Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 29, 2010 / Proposed Rules 81943 

1This document uses the terms lamp, light bulb, 

and bulb interchangeably. 

APHIS the flexibility to adjust the 

sample without going through the 

rulemaking process, and would be more 

in line with agreements that we have 

with other countries exporting fruit to 

the United States. APHIS would be able 

to increase the number of fruit sampled 

if the risk of Medfly larvae in 

consignments of fruit is determined to 

have increased, and lower the number if 

environmental, climatic, or other factors 

indicate a lower risk. 

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

This proposed rule has been 

determined to be not significant for the 

purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, 

therefore, has not been reviewed by the 

Office of Management and Budget. 

In accordance with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, we have analyzed the 

potential economic effects of this action 

on small entities. The analysis is 

summarized below. Copies of the full 

analysis are available by contacting the 

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT or on the 

Regulations.gov Web site (see 

ADDRESSES above for instructions for 

accessing Regulations.gov). 

A consignment of clementines 

consists of one or more lots containing 

no more than a combined total of 

200,000 boxes of clementines that are 

presented to an inspector for pretreatment inspection. Under the current 

regulations that allow for sampling of 

200 clementines, the percentage of 

sampled clementines ranges from 0.02 

percent to 0.1 percent per consignment 

inspected. Even if inspection amounts 

were increased two or three times when 

there is a higher pest risk (or reduced 

when there is a lower pest risk), the 

percentage of clementines sampled 

would remain negligible. 

While this rule would help reduce the 

risk of pest introduction, we are unable 

to quantify the economic impact of 

decreasing the probability of 

introducing Medfly into the United 

States. Medfly introductions can be very 

costly to producers and to the Federal 

and State Governments. The mean cost 

of eradicating six Medfly outbreaks in 

2007 was $13.54 million. 

This rule would not have a significant 

economic effect on producers of 

clementines or other U.S. entities, 

regardless of their size or resources. As 

described, an increase or decrease in the 

number of fruit sampled due to pest risk 

level changes would have a negligible 

effect on the number of clementines 

imported from Spain. 

Under these circumstances, the 

Administrator of the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service has 

determined that this action would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Executive Order 12988 

This proposed rule has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform. If this proposed rule is 

adopted: (1) All State and local laws and 

regulations that are inconsistent with 

this rule will be preempted; (2) no 

retroactive effect will be given to this 

rule; and (3) administrative proceedings 

will not be required before parties may 

file suit in court challenging this rule. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed rule contains no new 

information collection or recordkeeping 

requirements under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.). 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 319 

Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Imports, Logs, 

Nursery stock, Plant diseases and pests, 

Quarantine, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Rice, 

Vegetables. 

Accordingly, we propose to amend 7 

CFR part 319 as follows: 

PART 319—FOREIGN QUARANTINE 

NOTICES 

1. The authority citation for part 319 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450, 7701–7772, and 

7781–7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 

2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. 

2. In § 319.56–34, paragraph (f) is 

amended as follows: 

a. In the paragraph heading, by 

removing the words ‘‘; rates of 

inspection’’. 

b. By removing the words ‘‘200 fruit’’ 

and adding in their place the words ‘‘a 

sample of clementines determined by 

APHIS’’. 

Done in Washington, DC on December 22, 

2010. 

Kevin Shea, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–32770 Filed 12–28–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 305 

RIN 3084–AB03 

Appliance Labeling Rule 

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission 

(FTC or Commission). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comment. 

SUMMARY: The Commission proposes 

changing the effective date for its new 

light bulb labeling requirements 

(published on July 19, 2010, 75 FR 

41696) to January 1, 2012, to provide 

manufacturers with additional time to 

incorporate the new label on their 

packaging. The Commission also 

proposes not requiring the new label for 

incandescent bulbs (e.g., 75 watt bulbs) 

that, as of 2013, will not meet federal 

energy efficiency standards. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before January 28, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties are 

invited to submit written comments 

electronically or in paper form by 

following the instructions in section III 

of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section below. Comments in electronic 

form should be submitted using the 

following weblink: https:// 

ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/ 

lightbulblabel (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–113 

(Annex N), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC 20580, in the 

manner detailed in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section below. 

