Appliance Labeling Rule, 45715-45724 [2011-19041]

Agencies

• FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 147 (Monday, August 1, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45715-45724]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-19041]


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

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 305

[RIN 3084-AB03]


Appliance Labeling Rule

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission (FTC or Commission).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission proposes to expand coverage of the Lighting 
Facts label to include all screw-based and GU-10 and GU-24 pin-based 
light bulbs. Under this proposal, manufacturers would have 2\1/2\ years 
to conform their products and packaging to the labeling requirements. 
The Commission also proposes to require a specific test procedure (LM-
79) for measuring light output for all light emitting diode (LED) bulbs 
covered by the Rule. Finally, the Commission is not proposing 
amendments for several other issues such as watt-equivalent standards, 
directional light disclosures, and lead content disclosures.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 22, 
2011.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by 
following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. Write ``Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking on Expanded Bulb Coverage for the Lighting Facts Label (16 
CFR part 305) (Project No. P084206)'' on your comment, and file your 
comment online at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/lampcoveragenprm, by following the

[[Page 45716]]

instructions on the web-based form. If you prefer to file your comment 
on paper, mail or deliver your comment to the following address: 
Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H-113 (Annex 
Y), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hampton Newsome, Attorney, Division of 
Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 
600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326-2889.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On July 19, 2010 (75 FR 41696), the Commission published new light 
bulb \1\ labeling requirements and sought comments on several 
unresolved issues related to those requirements.\2\ The new 
requirements, which amend the Appliance Labeling Rule, 16 CFR part 305 
(``Rule''), feature a ``Lighting Facts'' label that discloses 
information about the bulb's brightness, annual energy cost, life, 
color appearance, and energy use.\3\ The Commission also sought 
additional comment on the following unresolved issues: the label's 
product coverage, light-emitting diode (LED) test procedures, watt-
equivalence claims, beam spread and directional light disclosures, lead 
content disclosures, bilingual labels, fossil fuel lamp labels, and 
power factor disclosures. The Commission sought comment on these issues 
in response to the Congressional directive to consider reopening the 
labeling rulemaking in 2011 if the Commission determines that further 
labeling changes are necessary.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This document uses the terms lamp, light bulb, and bulb 
interchangeably.
    \2\ The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) 
directed the Commission to examine existing light bulb labeling 
requirements. Public Law 110-140. EISA amended the Energy Policy and 
Conservation Act (EPCA) (42 U.S.C. 6291 et seq.).
    \3\ The requirements also direct manufacturers to print lumen 
information and, where appropriate, a mercury disclosure on the 
products themselves.
    \4\ 42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(2)(D)(iii)(II)(bb).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Proposed Amendments

    Consistent with Congress' directive, the Commission is now 
reopening the light bulb labeling rulemaking to seek comments on 
proposed amendments to the Rule. Specifically, the Commission proposes 
to expand label coverage to additional styles of bulbs and to require a 
specific test procedure requirement for LED bulb labels. The comments 
received in response to the July 2010 Notice suggest that these changes 
will help consumers with their purchasing decisions.\5\ As discussed in 
section III, the Commission is not proposing amendments related to any 
other issues raised in the July 2010 Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See https://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/lamplabelingfinal/index.shtm. Unless otherwise stated, comments discussed in this 
document refer to the following: Anderson ( 549189-00015); 
Alliance to Save Energy (including American Council for an Energy-
Efficient Economy, Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Consumer 
Federation of America, Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, Northeast 
Energy Efficiency Partnerships, Northwest Power and Conservation 
Council, and Southeast Energy Efficiency Alliance) ( 
549189-00018); Bell ( 549189-00003); CEE ( 549189-
00019); Cree, Inc. ( 549189-00022); Fountain ( 
549189-00016); Fritz ( 549189-00008); Grosslight ( 
549189-00011); Krause ( 549189-00010); Meirowsky ( 
549189-00004) ( 549189-00005); Moratti ( 549189-
00009); Naim ( 549189-00014); Natural Resources Defense 
Council ( 549189-00013) ( 549189-00020); National 
Electrical Manufacturers Association ( 549189-00021); OSRAM 
SYLVANIA ( 549189-00017); Puckett ( 549189-00002); 
and St. Peter ( 549189-00012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Expanded Light Bulb Label Coverage

