2214 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 11 / Thursday, January 18, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

1The 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). 

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. 

Comments filed in electronic form 

should be submitted by using the 

following Web link: http:// 

secure.commentworks.com/ftcendorsements (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/ftcendorsements. 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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 11 / Thursday, January 18, 2007 / Proposed Rules 2215 

2Questionnaires and advertisements used in the 

study and resulting data from the study are 

Continued 

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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
2216 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 11 / Thursday, January 18, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

available at http://www.ftc.gov/reports/

endorsements/study1/materials/. 3Questionnaires and advertisements used in the 

study and resulting data from the study are 

available at http://www.ftc.gov/reports/

endorsements/study2/materials/. 

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. 

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. 

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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 11 / Thursday, January 18, 2007 / Proposed Rules 2217 

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] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–M 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 1211 

Safety Standard for Automatic 

Residential Garage Door Operators 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety 

Commission is proposing to amend 16 

CFR part 1211, Safety Standard for 

Automatic Residential Garage Door 

Operators, to reflect changes made by 

Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. in its 

standard UL 325. 

DATES: Written comments in response to 

this document must be received by the 

Commission no later than February 20, 

2007. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be filed 

by e-mail to cpsc-os@cpsc.gov. 

Comments also may be filed by 

telefacsimile to (301) 504–0127 or they 

may be mailed or delivered, preferably 

in five copies, to the Office of the 

Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product 

Safety Commission, Room 502, 4330 

East-West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 

20814–4408; telephone (301) 504–7923. 

Comments should be captioned ‘‘Garage 

door operators.’’

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Murphy, Directorate for Engineering 

Sciences, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission, 4330 East-West Highway, 

Bethesda, Maryland, 20814–4408, 

telephone 301–504–7664 or e-mail: 

jmurphy@cpsc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission issued part 1211 on 

December 21, 1992 to minimize the risk 

of entrapment by residential garage door 

openers. As mandated by section 203 of 

Public Law 101–608, subpart A of part 

1211 codifies garage door operator 

entrapment provisions of Underwriter 

Laboratories, Inc. (‘‘UL’’) standard UL 

325, third edition, ‘‘Door, Drapery, 

Louver and Window Operators and 

Systems.’’ Subparagraph (c) of section 

203 of Public Law 101–608 also 

required the Commission to incorporate 

into part 1211 any revisions that UL 

proposed to the entrapment protection 

requirements of UL 325, unless the 

Commission notified UL that the 

revision does not carry out the purposes 

of Public Law 101–608. 

Recently, UL revised some provisions 

of UL 325 in response to a request from 

Commission staff. The staff identified 

several incidents in which children 

became entrapped beneath a garage door 

that had been left partially open. In 

most of these incidents, a child tried to 

crawl under the partially open door and 

became stuck under the door. A 

bystander pressed the wall control 

button thinking the door would go up 

and release the child. Instead, the garage 

door moved down compressing and 

further entrapping the child. The 

Commission determined that the 

entrapment related revisions 

incorporated into the UL standard do 

carry out the purposes of Public Law 

101–608. The proposed rule would 

revise part 1211 to reflect the changes 

UL made to UL 325. UL set an effective 

date of February 21, 2008 for these 

provisions in the UL standard. The 

Commission proposes the same effective 

date for these provisions in the CPSC 

standard. 

To address the same entrapment 

hazard, UL also added to its standard a 

requirement that the statement ‘‘Never 

go under a stopped partially open door’’

be added to garage door operator 

instruction manuals. The Commission is 

proposing to make this change in the 

CPSC standard as well. UL set an 

effective date of September 14, 2004 for 

this provision in UL 325. The 

Commission proposes that the 

instruction manual provision in the 

CPSC standard would become effective 

when it is published as a final rule. 

Pursuant to section 605(b) of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 

605(b), the Commission certifies that 

this rule will not have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL