FTC Comment Before the Texas Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners Concerning Rule 573.17 Regarding Animal Teeth Floating

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580
Office of Policy Planning
Bureau of Economics
Bureau of Competition
August 20, 2010
Ms. Loris Jones
Texas Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners
333 Guadalupe, Suite 3-810
Austin, TX 78701-3942
Re: 	Texas Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners
Rule 573.17, Regarding Animal Teeth Floating
Dear Ms Jones:
The Staff of the Federal Trade Commission’s Office of Policy Planning, Bureau
of Economics, and Bureau of Competition1 welcomes the opportunity to provide
comments regarding the provisions of proposed rule 22 TAC §573.17. The proposed rule
restricts the practice of animal teeth floating, which is the practice of filing down the
outer contours of an animal’s teeth. The proposed rule would prohibit any non-
veterinarian from floating the teeth of animals with motorized or air-powered files except
under the direct supervision of a licensed veterinarian. Under the current rules, no such
supervision is required. Staff is not aware of evidence that this new restraint is needed to
protect animal well-being or otherwise to benefit purchasers of teeth floating services. It
would, however, eliminate important competition between veterinarian and non-
veterinarian teeth floaters, likely reducing Texas consumers’ choices and increasing the
prices they must pay for floating. FTC Staff therefore urges the Board not to adopt the
proposed rule unless the Board has credible evidence that the benefits to purchasers of
teeth floating would be greater than the harm that would result from the elimination of
competition.
I. 	Interest and Experience of the Federal Trade Commission
The FTC is charged with preventing unfair methods of competition and unfair or
deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.2 Under this statutory mandate, the
1 This letter expresses the views of the Federal Trade Commission’s Office of Policy Planning, Bureau of
Economics, and Bureau of Competition. The letter does not necessarily represent the views of the Federal
Trade Commission or of any individual Commissioner. The Commission, however, has voted to authorize
us to submit these comments.
2 See Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45.

Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners
August 20, 2010
Page 2 of 4
Commission seeks to identify conduct that unreasonably impedes competition. As the
U.S. Supreme Court has remarked, “The heart of our national economy long has been
faith in the value of competition,”3 which “will produce not only lower prices, but also
better goods and services.”4
II. 	Background
Perhaps the most significant application of teeth floating in Texas is to horses.5
Horse teeth floating is the practice of filing the outer contours of a horse’s teeth, which
grow and become sharp naturally. Horse teeth floating is a routine topical service
required when caring for horses and the Board has consistently held that it is not
dentistry.6 Horse teeth floating can be performed manually (with a hand file) and with
mechanized and air-powered tools. Current Texas law allows lay teeth floaters, such as
horse farriers, horse handlers, and equine dentists, to perform horse teeth floating.7 Thus,
Texas consumers can select from a broad range of service providers, considering for
themselves such factors as cost, convenience, and their confidence in the competence and
quality of different services providers.
III. 	The Proposed Rule Change
The proposed rule would expand the definition of dentistry such that lay horse
teeth floaters will not be able to continue to provide these services with mechanized tools,
except under the direct supervision of a veterinarian.8 Based on evidence upon which the
Board appears to have relied, Staff believes the proposed rule is not in consumers’ best
interests, because restricting competition in this way likely will harm consumers without
providing any countervailing benefits.
3 National Society of Professional Engineers v. United States, 435 U.S. 679, 695 (1978).
4 See Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar, 421 U.S. 773, 787 (1975).
5 According to the American Horse Council, the Texas horse population is 979,000. See
http://www.horsecouncil.org/stateeconomics.php.
6 In 2004, the Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners (“Board”) explained that, “The Board
does not consider ‘teeth floating’ to be the practice of dentistry if teeth floating procedures do not extend
below the gum line.” See Letter from Texas Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners to Martin Brillhart
(Jan. 20, 2004).
7 Only the practice of invasive dental procedures upon animals is reserved exclusively for veterinarians or
those under a veterinarian’s supervision. See Rules Pertaining to the Practice of Veterinary Medicine
(hereinafter “Rules”) §573.10(f) (prohibiting non-licensed individuals from performing invasive dental
procedures). Invasive dental procedures are limited to only those procedures, “exposing of the dental pulp,
or extractions.” See Rule §573.65(6).
8 See proposed 22 TAC §573.17 (“Dentistry includes, but is not limited to: . . . (2) ‘Animal teeth floating’
defined as the rasping or cutting of the long projections or points of the teeth of animals. Dentistry does not
include the floating of the teeth of animals with handheld, non-motorized, non-air-powered files or rasps.”).

Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners
August 20, 2010
Page 3 of 4
Texas horse owners likely would pay more for horse floating services if
veterinarian supervision of lay horse floaters were required, because the proposal would
insulate veterinarians from competition by lay horse teeth floaters. Indeed, the Board’s
materials supporting the rule indicates that prices may increase by 15 to 20 percent due to
the proposed rule.9
This proposed rule change, however, does not appear to provide any
countervailing benefits. The materials supporting the rule cite no evidence about injury
to horses attributable to lay horse floaters using mechanized tools, nor do they address
how veterinary supervision might be related to improved animal health. These materials
also run counter to the findings of the Texas House Committee on Agriculture and
Livestock. In 2006, this Committee found that non-veterinarian providers of animal
dental services are “highly proficient in their work,”10 and often are graduates of schools
with sound and rigorous training and certification programs.11 Moreover, it stated that
there is a shortage of veterinarians willing to provide any dental services, 12 and that
veterinary schools do not emphasize animal dentistry in their programs.13 Thus, the Staff
believes that if competition to provide such services is restrained, consumers may be
forced to pay higher prices, experience longer wait times and/or accept lower quality
services.
Like all consumers, horse owners who purchase teeth floating services benefit
from competition among providers.14 As the U.S. Supreme Court explained:
The assumption that competition is the best method of allocating resources
in a free market recognizes that all elements of a bargain - quality,
service, safety, and durability - and not just the immediate cost, are
favorably affected by the free opportunity to select among alternative
offers.15
For these reasons, Staff of the FTC believes the Board should not pass the
proposed rule.
9 See proposed 22 TAC §573.17, Economic Impact Statement and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis at 3.
10 See Interim Report 2006, House Committee on Agriculture and Livestock, Rick Hardcastle, Chairman,
at 15-16 (Nov. 17, 2006).
11 Id.
12 Id.
13 Id.
14 See, id. at, 689; Goldfarb, 421 U.S. at 787; see also United States v. Am. Bar Ass’n, 934 F. Supp. 435
(D.D.C. 1996), modified, 135 F. Supp. 2d 28 (D.D.C. 2001).
15 Prof’l Eng’rs, 435 U.S. at 695 (emphasis added); accord, FTC v Superior Court Trial Lawyers Ass’n,
493 U.S. 411, 423 (1990).

Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners
August 20, 2010
Page 4 of 4
IV. 	Conclusion
The proposed rule would modify existing Texas regulations to effectively prohibit
non-veterinarians from providing specific and commonly-available forms of horse
floating, absent veterinarian supervision. If enacted, the rule appears likely to
significantly restrict competition without providing any countervailing benefit, thereby
harming consumers. Accordingly, the Staff of the Federal Trade Commission encourages
the Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners to reject the proposed rule unless
credible evidence supports it.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan S. DeSanti
Director, Office of Policy Planning
Joseph Farrell
Director, Bureau of Economics
Richard A. Feinstein
Director, Bureau of Competition