    The Commission proposes to expand label coverage beyond medium 
screw-based products \6\ to include all screw-based bulbs and GU-10 and 
GU-24 pin-based bulbs because expanded coverage will provide consumers 
uniform information, such as energy cost, brightness, and bulb life, to 
help them with their lighting decisions.\7\ In imposing these 
requirements, the Commission plans to give manufacturers at least two 
and a half years to change their packaging to incorporate the new 
labels. As explained below, the Commission also seeks comment on the 
Rule's existing exclusions for specialty bulbs (e.g., bug, marine, and 
mine service lamps) and requiring the Lighting Facts labels for general 
service fluorescent lamp packages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Currently, the new label covers all general service lamps 
(i.e., medium screw-based incandescent, compact fluorescent [CFL], 
and LED products).
    \7\ The Commission proposes this expanded coverage pursuant to 
42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(6) of EPCA, which gives the Commission authority 
to require disclosures for consumer products ``not specified'' under 
existing labeling requirements if the Commission ``determines that 
labeling for the product is likely to assist consumers in making 
purchasing decisions.'' EPCA defines ``consumer product'' as any 
article (other than an automobile) which ``in operation consumes, or 
is designed to consume energy'' and ``which, to any significant 
extent is distributed in commerce for personal use or consumption by 
an individual.'' 42 U.S.C. 6291(1). The Commission recently relied 
on this authority in requiring labels for LED bulbs, reflector 
lamps, and three-way lamps. 75 FR 41696, 41698 (Jul. 19, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the July 2010 Notice, several energy efficiency 
groups recommended, while industry members opposed, expanding coverage 
to include all screw-based models, including intermediate and 
candelabra based models, and GU-10 and GU-24 pin-based models. The 
energy efficiency groups argued that such expanded label coverage would 
help consumers choose among bulbs with varying light output, energy 
efficiency, and other factors.
    Specifically, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) argued 
that the new label should appear on packages for all screw-based models 
to ensure that the same information, in the form of the new label, 
appears on most light bulbs. In its view, the label's consistent 
disclosures for energy cost, brightness, life, color temperature, and 
watts will help consumers choose products with the characteristics they 
seek. According to the NRDC, consumers need the same basic light bulb 
information regardless of the product's shape (e.g., pear, globe, 
flame, or spiral), base (e.g., small, medium, or large diameter), or 
technology (e.g., incandescent, halogen, LED, CFL, etc.).\8\ Although 
medium screw bases are the most common type of consumer lamp, NRDC 
identified a wide variety of lamps which use candelabra and 
intermediate bases. During informal visits to retail stores, NRDC 
observed that these bulbs can range from 2 watts to 100 watts, fit many 
different applications including chandeliers, night lights, ceiling 
fans, and halogen fixtures, and use traditional incandescent, halogen, 
CFL, or LED technology.\9\ NRDC also identified wide differences in the 
light output among these products, arguing that labeling them would 
ensure a level playing field for industry. Finally, NRDC noted that 
packages for these products generally have room for the new FTC label.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Alliance to Save Energy also argued that no reason 
exists to exclude some screw-based bulbs from the label and not 
others. In its view, such inconsistency adds to consumer confusion 
when purchasing lighting products.
    \9\ NRDC included several examples of night lights, candelabra 
bulbs, and chandelier bulbs. In one instance, it observed two 
nearly-identical 60W flame shaped lamps being sold next to each, one 
with a conventional medium screw base, the other with a smaller, 
candelabra base.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE) also urged labeling for 
candelabra-based bulbs but added a recommendation for pin-based (GU-24 
and GU-10) lamps. In its view, expanding labeling coverage to 
additional styles of bulbs will better inform consumers about relative 
product performance and avoid confusion that could be caused by 
requiring the Lighting Facts label for some products but not others. 
CEE explained that, because these products can vary significantly in 
light output, energy use, and other characteristics, the label will be 
helpful to consumers. For example, current incandescent

[[Page 45717]]

