Proposed Rules. Notice of review and request for comments

5,760 words·~26 min read·/register/2007/01/18/07-197

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 4410-10-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 1260 [No. LS-07-03] Cattlemen's Beef Promotion and Research Program; Section 610 Review AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of review and request for comments. SUMMARY: This action announces the Agricultural Marketing Service's

(AMS)review of the Cattlemen's Beef Promotion and Research Program, which is conducted under the Beef Promotion and Research Order (Order), under the criteria contained in section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). DATES: Written comments on this notice must be received by March 19, 2007. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this notice of review. Comments must be sent to Kenneth R. Payne, Chief, Marketing Programs, Livestock and Seed Program, AMS, USDA, Room 2628-S, STOP 0251, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0251; Fax:

(202)720-1125; via e-mail at *beefcomments@usda.gov* or online at *www.regulations.gov.* All comments should reference the docket number, the date, and the page number of this issue of the **Federal Register** . Comments will be available for public inspection via the Internet at *http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/mpb/rp-beef.htm* or during regular business hours. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth R. Payne, Chief, Marketing Programs Branch, Livestock and Seed Program, AMS, USDA, Room 2628-S, STOP 0251, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0251 or e-mail *Kenneth.Payne@usda.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Order (7 CFR part 1260) is authorized under the Beef Promotion and Research Act of 1985

(Act)(7 U.S.C. 2901 *et seq.* ). This program is a national beef program for beef and beef product promotion, research, consumer information, and industry information as part of a comprehensive strategy to strengthen the beef industry's position in the marketplace by maintaining and expanding existing domestic and foreign markets and by developing new markets for beef and beef products. The program is funded by a mandatory assessment of $1-per-head, collected each time cattle are sold. All producers owning and marketing cattle, regardless of the size of their operation or the value of their cattle, must pay the assessment. A comparable assessment is collected on all imported cattle, beef, and beef products. Assessments collected under this program are used for promotion, research, consumer information, and industry information. The national program is administered by the Cattlemen's Beef Board (Board), which has 104 producer and importer members. Board members serve 3-year terms, but no individual may serve more than two consecutive 3-year terms. Producer members represent 35 States and 4 geographic units. The program became effective on July 18, 1986, when the Order was issued. Assessments began on October 1, 1986. On February 18, 1999, AMS published in the **Federal Register** (64 FR 8014) its plan to review certain regulations. On January 4, 2002, AMS published in the **Federal Register** (67 FR 525) an update to its plan to review regulations, including the Cattlemen's Beef Promotion and Research Program, which is conducted under the Order, under criteria contained in section 610 of the RFA (5 U.S.C. 601-612). Because many AMS regulations impact small entities, AMS decided, as a matter of policy, to review certain regulations that, although may not meet the threshold requirement under section 610 of the RFA, warrant review. Accordingly, this notice and request for comments is made for the Order. The purpose of the review is to determine whether the Order should continue without change or whether it should be amended or rescinded (consistent with the objectives of the Act) to minimize the impact on small entities. AMS will consider the following factors:

(1)The continued need for the Order;

(2)The nature of complaints or comments received from the public concerning the Order;

(3)the complexity of the Order;

(4)the extent to which the Order overlaps, duplicates, or conflicts with other Federal rules, and, to the extent feasible, with State and local governmental rules; and

(5)the length of time since the Order has been evaluated or the degree to which technology, economic conditions, or other factors have changed in the area affected by the Order. Written comments, views, opinions, and other information regarding the Order's impact on small businesses are invited. Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2901-2918. Dated: January 10, 2007. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E7-598 Filed 1-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 10 CFR Part 490 RIN 1904-AB67 Alternative Fuel Transportation Program; Replacement Fuel Goal Modification AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy (DOE or Department). ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of comment period. SUMMARY: The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy proposed to amend the Replacement Fuel Goal provided under the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct 1992), Public Law 102-486. 71 FR 54771 (September 19, 2006). The purpose of the proposed amendment is to revise the goal to a level which is achievable, in accordance with requirements under section 504 of EPAct 1992. Due to technical difficulties in receiving the electronic comments on the proposed rule for the Replacement Fuel Goal, the comment period, which originally ended on November 3, 2006, is reopened and comments will be accepted until January 31, 2007, to ensure that all comments submitted during the original comment period are entered in the docket. All comments already received by DOE have been posted in the written comments section of the electronic docket at *http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/epact/private/plg_docket.html.* If comments were previously submitted but are not posted in this location, the comments should be resubmitted to DOE prior to the new deadline. DATES: The comment period for the proposed rule published on September 19, 2006 which ended on November 3, 2006 is reopened and extended to January 31, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by the number RIN 1904-AB67, by either of the following methods: —E-mail: Submit through both *regulatory_info@afdc.nrel.gov* and *dana.o'hara@hq.doe.gov.* Include the number 1094-AB67 in the subject line of the message. — Mail: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, EE-2G, RIN 1904-AB67, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Dana V. O'Hara, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EE-2G), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121;

(202)586-9171; or Mr. Chris Calamita, Office of the General Counsel (GC-72), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121;

(202)586-9507. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the proposed rule published September 19, 2006, DOE proposed to modify the 2010 goal of 30 percent of U.S. motor fuel production to be supplied by replacement fuels, established in section 502(b)(2) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, because it is not achievable. 71 FR 54771. The Department has authority to review the goal and to modify it, by rule, if it is not achievable, and in doing so may change the percentage level for the goal and/or the timeframe for achievement of the goal. (42 U.S.C. 13254(b).) The Department has preliminarily determined through its analysis that the 30 percent replacement fuel production goal could potentially be met, not by 2010, but at a later date. The Department consequently is proposing to keep the replacement fuel goal of 30 percent originally provided in EPAct 1992 (section 502(b)(2)), but extend the date for achieving the goal to 2030. Due to technical difficulties in receiving the electronic comments on the proposed rule, the comment period is reopened until January 31, 2007. During the original comment period, some comments were not accepted by the electronic docket. We believe that all comments originally blocked from submission have since been resubmitted successfully. However, to ensure that all comments submitted electronically during the original comment period are included in the docket for this rulemaking, we are reopening the comment period. If an interested person submitted a comment electronically during the original comment period, and that comment is not posted on the electronic docket ( *http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/epact/private/plg_docket.html* ), that comment should be resubmitted as directed under the ADDRESSES heading. Issued in Washington, DC, on January 11, 2007. Alexander A. Karsner, Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. [FR Doc. E7-607 Filed 1-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2006-26719; Airspace Docket No. 06-AAL-41] Proposed Revision of Class E Airspace; Valdez, AK AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: This action proposes to modify the Class E airspace at Valdez, AK. Two new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) are being published for the Valdez Airport. Adoption of this proposal would result in modification of Class E airspace upward from 700 feet (ft.) and 1,200 ft. above the surface at Valdez, AK. DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 5, 2007. ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal to the Docket Management System, U.S. Department of Transportation, Room Plaza 401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You must identify the docket number FAA-2006-26719/Airspace Docket No. 06-AAL-41, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov.* You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1-800-647-5527) is on the plaza level of the Department of Transportation NASSIF Building at the above address. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the Manager, Safety, Alaska Flight Service Operations, Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Rolf, Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587; telephone number

(907)271-5898; fax:

(907)271-2850; e-mail: *gary.ctr.rolf@faa.gov.* Internet address: *http://www.alaska.faa.gov/at.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2006-26719/Airspace Docket No. 06-AAL-41.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter. All communications received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket. Availability of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking's (NPRM's) ** An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov.* Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at *http://www.faa.gov* or the Superintendent of Document's Web page at *http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.* Additionally, any person may obtain a copy of this notice by submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Air Traffic Airspace Management, ATA-400, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591 or by calling

(202)267-8783. Communications must identify both docket numbers for this notice. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,

(202)267-9677, to request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure. The Proposal The FAA is considering an amendment to the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR Part 71), which would modify Class E airspace at Valdez, AK. The intended effect of this proposal is to modify the Class E airspace upward from 700 ft. and 1,200 ft. above the surface to contain Instrument Flight Rules

(IFR)operations at Valdez Airport, in Valdez, AK. The FAA Instrument Flight Procedures Production and Maintenance Branch has drafted two new SIAPs for the Valdez Airport. The approaches are

(1)Localizer Type Directional Aid (LDA)/Distance Measuring Equipment (DME)-G, Original and

