerning lead in the home does not 
reference any threat from light bulbs.\112\ Therefore, the final 
amendments do not require a lead disclosure. However, the Commission 
seeks further comment on this issue to determine if such a disclosure 
is warranted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \112\ See EPA, Protect Your Family From Lead in Your Home, 
available at (http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/leadpdfe.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, because the Commission did not receive any comments 
demonstrating that cold temperatures diminish CFL performance, the 
final amendments do not require a cold-weather performance disclosure.
3. Off-Label Package Claims
    Manufacturers regularly make off-label performance and efficiency 
claims on their packaging to market their bulbs. The NPRM expressed 
concern that these claims could undermine label disclosures regarding 
bulb life and operating cost.\113\ For example, a package could 
prominently claim a five-year bulb life, assuming two-hour per day use, 
contradicting the on-label life disclosure based upon a three-hour per 
day assumption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \113\ 74 FR at 57959.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To address this problem, the Commission proposed requiring 
manufacturers making off-label claims about life or energy cost to: 1) 
clearly and conspicuously disclose the assumptions underlying their 
claim; and

[[Page 41708]]

2) feature the same life or energy information (i.e., claim) based on 
the electricity rate and usage assumptions required for the label in 
close proximity to, and with equal clarity and conspicuousness as, the 
off-label claim. Thus, in the prior example, the manufacturer would 
have to clearly and conspicuously disclose that the five-year life 
claim is based on a two-hour per day use assumption and disclose the 
bulb's life based on the three-hour assumption used for the on-label 
disclosure.
    Comments: No commenter specifically objected to these proposed 
requirements. However, some urged going beyond a triggered disclosure 
to ban or restrict certain off-label package claims, including bulb 
life and energy-cost claims based on assumptions that differ from those 
used for the Lighting Facts label.
    Three commenters supported barring claims not based on assumptions 
prescribed by the Commission. Specifically, GE joined NEMA in proposing 
that the final amendments bar all claims based on use and cost 
assumptions differing from those required for on-label disclosures. In 
addition, NEMA recommended prescribing, to the extent not already 
proposed, certain assumptions for claims related to CRI, energy cost, 
and watt equivalence. Similarly, the Energy Efficiency Advocates 
supported banning several types of claims that do not conform to 
prescribed assumptions or fail to report data in a prescribed manner. 
They further recommended requiring manufacturers to base comparative 
claims (e.g., ``saves X dollars compared to other bulbs'') on 
comparisons to a standard incandescent bulb, rather than the least 
efficient type of incandescent bulbs.
    The Energy Efficiency Advocates and NEMA also suggested regulating 
the format of off-label claims so that they do not detract from or 
dilute the meaning of the label disclosures. As an example, the Energy 
Efficiency Advocates suggested limiting the font size of power-use or 
watt-equivalence claims to the size of the front-panel disclosures. In 
addition, while not offering specific recommendations, NEMA voiced 
support for specific formatting requirements to prevent consumer 
confusion.
    Discussion: Despite comments urging a ban of off-label claims that 
are not based on Commission-prescribed assumptions, the final 
amendments neither prohibit claims based on alternate assumptions nor 
mandate a particular format. While a lifetime claim based on an 
assumption of other than three-hour use per day (or a cost claim based 
on an electricity price other than 11 cents per kWh) could be 
misleading, banning such claims limits manufacturers' ability to convey 
useful, non-deceptive information. For example, a manufacturer may 
place a chart on its package with cost information based on several 
electricity price assumptions. Such a chart could help consumers in 
locations with higher electricity prices by providing the operating 
cost of the bulb in their region. Moreover, the Commission cannot 
conclude that manufacturers can make such claims non-deceptively in 
only one format.
    Given the potential for confusion, however, the final amendments 
continue to require manufactures who make such off-label claims to 
clearly and conspicuously disclose the assumptions used to derive them 
(e.g., two-hour per day bulb use).\114\ Moreover, consistent with the 
NPRM, these manufacturers must repeat the claim using the label 
assumptions with equal clarity and conspicuousness, and in close 
proximity to the off-label claim. For example, manufacturers could 
comply by presenting consumers with a chart showing the cost of 
operating a bulb at several realistic electricity price points, as long 
as one is 11 cents per kWh (the assumption required for the label). The 
Commission, however, cautions manufacturers that they must have 
substantiation for their claims and that unrealistic assumptions could 
render claims misleading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \114\ Section 305.15(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Product Labeling

    In addition to package labeling, the NPRM proposed requiring a 
mercury disclosure and a lumen disclosure directly on the product.\115\ 
These proposed disclosures are addressed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \115\ For incandescent and LED bulbs, on-product disclosures are 
likely to appear on the bulb's outer casing. For CFLs, these 
disclosures are likely to appear on the bulb's base.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Mercury
    In its NPRM, the Commission proposed requiring manufacturers to 
print the following information on CFL products: ``Contains MERCURY. 
See epa.gov/bulbrecycling or 1-800-XXX-XXXX.''\116\ The NPRM proposed 
this on-product disclosure because consumers may not have packaging to 
refer to when a bulb burns out or breaks. Therefore, consumers may not 
have this important information when they most need it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \116\ 74 FR at 57960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: Commenters disagreed about the proposed product 
disclosure. GE and NEMA opposed the proposal, urging the Commission to 
require just the ``Hg'' symbol because CFL bases generally do not have 
room for lengthy disclosures.\117\ They further asserted that on-
product disclosures are unnecessary because consumers typically store 
extra light bulbs in their original packaging, allowing them to refer 
to those packages for mercury information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \117\ GE and NEMA further noted that bulbs sold in different 
countries would require the proposed disclosure in multiple 
languages, further lengthening the disclosure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In contrast, EPA, IMERC, and QSC supported the disclosure. 
Specifically, they asserted that a more detailed on-product disclosure 
than ``Hg'' is necessary because most consumers do not understand the 
``Hg'' symbol. IMERC further noted that CFL bases generally have 
sufficient room for short disclosures. In addition, EPA recommended 
adding language referencing bulb disposal, proposing: ``Contains 
Mercury. If broken or burned out, see (www.epa.gov/cfl).''\118\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \118\ As with package labeling, EPA recommended eliminating the 
toll-free number due to uncertain funding and recommended use of its 
www.epa.gov/cfl web address.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Discussion: The final amendments require the following disclosure 
on all general service lamps containing mercury in at least eight-point 
type: ``Mercury disposal: epa.gov/cfl.''\119\ As discussed below, this 
disclosure is needed to ensure that consumers are aware of fundamental 
safety information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \119\ Section 305.15(b)(7)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons noted above (section V.B.2.f), the on-product 
mercury disclosure uses the EPA website and omits a toll-free number. 
The Commission also has omitted the ``Hg'' symbol because it is 
concerned that consumers will not understand the symbol.
    To address GE and NEMA's concerns about the length of the 
disclosure, the Commission has abbreviated it and reduced the font size 
from ten to eight-point type. FTC staff's review of several standard 
CFL lamp ballasts demonstrates that there is sufficient space on the 
product for this truncated disclosure,\120\ which balances the need to 
clearly impart important information to consumers with the limited 
space available on the product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \120\ This conclusion is consistent with IMERC's observation 
about available space on CFL bases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, even if many consumers do store bulb packaging, it is 
still important to have an on-product disclosure. First, many other 
consumers presumably dispose of the bulb's

[[Page 41709]]

packaging, and thus, absent an on-product disclosure, will not have 
this important safety information when they most need it. Second, 
disclosing the information in two different places (on the label and 
the product) significantly increases the chance that consumers will 
access this information and dispose of CFLs properly. Therefore, the 
burden of an additional on-product disclosure is warranted.
2. Lumens
    In its NPRM, the Commission proposed requiring an on-product lumen 
disclosure, explaining that this information would help consumers 
purchase appropriate replacement bulbs, as well as reinforce the 
importance of lumens for measuring brightness.\121\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \121\ 74 FR at 57960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: The Energy Efficiency Advocates strongly supported this 
disclosure. Specifically, they explained that an on-product disclosure 
would inform consumers about a bulb's brightness when they remove it, 
thereby enabling them to seek a replacement bulb with the desired 
comparative brightness. On the other hand, NEMA objected, noting the 
difficulty and expense of marking information on a lamp. In addition, 
NEMA explained that available space on the product is often scarce and 
manufacturers cannot guarantee clarity when marking information.
    Discussion: The final amendments require an on-product lumen 
disclosure, which must be in at least eight-point type to ensure 
legibility.\122\ As noted by the Energy Efficiency Advocates, on-
product lumen information will give consumers the information they need 
to purchase appropriate replacement bulbs. Indeed, given the long life 
of many high efficiency bulbs, consumers may not remember the 
brightness of a bulb, or have the original packaging, when it comes 
time to replace it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \122\ Section 305.15(b)(7)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, notwithstanding NEMA's concerns, FTC staff's review of 
covered bulbs indicates that these bulbs have room for this short 
disclosure. With respect to CFLs, staff has observed that they have 
room on the base for this additional, small disclosure. With respect to 
other bulbs, there is ample room for the disclosure on the glass 
casing.\123\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \123\ Nonetheless, if it simply is not possible to fit the 
required lumen disclosure on a particular product, manufacturers can 
petition the Commission for an exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Reporting Requirements

    EPCA mandates that manufacturers collect and report to the FTC 
energy use and light output information, developed in accordance with 
applicable DOE testing procedures, about all bulbs covered by the 
Appliance Labeling Rule.\124\ Because no applicable DOE test procedures 
existed when the FTC last amended the labeling requirements for common 
household bulbs in 1994, the Commission stayed these requirements at 
that time.\125\ DOE, however, has since issued test procedures for all 
bulbs subject to the proposed labeling requirements, except LEDs.\126\ 
Accordingly, the NPRM proposed lifting the stay effective in 2012 and 
requiring reporting for all covered bulbs, except LEDs.\127\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \124\ 42 U.S.C. 6296(b)(4).
    \125\ See 59 FR 25176, 25201-25202 (May 13, 1994).
    \126\ See 10 CFR 430.23(r) & (y).
    \127\ 74 FR at 57960. Specifically, for each model of bulb they 
distribute, manufacturers are required to report to the FTC the 
model number, starting serial number or other means of identifying 
the date of manufacture, as well as test results showing the 
wattage, light output, and, for general service fluorescent lamps, 
CRI of the product. Manufacturers must report this information 
annually on the date indicated in the Rule, except for new models, 
for which manufacturers must submit a report prior to the initial 
product distribution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: Earthjustice objected to delaying the effective date for 
lifting the stay until 2012. It asserted that manufacturers should 
report this information sooner to hasten the FTC's ability to verify 
the information manufacturers put on the new label.
    In addition, the Energy Efficiency Advocates urged the Commission 
to apply the reporting requirements to LEDs, and to expand the 
reporting requirements to include bulb life and color temperature 
information. They contend that these additional reporting requirements 
are necessary to verify the information disclosed on the label.
    Discussion: The final amendments lift the stay, effective the date 
of publication of this document.\128\ Because the Appliance Labeling 
Rule currently specifies March 1 as the annual reporting date,\129\ 
manufacturers' first annual report for covered bulbs will be due on 
March 1, 2011.\130\ The Commission agrees that it should not further 
delay imposition of the reporting requirements because this information 
will help ensure that marketers have substantiation for the information 
they put on the label. However, the Commission declines to require 
reporting for LEDs, as suggested by the Energy Efficiency Advocates, 
because DOE has not issued a test for those bulbs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \128\ Section 305.8.
    \129\ 16 CFR 305.8(b).
    \130\ For new models distributed 30 days after the date of 
publication, manufacturers must report before distribution. 16 CFR 
305.8(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the final amendments expand the reporting requirements 
to include bulb life and color appearance information for bulbs with 
applicable DOE testing procedures. Presently, DOE has testing 
procedures to measure the life of CFLs, as well as the color 
temperature of incandescent bulbs,\131\ so the final amendments require 
reporting for these bulbs. The information will be useful to the FTC in 
its review of manufacturers' disclosures. Moreover, reporting this 
additional information should impose little or no additional burden on 
manufacturers because they will need this information in order to 
properly label their bulbs. The Commission will consider life and color 
temperature reporting for other bulbs as DOE develops additional 
testing procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \131\ 10 CFR 430, Subpt. B, Appendices R and W.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Testing Requirements

    The NPRM proposed adding general service incandescent lamps, 
general service fluorescent lamps, and medium base CFLs to the list of 
products required to be tested pursuant to approved DOE 
procedures.\132\ If DOE has no test for a particular disclosure, (e.g., 
color temperature), manufacturers must possess and rely upon competent 
and reliable scientific tests to substantiate the disclosure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \132\ 74 FR at 57960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: DOE commented that the Commission should require a 
specific test procedure for measuring certain disclosures for LEDs. 
Specifically, DOE urged the Commission to require use of Illuminating 
Engineering Society (IES) test IES-LM-79-2008 (``LM-79''), which it 
identified as the industry standard for measuring the light output, 
efficacy (lumens per watt), and color characteristics of LED bulbs. DOE 
requires this test as a condition of participation in its voluntary 
``Lighting Facts'' program for LED lamps.
    Discussion: The final amendments contain the same testing 
requirements proposed in the NPRM.\133\ They do not impose the specific 
test procedure for LEDs requested by DOE because the Commission has not 
sought comment on this issue.\134\ In light of DOE's

[[Page 41710]]

substantial expertise in this area, however, the final amendments 
include LM-79 as a non-required testing procedure that the Commission 
deems acceptable to substantiate light output and color temperature 
disclosures for LEDs.\135\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \133\ Section 305.5.
    \134\ The Commission now seeks comment on whether this test 
should be required. It will weigh any comments when it considers 
whether to reopen the rulemaking not later than 180 days before the 
effective date of the new labeling requirements as mandated by EISA. 
42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(2)(D)(iii)(II)(bb).
    \135\ The Commission recommends that LED manufacturers consult 
with DOE for guidance in substantiating life claims for LEDs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, just as it advanced the effective date for the 
reporting requirements, the Commission also advances the effective date 
for the testing requirements for general service incandescent lamps, 
general service fluorescent lamps, and medium-base CFLs to coincide 
with the effective date of the labeling requirements. Specifically, 
manufacturers must base all Lighting Facts label disclosures for these 
bulbs on applicable DOE tests or, if none exist, other competent and 
reliable scientific tests.