candelabra-based bulbs generally draw 25-60 watts per lamp and thus 
have a broad range of energy costs. These products also occupy a 
significant market share, according to CEE estimates, with candelabra-
based products comprising roughly 9% of bulbs sold. Similarly, pin-
based CFLs, which also appear in various wattages, comprise roughly 8% 
of the CFLs in the U.S. in 2008 (approximately 28.3 million lamps) 
according to CEE estimates.\10\ CEE observed that candelabra and pin-
based lamps appear in varied light outputs, lifetimes, and color 
temperatures, suggesting such label information will help consumer 
purchasing decisions.\11\ Finally, CEE recommended that the FTC 
minimize the burden of expanded label coverage by providing 
manufacturers with more time to incorporate changes into their normal 
production and design schedules.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Commission recently declined to require the new label 
for 75-watt incandescent bulbs, which represent about \1/5\ of the 
incandescent market. 76 FR 20233 (Apr. 12, 2011). However, unlike 
pin-based CFLs, 75-watt incandescent bulbs will be phased out by 
2013 efficiency standards.
    \11\ For example, according to CEE, ENERGY STAR-qualified GU-24 
products demonstrate light output ranges from 547-2703 lumens, power 
draw from 9-42 watts, lifetime from 8,000-12,000 hours, and color 
temperature from 2700-6500 Kelvin.
    \12\ CEE's suggestion is consistent with concerns recently 
raised by industry members about the effective date for labels on 
medium screw base bulbs. See 75 FR 81943 (Dec. 29, 2010) (NEMA 
petition to extend effective date for implementation of the Lighting 
Facts label).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In contrast, the National Electrical Manufacturers Association 
(NEMA) opposed expanded label coverage. NEMA explained that because 
intermediate and candelabra-based bulbs use less energy than medium 
screw base bulbs on a daily basis and appear only in a few household 
locations such as bathrooms, dining rooms, and some outdoor lighting 
decorative fixtures, they do not warrant labeling.\13\ NEMA also argued 
that intermediate and candelabra based bulbs produced using differing 
technologies (e.g., incandescent, CFL, and LED) do not necessarily have 
the same functionality, and thus are not always direct substitutes for 
each other, presumably decreasing the comparative benefits of the FTC 
label. For example, most CFL replacements do not dim and may not 
provide the same ``sparkle'' sought by consumers. NEMA also asserted 
that consumers are likely to purchase intermediate and candelabra bulbs 
based on aesthetic shape, fit, and maximum wattage of their existing 
sockets, not on the information provided by the new labels. Finally, 
NEMA argued that packages for intermediate and candelabra bulbs (often 
cardboard sheets with plastic bulb covers) have little or no room for 
the new label.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ NEMA explained that EISA already limits the wattage of 
these bulbs to 40W for intermediate-based and 60W for candelabra-
based bulbs, implying that labeling is not necessary for these 
products because of their limited wattages and corresponding energy 
costs. NEMA acknowledges that a few bulb types do consume more 
energy (e.g., 500w DE bulb) but states that these type bulbs do not 
have any energy efficient alternatives for consumers to choose from.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After considering the comments, the Commission finds the energy 
efficiency group recommendations for expanding coverage more persuasive 
than NEMA's arguments opposing them.\14\ Contrary to NEMA's assertions, 
expanded labeling is likely to help consumers compare the variations in 
energy use, technology, and performance of these products. 
Specifically, these products can use significant amounts of energy 
compared to other lighting products. For example, as detailed by the 
comments, candelabra and intermediate-based incandescent bulbs are 
likely to draw significantly more watts than their CFL and LED 
counterparts. These bulbs also may draw more watts than larger, medium-
based CFLs and LEDs. In addition, while competing technologies may not 
be available for some of these bulbs, that is not always the case,\15\ 
and the development of additional competing technologies is likely in 
the future. Also, given the relatively high wattage and light output 
variation among these products, consumers are likely to consider the 
label's light output, energy cost, life, and other disclosures even if, 
as NEMA states, they also are concerned with other factors such as 
shape, fit, and maximum wattage. In fact, as indicated by other 
comments, performance characteristics for these bulbs vary 
significantly, strongly suggesting that the FTC label, which highlights 
such variations, will be relevant to many consumers. And, although 
typical usage patterns (e.g., hours per day of operation) may vary for 
these products, the standard usage assumption on the Lighting Facts 
label (i.e., three hours per day) will provide consumers a consistent 
method to compare performance. Finally, though NEMA raised concerns 
about package size, the Rule already addresses space limitation issues 
by allowing an alternative text-only label for packages with less than 
24 inches of printable space.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Consistent with existing requirements, the expanded bulb 
coverage would also apply to disclosures for bulbs sold through 
websites and paper catalogs. See 16 CFR 305.20.
    \15\ For instance, as suggested by NRDC, chandelier bulbs are 
commonly sold in CFL and incandescent versions.
    \16\ In calculating such space, manufacturers should exclude the 
package area occupied by the bulbs themselves and the plastic 
necessary to cover them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To expand the label's coverage to additional styles of bulbs, the 
Commission proposes to amend the definition of ``general service lamp'' 
to cover all screw-based incandescent, CFL, and LED lamps, eliminate 
existing exclusions for specific bulb shapes generally available to 
consumers, and make other minor, conforming changes consistent with 
this proposal.\17\ Currently, the definition excludes G shape lamps (as 
defined in ANSI C78.20-2003 and C79.1-2002) with a diameter of 5 inches 
or more; T shape lamps (as defined in ANSI C78.20-2003 and C79.1-2002) 
that use not more than 40 watts or have a length of more than 10 
inches; and B, BA, CA, F, G16-1/2, G-25, G30, S, or M-14 lamps (as 
defined in ANSI C79.1-2002 and ANSI C78.20-2003) of 40 watts or less.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The amendment to the definition of ``general service lamp'' 
also clarifies that the Lighting Facts label applies to lamps that 
are ``consumer products'' as defined by EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6291(1)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission seeks comment on this proposal, particularly whether 
the Rule should retain existing exclusions for the particular shapes 
described above.\18\ Please also provide detailed reasons for all 
comments. In preparing responses, commenters should review carefully 
the proposed revisions to the definition of ``general service lamp'' at 
the end of this notice. In addition, the Commission requests that 
comments address whether the Commission should retain existing 
exclusions for special-use bulbs including appliance lamps as defined 
at 42 U.S.C. 6291(30); black light lamps; bug lamps; colored lamps as 
defined at 42 U.S.C. 6291(30); infrared lamps; left-hand thread lamps; 
marine lamps; marine signal service lamp; mine service lamp; plant 
light lamps; rough service lamps as defined at 42 U.S.C. 6291(30); 
shatter-resistant lamps (including shatter-proof lamps and a 
shatterprotected lamps); sign service lamps; silver bowl lamps; 
showcase lamps; traffic signal lamps; and vibration service lamps as 
defined at 42 U.S.C. 6291(30). In addressing label coverage for these 
specialty bulbs or for any particular bulb shape, comments should 
indicate whether such bulbs are distributed, to any significant

[[Page 45718]]

extent, for personal use or consumption by consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Comments should also address whether these products will 
have space available for the disclosures required on the products 
themselves (e.g., lumens and mercury disclosure). In addition, 
comments should address whether test procedures are available for 
measuring light output, energy use, life, and color temperature for 
these products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, commenters should address whether the Lighting Facts label 
should appear on the package of general service fluorescent lamps.\19\ 
Currently, the Rule requires an encircled ``E'' on the package of these 
lamps to denote compliance with federal efficiency standards. When it 
issued this requirement in 1994, the Commission declined to require 
more detailed disclosures (e.g., lumens, life, etc.) because of 
similarities in the characteristics of competing general service 
fluorescent lamps.\20\ The Commmission asks now whether it should 
reconsider this decision and, if so, why. In particular, comments 
should address the extent to which these products are sold to consumers 
in the residential market, the amount of energy such products use, the 
variability in energy use between comparable products, the burdens 
associated with such label changes, and the likelihood the new label 
information would help consumers in their purchasing decisions for 
these products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ One commenter, Meirowsky, suggested that the Commission 
label these products but did not provide details.
    \20\ 59 FR 25176, 25197 (May 13, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. LED Test Procedure