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 

The Energy Independence and 

Security Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110–140) 

(EISA) directed 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 July 19, 

2010 (75 FR 41696), the Commission 

published amendments to the 

Appliance Labeling Rule (Rule) creating 

new labeling requirements for general 

service lamps (i.e., medium screw base 

incandescent, compact fluorescent 

(CFL), and light-emitting diode (LED) 

products). These requirements become 

effective on July 19, 2011. The new 

requirements feature a ‘‘Lighting Facts’’ 

label that will provide consumers with 

information on a bulb’s brightness, 

annual energy cost, life, color 

appearance, and energy use. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
81944 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 29, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

2NEMA’s Petition is available on the 

Commission’s Web site at http://www.ftc.gov/os/ 

2010/10/101027nemapetition.pdf. 

3As discussed in detail below, the Commission 

received letters in response to NEMA’s Petition 

from Earthjustice and the Natural Resources 

Defense Council (NRDC). Earthjustice’s November 

15, 2010 letter, submitted on behalf of Public 

Citizen and the Sierra Club, is available at http:// 

www.ftc.gov/os/2010/11/ 

101115earthjusticelightlabeling.pdf. NRDC’s letter, 

which is also signed by representatives of the 

American Council for Energy Efficient Economy, 

Appliance Standards Awareness Project, and the 

Alliance to Save Energy, is available at http:// 

www.ftc.gov/os/2010/11/101110advocatenema.pdf. 

4 In its earlier comments, NEMA requested a one 

to two year period to comply with the new labeling 

requirements. 

5 59 FR 25176 (May 13, 1994). 

6Pursuant to the revised rule, after the effective 

date, bulbs cannot be manufactured or imported 

without the new label. Thus, in order to import 

bulbs made outside the United States by the 

effective date, they must be manufactured with the 

new label some time earlier. 

7The 1994 label requires only lumens, watts, and 

life disclosures on the package front, while the new 

label requires information on the front and back 

package panels, and includes brightness, energy 

cost, life, light appearance, energy use, and mercury 

disclosures. 

II. NEMA Petition and the 

Commission’s Proposed Amendments 

On October 27, 2010, the National 

Electrical Manufacturers Association 

(NEMA) submitted a Petition asking for 

changes to the new requirements.2

NEMA is a trade association for the 

electrical manufacturing industry. 

NEMA’s lamp manufacturers make and 

sell a substantial majority of the general 

service lamps affected by the revised 

Rule. Specifically, citing burdens that it 

failed to raise prior to the issuance of 

the revised Rule, NEMA asks the 

Commission to make four changes to the 

labeling requirements: (1) Extend the 

effective date for new labeling for all 

covered bulbs, except CFLs, to January 

1, 2012; (2) extend the effective date for 

CFLs until January 1, 2013; (3) exempt 

all incandescent bulbs that will be 

phased out by 2014 due to revised 

federal energy efficiency standards; and 

(4) make certain changes to the label 

formatting requirements, particularly for 

smaller packages.3

In response, the Commission proposes 

to extend the Rule’s effective date for all 

covered bulbs to January 1, 2012, but 

does not propose extending the effective 

date further for CFLs. The Commission 

also proposes exempting incandescent 

bulbs subject to federal efficiency 

standards in place by 2013, but not 

bulbs that will continue to be 

manufactured until 2014. In addition, 

the Commission does not propose any 

changes to the Rule’s format 

requirements. The Commission seeks 

comment on these proposals. 

A. Effective Date Extension For All 

Covered Bulbs 

NEMA’s Request: In its Petition, 

NEMA states that the current effective 

date of July 19, 2011, which provides 

manufacturers one year to comply with 

the revised Rule, is inadequate for 

several reasons not detailed in its earlier 

comments.4 First, NEMA asserts that 

manufacturers now produce many more 

models than when the Commission last 

made comprehensive changes to its 

labeling requirements in 1994, which 

provided manufacturers with one year 

to comply.5 This substantial increase— 

from as many as 1,500 packaging styles 

per full-line bulb manufacturer in 1994 

to as many as 3,500 packaging styles 

today—greatly increases the burden on 

manufacturers, and, thus, requires more 

time to implement. Second, the supply 

chain to U.S. retail shelves is much 

longer and more complex than in 1994 

because a large number of packages 

impacted by the Rule, including almost 

all CFLs, are now manufactured and 

packaged in Asia. NEMA asserts that 

these extended supply chains make 

implementation of labeling changes 

much more logistically challenging. 

NEMA also states that, as a practical 

matter, the fact that most bulbs are now 

imported makes timely compliance with 

the Rule more difficult because 

manufacturers must not only package 

their bulbs with the new label, but do 

so prior to shipping and importing them 

into the United States.6 Third, NEMA 

contends that the new content 

requirements are much more extensive 

than those issued in 1994, and, thus, 

will require many more packages to be 

completely redesigned.7 Fourth, NEMA 

explains that manufacturers need 

additional time to work with retail 

stores to ensure that their revised 

packages are compatible with existing 

retail displays. 

Responses to NEMA’s Request: The 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

(NRDC) opposes an extension for all 

covered products. It asserts that the new 

label is required ‘‘as soon as possible’’ to 

help consumers make decisions in an 

increasingly complex marketplace. 

NRDC also states that the new 

‘‘mandatory rules for calculating 

operating costs and savings claims’’ will 

help combat misleading claims that may 

harm consumer confidence in these new 

products. However, as discussed further 

in subsection B, NRDC supports an 

extension of the effective date for CFLs. 

Earthjustice argues against any 

extension because, in its view, NEMA’s 

Petition provides no new evidence 

justifying a delay and because the new 

label is needed to help consumers make 

informed decisions when purchasing 

bulbs. Also, Earthjustice notes that 

manufacturers can meet the current 

effective date for at least some products, 

as evidenced by NEMA’s Petition, 

which states that manufacturers are 

ready to label LED and halogen products 

with no exceptions or delays. 

Commission Response: The 

Commission proposes to extend the 

effective date for all covered bulbs to 

January 1, 2012. The Commission set 

the present one year compliance period 

because it was consistent with the 

compliance period for its 1994 label 

changes and within the one to two year 

compliance period requested by NEMA. 

Indeed, as NEMA concedes, it failed to 

raise the implementation concerns 

highlighted in its Petition prior to 

issuance of the revised Rule. The 

Petition does, however, detail 

significant new concerns about the 

effective date. Specifically, the much 

larger number of packaging styles 

involved than in 1994, the difficulties 

posed by overseas manufacturing and 

packaging, and the extensive nature of 

the label changes required for each 

package weigh in favor of providing 

manufacturers with additional time to 

comply. 

In consideration of these issues, as 

well as Earthjustice’s opposition to any 

extension and NRDC’s opposition to an 

extension for non-CFLs, an extension of 

approximately six months to January 1, 

2012, is appropriate. Importantly, this 

date coincides with the effective date for 

heightened Federal efficiency standards 

that will begin to phase out traditional 

incandescent bulbs in favor of more 

efficient alternatives. Thus, even with 

the extension, consumers will have the 

new label to help them with this 

transition. Moreover, NEMA’s Petition 

states that bulb manufacturers are 

prepared to fully comply with the new 

labeling rules for all LED and new 

halogen bulbs without exceptions or 

delays. Therefore, the Commission 

expects that consumers will have the 

benefit of the new label on many such 

bulbs introduced to the market prior to 

the proposed effective date. 

B. Effective Date for CFLs 

NEMA’s Request: NEMA also seeks a 

further extension of the effective date 

for labeling CFLs to January 1, 2013. 

First, it explains that putting the new 

label on CFL packages presents unique 

challenges because these packages often 

have multiple shapes and unusual 

configurations, such as extended side 

panels and blister packs, and because 

their small size makes it particularly 

difficult to incorporate the new label. 

Second, NEMA asserts that the sheer 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 29, 2010 / Proposed Rules 81945 

8See 42 U.S.C. 6295(I). 

9 74 FR 34080 (July 14, 2009). 

10NEMA notes that efficiency requirements in the 

European Union, Canada, and Mexico also have 

hastened disinvestment in these bulbs. 11 10 CFR 430.32(n)(5). 

number of CFL packaging styles affected 

by the new label—as many as 1,800 to 

2,000 per manufacturer—creates an 

undue burden absent an extension. 

Third, NEMA argues that because no 

company has the internal resources 

necessary to change so many packages, 

manufacturers will have to outsource a 

substantial portion of the work, 

presumably at greater cost. Fourth, as 

discussed above, the long supply chain 

for CFLs poses logistical challenges for 

label changes. Finally, NEMA notes 

manufacturers plan to replace many 

current CFLs within 12 to 18 months 

with new models that contain less 

mercury and have enhanced features 

(e.g., dimming). Thus, some CFL models 

would bear the new label for only a 

short time period. 

Responses to NEMA’s Request: NRDC 

supports NEMA’s proposal to extend the 

effective date for CFLs to January 1, 

2013. In its view, this extension will 

allow manufacturers to focus on 

labeling new energy saving bulbs, as 

well as their remaining incandescent 

bulbs. Earthjustice, however, opposes 

any extension. It argues that the large 

number of CFLs in the market 

underscores the need for the new label, 

particularly given the Commission’s 

conclusion that the current label, with 

its focus on wattage, is not effective for 

communicating the brightness of high 

efficiency bulbs. 

Commission Response: The 

Commission does not propose further 

extending the effective date for CFLs to 

January 1, 2013. As NEMA explains, 

CFLs are the predominant high 

efficiency bulb on the market and will 

remain so for some time. The proposed 

delay would deprive consumers of the 

benefits of the new label for these bulbs, 

including preventing them from using 

the new label to readily compare CFLs 

to halogens and LEDs as those 

technologies become more available. 

Moreover, further delaying the new 

label for the most prevalent high 

efficiency bulbs on the market would 

hamper the Commission and the 

Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) efforts 

to educate consumers about the new 

label and high efficiency bulbs. In 

addition, the proposed extension of the 

effective date for all covered bulbs to 

January 1, 2012, along with the 

exemption of certain incandescent bulbs 

as discussed below in Section C, should 

help alleviate the burdens associated 

with labeling CFLs. Finally, the 

proposal would not require the new 

label for CFLs that will be discontinued 

before January 1, 2012, because 

manufacturers will cease production of 

those CFLs before the new label 

becomes effective. 

C. Incandescent Bulbs Subject to New 

Federal Efficiency Standards 

NEMA’s Request: NEMA also urges 

the Commission to exempt from the new 

label incandescent bulbs that will not 

meet heightened federal efficiency 

standards. Specifically, NEMA seeks to 

exempt 75-watt incandescent bulbs that 

will be eliminated by new EISA 

efficiency standards effective January 1, 

2013, as well as 60 and 40-watt 

incandescent bulbs that will not meet 

EISA standards effective January 1, 

2014.8 In addition, NEMA seeks to 

exempt certain inefficient incandescent 

reflector products that DOE efficiency 

regulations will eliminate on July 14, 

2012.9 According to NEMA, together, 

these incandescent bulbs comprise 25% 

of the bulbs covered by the new labeling 

rule. 