(2)LDA-H, Original. The LDA-G is a Special procedure and will not be published in the U.S. Terminal Procedures (Alaska) publication. Revised Class E controlled airspace extending upward from 700 ft. and 1,200 ft. above the surface within the Valdez Airport area would be established by this action. The proposed airspace is sufficient to contain aircraft executing the new and existing instrument procedures at the Valdez Airport. The area would be depicted on aeronautical charts for pilot reference. The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North American Datum 83. The Class E airspace areas designated as 700/1200 foot transition areas are published in paragraph 6005 in FAA Order 7400.9P, *Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,* dated September 1, 2006, and effective September 15, 2006, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document would be published subsequently in the Order. The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

(2)is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and

(3)does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle 1, section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart 1, section 40103, Sovereignty and use of airspace. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to ensure the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it proposes to create Class E airspace sufficient in size to contain aircraft executing instrument procedures at the Valdez Airport and represents the FAA's continuing effort to safely and efficiently use the navigable airspace. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air). The Proposed Amendment In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows: PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIRWAYS; ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389. § 71.1 [Amended] 2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.9P, *Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,* dated September 1, 2006, and effective September 15, 2006, is to be amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth. AAL AK E5 Valdez, AK Valdez Pioneer Field, AK (Lat. 61°08′02″ N, long. 146°14′54″ W.) Valdez Localizer (Lat. 61°07′58″ N, long. 146° 15′47″ W.) Johnstone Point VORTAC (Lat. 60°28′51″ N, long. 146°35′58″ W.) That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile radius of the Valdez Airport, AK, and within 3.1 miles each side of the Valdez Localizer front course extending from the 6.6-mile radius to 12.8 miles southwest of the Valdez Localizer; and that airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within 50 miles of the Johnstone Point VORTAC, AK, extending clockwise from the Johnstone Point VORTAC, AK, 177°(M)/200°(T) radial to the 053°(M)/076°(T) radial. Issued in Anchorage, AK, on January 10, 2007. Anthony M. Wylie, Manager, Alaska Flight Service Information Area Group. [FR Doc. E7-601 Filed 1-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 16 CFR Part 255 Guides Concerning the Use to Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. ACTION: Request for public comments. SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) requests public comment on the overall costs, benefits, and regulatory and economic impact of its Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising (“the Guides”), as part of the Commission's systematic review of all current regulations and guides. The Commission is also releasing consumer research it commissioned regarding the messages conveyed by consumer endorsements. The Commission is seeking comment on this research and upon several other specific endorsement-related issues. DATES: Written comments must be received by March 19, 2007. ADDRESSES: Interested parties are invited to submit written comments. Comments should refer to “Endorsement Guides Review, Project No. P034520” to facilitate the organization of comments. A comment filed in paper form should include this reference both in the text and on the envelope, and should be mailed or delivered to the following address: Federal Trade Commission/Office of the Secretary, Room H-135 (Annex S), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580. Comments containing confidential material, however, must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with Commission Rule 4.9(c). 1 The FTC is requesting that any comment filed in paper form be sent by courier or overnight service, if possible, because postal mail in the Washington area and at the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security precautions. 1 The comment must be accompanied by an explicit request for confidential treatment, including the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record. The request will be granted or denied by the Commission's General Counsel, consistent with applicable law and the public interest. See Commission Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c). Comments filed in electronic form should be submitted by using the following Web link: *http://secure.commentworks.com/ftc-endorsements* (and following the instructions on the Web-based form). To ensure that the Commission considers an electronic comment, you must file it on the Web-based form at the Web link *http://secure.commentworks.com/ftc-endorsements.* If this notice appears at *http://www.regulations.gov,* you may also file an electronic comment through that Web site. The Commission will consider all comments that regulations.gov forwards to it. 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 public comments that it received, whether filed in paper or electronic form. Comments received will be available to the public on the FTC Web site, to the extent practicable, at *http://www.ftc.gov.* As a matter of discretion, the FTC makes every effort to remove home contact information for individuals from the public comments it receives before placing those comments on the FTC Web sites. More information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, may be found in the FTC's privacy policy at *http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shira Modell, Attorney, Division of Advertising Practices, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC 20580;