    Based on unchallenged support in the comments, the Commission 
proposes to require a specific test procedure, IES-LM-79-2008 (LM-79), 
for measuring LED light output and color characteristics to help ensure 
consistent label content. The July 2010 Notice identified this 
procedure as a ``safe harbor,'' allowing manufacturers to use LM-79 as 
a reasonable basis for LED light output claims. Now, the Commission 
proposes to make the procedure mandatory and provide manufacturers one 
year to begin using the procedure as the basis for their label 
information for LED bulbs. The Commission seeks comment on this 
proposal.
    Comments provided convincing support for the adoption of LM-79.\21\ 
CEE argued that an FTC requirement for LM-79 would create more 
consistency in the market. It explained that the procedure offers the 
only test available to measure LED products, given their unique 
properties. CEE also noted that representatives of industry, research 
institutions, and test laboratories contributed to its development and 
that the ENERGY STAR program has incorporated LM-79 into its 
specifications. Cree, Inc., also explained that most manufacturers know 
the LM-79 procedures, test labs conduct these measurements, and, in the 
commercial market at least, consumers are looking for this test data 
when they purchase LED bulbs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See NEMA, CEE, and Cree, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Issues Not Included in Proposed Amendments

    After reviewing the comments submitted in response to the July 2010 
Notice, the Commission is not proposing any new requirements for watt-
equivalence standards, beam spread disclosures, directional light 
disclosures, lead content disclosures, bilingual labels, fossil fuel 
lamp labels, and power factor at this time.\22\ Unless stated 
otherwise, the Commission is not seeking additional comments on these 
issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The Commission also received comments on issues already 
addressed by the Final Rule notice (e.g., bulb life disclosures, 
mercury disclosures, color rendering index, and dimmers) and issues 
not identified for comment in that notice (e.g., operating 
temperature disclosures). This Notice does not address those issues 
because the Commission has already considered them earlier or 
because they are not relevant to the issues currently under 
consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Watt-Equivalence Claims

    The Commission is not proposing standards for watt-equivalence 
claims because such requirements may inhibit helpful, truthful 
representations, and thus may not necessarily help consumers in their 
bulb purchasing decisions. Nevertheless, manufacturers should heed the 
Commission's earlier recommendation to use ENERGY STAR equivalence 
benchmarks for general guidance in developing their watt-equivalence 
claims.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 75 FR at 41701.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Watt-equivalence claims often appear on CFL packages and generally 
contain conspicuous comparisons of the CFL's light output to equivalent 
incandescent lamps (e.g., ``this bulb is a `60-watt' equivalent'' or 
``13W=60W''). In the June 2010 Notice, the Commission sought comment on 
establishing mandatory, watt-equivalence requirements for these 
claims.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The comments offered conflicting views. NRDC suggested the 
Commission set standards to mandate consistency in watt-equivalence 
claims on light bulb packages. In particular, NRDC, which provided 
several examples of problematic watt-equivalence claims, urged the 
Commission to use the ENERGY STAR watt-equivalence benchmarks in that 
program's CFL specifications. It also noted that the European Union has 
already adopted such standards. Additionally, NRDC urged standards for 
reflector lamps separate from those for conventional incandescent 
bulbs. NEMA also supported standards but, as an alternative, 
recommended the Commission impose a blanket prohibition on all watt-
equivalence claims. Such a prohibition, in NEMA's view, would shift 
consumers away from using older, nearly obsolete technology as the 
basis for their bulb comparisons.
    Conversely, Cree, Inc. argued that strict standards may actually 
encourage watt-equivalence claims and cause continued consumer reliance 
on power as a shorthand for light output. Cree, Inc. also argued that 
watt-equivalence comparisons should take into account factors other 
than light output such as light quality and distribution. According to 
Cree, Inc., products with identical light outputs and color temperature 
may actually appear to be substantially different to consumers because 
of factors such as color rendition index, light distribution, and color 
point location.
    After considering these comments, the Commission is not proposing 
watt-equivalence standards at this time. As discussed by the Commission 
in the July 2010 Notice, the ENERGY STAR benchmarks provide important 
guidance, but they may not be applicable in every case.\25\ Variables 
such as color appearance and other factors discussed in the comments 
make it difficult to apply a ``one-size-fits-all'' approach. Indeed, 
rigid equivalence standards could inhibit truthful claims. For example, 
while typical 60-watt incandescent bulbs have an 800-lumen rating, some 
60-watt bulbs that have a cooler light appearance, could have lower 
lumen ratings (e.g., 675 lumens). A strict legal standard requiring at 
least 800 lumens for all 60-watt comparisons would prohibit such claims 
for those cooler, dimmer (e.g., 675 lumens) bulbs even though they are 
truthful.\26\ The

[[Page 45719]]

comments did not address these concerns in any detail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Id.
    \26\ EPCA authorizes the Commission to consider ``alternative 
labeling approaches that will help consumers to understand new high-
efficiency lamp products and to base the purchase decisions of the 
consumers on the most appropriate source that meets the requirements 
of the consumers for lighting level, light quality, lamp lifetime, 
and total lifecycle cost.'' 42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(2)(D)(iii). Although 
EPCA gives the FTC authority to require affirmative energy 
disclosures on packages and products, the statute does not indicate 
that the FTC has authority to prohibit what are otherwise truthful, 
substantiated claims. Under Sec.  5 of the FTC Act, the Commission 
has authority to prohibit deceptive and unfair claims. 15 U.S.C. 
45(a)(1). There is no evidence that the watt-equivalence claims 
discussed here are categorically deceptive or unfair. In fact, as 
the Commission has acknowledged previously (74 FR 57950, 57955 (Nov. 
10, 2009)), watt-equivalence claims may be useful to consumers as 
they transition toward using lumens as the primary indicator of 
brightness. The Commission generally does not set environmental or 
performance standards, particularly if such standards will prohibit 
truthful, non-deceptive claims. See 75 FR 63552, 63596 (Oct. 15, 
2010) (proposed FTC Green Guides revisions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, even in the absence of rigid watt-equivalence standards, 
manufacturers must ensure they can substantiate their watt-equivalence 
claims. The comments highlight the need for manufacturers to ensure 
their watt-equivalence claims are not deceptive. In particular, 
manufacturers must take into account the brightness of the bulbs they 
are comparing, as well as other material factors such as light 
appearance (i.e., color temperature). To help manufacturers with these 
claims, the ENERGY STAR program has issued watt-equivalence standards 
that provide general benchmarks for comparing the light output of 
traditional incandescents to CFLs. In the short run, the Commission 
recommends that manufacturers adhere to the benchmarks in the ENERGY 
STAR watt-equivalence guidelines (see Table 1 below) unless they have a 
reasonable basis for a different equivalence standard. Simply put, if a 
manufacturer's claim is inconsistent with the ENERGY STAR benchmarks, 
it must possess another competent and reliable basis to substantiate 
its claims and should consider clearly qualifying its claims to avoid 
deception. Deceptive watt-equivalence comparisons are subject to FTC 
law enforcement actions under Sec.  5 of the FTC Act.

            Table 1--ENERGY STAR Watt-Equivalence Benchmarks
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Typical luminous
              A-shaped incandescent bulb                  flux (lumens)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
25....................................................               250
40....................................................               450
60....................................................               800
75....................................................             1,100
100...................................................             1,600
125...................................................             2,000
150...................................................             2,600
30-70-100.............................................             1,200
50-100-150............................................             2,150
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Does not apply to globes, reflectors, or decorative CFLs. Lumens
  for 3-way lamps correspond to maximum equivalence shown.

    In the long run, as more high-efficiency products appear and older 
incandescent technology leaves the market, watt-equivalence comparisons 
will have decreasing relevance to consumers. As equivalence claims 
recede, lumens will continue to provide a clear, consistent measurement 
for light output. However, consumer transition from watts to lumens 
will take time. The Commission encourages manufacturers to focus their 
communication efforts on lumens to help consumers with their lighting 
decisions. Eventually, consumer education, coupled with the phase-out 
of old incandescent bulbs, will help consumers look to lumens, not to 
obsolete watt-equivalence claims to evaluate bulb brightness.

B. Beam Spread and Directional Light Disclosure

    The Commission is not proposing requirements for beam spread or 
directional light disclosures because the need for such mandatory 
disclosures to help consumers is unclear. In particular, no consistent 
definition exists for beam spread across different bulb types and the 
need for mandatory directional light disclosures is uncertain.
    NEMA's comments opposed a beam spread disclosure because 
definitions of beam spread vary among different bulb types (e.g., 
reflector and PAR [parabolic aluminized reflector] products). In 
addition, NEMA asserted that most residential consumers do not 
understand beam spread terminology. NEMA also indicated that commercial 
consumers and lighting designers generally obtain beam spread 
information from manufacturer catalogs, not from packages, thus 
suggesting that beam spread information on label packages would not be 
particularly helpful. No other commenter specifically addressed this 
issue. The Commission does not plan to pursue it further at this time.
    NEMA and Cree, Inc. supported a directional light disclosure, 
arguing it would be useful to consumers and use little space on the 
package. In particular, NEMA recommended Center Beam Candlepower (CBCP) 
(i.e., brightness at the center of the beam) for the directional 
disclosure on packaging for reflector lamps, including PARs. Cree, Inc. 
added that the label should disclose beam angle (either a specific 
angle or a category such as spot, flood, etc.).
    Despite support in the comments, the Commission is not proposing to 
require CBCP disclosures at this time because nothing on the record 
suggests such information is familiar to typical consumers. Given this, 
CBCP or directional disclosure information may detract from information 
already on the label. If manufacturers believe such disclosures are 
important, nothing in the Rule prohibits them from providing it 
somewhere on the package (other than on the Lighting Facts label), as 
long as the information is truthful and substantiated.

C. Lead Content Disclosure

    The Commission is not proposing a lead disclosure on the Lighting 
Facts label at this time because there is no clear basis in the 
comments demonstrating that this additional requirement would assist 
consumers in their purchasing decisions. According to NEMA, 
manufacturers have removed most of the lead from regulated products and 
any remaining lead is not available to human touch.

D. Bilingual Label Requirements

    The current Rule allows, but does not require, bilingual labels. In 
light of the substantial marketing directed at non-English speakers, 
the July 2010 Notice sought comment on whether, when manufacturers make 
claims in a foreign language on a light bulb package, they should be 
required to include the Lighting Facts label in both that language and 
English. NEMA, the only organization to comment on this issue, opposed 
such a bilingual labeling requirement, citing space limitations on 
packages and the confusion multiple languages may cause. The Commission 
heard from no organizations or persons with expertise in issues 
affecting non-English speaking consumers.
    The Commission believes this issue warrants further consideration. 
For nearly 40 years, Commission rules, guides, and cease-and-desist 
orders that mandate the clear and conspicuous disclosure of information 
in advertisements and sales material have required that such 
information be displayed in the language of the target audience 
(ordinarily, the language principally used in the advertisement or 
sales material in question).\27\ Before adopting an alternative 
approach in the context of light bulb packaging, the Commission will 
continue to consider this issue and seeks additional information from a 
wider group of stakeholders. As part of that process, the Commission 
requests further comment on whether non-English claims on light bulb 
packages should trigger mandatory bilingual labels or other 
disclosures, and specifically asks commenters to address the following 
questions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 16 CFR 14.9 (see 38 FR 21494 (Aug. 4, 1973)); see also 16 
CFR 610.4(a)(3)(ii) (mandatory disclosures about free credit reports 
must be made in same language as that principally used in the 
advertisement); 16 CFR 308.3(a)(1) (mandatory disclosures about pay-
per-call services must be made in same language as that principally 
used in advertisement); 16 CFR 455.5 (where used car sale conducted 
in Spanish, mandatory disclosures must be made in Spanish); 16 CFR 
429.1(a) (in door-to-door sales, failure to furnish completed 
receipt or contract in same language as oral sales presentation is 
an unfair and deceptive act or practice).