NEMA explains that manufacturers 

are no longer investing in these bulbs 

given their impending obsolescence.10

As a result, NEMA opposes requiring 

manufacturers to reinvest in them by 

creating new packaging when they will 

be manufactured for no more than 17 

months (for 75-watt incandescents) and 

29 months (for 60 and 40-watt 

incandescents), thereby wasting 

industry resources better directed to 

more efficient lighting technologies. In 

addition, NEMA asserts that EISA’s 

labeling provisions focus on new, high 

efficiency products and were not 

intended to require label changes for 

soon-to-be-obsolete bulbs. NEMA 

further states that bulb manufacturers 

simply do not have the resources to 

change these product packages before 

the deadline given the many challenges 

they face to label CFL and other high 

efficiency bulbs. Finally, NEMA argues 

that any harm caused by not labeling 

these incandescent bulbs is minimal 

because their packages would continue 

to display the FTC’s current label, 

which provides lumens, watts, and life 

disclosures. The current FTC label will 

enable consumers to compare products 

for the short period these bulbs remain 

on store shelves. 

Responses to NEMA’s Request: NRDC 

disagrees. In its view, the new label— 

particularly its energy cost disclosure— 

is essential for incandescent bulbs to 

show consumers that they have much 

higher operating costs than more 

efficient alternatives. Because 

approximately 50% of these 

incandescents will continue to be 

manufactured until January 1, 2014, 

NRDC argues labeling them will help 

consumers achieve substantial energy 

savings. However, as a compromise, 

NRDC recommends that the 

Commission only require manufacturers 

to include the front label (lumens and 

energy cost) on incandescent packages, 

exempting these bulbs from the Lighting 

Facts label. In NRDC’s view, this 

approach would give consumers energy 

cost information, while only requiring 

manufacturers to make ‘‘minor’’ package 

modifications. 

Earthjustice also disagrees with 

NEMA’s proposal, noting that the FTC 

has already concluded that the new 

label is important for incandescents 

because these bulbs will remain on the 

market more than a year after the 

current Rule’s effective date and 

because they are particularly inefficient. 

Moreover, Earthjustice opposes NRDC’s 

suggestion to require the front label only 

for these bulbs because it would deprive 

consumers of important information on 

the Lighting Facts label that will help 

them compare incandescents to higher 

efficiency bulbs. 

Commission Response: Based on this 

record, the Commission proposes to 

exempt both incandescent bulbs that do 

not meet the 2013 EISA efficiency 

standards (i.e., 75 watt bulbs) and 

reflector bulbs that do not meet DOE’s 

July 14, 2012, standards from the new 

labeling requirements.11 The 

Commission would continue to require 

the existing label (lumens, watts, and 

life) for these products. However, the 

Commission does not propose to exempt 

products that do not meet the 2014 

standards (i.e., 60 and 40 watt bulbs) 

from the new label. 

When it revised the Rule, the 

Commission determined the new label 

was appropriate for traditional 

incandescent bulbs that would remain 

in production for more than a year after 

the Rule’s effective date. The 

Commission included these bulbs 

because Congress had identified them as 

inefficient and the new labeling 

requirements would provide benefits to 

consumers that outweighed additional 

costs to industry. At the same time, the 

Commission exempted 100-watt 

incandescent bulbs because new 

efficiency standards will halt 

production of those bulbs by January 1, 

2012, less than six months after the 

effective date. The Commission 

reasoned that the benefits of labeling 

these bulbs for such a short period did 

not justify the costs to manufacturers. 

Having considered NEMA’s newly 

raised concerns, the Commission now 

proposes to exempt 75 watt 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
81946 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 29, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

12Although NEMA argues that Congress did not 

intend to change the labeling of traditional 

incandescent bulbs, nothing in EISA exempts these 

bulbs from the FTC’s mandate to consider 

alternative labeling approaches to assist consumers. 

13The amendments announced in the July 19, 

2010 Notice allow manufacturers to use a smaller, 

linear, text-only Lightings Facts label, if: (1) The 

package’s total surface area available for labeling is 

less than 24 square inches; and (2) the package 

shape or size cannot accommodate any of three 

standard formats (in English) on the rear or side 

panel. See 16 CFR 305.15(b)(5). This linear label 

criteria is similar to the FDA requirements for its 

Nutrition Facts programs. 75 FR at 41700. 