(202)326-3116. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background In December 1972, the Commission published for public comment proposed Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising, 37 FR 25548 (1972). Extensive comment was received from interested parties. On May 21, 1975, the Commission promulgated, under the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTC Act”), 15 U.S.C. 41-58, three sections of the 1972 proposal as final guidelines (16 CFR 255.0, 255.3 and 255.4) and republished three others, in modified form, for additional public comment 40 FR 22127 (1975). Public comment was received on the three re-proposed guidelines, as well as on one of the final guidelines. On January 18, 1980, the Commission promulgated three new sections as final guidelines (16 CFR 255.1, 255.2 and 255.5) and modified one example to one of the final guidelines adopted in May 1975 (16 CFR 255.0 Example 4). 45 FR 3870 (1980). The Guides are designed to assist businesses and others in conforming their endorsement and testimonial advertising practices to the requirements of Section 5 of the FTC Act. Although the Guides are interpretive of laws administered by the Commission, and thus are advisory in nature, proceedings to enforce the requirements of law as explained in the Guides can be brought under the FTC Act. The Guides define both endorsements and testimonials broadly to mean any advertising message that consumers are likely to believe reflects the opinions, beliefs, findings, or experience of a party other than the sponsoring advertiser. 16 CFR 255.0(a) and (b). The Guides state that endorsements must reflect the honest opinions, findings, beliefs, or experience of the endorser. 16 CFR 255.1(a). Furthermore, endorsements may not contain any representations that would be deceptive, or could not be substantiated, if made directly by the advertiser. *Id.* The Guides advise that an advertisement employing a consumer endorsement on a central or key attribute of a product will be interpreted as representing that the endorser's experience is representative of what consumers will generally achieve. 16 CFR 255.2(a). If an advertiser does not have adequate substantiation that the endorser's experience is representative, the advertisement should contain a clear and conspicuous disclosure. *Id.* The Guides define an expert endorser as someone who, as a result of experience, study or training, possesses knowledge of a particular subject that is superior to that generally acquired by ordinary individuals. 16 CFR 255.0(d). An expert endorser's qualifications must, in fact, give him or her the expertise that he or she is represented as possessing with respect to the endorsement. 16 CFR 255.3(a). Moreover, an expert endorsement must be supported by an actual exercise of expertise and the expert's evaluation of the product must have been at least as extensive as someone with the same degree of expertise would normally need to conduct in order to support the conclusions presented. 16 CFR 255.3(b). Among other things, the Guides also state that:

(1)Advertisements presenting endorsements by what are represented to be “actual consumers” should utilize actual consumers, or clearly and conspicuously disclose that the persons are not actual consumers. 16 CFR 255.2(b).

(2)An organization's endorsement must be reached by a process sufficient to ensure that the endorsement fairly reflects the collective judgment of the organization. 16 CFR 255.4.

(3)When there is a connection between the endorser and the seller of the advertised product that might materially affect the weight or credibility of the endorsement ( *i.e.* , the connection is not reasonably expected by the audience), such connection must be fully disclosed. 16 CFR 255.5. II. Regulatory Review Program The Commission has determined to review all of its rules and guides periodically. These reviews seek information about the costs and benefits of the Commission's existing rules and guides, and their regulatory and economic impact. The information thus obtained assists the Commission in identifying rules and guides that warrant modification or rescission. Therefore, the Commission solicits comment on, among other things, the economic impact of its Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising; possible conflict between the Guides and state, local, or other federal laws; and the effect on the Guides of any technological, economic, or other industry changes. Specifically, the Commission solicits written public comment on the following questions with respect to the guides appearing in 16 CFR 255.

(1)Is there a continuing need for the Guides?

(a)What benefits have the Guides provided to consumers?

(b)Have the Guides imposed costs on consumers?

(2)What changes, if any, should be made to the Guides to increase their benefits to consumers?

(a)How would these changes affect the cost the Guides impose on businesses and others following their suggestions?

(b)How would these changes affect the benefits to consumers?

(3)What significant burdens or costs, including costs of compliance, have the Guides imposed on businesses and others following their suggestions?

(a)Have the Guides provided benefits to those following their suggestions? If so, what benefits?

(4)What changes, if any, should be made to the Guides to reduce the burdens or costs imposed on those following their suggestions? How would these changes affect the benefits provided by the Guides?

(5)Do the Guides overlap or conflict with other federal, state, or local laws or regulations?

(6)Since the Guides were issued, what effects, if any, have changes in relevant technology, such as email and the Internet, or economic conditions had on the Guides? III. Consumer Endorsements and Extrinsic Evidence In conjunction with its regulatory review of the Guides, the Commission is releasing reports on two studies it commissioned regarding the messages conveyed by consumer endorsements. Both studies are available on the Commission's Web site, *http://www.ftc.gov* , or from the Commission's Public Reference Office, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580. The first report, “The Effect of Consumer Testimonials and Disclosures of Ad Communication for a Dietary Supplement” (“the Endorsement Booklet Study”), can be found at *http://www.ftc.gov/reports/endorsements/study1/report.pdf.* 2 It reports the results of a consumer survey, conducted in the course of a law enforcement investigation, that examined the communication effects of a promotional booklet for a dietary supplement. The booklet consisted solely of three pages of consumer endorsements, primarily from senior citizens, touting the product's efficacy for treating various diseases and conditions. The survey was designed to examine whether consumer endorsements by themselves communicate product efficacy ( *i.e.* , that the product works for the user discussed in the testimonials) and typicality ( *i.e.,* that endorsers' experiences are representative of what consumers will generally achieve with the advertised product), and whether any of several prominent disclosures qualify the claims conveyed by the advertisements. 2 Questionnaires and advertisements used in the study and resulting data from the study are available at *http://www.ftc.gov/reports/endorsements/study1/materials/.* According to the authors, the study suggest “that multiple testimonials about a product effectively communicate efficacy claims, *i.e.,* that the product works for the uses discussed in the testimonials. Testimonials also appear to communicate that the product will work for all, most, or about half of the people who use it. Finally, the study suggests that prominent disclosures in ads containing multiple testimonials may be ineffective in limiting the communication of efficacy and typicality claims. This study used disclosures that were more prominent and stronger than the disclosures typically used in ads containing testimonials.” The second report, “Effects of Consumer Testimonials in Weight Loss, Dietary Supplement and Business Opportunity Advertisements” (“the Second Endorsement Study”), can be found at *http://www.ftc.gov/reports/endorsements/study2/report.pdf* . 3 It reports the results of a consumer survey examining the messages conveyed to consumers by one-page print advertisements containing consumer endorsements for a weight loss program, a cholesterol-lowering dietary supplement, or a business opportunity. Advertisements contained testimonials by either one or five individuals who claimed to have achieved specific (that is, numerically quantified) results with the advertised product or system ( *e.g.* , “I am earning an extra $2,300 a month.”). Some of the advertisements also included one of several disclosures regarding the typicality of the consumer endorsers' experiences. The study was designed to explore these advertisements' communication of product efficacy and typicality. 3 Questionnaires and advertisements used in the study and resulting data from the study are available at *http://www.ftc.gov/reports/endorsements/study2/materials/* . According to the authors, the testimonials tested in this study communicated to a substantial percentage of consumers that the advertised products: • Would enable new users to achieve results similar to those portrayed by the testimonials ( *i.e.* , the testimonialists communicated product efficacy); and • Would enable a substantial proportion (half or more) of new users to achieve results similar to those portrayed by the testimonialists ( *i.e.* , the testimonials communicated typicality). The study authors also concluded that two of the disclosures tested (“results not typical” and “experiences of a few”) in most cases failed to significantly reduce the communication of efficacy and typicality. The authors concluded that a third disclosure (which stated how much weight the average user loses in three months), tested on the advertisement for the weight loss program, did significantly reduce such communication in most cases. The Commission solicits written public comment on the following questions.

(1)What are the implications and limitations of the Endorsement Booklet Study with respect to the question of whether consumer testimonials about a product's efficacy or performance convey that the product is effective for the purpose(s) discussed in the testimonials? What are the implications and limitations of the study with respect to the question of whether consumer testimonials convey that the endorser's experience is representative of what consumers will generally achieve with the advertised product? Is there any other research or evidence that would be relevant in answering these questions?

(2)What are the implications and limitations of the Endorsement Booklet Study with respect to the effectiveness of disclaimers in limiting any communication of product efficacy from consumer testimonials? What are the implications and limitations of the study with respect to the effectiveness of disclaimers in limiting any communication of typicality from consumer testimonials? Is there any other research or evidence that would be relevant in answering these questions?

