[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