14Earthjustice and NRDC’s letters do not address 

NEMA’s recommendations on this issue. 

15See 75 FR at 41700, n. 31. 

16See Id., n. 29. 

17The 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 FTC’s General Counsel will grant or deny the 

request consistent with applicable law and the 

public interest. See FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c). 

incandescent bulbs and incandescent 

reflector bulbs. The proposed January 1, 

2012 effective date would shorten to a 

year the time 75 watt incandescents can 

be manufactured after the new labeling 

requirements become effective. This 

shorter period shifts the cost benefit 

analysis in favor of exempting these 

bulbs. Moreover, exempting 75 watt 

incandescent bulbs should free 

resources to label other bulbs, such as 

CFLs, in a timely manner. 

The case for requiring the new label 

on 60 and 40 watt bulbs is more 

compelling. These bulbs, which 

according to NRDC account for more 

than 50% of the incandescent market, 

will continue to be manufactured for 

two years after the proposed effective 

date. Because consumers will see 60 and 

40 watt bulbs on store shelves for a 

much longer time and in greater 

numbers than 75 watt bulbs, an 

increased need exists for the new label 

to help consumers compare 

alternatives.12

Finally, the Commission declines to 

propose that only the front label 

(lumens and energy cost) be required for 

incandescent bulbs as suggested by 

NRDC. First, the front label no longer 

provides wattage information. This 

information helps consumers ensure 

that they do not exceed the wattage 

limitation for their fixtures. Second, the 

front label does not provide consumers 

the utility rate and daily usage 

assumptions (i.e., 11 cents per kWh and 

three hours per day) underlying the 

energy cost disclosure, rendering the 

energy cost disclosure less useful. 

Third, it is unclear whether this 

approach actually decreases 

manufacturer’s labeling costs because 

they still would have to change each 

incandescent package. Finally, as noted 

by Earthjustice, the Lighting Facts label 

contains other information such as light 

appearance that will help consumers 

compare incandescent bulbs to higher 

efficiency alternatives. 

D. Formatting Requirements for Smaller 

Packages 

NEMA’s Request: NEMA’s Petition 

seeks certain changes and clarifications 

concerning the Rule’s formatting 

requirements for small packages. In 

particular, NEMA suggests the 

Commission allow the linear (small, 

text-only) format on packages up to 48 

square inches instead of the 24 square 

inches specified in the Rule.13 NEMA 

also asks the Commission to allow 

smaller label dimensions, smaller font 

sizes, and the placement of language on 

more than one line (e.g., presumably the 

placement of ‘‘brightness’’ and ‘‘lumens’’ 

on separate lines).14 Finally, NEMA 

seeks clarification on whether 

manufacturers should include the bulb 

area on blister packs, space devoted to 

warnings, and space occupied by 

graphics in calculating whether a 

package is less than 24 square inches. 

Commission Response: The 

Commission does not propose to change 

the Rule’s formatting requirements as 

requested by NEMA. Specifically, the 

standard label should fit on packages 

larger than 24 inches because the 

criteria used to set this threshold are 

consistent with those used by the Food 

and Drug Administration in its wellestablished food labeling program.15 A 

larger threshold would encourage use of 

the smaller, less helpful, linear label. 

Additionally, while the Rule does not 

dictate the label’s dimensions, it does 

specify minimum font, leading, and line 

thicknesses.16 The Commission is not 

proposing any changes to the required 

font sizes because smaller sizes likely 

would decrease the label’s effectiveness. 

Manufacturers should note that they 

may contact FTC staff for guidance if 

they have specific problems fitting the 

required label on particular packages. 

Finally, in calculating the surface area 

available for labeling on their packages, 

manufacturers should not include 

blister pack surfaces covering the bulb. 

However, they should include space 

used for any non-FTC mandated 

warnings, graphics, or other printed 

information. 