(3)What are the implications and limitations of the Second Endorsement Study with respect to the question of whether consumer testimonials about a product's efficacy or performance convey that the product is effective for the purpose(s) discussed in the testimonials? What are the implications and limitations of the Second Endorsement Study with respect to the question of whether consumer testimonials convey that the endorser's experience is representative of what consumers will generally achieve with the advertised product? Is there any other research or evidence that would be relevant in answering these questions?

(4)What are the implications and limitations of the Second Endorsement Study with respect to the effectiveness of disclaimers in limiting any communication of product efficacy from consumer testimonials? What are the implications and limitations of the Second Endorsement Study with respect to the effectiveness of disclaimers in limiting any communication of typicality from consumer testimonials? Is there any other research or evidence that would be relevant in answering these questions?

(5)Is there any other research that would be relevant in assessing the messages communicated by consumer testimonials?

(6)Is there any other research that would be relevant in assessing the effectiveness of disclaimers in limiting any communication from consumer testimonials of product efficacy or typicality?

(7)In 2002, Commission Staff analyzed the use of consumer testimonials and disclaimers in the context of weight-loss advertising, *see* Weight-Loss Advertising: An Analysis of Current Trends, a Federal Trade Commission Staff Report, Sept. 2002. ( *http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/reports/weightloss.pdf* ).

(a)What other evidence is there regarding the prevalence or effect of consumer testimonials, either generally or for specific product categories, especially with respect to the typicality of the testimonials?

(b)What other evidence is there regarding the prevalence or effect of disclaimers of typicality?

(8)What other research is there on the role of consumer endorsements in marketing?

(9)The current Guides allow advertisers to use testimonials that are not generally representative of what consumer can expect from the advertised product so long as the advertisers clearly and conspicuously disclose either

(1)what the generally expected performance would be in the depicted circumstances, or

(2)the limited applicability of the depicted results to what consumers can generally expect to receive, *i.e.* , that the depicted results are not representative.

(a)What would be the effects on advertisers and consumers of requiring clear and conspicuous disclosure of the generally expected performance whenever the testimonial is not generally expected performance whenever the testimonial is not generally representative of what consumers can expect from the advertised product?

(b)What information, other than what is required to substantiate an efficacy or performance claim, would be required for an advertiser to determine generally expected results? How difficult would it be for the advertiser to make this determination? Do the answers to these questions vary by product type and, if so, how? IV. Material Connections Section 255.5 of the Guides states that advertisers must disclose connections between themselves and their endorsers that might materially affect the weight or credibility of the endorsement ( *i.e.,* the connection is not reasonably expected by the audience). Section 255.5 also indicates that consumers will ordinarily expect that endorsers who are well known personalities ( *i.e.,* celebrities) or experts will be compensated for their endorsements; therefore, an advertiser need not disclose the payment of compensation to such endorsers. A September 2003 petition submitted to the Commission by Commercial Alert suggests an exception to the principle that consumers will ordinarily expect that endorsers who are well known personalities are compensated for their endorsements. According to an August 11, 2002 New York Times article cited by the petitioners, “dozens of celebrities * * * have been paid hefty fees to appear on television talk shows and morning news programs and to disclose intimate details of ailments that afflict them or people close to them. Often, they mention brand-name drugs without disclosing their financial ties to the medicine's maker.” The Commission is interested in any extrinsic evidence regarding consumer expectations about celebrity endorsements made during an interview. Specifically, the Commission solicits written public comment on the following questions.

(1)Is there any research showing whether consumers have any expectations regarding compensation paid to celebrities who speak favorably about particular products while being interviewed outside the context of an advertisement ( *e.g.,* during television talk shows) and, if so, what does that research show?

(2)Would knowledge that a celebrity endorsing a product during such an interview is being paid for doing so affect the weight or credibility consumers give to the celebrity's endorsement? V. Invitation to Comment All persons are hereby given notice of the opportunity to submit written data, views, facts, and arguments addressing the issues raised by this Notice. Written comments must be received on or before March 19, 2007. All comments should be filed as prescribed in the ADDRESSES section above. List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 255 Advertising, Trade practices. Authority: 15 U.S.C. 41-58. By direction of the Commission. Donald S. Clark, Secretary. [FR Doc. 07-197 Filed 1-17-07; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 12

Traces to 12 documents

U.S. Code

CFR