F. Website and Paper Catalog Requirements

    In its NPRM, the Commission proposed requiring websites and paper 
catalogs selling light bulbs to disclose the same information that 
appears on the Lighting Facts label in a manner consistent with section 
305.20.\136\ Moreover, to encourage uniform disclosures and to reduce 
the burden on paper catalog and online merchants, the proposed 
amendments permitted, but did not require, marketers to comply by 
posting an image of the Lighting Facts label for each covered bulb. 
These proposed amendments would ensure that consumers shopping online 
and in paper catalogs have access to the same information as consumers 
shopping in stores.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \136\ 74 FR at 57960-1. This requirement comports with EPCA, 
which requires catalogs to ``contain all information required to be 
displayed on the label, except as otherwise provided by rule of the 
Commission.'' 42 U.S.C. 6296(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: The Commission received no comments on this proposal.
    Discussion: The final amendments maintain the requirements proposed 
in the NPRM with one change.\137\ Consistent with the graphic labeling 
requirements for appliances, the final amendments permit web site and 
paper catalog sellers that do not reproduce the Lighting Facts label in 
its entirety to omit the light appearance temperature scale and make 
only a Kelvin temperature disclosure (e.g., 2700 K). This change is 
designed to address difficulties some online and catalog marketers 
might have reproducing the scale. Nonetheless, the Commission 
encourages online and paper catalog marketers simply to reproduce the 
Lighting Facts label when possible to provide information to consumers 
in a clear, familiar format.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \137\ Section 305.20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Consumer Education

    In its NPRM, in response to EISA's mandate that the FTC work with 
DOE and other agencies to conduct a proactive national program of 
``consumer awareness, information, and education,'' the Commission 
explained that it is considering various approaches to consumer 
education about energy efficient lighting choices.\138\ The NPRM noted 
that consumer education may include a detailed color temperature scale 
similar to that considered in NRCan's research and currently used in 
DOE's solid-state lighting program.\139\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \138\ 74 FR at 57961.
    \139\ See (http://www.lighting-facts.com).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: NEMA, GE, CEE, and Estes supported extensive education 
efforts to help consumers understand high efficiency bulbs and the new 
label. The Energy Efficiency Advocates specifically endorsed developing 
watt-equivalence charts to display to consumers at the point of sale.
    Discussion: The Commission will keep these comments in mind as it 
works with DOE and other agencies on consumer education efforts.

H. Effective Date of Labeling Requirements

    In its NPRM, the Commission did not propose an effective date for 
the new labeling requirements. Rather, the Commission sought comment on 
when the new requirements should become effective.
    Comments: NEMA stated that the amendments should allow 
manufacturers to implement labeling changes on a rolling basis over one 
to two years. Vranich noted that the longer the implementation period, 
the more manufacturers can mitigate costs by phasing in new labeling 
when they make package changes in the normal course of business.
    Discussion: The Commission sets the effective date for the labeling 
requirements one year after issuance of this document. This one-year 
period should provide manufacturers with adequate time to redesign 
labels and packaging, as well as to reduce package inventory. The 
Commission provided manufacturers with the same one-year period when it 
last amended the labeling requirements in 1994, without any discernible 
problem.\140\ The Commission encourages manufacturers to begin using 
the new label before the effective date, if possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \140\ 59 FR 25176 (May 13, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Section by Section Description of Final Amendments

    Lamp Coverage (section 305.3): The new labeling requirements apply 
to medium screw base general service incandescent (including halogen 
and reflector), compact fluorescent, and LED lamps. The final 
amendments group these products under the term ``general service 
lamp.''
    Substantiating Required Disclosures (section 305.5): The amendments 
require manufacturers to follow DOE test procedures if such procedures 
are applicable to their products to substantiate claims required by the 
Rule. For lamp types or information not covered by the DOE test 
procedure but required by the Rule, manufacturers must possess and rely 
upon competent and reliable scientific tests to substantiate their 
required representations.
    Testing, Reporting, and Sampling Requirements (sections 305.5, 
305.6, and 305.8): Manufacturers must submit data for their labeled 
lamps based on applicable DOE test procedures. The amendments also make 
minor conforming changes to the terms used in the sampling requirements 
to reflect the revised definitions for covered lamp products.
    Product Labeling (section 305.15(b)): Manufacturers must make a 
lumen disclosure and, if applicable, a mercury disclosure on the 
product.
    Front Package Panel (section 305.15(b) & (c)): The final amendments 
require two disclosures on the front package panel: brightness in 
lumens and energy cost in dollars per year.
    Rear or Side Package Panel (section 305.15(b) &(c)): The back (or 
side) panel must contain detailed disclosures in the form of a Lighting 
Facts label similar to the Nutrition Facts label required on food 
packaging. The disclosures on the Lighting Facts label detail 
brightness, energy cost, bulb life, light appearance, watts, and, in 
some cases, voltage and mercury information.
    Cost and Life Claims on Packages (section 305.15(c)): Manufacturers 
that make a cost or life-related claim on the package based on an 
electricity cost figure or usage rate other than that required on the 
Lighting Facts label must also make an equally clear and conspicuous 
disclosure of the same information using the electricity cost figure 
and usage assumption on the Lighting Facts label.
    Catalog Requirements (section 305.20): Catalog sellers (including 
websites) must disclose, for each bulb,

[[Page 41711]]

the same information required on the Lighting Facts label.
    Test Records (section305.21): Manufacturers must maintain and 
provide upon request by the Commission, test records for correlated 
color temperature in addition to light output, energy use, and bulb 
life ratings already required by the Rule.

VII. Request for Comment

    The Commission invites interested persons to submit written 
comments as requested in this document.\141\ Please provide 
explanations for your answers and supporting evidence where 
appropriate. All comments should be filed as prescribed below, and must 
be received on or before September 20, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \141\ Comments should address the issues for which comments have 
been requested (i.e., product coverage and beam spread information 
(V.A.), bilingual disclosures (V.B.1), directional light disclosures 
and watt-equivalence standards (V.B.2.a.), power factor (V.B.2.b.), 
lead disclosures (V.B.2.i.), and LED test procedures (V.E.)). The 
Commission is not seeking general comments on the final amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested parties are invited to submit written comments 
electronically or in paper form. Comments should refer to ``Lamp 
Labeling Amendments, Project No. P084206'' to facilitate the 
organization of comments. Please note that your comment--including your 
name and your state--will be placed on the public record of this 
proceeding, including on the publicly accessible FTC website at (http://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm).
    Because comments will be made public, they should not include any 
sensitive personal information, such as any individual'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. Comments also 
should not include any sensitive health information, such as medical 
records or other individually identifiable health information. In 
addition, comments should not include ``any trade secret or any 
commercial or financial information which is obtained from any person 
and which is privileged or confidential'' as provided in section 6(f) 
of the Federal Trade Commission Act (``FTC Act''), 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and 
FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). Comments containing matter 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).\142\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \142\ The comment must be accompanied by an explicit request for 
confidential treatment, including the factual and legal basis for 
the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment 
to be withheld from the public record. The request will be granted 
or denied by the Commission's General Counsel, consistent with 
applicable law and the public interest. See FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 
4.9(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because U.S. mail addressed to the FTC is subject to delay due to 
heightened security screening, please consider submitting your comments 
in electronic form. Comments filed in electronic form should be 
submitted using the following weblink: (https://public.commentworks.com/lamplabels) (and following the instructions on 
the web-based form). To ensure that the Commission considers an 
electronic comment, you must file it on the web-based form at the 
weblink (https://public.commentworks.com/lamplabels). If this document 
appears at (www.regulations.gov/search/index.jsp), you may also file an 
electronic comment through that website. The Commission will consider 
all comments that regulations.gov forwards to it. You may also visit 
the FTC website at (http://www.FTC.gov) to read the document and the 
news release describing it.
    A comment filed in paper form should include the ``Lamp Labeling 
Amendments, Project No. P084206'' reference both in the text and on the 
envelope, and should be mailed or delivered to the following address: 
Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H-135 (Annex 
N), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. The FTC is 
requesting that any comment filed in paper form be sent by courier or 
overnight service, if possible, because U.S. postal mail in the 
Washington area and at the Commission is subject to delay due to 
heightened security precautions.
    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, whether filed in paper or 
electronic form. Comments received will be available to the public on 
the FTC website, to the extent practicable, at (http://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm) As a matter of discretion, the FTC makes every 
effort to remove home contact information for individuals from the 
public comments it receives before placing those comments on the FTC 
website. More information, including routine uses permitted by the 
Privacy Act, may be found in the FTC's privacy policy, at (http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm.)

VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The final amendments contain label disclosure provisions that 
constitute ``collection of information'' requirements as defined by 5 
CFR 1320.3(c), the definitional provision within Office of Management 
and Budget (``OMB'') regulations that implement the Paperwork Reduction 
Act (``PRA'').\143\ OMB has approved the Appliance Labeling Rule's 
existing information collection requirements through May 31, 2011 (OMB 
Control No. 3084-0069). The amendments make changes in the Rule's 
labeling requirements. Accordingly, the Commission has submitted the 
NPRM and a Supporting Statement to OMB for review under the PRA.\144\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \143\ 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521.
    \144\ As was the case with the NPRM, the PRA analysis for this 
rulemaking focuses strictly on the information collection 
requirements created by and/or otherwise affected by the amendments. 
Unaffected information collection provisions, specifically those 
regarding recordkeeping and reporting requirements, have previously 
been accounted for in past FTC analyses under the Rule and are 
covered by the current PRA clearance from OMB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Burden estimates for the amendments are based on data previously 
submitted by manufacturers to the FTC under the Rule's existing 
requirements and on the staff's general knowledge of manufacturing 
practices.
    In response to the NPRM, two comments addressed the compliance 
costs of the proposed amendments. NEMA explained that the proposal 
``grossly underestimates'' the cost of labeling changes but did not 
provide any specific details. Vranich provided cost estimates based on 
past FDA studies of food label changes, including capital cost 
estimates for administration, graphic design, and printing changes on a 
per product basis.
    In response to the comments, the Commission has revised 
significantly its burden estimates, as detailed below. In particular, 
it has added estimated capital costs associated with package and 
product label design changes and has increased the time estimate for 
manufacturers to add the new disclosures to their product packaging and 
labeling.
    Package and Product Labeling: The amendments require manufacturers 
to change their package and product labeling to include new 
disclosures. The new requirements will require a one-time adjustment 
for manufacturers. The Commission estimates that there are 50 
manufacturers making approximately 6,000 covered products.\145\ This

[[Page 41712]]

adjustment will require an estimated 100 hours per manufacturer.\146\ 
Annualized for a single year reflective of a prospective 3-year PRA 
clearance, this averages to 33 hours per year. Thus, the label design 
change will result in cumulative burden of 1,650 hours (50 
manufacturers x 33 hours). In estimating the associated labor cost, the 
Commission assumes that the label design change will be implemented by 
graphic designers at an hourly wage rate of $22.70 per hour based on 
Bureau of Labor Statistics information.\147\ Thus, the Commission 
estimates labor cost for this adjustment will total $37,455 (1,650 
hours x $22.70 per hour).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \145\ Based on a review of ENERGY STAR data for products covered 
under that program, the Commission now estimates that there are 
6,000 basic models covered by the Rule. This is an increase from the 
FTC's prior estimate of 2,100 basic models. See 74 FR at 57963.
    \146\ The Commission has increased its estimate of the hours 
required to make this change from 80 hours per manufacturer, as 
stated in the NPRM, to 100 hours per manufacturer. This change was 
made in response to comments from industry members or their 
representatives that the Commission's burden estimates were too low.
    \147\ See (http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ncswage2008.htm#Wage_Tables) 
(National Compensation Survey: Occupational Earnings in the United 
States 2008, U.S. Department of Labor (August 2009), Bulletin 2720, 
Table 3 (``Full-time civilian workers,'' mean and median hourly 
wages), at 3-12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission estimates that the one-time capital cost of changing 
lightbulb package and product labeling will be $6,540,000, determined 
as follows. Using the cost estimates suggested by Vranich, the estimate 
for the one-time capital cost of the package label change is 
$5,340,000. This estimate is based on the assumptions that 
manufacturers will have to change 4,000 of the total 6,000 model 
packages due to the new requirements\148\ and that package label 
changes for each product will cost $1,335.\149\ As for product 
labeling, no commenter provided specific estimates for the cost 
involved. Manufacturers place information on products in the normal 
course of business. In the absence of cost data, the Commission assumes 
that the one-time labeling change will cost $200 per model for an 
estimated total of $1,200,000 (6,000 models x $200). Annualized in the 
context of a 3-year PRA clearance, these non-labor costs would average 
$2,180,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \148\ Over the course of a year, manufacturers are likely to 
change approximately 1/3 of their labels during the normal course of 
business. The one year compliance period and the notice provided by 
this proceeding should minimize the likelihood that manufacturers 
will have to discard package inventory. See, e.g., FDA Labeling Cost 
Model at 4-3. In addition, manufacturers may use stickers in lieu of 
discarding inventory.
    \149\ See Vranich comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Color Temperature: Although the Commission expects that many 
manufacturers already conduct testing for correlated color temperature 
in the normal course of business (e.g., to meet ENERGY STAR criteria), 
the final amendments may require manufacturers to conduct additional 
testing. The Commission assumes that manufacturers will have to test 
about half of the basic models (or 3,000 basic models) at 0.5 hours for 
each model for a total of 1,500 hours.\150\ In calculating the 
associated labor cost estimate, the Commission assumes that this work 
will be implemented by electrical engineers at an hourly wage rate of 
$39.79 per hour based on Bureau of Labor Statistics information.\151\ 
Thus, the Commission estimates that the new label design change will 
result in associated labor costs of approximately $59,685 (1,500 hours 
x $39.79 per hour). The Commission does not expect that the final 
amendments will create any capital or other non-labor costs for such 
testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \150\ The Commission assumes conservatively that manufacturers 
will conduct new testing for 3,000 out of the 6,000 estimated 
covered products.
    \151\ See (http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ncswage2008.htm#Wage_Tables) 
(National Compensation Survey: Occupational Earnings in the United 
States 2008, U.S. Department of Labor (August 2009), Bulletin 2720, 
Table 3 (``Full-time civilian workers,'' mean and median hourly 
wages), at 3-4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the revised estimated total hour burden of the 
amendments is 3,150 hours (1,650 hours for packaging and labeling + 
1,500 hours for additional testing for correlated color temperature) 
with associated labor costs of $97,140 and annualized capital or other 
non-labor costs totaling $2,180,000.\152\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \152\ The estimates included in the NPRM were 2,384 hours, 
$72,062 (labor costs), and $0 (capital costs). See 74 FR at 57963.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IX. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (``RFA''), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, 
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.\153\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \153\ See 5 U.S.C. 603-605.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission recognizes that some of the affected manufacturers 
may qualify as small businesses under the relevant thresholds. However, 
the Commission does not expect that the economic impact of the proposed 
amendments will be significant. In any event, to minimize any burden, 
the Commission plans to provide manufacturers with ample time to 
implement the proposed changes. The Commission estimates that these new 
requirements will apply to about 50 product manufacturers and an 
additional 150 online and paper catalog sellers of covered products. 
The Commission expects that approximately 150 of these entities qualify 
as small businesses.
    The Commission does not anticipate that the amendments will have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Although the Commission certified under the RFA that the amendments 
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 FRFA in order to explain the 
impact of the amendments on small entities as follows:

A. Statement of the Need for, and Objectives of, the Amendments

    Section 321(b) of EISA requires the Commission to conduct a 
rulemaking to consider the effectiveness of the lamp labeling and to 
consider alternative labeling approaches. The objective of the 
rulemaking is to improve the effectiveness of the current lamp labeling 
program. EISA directs the Commission to consider whether alternative 
labeling approaches would help consumers better understand new high 
efficiency lamp products and help them choose lamps that meet their 
needs. In particular, the law directs the Commission to consider 
labeling disclosures that address consumer needs for information about 
lighting level, light quality, lamp lifetime, and total lifecycle cost.

B. Issues Raised by Comments in Response to the IRFA

    The Commission did not receive any comments specifically related to 
the impact of the proposed amendments on small business. Sections V.A., 
V.B.2.f, V.C.1, V.C.2, and V.H discuss general comments related to the 
regulatory burden of the final amendments.

C. Estimate of Number of Small Entities to Which the Amendments Will 
Apply

    Under the Small Business Size Standards issued by the Small 
Business Administration, lamp manufacturers qualify as small businesses 
if they have fewer than 1,000 employees (for other household appliances 
the figure is 500 employees). Lamp catalog sellers qualify as small 
businesses if their sales are less than $8.0 million annually. The 
Commission estimates that there are

[[Page 41713]]

approximately 150 entities subject to the amended requirements that 
qualify as small businesses.

D. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements

    The Commission recognizes that the amended labeling requirements 
will involve some increased drafting costs and reporting requirements 
for affected entities. As discussed above, the increased reporting 
burden should be de minimis. The transition to the use of a new label 
design should represent a one-time cost discussed in section VIII. Such 
requirements should not impose a significant burden on small entities. 
In addition, these burdens are discussed in section VIII, and there 
should be no difference in that burden as applied to small businesses. 
Finally, as discussed in section VIII, the changes are likely to be 
implemented by graphic designers (for label changes) and electrical 
engineers (for testing requirements and data reports). There should be 
no additional burden on catalog sellers beyond those already imposed by 
the Rule.

E. Alternatives

    The Commission sought 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 amendments on 
small entities. As discussed in section V.H, the Commission is setting 
a one-year compliance period to reduce the burden associated with 
implementing the labels and other disclosures required by the final 
amendments. In addition, the Commission has reduced the size of the 
required labels and provided an alternative label for small packages.
    In addition, the Commission routinely allows manufacturers to 
report required data through electronic means. However, the final 
amendments do not allow package and product disclosures in electronic 
format because such disclosures would not help consumers with their 
purchasing decisions for bulbs, which are typically displayed in brick-
and-mortar stores.

X. Final Rule Language

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 305

    Advertising, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Labeling, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

0
For the reasons set forth above, the Federal Trade Commission amends 
part 305 of title 16, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

PART 305 -- RULE CONCERNING DISCLOSURES REGARDING ENERGY 
CONSUMPTION AND WATER USE OF CERTAIN HOME APPLIANCES AND OTHER 
PRODUCTS REQUIRED UNDER THE ENERGY POLICY AND CONSERVATION ACT 
(``APPLIANCE LABELING RULE'')

0
1. The authority citation for Part 305 continues to read as follows:

    AUTHORITY: 42 U.S.C. 6294.

0
2. In Sec.  305.3, paragraphs (l) and (m) are revised, paragraphs (n), 
(o), (p), (q), (r), (s), and (t) are redesignated as (r), (s), (t), 
(u), (v), (w), and (x) respectively, and new paragraphs (n), (o), (p), 
and (q) are added to read as follows:


Sec.  305.3  Description of covered products.

* * * * *
    (l) General service lamp means:
    (1) A lamp that is:
    (i) A medium base compact fluorescent lamp;
    (ii) A general service incandescent lamp;
    (iii) A general service light-emitting diode (LED or OLED) lamp; or
    (iv) Any other lamp that the Secretary of Energy determines is used 
to satisfy lighting applications traditionally served by general 
service incandescent lamps.
    (2) Exclusions. The term general service lamp does not include--
    (i) Any lighting application or bulb shape described in paragraphs 
(n)(3)(ii)(A) through (T) of this section; and
    (ii) Any general service fluorescent lamp.
    (m) Medium base compact fluorescent lamp means an integrally 
ballasted fluorescent lamp with a medium screw base, a rated input 
voltage range of 115 to 130 volts and which is designed as a direct 
replacement for a general service incandescent lamp; however, the term 
does not include--
    (1) Any lamp that is--
    (i) Specifically designed to be used for special purpose 
applications; and
    (ii) Unlikely to be used in general purpose applications, such as 
the applications described in the definition of ``General Service 
Incandescent Lamp'' in paragraph (n)(3)(ii) of this section; or
    (2) Any lamp not described in the definition of ``General Service 
Incandescent Lamp'' in this section and that is excluded by the 
Department of Energy, by rule, because the lamp is--
    (i) Designed for special applications; and
    (ii) Unlikely to be used in general purpose applications.
    (n) Incandescent lamp:
    (1) Means a lamp in which light is produced by a filament heated to 
incandescence by an electric current, including only the following:
    (i) Any lamp (commonly referred to as lower wattage nonreflector 
general service lamps, including any tungsten-halogen lamp) that has a 
rated wattage between 30 and 199 watts, has an E26 medium screw base, 
has a rated voltage or voltage range that lies at least partially 
within 115 and 130 volts, and is not a reflector lamp;
    (ii) Any lamp (commonly referred to as a reflector lamp) which is 
not colored or designed for rough or vibration service applications, 
that contains an inner reflective coating on the outer bulb to direct 
the light, an R, PAR, ER, BR, BPAR, or similar bulb shapes with E26 
medium screw bases, a rated voltage or voltage range that lies at least 
partially within 115 and 130 volts, a diameter which exceeds 2.75 
inches, and has a rated wattage that is 40 watts or higher;
    (iii) Any general service incandescent lamp (commonly referred to 
as a high- or higher-wattage lamp) that has a rated wattage above 199 
watts (above 205 watts for a high wattage reflector lamp); but
    (2) Incandescent lamp does not mean any lamp excluded by the 
Secretary of Energy, by rule, as a result of a determination that 
standards for such lamp would not result in significant energy savings 
because such lamp is designed for special applications or has special 
characteristics not available in reasonably substitutable lamp types;
    (3) General service incandescent lamp means
    (i) In general, a standard incandescent, halogen, or reflector type 
lamp that--
    (A) Is intended for general service applications;
    (B) Has a medium screw base;
    (C) Has a lumen range of not less than 310 lumens and not more than 
2,600 lumens; and
    (D) Is capable of being operated at a voltage range at least 
partially within 110 and 130 volts.
    (ii) Exclusions. The term ``general service incandescent lamp'' 
does not include the following incandescent lamps:
    (A) An appliance lamp as defined at 42 U.S.C. 6291(30);
    (B) A black light lamp;
    (C) A bug lamp;
    (D) A colored lamp as defined at 42 U.S.C. 6291(30);
    (E) An infrared lamp;
    (F) A left-hand thread lamp;
    (G) A marine lamp;
    (H) A marine signal service lamp;
    (I) A mine service lamp;
    (J) A plant light lamp;

[[Page 41714]]

    (K) A rough service lamp as defined at 42 U.S.C. 6291(30);
    (L) A shatter-resistant lamp (including a shatter-proof lamp and a 
shatter-protected lamp);
    (M) A sign service lamp;
    (N) A silver bowl lamp;
    (O) A showcase lamp;
    (P) A traffic signal lamp;
    (Q) A vibration service lamp as defined at 42 U.S.C. 6291(30);
    (R) A G shape lamp (as defined in ANSI C78.20-2003 and C79.1-2002) 
with a diameter of 5 inches or more;
    (S) A T shape lamp (as defined in ANSI C78.20-2003 and C79.1-2002) 
and that uses not more than 40 watts or has a length of more than 10 
inches; or
    (T) A B, BA, CA, F, G16-1/2, G-25, G30, S, or M-14 lamp (as defined 
in ANSI C79.1-2002 and ANSI C78.20-2003) of 40 watts or less.
    (4) Incandescent reflector lamp means a lamp described in paragraph 
(n)(1)(ii) of this section; and
    (5) Tungsten-halogen lamp means a gas-filled tungsten filament 
incandescent lamp containing a certain proportion of halogens in an 
inert gas.
    (o) Light-emitting diode (LED) means a p-n junction solid state 
device the radiated output of which is a function of the physical 
construction, material used, and exciting current of the device. The 
output of a light-emitting diode may be in--
    (1) The infrared region;
    (2) The visible region; or
    (3) The ultraviolet region.
    (p) Organic light-emitting diode (OLED) means a thin-film light-
emitting device that typically consists of a series of organic layers 
between 2 electrical contacts (electrodes).
    (q) General service light-emitting diode (LED or OLED) lamp means 
any light-emitting diode (LED or OLED) lamp that:
    (1) Is a consumer product;
    (2) Is intended for general service applications;
    (3) Has a medium screw base;
    (4) Has a lumen range of not less than 310 lumens and not more than 
2,600 lumens; and
    (5) Is capable of being operated at a voltage range at least 
partially within 110 and 130 volts.
* * * * *

0
3. In Sec.  305.5, paragraphs (a)(12), (13), and (14) are added and 
paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:
Testing


Sec.  305.5  Determinations of estimated annual energy consumption, 
estimated annual operating cost, and energy efficiency rating, and of 
water use rate.

    (a) * * *
    (12) General Service Incandescent Lamps - Sec.  430.23(r).
    (13) General Service Fluorescent Lamps - Sec.  430.23(r).
    (14) Medium Base Compact Fluorescent Lamps - Sec.  430.23(y).
    (b) Unless otherwise provided in paragraph (a) of this section or 
Sec.  305.8, manufacturers and private labelers of any covered product 
that is a general service fluorescent lamp, general service lamp, or 
metal halide lamp fixture, must, for any representation required by 
this Part including but not limited to of the design voltage, wattage, 
energy cost, light output, life, correlated color temperature, or color 
rendering index of such lamp or for any representation made by the 
encircled ``E'' that such a lamp is in compliance with an applicable 
standard established by section 325 of the Act, possess and rely upon a 
reasonable basis consisting of competent and reliable scientific tests 
substantiating the representation. For representations of the light 
output and life ratings of any covered product that is a general 
service lamp, unless otherwise provided by paragraph (a), the 
Commission will accept as a reasonable basis scientific tests conducted 
according to the following applicable IES test protocols that 
substantiate the representations:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 For measuring light output  (in lumens):
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Service Fluorescent                 IES LM\9\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compact Fluorescent                         IES LM\66\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Service Incandescent (Other than    IES LM\45\
 Reflector Lamps)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Service Incandescent (Reflector     IES LM\20\
 Lamps)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Service Light-emitting Diode (LED   IES LM\79\
 or OLED) lamps
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For measuring laboratory life (in hours):
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Service Fluorescent                 IES LM\40\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compact Fluorescent                         IES LM\65\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Service Incandescent (Other than    IES LM\49\
 Reflector Lamps)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Service Incandescent (Reflector     IES LM\49\
 Lamps)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

0
4. Section 305.6 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  305.6  Sampling.

    (a) For any covered product (except general service fluorescent 
lamps or general service lamps), any representation with respect to or 
based upon a measure or measures of energy consumption incorporated 
into Sec.  305.5 shall be based upon the sampling procedures set forth 
in Sec.  430.24 of 10 CFR part 430, subpart B.
    (b) For any covered product that is a general service lamp, any 
representation required by Sec.  305.15 and, for any covered product 
that is a general service fluorescent lamp or incandescent reflector 
lamp, any representation made by the encircled ``E'' that such lamp is 
in compliance with an applicable standard established by section 325 of 
the Act, shall be based upon tests using a competent and reliable 
scientific sampling procedure. The Commission will accept ``Military 
Standard 105--Sampling Procedures and Tables for Inspection by 
Attributes'' as such a sampling procedure.

0
5. Section 305.8 is amended as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (a)(1), remove the phrase ``medium base compact 
fluorescent lamps, or general service incandescent lamps including 
incandescent reflector lamps'' and add in its place ``and general 
service lamps''.
0
b. Revise paragraph (a)(3)(v) and add paragraphs (a)(3)(vi) through 
(viii) to read as follows:
0
c. Revise paragraph (b)(1) by removing the term ``[Stayed]'' wherever 
it appears, and by replacing the phrase ``Incandescent Lamps, incl. 
Reflector Lamps'' with the phrase ``General Service Incandescent 
Lamps.''


Sec.  305.8  Submission of data.

    (a) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (v) For all covered lamps, the test results based on 10 CFR Sec.  
430.23 for the lamp's wattage and light output ratings.
    (vi) For all covered general service fluorescent lamps, the test 
results based on 10 CFR Sec.  430.23 for the lamp's color rendering 
index and correlated color temperature.
    (vii) For all covered incandescent lamps, the test results based on 
10 CFR Sec.  430.23 for the lamp's correlated color temperature.
    (viii) For all covered compact fluorescent lamps, the test results 
based on 10 CFR Sec.  430.23 for the lamp's life.
* * * * *

0
6. Section 305.15 is amended as follows:
0
a. Revise paragraph (b).

[[Page 41715]]

0
b. Paragraph (c) is redesignated as paragraph (f).
0
c. New paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) are added to read as follows:


Sec.  305.15  Labeling for lighting products.

* * * * *
    (b) General service lamps - Except as provided in paragraph (c) of 
this section, any covered product that is a general service lamp shall 
be labeled as follows:
    (1) Principal display panel content: The principal display panel of 
the product package shall be labeled clearly and conspicuously with the 
following information:
    (i) The light output of each lamp included in the package, 
expressed as ``Brightness'' in average initial lumens rounded to the 
nearest five; and
    (ii) The estimated annual energy cost of each lamp included in the 
package, expressed as ``Estimated Energy Cost'' in dollars and based on 
usage of 3 hours per day and 11 cents ($0.11) per kWh.
    (2) Principal display panel format: The light output (brightness) 
and energy cost shall appear in that order and with equal clarity and 
conspicuousness on the principal display panel of the product package. 
The format, terms, specifications, and minimum sizes shall follow the 
specifications and minimum sizes displayed in Prototype Label 5 in 
Appendix L.
    (3) Lighting Facts label content: The side or rear display panel of 
the product package shall be labeled clearly and conspicuously with a 
Lighting Facts label that contains the following information in the 
following order:
    (i) The light output of each lamp included in the package, 
expressed as ``Brightness'' in average initial lumens rounded to the 
nearest five;
    (ii) The estimated annual energy cost of each lamp included in the 
package based on the average initial wattage, a usage rate of 3 hours 
per day and 11 cents ($0.11) per kWh and explanatory text as 
illustrated in Prototype Label 6 in Appendix L;
    (iii) The life, as defined in Sec.  305.2(w), of each lamp included 
in the package, expressed in years rounded to the nearest tenth (based 
on 3 hours operation per day);
    (iv) The correlated color temperature of each lamp included in the 
package, as measured in degrees Kelvin and expressed as ``Light 
Appearance'' and by a number and a marker in the form of a scale as 
illustrated in Prototype Label 6 to Appendix L placed proportionately 
on the scale where the left end equals 2,600 K and the right end equals 
6,600 K;
    (v) The wattage, as defined in Sec.  305.2(hh), for each lamp 
included in the package, expressed as energy used in average initial 
wattage;
    (vi) The ENERGY STAR logo as illustrated in Prototype Label 6 to 
Appendix L for qualified products, if desired by the manufacturer. Only 
manufacturers that have signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the 
Department of Energy or the Environmental Protection Agency may add the 
ENERGY STAR logo to labels on qualifying covered products; such 
manufacturers may add the ENERGY STAR logo to labels only on those 
products that are covered by the Memorandum of Understanding;
    (vii) The design voltage of each lamp included in the package, if 
other than 120 volts;
    (viii) For any general service lamp containing mercury, the 
following statement:
    ``Contains Mercury For more on clean up and safe disposal, visit 
epa.gov/cfl.''
    The manufacturer may also print an ``Hg[Encircled]'' symbol on the 
label after the term ``Contains Mercury''; and
    (ix) No marks or information other than that specified in this part 
shall appear on the Lighting Facts label.
    (4) Standard Lighting Facts label format: Except as provided in 
paragraph (b)(5) of this section, information specified in paragraph 
(b)(3) of this section shall be presented on covered lamp packages in 
the format, terms, explanatory text, specifications, and minimum sizes 
as shown in Prototype Labels 6 in Appendix L and consistent in format 
and orientation with Sample Labels 10, 11, or 12 in Appendix L. The 
text and lines shall be all black or one color type, printed on a white 
or other neutral contrasting background whenever practical.
    (i) The Lighting Facts information shall be set off in a box by use 
of hairlines and shall be all black or one color type, printed on a 
white or other neutral contrasting background whenever practical.
    (ii) All information within the Lighting Facts label shall utilize:
    (A) Arial or an equivalent type style;
    (B) Upper and lower case letters;
    (C) Leading as indicated in Prototype Label 6 in Appendix L;
    (D) Letters that never touch;
    (E) The box and hairlines separating information as illustrated in 
Prototype Labels 6 in Appendix L; and
    (F) The minimum font sizes and line thicknesses as illustrated in 
Prototype Label 6 in Appendix L.
    (5) Lighting Facts format for small packages. If the total surface 
area of the product package available for labeling is less than 24 
square inches and the package shape or size cannot accommodate the 
standard label required by paragraph (b)(4) of this section, 
manufacturers may provide the information specified in paragraph (b)(3) 
of this section using a smaller, linear label following the format, 
terms, explanatory text, specifications, and minimum sizes illustrated 
in Prototype Label 7 in Appendix L.
    (6) Bilingual labels. The information required by paragraphs (b)(1) 
through (5) of this section may be presented in a second language 
either by using separate labels for each language or in a bilingual 
label with the English text in the format required by this section 
immediately followed by the text in the second language. Sample Label 
13 in Appendix L provides an example of a bilingual Lighting Facts 
label. All required information must be included in both languages. 
Numeric characters that are identical in both languages need not be 
repeated.
    (7) Product Labeling. Any general service lamp shall be labeled 
legibly on the product with the following information:
    (i) The lamp's average initial lumens, expressed as a number 
rounded to the nearest five, adjacent to the word ``lumens,'' both 
provided in minimum 8 point font; and
    (ii) For general service lamps containing mercury, the following 
statement: ``Mercury disposal: epa.gov/cfl'' in minimum 8 point font.
    (c)(1) Any covered incandescent lamp that is subject to and does 
not comply with the January 1, 2012 efficiency standards specified in 
42 U.S.C. 6295 shall be labeled clearly and conspicuously on the 
principal display panel of product package with the following 
information in lieu of the labeling requirements specified in paragraph 
(b) of this section:
    (i) The number of lamps included in the package, if more than one;
    (ii) The design voltage of each lamp included in the package, if 
other than 120 volts;
    (iii) The light output of each lamp included in the package, 
expressed in average initial lumens;
    (iv) The electrical power consumed (energy used) by each lamp 
included in the package, expressed in average initial wattage; and
    (v) The life of each lamp included in the package, expressed in 
hours.
    (2) The light output, energy usage and life ratings of any product 
covered by paragraph (c)(1) of this section shall appear in that order 
and with equal clarity and conspicuousness on the product's principal 
display panel. The

[[Page 41716]]