III. 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. 

Interested parties are invited to 

submit written comments electronically 

or in paper form. All comments should 

be filed as prescribed below, and must 

be received on or before January 28, 

2011. Comments should state ‘‘Lamp 

Labeling—Effective Date Extension, P– 

114200’’ in the text and, if applicable, on 

the envelope. The FTC will place your 

comment—including your name and 

your state—on the public record of this 

proceeding, and to the extent 

practicable, will make it available to the 

public on the FTC Web site at http:// 

www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm. 

As a matter of discretion, the 

Commission endeavors to remove 

individuals’ home contact information 

from the comments before placing them 

on its Web site. Because comments will 

be made public, they should not 

include: (1) 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; (2) any sensitive health 

information, such as medical records or 

other individually identifiable health 

information; or (3) any trade secret or 

any commercial or financial information 

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). Comments containing 

material for which confidential 

treatment is requested must be filed in 

paper form, must be clearly labeled 

‘‘Confidential,’’ and must comply with 

FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).17

Because postal mail addressed to the 

FTC is subject to delay due to 

heightened security screening, if 

possible, please submit your comments 

in electronic form or send them by 

courier or overnight service. To ensure 

that the Commission considers an 

electronic comment, you must file it at 

https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ 

ftc/lightbulblabel by following the 

instructions on the web-based form. If 

this Notice appears at http:// 

www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/ 

home.html#home, you may also file a 

comment through that Web site. The 

Commission will consider all comments 

that regulations.gov forwards to it. You 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 29, 2010 / Proposed Rules 81947 

18 44 U.S.C. 3501–3521. 19See 75 FR at 41712. 

may also visit the FTC Web site at 

http://www.ftc.gov to read the Notice 

and the news release describing it. 

A comment filed in paper form 

should include the reference ‘‘Lamp 

Labeling—Effective Date Extension, P– 

114200’’ in the text of the comment and, 

if applicable, on the envelope, and 

should be mailed or delivered to the 

following address: Federal Trade 

Commission, Office of the Secretary, 

Room H–113 (Annex N), 600 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20580. 

The FTC Act and other laws 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 

comments it receives. 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.shtm. 

Under the Freedom of Information 

Act (FOIA) or other laws, we may be 

required to disclose to outside 

organizations the information you 

provide. For additional information, 

including routine uses permitted by the 

Privacy Act, see the Commission’s 

Privacy Policy at http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/ 

privacy.shtm. The FTC Act and other 

laws the Commission administers 

permit the collection of this contact 

information to consider and use for the 

above purposes. 

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 January 18, 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. 

IV. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The current Rule contains 

recordkeeping, disclosure, testing, and 

reporting requirements that constitute 

‘‘information collection requirements’’ as 

defined by 5 CFR 1320.7(c), the 

regulation that implements the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).18 OMB 

has approved the Rule’s existing 

information collection requirements 

through May 31, 2011 (OMB Control No. 

3084–0069). The proposed amendments 

in this document will not increase and, 

in fact, will likely somewhat reduce 

previously estimated burden for the 

lamp labeling amendments. 

V. 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 fact, 

the changes under consideration are 

likely to decrease the Rule’s burden on 

affected entities. 

In its July 19, 2010 Notice (75 FR at 

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 conduct a rulemaking to 

consider the effectiveness of the lamp 

labeling and to consider alternative 

labeling approaches. The Commission is 

considering an extension to the rule’s 

effective date to provide industry 

members with additional compliance 

time. 

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. 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. The particular changes currently 

under consideration would extend the 

rule’s effective date to provide 

additional time for compliance. 

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 qualify as 

small businesses.19 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. 

D. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping 

and Other Compliance Requirements 

The changes under consideration 

would not increase any reporting, 

recordkeeping, or other compliance 

requirements associated with the 

Commission’s labeling rules (75 FR 

41696). The proposed amendments will 

only extend the effective date for 

complying with the new light bulb 

labeling requirements previously issued 

at 75 FR 41696. The proposed rule 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
81948 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 29, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

amendments would also exempt 

incandescent bulbs that fail to meet 

federal energy efficiency standards by 

2013 (e.g., 75 watt bulbs) from those 

requirements. The Commission invites 

comment and information on these 

issues. 