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

[[Page 45720]]

    1. How prevalent today are non-English claims on light bulb 
packages? What are the languages being used? What types of information 
is typically conveyed through such non-English claims?
    2. Do any light bulb packages currently include non-English 
information without displaying a bilingual version of the required FTC 
label? If so, please address whether, in such circumstances, the 
English label sufficiently conveys lighting information to non-English 
speaking consumers given the label's emphasis on numerical information. 
If so, why? If not, why not?
    3. Would a bilingual label requirement triggered by non-English 
claims on packages discourage manufacturers from including non-English 
information on their packages? If so why, and what could be done to 
ameliorate that effect? If not, why not?
    4. Could a bilingual label fit on all light bulb packages? If so, 
why? If not, why not? If the bilingual label could fit some but not all 
package sizes, how big would the package have to be to reasonably carry 
a bilingual label? Should a triggered disclosure depend on the size of 
the label?
    5. Finally, the Commission seeks input on any other measures it 
should consider to help non-English speaking consumers obtain the 
information provided on the Lighting Facts Label concerning estimated 
annual energy cost, brightness, light appearance, life energy use, and 
the presence of mercury.

E. Fossil Fuel Lamps

    The Commission is not proposing to require fossil fuel lamp labels 
(e.g., natural gas lights, propane lights, and kerosene lamps) at this 
time because there is no clear basis in the record to indicate the 
Lighting Facts label would be appropriate for these products and thus 
help consumers in their purchasing decisions. In earlier comments, the 
Edison Electric Institute urged labeling for fossil fuel lamps noting 
their high energy costs.\28\ However, fossil fuel lamps are 
significantly different from electric lamps in factors such as fuel 
type and use. For example, the usage and cost assumptions applicable to 
electric light bulbs may not apply to fossil fuel lamps. NEMA, which 
provided the only comments on this issue, noted that consumers use 
fossil fuel lamps for different applications than other lamps. NEMA 
also stated that consumers do not expect fossil fuel lamps to be energy 
efficient.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See 75 FR at 41698, n.16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Power Factor

    The Commission is not proposing to include power factor on the 
Lighting Facts label because, according to the comments, power factor 
does not affect a consumer's energy costs and few consumers are likely 
to understand the term.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See NEMA, Cree, Inc., and CEE. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Minor, Clarifying Changes

    The Commission also proposes to clarify the Rule language for 
labeling bulbs that operate at multiple, separate light levels (e.g., 
``3-way'' bulbs) to clarify that such language applies to all covered 
bulb technologies. Currently, the Rule's language addressing such bulbs 
applies only to incandescent bulbs.

V. Request for Comment

    The Commission invites interested persons to submit written 
comments on any issue of fact, law, or policy that may bear upon the 
proposals under consideration. Please include explanations for any 
answers provided, as well as supporting evidence where appropriate. 
After examining the comments, the Commission will determine whether to 
issue specific amendments.
    You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to 
consider your comment, we must receive it on or before September 22, 
2011. Write ``Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Expanded Bulb Coverage 
for the Lighting Facts Label (16 CFR part 305) (Project No. P084206)'' 
on your comment. Your comment--including your name and your state--will 
be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the 
extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at https://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm. As a matter of discretion, the 
Commission tries to remove individuals' home contact information from 
comments before placing them on the Commission Website.
    Because your comment will be made public, you are solely 
responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any 
sensitive personal information, like anyone's Social Security number, 
date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification 
number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial 
account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely 
responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any 
sensitive health information, like medical records or other 
individually identifiable health information. In addition, do not 
include any ``[t]rade 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 FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 
46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). If you want the 
Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file 
it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you 
have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 
4.9(c).\30\ Your comment will be kept confidential only if the FTC 
General Counsel, in his or her sole discretion, grants your request in 
accordance with the law and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ In particular, the written request for confidential 
treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and 
legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions 
of the comment to be withheld from the public record. See FTC Rule 
4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to 
heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit 
your comments online, or to send them to the Commission by courier or 
overnight service. To make sure that the Commission considers your 
online comment, you must file it at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/lampcoveragenprm, by following the instructions on the web-based 
form. If this Notice appears at https://www.regulations.gov/#!home, you 
also may file a comment through that website.
    If you file your comment on paper, write ``Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking on Expanded Bulb Coverage for the Lighting Facts Label (16 
CFR part 305) (Project No. P084206)'' on your comment and on the 
envelope, and mail or deliver it to the following address: Federal 
Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H-113 (Annex Y), 600 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580. If possible, submit 
your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
    Visit the Commission Web site at https://www.ftc.gov to read this 
Notice and the news release describing it. The FTC Act and other laws 
that the Commission administers permit the collection of public 
comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The 
Commission will consider all timely and responsive

[[Page 45721]]

public comments that it receives on or before September 22, 2011. You 
can find more information, including routine uses permitted by the 
Privacy Act, in the Commission's privacy policy, at https://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm.
    Because written comments appear adequate to present the views of 
all interested parties, the Commission has not scheduled an oral 
hearing regarding these proposed amendments. Interested parties may 
request an opportunity to present views orally. If such a request is 
made, the Commission will publish a document in the Federal Register 
stating the time and place for such oral presentation(s) and describing 
the procedures that will be followed. Interested parties who wish to 
present oral views must submit a hearing request, on or before 
September 22, 2011, in the form of a written comment that describes the 
issues on which the party wishes to speak. If there is no oral hearing, 
the Commission will base its decision on the written rulemaking record.

VI. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The current Rule contains recordkeeping, disclosure, and testing 
requirements that constitute a ``collection of information'' as defined 
by 5 CFR 1320.3(c), the definitions provision within OMB regulations 
that implement the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).\31\ OMB has approved 
the Rule's existing information collection requirements through January 
31, 2014 (OMB Control No. 3084-0069). The amendments make changes in 
the Rule's labeling requirements. Accordingly, the Commission has 
submitted this notice of proposed rulemaking and associated Supporting 
Statement to OMB for review under the PRA.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521.
    \32\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Package and Product Labeling: The proposed amendments require 
manufacturers to label several new bulb types. Accordingly, 
manufacturers will have to amend their package and product labeling to 
include new disclosures. The new requirements impose a one-time 
adjustment for manufacturers. The Commission estimates that there are 
50 manufacturers making approximately 3,000 of these newly covered 
products. This adjustment will require an estimated 600 hours per 
manufacturer on average.\33\ Annualized for a single year reflective of 
a prospective 3-year PRA clearance, this averages to 200 hours per 
year. Thus, the label design change will result in cumulative burden of 
10,000 hours (50 manufacturers x 200 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 $23.44 per hour based on Bureau of Labor Statistics information.\34\ 
Thus, the Commission estimates annual labor cost for this adjustment 
will total $234,400 (10,000 hours x $23.44 per hour).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ The Commission has increased its estimate of the hours 
required to make this change from earlier estimates given recent 
concerns raised about the burden of implementing label changes. See 
75 FR 81943 (Dec. 29, 2010).
    \34\ See U.S. Department of Labor, National Compensation Survey: 
Occupational Earnings in the United States 2009 (June 2010), 
Bulletin 2738, Table 3 (``Full-time civilian workers,'' mean and 
median hourly wages), https://www.bls.gov/ncs/ncswage2009.htm, at 3-
12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission estimates that the annualized capital cost of 
expanding the light bulb label coverage is $1,535,000. This estimate is 
based on the assumptions that manufacturers will have to change 3,000 
model packages over a three-year period to meet the new requirements 
\35\ and that package label changes for each product will cost 
$1,335.\36\ Manufacturers place information on products in the normal 
course of business. Annualized in the context of a 3-year PRA 
clearance, these non-labor costs would average $1,335,000 (3,000 model 
packages x $1,335 each / 3 years). As for product labeling, the 
Commission assumes that the one-time labeling change will cost $200 per 
model for an annualized estimated total of $200,000 (3,000 models x 
$200 / 3 years). Annualized in the context of a 3-year PRA clearance, 
these non-labor costs would average $1,535,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ This assumes that manufacturers will change packages for 
one third of their products in the normal course of business over 
the compliance period (i.e., 2\1/2\). The two and a half year 
compliance period and the notice provided by this proceeding should 
minimize the likelihood that manufacturers will have to discard 
package inventory. In addition, manufacturers may use stickers in 
lieu of discarding inventory.
    \36\ See 75 FR at 41712 n. 149 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Catalog Sellers: The proposed amendments will also require catalog 
sellers (e.g., website and print catalog sellers) to make required 
disclosures for these products pursuant to 16 CFR 305.20. The 
Commission estimates that there are approximately 150 entities subject 
to the amended requirements. The Commission estimates that these 
sellers each require approximately 17 hours per year to incorporate the 
data into their catalogs. This estimate is based on the assumption that 
entry of the required information takes on average one minute per 
covered product and an assumption that the average online catalog 
contains approximately 1,000 covered products. Given that there is 
great variety among sellers in the volume of products that they offer 
online, it is very difficult to estimate such numbers with precision. 
In addition, this analysis assumes that information for all 1,000 
products is entered into the catalog each year. This is a conservative 
assumption because the number of incremental additions to the catalog 
from year to year is likely to be much lower after initial start-up 
efforts have been completed. Thus, the total annual disclosure burden 
for all catalog sellers of light bulbs covered by the proposed Rule is 
2,550 hours (150 sellers x 17 hours annually). 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 $23.44 per hour.\37\ Thus, estimated labor cost for this adjustment 
is $59,772 (2,550 hours x $23.44 per hour).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See supra note 34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Testing: The Commission assumes conservatively that manufacturers 
will have to test 3,000 basic models at 14 hours for each model for a 
total of 42,000 hours.\38\ 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 $39.72 per hour.\39\ 
Thus, the Commission estimates that the new label design change will 
result in associated labor costs of approximately $1,668,240 (42,000 
hours x $39.72 per hour). The Commission does not expect that the final 
amendments will create any capital or other non-labor costs for such 
testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ The Commission also assumes conservatively that 
manufacturers will conduct new testing for 3,000 out of the 6,000 
estimated covered products. The Commission does not expect the 
specific LED testing requirements will increase burden because 
existing burden estimates account for testing of products already 
covered by the Rule. See 75 FR 81943 (Dec. 29, 2010).
    \39\ Supra note 34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the revised estimated total hour burden of the 
amendments is 54,550 hours (10,000 hours for packaging and labeling + 
2,550 hours for catalog compliance + 42,000 hours for additional 
testing for correlated color temperature) with associated labor costs 
of $1,962,412 and annualized capital or other non-labor costs totaling 
$1,535,000.

[[Page 45722]]

    Comments on any proposed labeling requirements subject to review 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act should additionally be submitted to 
OMB. If sent by U.S. mail, they should be addressed to Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 
Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Trade Commission, New Executive 
Office Building, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20503. Comments sent to OMB by U.S. postal mail, 
however, are subject to delays due to heightened security precautions. 
Thus, comments instead should be sent by facsimile to (202) 395-5167.

VII. 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. See 5 U.S.C. 603-605.
    The Commission does not anticipate that the proposed rule will have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. The Commission recognizes that some of the affected 
manufacturers may qualify as small businesses under the relevant 
thresholds. However, the Commission does not expect that the economic 
impact of the proposed amendments will be significant.
    In its July 19, 2010 Notice (75 FR 41711), the Commission estimated 
that the new labeling 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 qualify 
as small businesses.
    Accordingly, this document serves as notice to the Small Business 
Administration of the FTC's certification of no effect. To ensure the 
accuracy of this certification, however, the Commission requests 
comment on whether the proposed rule will have a significant impact on 
a substantial number of small entities, including specific information 
on the number of entities that would be covered by the proposed rule, 
the number of these companies that are ``small entities,'' and the 
average annual burden for each entity. Although the Commission 
certifies under the RFA that the rule proposed in this notice would 
not, if promulgated, have a significant impact on a substantial number 
of small entities, the Commission has determined, nonetheless, that it 
is appropriate to publish an IRFA in order to inquire into the impact 
of the proposed rule on small entities. Therefore, the Commission has 
prepared the following analysis:

A. Description of the Reasons That Action by the Agency Is Being Taken

    Section 321(b) of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 
(Pub. L. 110-140) requires the Commission to consider reopening light 
bulb labeling requirements in 2011. The Commission is proposing 
expanded product coverage and additional testing requirements to help 
consumers in their purchasing decisions for high efficiency products.

B. Statement of the Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the Proposed 
Rule

    The objective of the rule is to improve the effectiveness of the 
current lamp labeling program. Section 321(b) of the Energy 
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-140) requires the 
Commission consider reopening light bulb labeling requirements in 2011 
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.

C. Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rule 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 approximately 150 entities subject 
to the proposed rule's requirements that qualify as small 
businesses.\40\ The Commission seeks comment and information with 
regard to the estimated number or nature of small business entities for 
which the proposed rule would have a significant economic impact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See 75 FR at 41712.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements

    The changes under consideration would not increase any reporting or 
recordkeeping requirements associated with the Commission's labeling 
rules (75 FR 41696). The amendments will increase compliance burdens by 
extending the labeling requirements to new types of light bulbs. The 
Commission assumes that the label design change will be implemented by 
graphic designers.

E. Duplicative, Overlapping, or Conflicting Federal Rules

    The Commission has not identified any other federal statutes, 
rules, or policies that would duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the 
proposed rule. The Commission invites comment and information on this 
issue.

F. Significant Alternatives to the Proposed Rule

    The Commission seeks comment and information on the need, if any, 
for alternative compliance methods that, consistent with the statutory 
requirements, would reduce the economic impact of the rule on small 
entities. For example, in proposing to extend the bulb coverage, the 
Commission is currently unaware of the need to adopt any special 
provision for small entities to be able to take advantage of the 
proposed extension or exemption, where applicable. However, if such 
issues are identified, the Commission could consider alternative 
approaches such as extending the effective date of these amendments for 
catalog sellers to allow them additional time to comply beyond the 
labeling deadline set for manufacturers. Nonetheless, if the comments 
filed in response to this notice identify small entities that are 
affected by the rule, as well as alternative methods of compliance that 
would reduce the economic impact of the rule on such entities, the 
Commission will consider the feasibility of such alternatives and 
determine whether they should be incorporated into the final rule.

VIII. Communications by Outside Parties to the Commissioners or Their 
Advisors

    Written communications and summaries or transcripts of oral 
communications respecting the merits of this proceeding, from any 
outside party to any Commissioner or Commissioner's advisor, will be 
placed on the public record. See 16 CFR 1.26(b)(5).

IX. Proposed Rule

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 305

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

    For the reasons discussed above, the Commission proposes to amend 
part

[[Page 45723]]

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'')

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

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 6294.

    2. In Sec.  305.3, revise paragraphs (l), (m), (n), (o), (p) and 
(q) to read as follows:


Sec.  305.3  Description of covered products.

* * * * *
    (l) General service lamp means:
    (1) A lamp that is a consumer product and is:
    (i) A 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)(2)(ii)(A) through (Q) of this section; and
    (ii) Any general service fluorescent lamp.
    (m) Compact fluorescent lamp means an integrally ballasted 
fluorescent lamp with a screw, GU-10 pin, or GU-24 pin base, and a 
rated input voltage range of 115 to 130 volts; however, the term does 
not include any lamp that is specifically designed to be used for 
special purpose applications described in paragraphs (n)(2)(ii)(A) 
through (Q) of this section.
    (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 up to 199 watts, has an 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 screw 
bases and a rated voltage or voltage range that lies at least partially 
within 115 and 130 volts;
    (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);
    (2) 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 screw base;
    (C) Has a lumen range of 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;
    (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 
shatterprotected lamp);
    (M) A sign service lamp;
    (N) A silver bowl lamp;
    (O) A showcase lamp;
    (P) A traffic signal lamp; or
    (Q) A vibration service lamp as defined at 42 U.S.C. 6291(30);
    (3) Incandescent reflector lamp means a lamp described in paragraph 
(n)(1)(ii) of this section; and
    (4) 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 
construc