light output, energy usage and life ratings shall be disclosed in terms 
of ``lumens,'' ``watts,'' and ``hours'' respectively, with the lumens, 
watts, and hours rating numbers each appearing in the same type style 
and size and with the words ``lumens,'' ``watts,'' and ``hours'' each 
appearing in the same type style and size. The words ``light output,'' 
``energy used,'' and ``life'' shall precede and have the same 
conspicuousness as both the rating numbers and the words ``lumens,'' 
``watts,'' and ``hours,'' except that the letters of the words 
``lumens,'' ``watts,'' and ``hours'' shall be approximately 50% of the 
sizes of those used for the words ``light output,'' ``energy used,'' 
and ``life,'' respectively.
    (d)(1) The required disclosures of any covered product that is a 
general service lamp shall be measured at 120 volts, regardless of the 
lamp's design voltage. If a lamp's design voltage is 125 volts or 130 
volts, the disclosures of the wattage, light output, energy cost, and 
life ratings shall in each instance be:
    (i) At 120 volts and followed by the phrase ``at 120 volts.'' In 
such case, the labels for such lamps also may disclose the lamp's 
wattage, light output, energy cost, and life at the design voltage 
(e.g., ``Light Output 1710 Lumens at 125 volts''); or
    (ii) At the design voltage and followed by the phrase ``at (125 
volts/130 volts)'' if the ratings at 120 volts are disclosed clearly 
and conspicuously on another panel of the package, and if all panels of 
the package that contain a claimed light output, energy cost, wattage 
or lifeclearly and conspicuously identify the lamp as ``(125 volt/130 
volt),'' and if the principal display panel clearly and conspicuously 
discloses the following statement:
    This product is designed for (125/130) volts. When used on the 
normal line voltage of 120 volts, the light output and energy 
efficiency are noticeably reduced. See (side/back) panel for 120 volt 
ratings.
    (2) For any covered product that is an incandescent reflector lamp, 
the required disclosures of light output shall be given for the lamp's 
total forward lumens.
    (3) For any covered product that is a compact fluorescent lamp, the 
required light output disclosure shall be measured at a base-up 
position; but, if the manufacturer or private labeler has reason to 
believe that the light output at a base-down position would be more 
than 5% different, the label also shall disclose the light output at 
the base-down position or, if no test data for the base-down position 
exist, the fact that at a base-down position the light output might be 
more than 5% less.
    (4) For any covered product that is a general service incandescent 
lamp and operates with multiple filaments, the light output, energy 
cost, and wattage disclosures required by this section must be provided 
at each of the lamp's levels of light output andthe lamp's life 
provided on the basis of the filament that fails first. The multiple 
numbers shall be separated by a ``/'' (e.g., 800/1600/2500 lumens).
    (5) A manufacturer or private labeler who distributes general 
service fluorescent lamps or general service lamps without labels 
attached to the lamps or without labels on individual retail-sale 
packaging for one or more lamps may meet the package disclosure 
requirements of this section by making the required disclosures, in the 
manner and form required by those paragraphs, on the bulk shipping 
cartons that are to be used to display the lamps for retail sale.
    (6) Any manufacturer or private labeler who makes any 
representation, other than those required by this section, on a package 
of any covered product that is a general service fluorescent lamp or 
general service lamp regarding the cost of operation or life of such 
lamp shall clearly and conspicuously disclose in close proximity to 
such representation the assumptions upon which it is based, including, 
e.g., purchase price, unit cost of electricity, hours of use, patterns 
of use. If those assumptions differ from those required for the cost 
and life information on the Lighting Facts label (11 cents per kWh and 
3 hours per day), the manufacturer or private labeler must also 
disclose, with equal clarity and conspicuousness and in close proximity 
to, the same representation based on the assumptions for cost and life 
required on the Lighting Facts label.
    (e)(1) Any covered product that is a general service fluorescent 
lamp or an incandescent reflector lamp shall be labeled clearly and 
conspicuously with a capital letter ``E'' printed within a circle and 
followed by an asterisk. The label shall also clearly and conspicuously 
disclose, either in close proximity to that asterisk or elsewhere on 
the label, the following statement:
    *[The encircled ``E''] means this bulb meets Federal minimum 
efficiency standards.
    (i) If the statement is not disclosed on the principal display 
panel, the asterisk shall be followed by the following statement:
    See [Back,Top, Side] panel for details.
    (ii) For purposes of this paragraph, the encircled capital letter 
``E'' shall be clearly and conspicuously disclosed in color-contrasting 
ink on the label of any covered product that is a general service 
fluorescent lamp and will be deemed ``conspicuous,'' in terms of size, 
if it appears in typeface at least as large as either the 
manufacturer's name or logo or another logo disclosed on the label, 
such as the ``UL'' or ``ETL'' logos, whichever is larger.
    (2) Instead of labeling any covered product that is a general 
service fluorescent lamp with the encircled ``E'' and with the 
statement described in paragraph (e)(1) of this section, a manufacturer 
or private labeler who would not otherwise put a label on such a lamp 
may meet the disclosure requirements of that paragraph by permanently 
marking the lamp clearly and conspicuously with the encircled ``E.''
    (3) Any cartons in which any covered products that are general 
service fluorescent lamps and general service lamps are shipped within 
the United States or imported into the United States shall disclose 
clearly and conspicuously the following statement:
    These lamps comply with Federal energy efficiency labeling 
requirements.
* * * * *

0
7. In Sec.  305.19, remove the phrase ``medium base compact fluorescent 
lamps, or general service incandescent lamps including incandescent 
reflector lamps'' and add in its place ``general service lamps'' 
wherever it appears.

0
8. Section 305.20 is amended as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (a)(1), remove the phrase ``medium base compact 
fluorescent lamps, general service incandescent lamps including 
incandescent reflector lamps'' and add in its place ``general service 
lamps'' wherever it appears;
0
b. Revise paragraph (c)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  305.20  Paper catalogs and websites.

* * * * *
    (c)(1) Any manufacturer, distributor, retailer, or private labeler 
who advertises in a catalog a covered product that is a general service 
fluorescent lamp or general service lamp shall disclose clearly and 
conspicuously in such catalog:
    (i) On each page listing any covered product that is a general 
service lamp, all the information concerning that lamp required by 
Sec.  305.15 of this part to be disclosed on the lamp's package 
labeling either in the form of the manufacturer's Lighting Facts label 
prepared pursuant to Sec.  305.15 or otherwise in a clear and 
conspicuous

[[Page 41717]]

manner. For the ``Light Appearance'' disclosure required by Sec.  
305.15(b)(3)(iv), the catalog need only disclose the lamp's correlated 
color temperature in Kelvin (e.g., 2700 K); and
    (ii) On each page listing a covered product that is a general 
service fluorescent lamp or an incandescent reflector lamp, all the 
information required by Sec.  305.15 of this part to be disclosed on 
the lamp's package labeling according to the following format:
    (A) The encircled ``E'' shall appear with each lamp entry; and
    (B) The accompanying statement described in Sec.  305.15(d)(1) 
shall appear at least once on the page.
    * * *

0
9. In Sec.  305.21, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  305.21  Test data records.

* * * * *
    (b) Upon notification by the Commission or its designated 
representative, a manufacturer or private labeler shall provide, within 
30 days of the date of such request, the underlying test data from 
which the water use or energy consumption rate, the energy efficiency 
rating, the estimated annual cost of using each basic model, or the 
light output, energy usage, correlated color temperature, and life 
ratings and, for fluorescent lamps, the color rendering index, for each 
basic model or lamp type were derived.

0
10. Amend Appendix L as follows:
0
a. Add Prototype Labels 5, 6, and 7 after Prototype Label 4,
0
b. Remove all graphics labeled Lamp Packaging Disclosures; and
0
c. Add Sample Labels 10, 11, 12, and 13 after Sample Label 9 as 
follows:

[[Page 41718]]

Appendix L to Part 305 - Sample Labels

* * * * *
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JY10.017


                            PROTOTYPE LABEL 5
           FRONT PACKAGE DISCLOSURE FOR GENERAL SERVICE LAMPS
 


[[Page 41719]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JY10.018


                            PROTOTYPE LABEL 6
    LIGHTING FACTS LABEL FOR GENERAL SERVICE LAMPS (STANDARD FORMAT)
 


[[Page 41720]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JY10.019


                            PROTOTYPE LABEL 7
    LIGHTING FACTS LABEL FOR GENERAL SERVICE LAMPS CONTAINING MERCURY
                             (LINEAR FORMAT)
 

* * * * *


[[Page 41721]]


    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JY10.020
    

                             SAMPLE LABEL 10
  LIGHTING FACTS LABEL FOR GENERAL SERVICE LAMP NOT CONTAINING MERCURY
 



[[Page 41722]]


    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JY10.021
    

                             SAMPLE LABEL 11
 LIGHTING FACTS LABEL FOR GENERAL SERVICE LAMP CONTAINING MERCURY (WIDE
                              ORIENTATION)
 


[[Page 41723]]


    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JY10.022
    

                             SAMPLE LABEL 12
 LIGHTING FACTS LABEL FOR GENERAL SERVICE LAMP CONTAINING MERCURY (TALL
                              ORIENTATION)
 


[[Page 41724]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JY10.023


                             SAMPLE LABEL 13
    LIGHTING FACTS LABEL FOR GENERAL SERVICE LAMP CONTAINING MERCURY
                           (BILINGUAL EXAMPLE)
 

* * * * *
    By direction of the Commission.

Donald S. Clark
Secretary
[FR Doc. 2010-16895 Filed 7-19-10: 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-C