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 effective date for the new 

labeling requirements and to exempt 

certain bulbs from those requirements, 

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. The 

Commission, as previously explained, 

expects that the proposed amendments 

will postpone or reduce, rather than 

increase, the economic impact of the 

rule’s requirements for all entities, 

including small entities. 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. 

VI. 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). 

VII. Final 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 change the 

effective date of FR Doc 2010–16895 

published on July 19, 2010 (75 FR 

41696) to January 1, 2012 and to further 

amend 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’’) 

1. The authority citation for part 305 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6294. 

2. In § 305.15, paragraph (c)(1) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 305.15 Labeling for lighting products. 

* * * * * 

(c)(1) Any covered incandescent lamp 

that is subject to and does not comply 

with the January 1, 2012 or January 1, 

2013 efficiency standards specified in 

42 U.S.C. 6295 or the DOE standards at 

10 CFR 430.32(n)(5) effective July 14, 

2012 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): 

* * * * * 

By direction of the Commission. 

Donald S. Clark, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–32577 Filed 12–28–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade 

Bureau 

27 CFR Part 4 

[Docket No. TTB–2010–0006; Notice No. 

113; Re: Notice No.109] 

RIN 1513–AB24 

Use of Various Winemaking Terms on 

Wine Labels and in Advertisements; 

Comment Period Extension 

AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and 

Trade Bureau, Treasury. 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking; extension of comment 

period. 

SUMMARY: In response to a request made 

on behalf of a wine industry association, 

TTB is extending for an additional 60 

days the comment period prescribed in 

Notice No. 109, Use of Various 

Winemaking Terms on Wine Labels and 

in Advertisements; Request for Public 

Comment, an advance notice of 

proposed rulemaking published in the 

Federal Register on November 3, 2010. 

DATES: Written comments on Notice No. 

109 are now due on or before March 4, 

2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments on 

Notice No. 109 to one of the following 

addresses: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Use the 

comment form for Notice No. 109 as 

posted within Docket No. TTB–2010– 

0006 on ‘‘Regulations.gov,’’ the Federal 

e-rulemaking portal, to submit 

comments via the Internet; 

• Mail: Director, Regulations and 

Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco 

Tax and Trade Bureau, P.O. Box 14412, 

Washington, DC 20044–4412. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier in Lieu of 

Mail: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and 

Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street, NW., Suite 

200–E, Washington, DC 20005. 

See the Public Participation section of 

Notice No. 109 for specific instructions 

and requirements for submitting 

comments, and for information on how 

to request a public hearing. 

You may view copies of this notice, 

Notice No. 109, and any comments TTB 

receives regarding Notice No. 109 

within Docket No. TTB–2010–0006 at 

http://www.regulations.gov. A direct 

link to this docket is posted on the TTB 

Web site at http://www.ttb.gov/wine/ 

wine-rulemaking.shtml under Notice 

No. 109. You also may view copies of 

all notices and comments associated 

with Notice No. 109 by appointment at 

the TTB Information Resource Center, 

1310 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20220. Please call 202–453–2270 to 

make an appointment. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa 

M. Gesser, Regulations and Rulings 

Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and 

Trade Bureau, P.O. Box 128, Morganza, 

MD 20660; telephone (301) 290–1460; or 

Joanne C. Brady, Regulations and 

Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco 

Tax and Trade Bureau, P.O. Box 45797, 

Philadelphia, PA 19149; telephone (215) 

333–7050. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In Notice 

No. 109 published in the Federal 

Register (75 FR 67669) on Wednesday, 

November 3, 2010, the Alcohol and 

Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau 

announced that it is considering 

amending the regulations concerning 

various winemaking terms commonly 

used on labels and in advertisements to 

provide consumers with information 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS