FTC Staff Comment Before the Montana Board of Dentistry Concerning Comprehensive Review of its Rules

Federal Trade COlllmission
Denver Regional Office
Suite 2900
1405 Curtis Street
Denver, Colorado 80202-2393
(303) 844-2271 May 	3, 	1988
V'C6'OOd-.5	p~-_.-. __ .__.
COMMISSION 	AUTHORIZED
Dr. 	Robert 	Rector
President, 	Montana 	Board 	of 	Dentistry
c/o 	Department 	of 	Commerce
state 	of 	Montana
1424 	9th 	Avenue
Helena, 	MT 	59620-0407
Dear 	Dr. 	Rector:
The 	staff 	of 	the 	Federal 	Trade 	Commission 	is 	pleased 	to
respond 	to 	your 	request 	for 	comments 	on 	the 	rules 	of 	the 	Board 	of
Dentistry.1 	We 	understand 	that 	the 	Board 	is 	undertaking 	a
comprehensive 	review 	of 	its 	rules 	in 	connection 	with 	the
consolidation 	of 	the 	Boards 	of 	Dentistry 	and 	Denturity. 	This 	kind
of 	regulatory 	review 	can 	be 	extremely 	valuable 	in 	identifying
provisions 	that 	may 	not 	be 	needed 	to 	protect 	the 	public. 	As 	we
discuss 	below, 	we 	believe 	that 	several 	of 	the 	Board 1 s 	rules 	may
unnecessarily 	limit 	the 	ability 	of 	dentists 	to 	disseminate
truthful, 	nondeceptive 	information 	about 	the 	services 	they 	offer,
and 	thus 	may 	injure 	consumers 	of 	those 	services.
INTEREST 	AND 	EXPERIENCE 	OF 	THE 	FEDERF.L TRADE 	COHl1ISSIOH
The 	Federal 	Trade 	Commission 	is 	empowered 	under 	15 	U.S.C.
§§41 	et 	~. 	to 	prevent 	unfair 	or 	deceptive 	acts 	or 	practices 	and
unfair 	methods 	of 	competition 	in 	or 	affecting 	commerce. 	Under 	its
statutory 	mandate, 	the 	Commission 	encourages 	competition 	among
members 	of 	licensed 	professions 	to 	the 	maximum 	extent 	compatible
with 	other 	legitimate 	state 	and 	federal 	goals. 	For 	several 	years,
the 	Commission 	staff 	has 	been 	investigating 	the 	competitive 	effects
of 	public 	and 	private 	restrictions 	on 	the 	business 	practices 	of
dentists, 	optometrists, 	lawyers, 	physicians, 	and 	other 	state-
licensed 	professionals. 	Our 	goal 	is 	to 	identify 	restrictions 	that
impede 	competition 	and 	increase 	costs, 	without 	providing
counte~vailing benefits 	to 	consumers.
1 	These 	comments 	represent 	the 	views 	of 	the 	Commission 1 s
Bureaus 	of 	Competition, 	Consumer 	Protection, 	and 	Economics, 	and 	of
its 	Denver 	Regional 	Office, 	and 	do 	not 	necessarily 	represent 	the
views 	of 	the 	Commission 	o~ any 	individual 	Commissioner. 	The
Commission, 	however, 	has 	authorized 	the 	submission 	of 	these 	comments.
1

As 	part 	of 	the 	Commission's 	efforts 	to 	foster 	competition
among 	licensed 	professionals, 	it 	has 	examined 	the 	effects 	of 	pUblic
and 	private 	restrictions 	that 	limit 	the 	ability 	of 	professionals 	to
engage 	in 	truthful, 	nondeceptive 	advertising. 2 	Studies 	indicate
that 	where 	truthful 	advertising 	is 	permitted, 	prices 	for
professional 	goods 	and 	services 	are 	lower 	than 	where 	advertising 	is
restricted 	or 	prohibited. 3 	studies 	also 	indicate 	that 	removing
restrictions 	on 	advertising 	does 	not 	decrease 	the 	quality 	of
services 	available. 4 	We 	have 	examined various 	justifications 	that
have 	been 	offered 	for 	restrictions 	on 	advertising 	and 	have
2 	See,~, 	American 	Medical 	Association, 	94 	F.T.C. 	701
(1979), 	aff'd, 	638 	F.2d 	443 	(2d 	Cir. 	1980), 	aff'd 	memo 	by 	an
equally 	divided 	Court, 	455 	U.S. 	676 	(1982). 	The 	thrust 	of 	the 	AHA
decision 	-- lI that 	broad 	bans 	on 	advertising 	and 	soliciting 	are
inconsistent 	with 	the 	nation's 	public 	policy" 	(94 	F.T.C. 	at 	1011)--
is 	consistent 	with 	the 	reasoning 	of 	recent 	Supreme 	Court 	decisions
involving 	professional 	advertising 	regulations. 	See,~,
Zauderer 	v. 	Office 	of 	Disciplinary 	Counsel 	of 	the 	Supreme 	Court 	of
Ohio, 	471 	U.S. 	626 	(1985) (holding 	that 	an 	attorney 	may 	not 	be
disciplined 	for 	soliciting 	legal 	business 	through 	printed
advertising 	containing 	truthful 	and 	nondeceptive 	information 	and
advice 	regarding 	the 	legal 	rights 	of 	potential 	clients 	or 	using
nondeceptive 	illustrations 	or 	pictures) i 	Bates 	v. 	State 	Bar 	of
Arizona, 	433 	U.S. 	350 	(1977) (holding 	state 	supreme 	court
prohibition 	on 	advertising 	invalid 	under 	the 	First 	Amendment 	and
according 	great 	importance 	to 	the 	role 	of 	advertising 	in 	the
efficient 	functioning 	of 	the 	market 	for 	professional 	services);
Virginia 	State 	Board 	of 	Pharmacy 	v. 	Virginia 	citizens 	Consumer
Council, 	425 	U.S. 	748 	(1976) (holding 	Virginia 	prohibition 	on 	price
advertising 	by 	pharmacists 	invalid).
3 	Schroeter, 	Smith 	& Cox, 	Advertising 	and 	Competition 	in
Routine 	Leaal 	Service 	Markets: 	An 	Empirical 	Investiaation, 	36 	J.
Indus. 	Econ. 	49 	(1987); 	Cleveland 	Regional 	Office 	and 	Bureau 	of
Economics, 	Federal 	Trade 	commission, 	Improving 	Consumer 	Access 	to
Legal 	Services: 	The 	Case 	for 	Removing 	Restrictions 	on 	Truthful
Advertising 	(1984); 	Bureau 	of 	Economics, 	Federal 	Trade 	Commission,
Effects 	of 	Restrictions 	on 	Advertising 	and 	Commercial 	Practice 	in
the 	Professions: 	The 	Case 	of 	Optometry 	(1980); 	Feldman 	& Begun,
Does 	Advertising 	of 	Prices 	Reduce 	the 	Mean 	and 	Variance 	of 	Prices,
18 	Econ. 	Inquiry 	487 	(1980); 	Benham 	& Benham, 	Regulating 	Throuah
the 	Professions: 	A Perspective 	on 	Information 	Control, 	18 	J.L. 	&
Econ. 	421 	(1975); 	Benham, 	The 	Effects 	of 	Advertising 	on 	the 	Price
of 	Eyeglasses, 	15 	J.L. 	& Econ. 	337 	(1972).
4 	Bureau 	of 	Economics, 	Federal 	Trade 	Commission, 	Effects 	of
Restrictions 	on 	Advertising 	and 	Commercial 	Practice 	in 	the
Professions: 	The 	Case 	of 	Optometry 	(1980); 	Muris 	and 	McChesney,
Advertising 	and 	the 	Price 	and 	Quality 	of 	Legal 	Services: 	The 	Case
for 	Leaal 	Clinics, 	1979 	Am. 	B. 	Found. 	Research 	J. 	179 	(1979). 	See
also, 	Cady, 	Restricted 	Advertising 	and 	Competition: 	The 	Case 	of
Retail 	Drugs 	(1976) i 	McChesney 	and 	Muris, 	The 	Effects 	of
Advertising 	on 	the 	Qualitv 	of 	Legal 	Services, 	65 	A.B.A.J. 	1503
(1979) .
2

concluded, 	as 	the 	courts 	have, 	that 	these 	reasons 	do 	not 	justify
restrictions 	on 	truthful, 	nondeceptive 	advertising. 	For 	this
reason, 	we 	believe 	that 	only 	false 	or deceptive 	advertising 	should
be 	prohibited. 	Any 	other 	standard 	is 	likely 	to 	suppress 	the
dissemination 	of 	potentially 	useful 	information 	and 	may 	contribute
to 	an 	increase 	in 	prices 	and 	reduction 	of 	consumer 	welfare.
THE 	BOARD'S 	REGULATIONS
We 	have 	reviewed 	the 	Board's 	"Interpretative 	Advertising
Rules" 	and 	its 	"Rules 	of 	Professional 	Conduct." 	As 	we 	discuss
below, 	we 	believe 	some 	of 	these 	rules 	appear 	unnecessarily 	to
prevent 	dentists 	from 	communicating 	truthful, 	nondeceptive
information 	to 	the 	pUblic.
1. 	Interpretative 	Advertising 	Rules
The 	Board's 	"Rules 	of 	Professional 	Conduct" 	provide 	that 	the
overriding 	standard 	for 	jUdging 	advertising 	shall 	be 	whether 	it 	is
"false 	or 	misleading 	in 	any 	material 	respect," 	(8.16.716 	& 721(a)).
The 	"Interpretative 	Rules 	for 	Advertising" 	are 	apparently 	the
Board's 	effort 	to 	explain 	the 	meaning 	of 	this 	standard 	in 	the
context 	of 	particular 	kinds 	of 	dental 	advertising. 	Although
guidelines 	such 	as 	these 	interpretative 	rules 	can 	be 	helpful, 	we
have 	some 	concerns 	about 	these 	particular 	interpretative 	rules.
Before 	turning 	to 	specific 	provisions, 	we 	have 	one 	general
observation.
We 	recommend 	that 	the 	Board proceed 	carefully 	in 	evaluating
the 	likelihood 	of 	deception 	in 	particular 	contexts. 	Deceptive
advertising 	injures 	consumers 	and 	distorts 	the 	competitive 	process.
At 	the 	same 	time, 	overly 	expansive 	definitions 	of 	deception 	can
also 	harm 	the 	public 	by 	limiting 	the 	availability 	of 	information
about 	the 	nature, 	cost, 	and 	quality 	of 	professional 	services. 	Both
law 	and 	sound 	public 	policy 	weigh 	in 	favor 	of 	letting 	advertising
flow 	freely 	unless 	it 	is 	inherently 	deceptive 	or 	evidence 	sho~s
that 	it 	has 	been 	deceptive 	in 	practice. 	See 	In 	re 	R.l1.J., 	455 	U.S.
191 	(1982).
Our 	comments 	on 	specific 	interpretative 	rules 	fall 	into
three 	categories: 	price 	advertising, 	quality 	claims, 	and
solicitation.
a. 	Price 	advertising
Regulation 	8.16.503 	provides 	that 	fees 	may 	be 	advertised 	in
the 	following 	three 	situations:
(1) 	a 	fee 	for 	an 	initial 	consultation,
(2) 	a 	set 	fee 	for 	a 	precisely 	described 	service, 	provided
that 	the 	fee 	is 	fixed 	and 	is 	not 	tied 	to 	purchase 	of
other 	services, 	and
3

(3) 	a 	range 	of 	fees 	for 	precisely 	described 	services,
provided 	that 	(a) 	all 	relevant 	variables 	and
considerations 	are 	disclosed, 	(b) 	the 	minimum 	fee 	in
the 	range 	is 	in 	fact 	charged 	in 	a 	"substantial
proportion" 	of 	cases, 	and 	(c) 	the 	services 	advertised
a.re 	not 	tied 	to 	the 	purchase 	of 	other 	services.
All 	other 	fee 	advertising 	is 	presumed 	to 	be 	misleading.
Individuals 	who wish 	to 	use 	other 	forms 	of 	price 	advertising 	must
bear 	the 	burden 	of 	establishing 	that 	their 	advertisements 	do 	not
tend 	to 	mislead.
Price 	advertising, 	by 	informing 	the 	pUblic 	about 	the 	.
availability 	of 	price 	alternatives, 	places 	pressure 	on 	sellers 	to
reduce 	prices 	and 	instills 	cost 	consciousness 	in 	both 	consumers 	and
providers. 	Restraints 	on 	price 	advertising 	should 	be 	narrowly
tailored 	to 	avoid 	unnecessarily 	suppressing 	this 	important
mechanism. 	The 	Board's 	rul~, 	however, 	may 	operate 	to 	discourage
some 	price 	advertising. 	By 	creating 	a 	presumption 	that 	price
advertising 	is 	misleading 	in 	all 	but 	the 	three 	situations 	set
forth, 	dentists 	may 	be 	inhibited 	from 	price 	advertising 	regardless
of 	the 	nondeceptive 	quality 	of 	the 	information 	presented. 	Further,
requiring 	the 	disclosure 	of 	"all 	relevant 	variables 	and
considerations" 	when 	advertising 	a 	range 	of 	fees, 	as 	opposed 	to
only 	those 	variables 	necessnry 	to 	prevent 	deception 	to 	the 	pUblic,
may 	discourage 	range 	of 	fee 	advertising 	due 	to 	the 	fear 	of
unintentionally 	leaving 	out 	a 	variable 	that 	the 	Board 	might 	deem
"relevant," 	and 	due 	to 	the 	potential 	cost 	of 	complying 	with 	this
expansive 	disclosure 	requirement.
For 	these 	reasons, 	the 	Board may 	wish 	to 	eliminate 	the
presumption 	that 	price 	advertising 	other 	than 	in 	the 	forms
prescribed 	by 	the 	Board 	is 	misleading. 	In 	addition, 	the 	Board
might 	consider 	limiting 	the 	disclosures 	required 	for 	range 	of 	fee
advertising 	to 	those 	without 	which 	the 	ad 	would 	be 	deceptive.
Regulation 	8.16.505(3) 	prohibits 	use 	of 	statistical 	data 	to
lIimply 	low 	prices." 	statistical 	data 	relating 	to 	price 	could 	be
extremely 	useful 	to 	consumers. 	For 	instance, 	statistics 	supporting
the 	claim 	that 	a 	certain 	dentist's 	prices 	are 	consistently 	lower
than 	other 	dentists 	in 	the 	area 	would 	no 	doubt 	be 	of 	interest 	to
consumers. 	While 	the 	potential 	for 	deception 	exists 	in 	this, 	as 	in
virtually 	all 	forms 	of 	advertising, 	statistical 	information 	is 	not
inherently 	deceptive, 	and 	a 	total 	ban 	on 	the 	use 	of 	statistics 	in
fee 	advertising 	is 	likely 	to 	deprive 	consumers 	of 	potentially
valuable 	information.
b. 	Quality 	claims
The 	interpretative 	rules 	contain 	several 	restraints 	on
advertising 	claims 	bearing 	on 	the 	quality 	of 	services 	offered,
inclUding 	restrictions 	on 	announcing 	areas 	of 	special 	expertise,
and 	restrictions 	on 	the 	use 	of 	statistical 	data, 	testimonials,
superiority 	claims, 	and 	offers 	of 	guarantees.
4

Regulation 	8.16.504 	restricts 	claims 	of 	specialization 	to
those 	dentists 	who 	have 	met 	the 	educational 	requirements 	and
standards 	of 	the 	American 	Dental 	Association. 	Dentists 	not 	meeting
those 	criteria 	may 	announce 	that 	they 	offer 	services 	in 	any 	of
several 	specified 	areas, 	but 	may 	not 	advertise 	the 	fact 	that 	they
limit 	their 	practice 	to 	any 	particular 	area(s), 	nor may 	they
"imply" 	that 	they 	are 	"specialists". 	Dentists 	not 	meeting 	the
criteria 	for 	specialty 	announcement 	may 	advertise 	services 	in
special 	areas 	only 	by 	use 	of 	the 	phrase, 	"general 	dentistry
including 	... " 	apparently 	without 	regard 	to 	whether 	they 	offer 	the
full 	range 	of 	general 	dental 	services. 	Further, 	this 	regulation
states 	that 	advertisement 	of 	certain 	"unapproved" 	specialties 5 	.
will 	be 	presumed 	to 	be 	misleading. 	.
We 	believe 	it 	is 	important 	that 	a 	general 	dentist 	with
expertise 	or 	experience 	in 	specific 	areas 	be 	allowed 	to 	communicate
that 	fact 	to 	the 	public, 	without 	using 	the 	phrase 	"general
dentistry 	including ... " 	or 	obtaining 	prior 	approval. 	In 	our 	view,
only 	specialization 	claims 	that 	are 	deceptive, 	such 	as 	a 	claim 	that
falsely 	states 	that 	a 	dentist 	is 	a 	licensed 	or 	certified
specialist, 	need 	be 	prohibited. 	A prohibition 	of 	deceptive
specialization 	claims 	would 	leave 	dentists 	free 	to 	disseminate
truthful 	and 	valuable 	information 	that 	they 	concentrate 	in 	a
particular 	field 	of 	dentistry, 	that 	their 	practice 	is 	limited 	to 	a
particular 	area, 	or 	otherwise 	advertise 	their 	expertise 	in 	a
particular 	field 	of 	dentistry.
Regulation 	8.16.505(1) 	limits 	the 	type 	of 	"personal
information" 	that 	can 	be 	included 	in 	dentists' 	advertising 	to 	that
which 	"reasonably 	would 	assist 	a 	consumer 	in 	the 	selection 	of 	a
dentist." 	Such 	a 	restraint 	could 	injure 	consumers 	by 	preventing
dentists 	from 	including 	material 	in 	advertising 	that 	serves 	to
attract 	the 	consumer's 	attention, 	and 	thereby 	~akes the 	provision
of 	information 	through 	advertising 	more 	effective.
Regulation 	8.16.505(3) 	prohibits 	the 	use 	of 	statistical 	data
or 	past 	performance 	to 	imply 	expertise, 	future 	success, 	or 	customer
satisfaction. 	However, 	statistical 	data 	can 	be 	quite 	useful 	to
consumers. 	Incomplete 	or 	distorted 	data 	that 	misleads 	consumers
could, 	of 	course, 	be 	prohibited, 	but 	the 	Board's 	existing
regulation 	extends 	to 	the 	provision 	of 	valuable 	information 	that
is 	not 	inherently 	likely 	to 	deceive 	consumers.
Regulation 	8.16.505(3) 	~nd Regulation 	8.16.506 	prohibit 	the
use 	of 	testi~onials or 	endorsements 	by 	the 	dentist's 	patients, 	or
patients 	of 	any 	other 	dentist. 	However, 	these 	techniques 	may
5 	These 	"unapproved" 	specialties 	are: 	cosmetic 	dentistry,
holistic 	dentistry, 	restorative 	dentistry, 	and 	craniomandibular
orthopedics. 	A practitioner 	who 	wants 	to 	advertise 	an 	"unapproved"
specialty 	must 	seek 	prior 	Board 	approval.
5
,

convey valuable 	information 	to 	consumers, 	and 	can 	help 	to 	enhance
the 	effectiveness 	of 	advertising. 	As 	with 	the 	use 	of 	illustrations
in 	advertising, 	which 	the 	Supreme 	Court 	considered 	in 	Zauderer v.
Office 	of 	Disciplinary 	Counsel 	of 	the 	Supreme 	Court 	of 	Ohio, 	471
U.S. 	626 	(1985), 	testimonials 	can 	serve 	"important 	communicative
functions" 	through 	their 	potential 	to 	attract 	the 	attention 	of 	the
audience 	to 	the 	advertised 	message. 	A total 	ban 	on 	testimonials,
without 	regard 	to 	whether 	they 	are 	likely 	to 	mislead 	consumers, 	is
overbroad.
Regulation 	8.16.506 	prohibits 	claims 	of 	superiority. 	At 	a
minimum, 	a 	prohibition 	of 	advertisements 	that 	contain 	claims 	of
superiority 	restricts 	comparative 	advertising, 	which 	can 	be 	a
highly 	effective 	means 	of 	informing 	and 	attracting 	consumers 	ana 	an
important 	competitive 	force. 	Further, 	by 	preventing 	a 	dentist 	from
comparing 	the 	attributes 	of 	his 	or 	her 	services 	to 	those 	of 	his 	or
her 	competitors, 	such 	restrictions 	may 	reduce 	the 	incentive 	for
dentists 	to 	improve 	or 	to 	offer 	different 	products, 	services, 	or
prices.
Regulation 	8.16.506(3) 	states 	that 	dentists 	should 	not 	use
any 	"guarantee, 	warranty, 	certification, 	[or) 	assurance" 	with
respect 	to 	claims 	of 	quality, 	length 	of 	life, 	or 	usefulness 	of 	any
dental 	appliance. 	This 	regulation 	could 	prohibit 	"satisfaction"
guarantees 	that 	offer 	refunds 	to 	consumers 	who 	are 	dissatisfied
with 	service, 	and 	appears 	broader 	than 	necessary 	to 	prevent
deception.
Finally, 	Regulation 	8.16.506 	also 	provides 	that 	dentists
should 	not 	use 	any 	subjective 	terminology, 	such 	as 	"gentle
dentistry", 	and 	states 	that 	representations 	regarding
"painlessness, 	degree 	of 	pain, 	or 	relief 	from 	pain" 	are 	presumed 	to
be 	misleading. 	We 	know 	of 	no 	basis 	for 	concluding 	that 	such 	claims
are 	likely 	to 	mislead 	consumers. 	Because 	fear 	of 	pain 	may 	be 	a
factor 	in 	deterring 	some 	members 	of 	the 	public 	from 	seeking 	dental
services, 	truthful 	information 	about 	pain 	may 	serve 	a~ 	extremely
valuable 	function.
c. 	Solicitation
RegUlation 	8.16.509 	apparently 	prohibits 	in-person 	or
telephone 	solicitations 	of 	consumers 	by 	an 	agent 	acting 	on 	behalf
of 	a 	dentist 	and 	explicitly 	includes 	within 	this 	prohibition 	the
dissemination 	of 	business 	cards 	and 	educational 	material 	at 	dental
hygiene 	lectures 	unless 	these 	materials 	are 	requested 	by 	the 	person
receiving 	them.
In-person 	and 	telephone 	contacts 	may 	provide 	consumers 	with
truthful, 	nondeceptive 	information 	that 	will 	help 	them 	select 	a
dentist. 	Such 	contacts 	can 	convey 	information 	about 	the
availability 	and 	terms 	of 	a 	dentist's 	services 	and, 	in 	this
respect, 	they 	serve 	much 	the 	same 	function 	as 	print 	advertising.
See 	Ohralik 	v. 	Ohio 	State 	Bar 	Association, 	436 	U.S. 	447, 	457
6

(1978). 	Indeed, 	Montana 	seems 	to 	recognize 	the 	possible 	benefits
of 	solicitation 	in 	that 	this 	regulation 	restricts 	only 	the
activities 	of 	agents, 	and 	not 	solicitation 	by 	dentists 	themselves.
By 	communicating 	useful 	information, 	agents 	may 	help
consumers 	in 	their 	selection 	of 	a 	dentist. 	Further, 	use 	of 	agents
to 	undertake 	such 	contacts 	can 	permit 	the 	dentist 	to 	concentrate 	on
the 	delivery 	of 	professional 	services.
If 	there 	is 	some 	reason 	to 	believe 	that 	agents 	may 	be
inclined 	towards 	deception, 	overreaching 	or 	undue 	influence 	when
soliciting 	on 	behalf 	of 	dentists, 	we 	recommend 	tailoring 	the
restriction 	to 	address 	the 	specific 	problem 	presented, 	as 	opposed
to 	establishing 	an 	outright 	ban 	on 	such 	activity. 	For 	instance,'
false 	or 	deceptive 	solicitation may 	appropriately 	be 	prohibited.
In 	addition, 	in-person 	solicitation 	that 	results 	in 	undue 	influence
may 	be 	banned 	as 	well. 	See 	Ohralik 	v. 	Ohio 	state 	Bar 	Association,
436 	U.S. 	447 	(1978).
The 	Federal 	Trade 	Commission 	considered 	the 	concerns 	that
underlie 	the 	Ohralik 	opinion 	when 	it 	decided 	American 	11edical
Association, 	94 	F.T.C. 	701 	(1979), 	aff'd, 	638 	F.2d 	443 	(2nd 	Cir.
1980), 	aff'd 	memo 	by 	an 	equally 	divided 	Court, 	455 	U.S. 	676 	(1982).
After 	weighing 	the 	possible 	harms 	and 	benefits 	to 	consumers, 	the
Commission 	ordered 	the 	AMA 	to 	cease 	and 	desist 	from 	restricting
solicitation, 	but 	permitted 	the 	AHA 	to 	proscribe 	uninvited, 	in-
person 	solicitation 	of 	persons 	who, 	because 	of 	their 	particular
circumstances, 	may 	be 	vulnerable 	to 	undue 	influence. 	The 	Board 	may
wish 	to 	adopt 	this 	standard, 	which 	protects 	consumers 	from 	harm
while 	allowing 	them 	to 	receive 	information 	about 	available 	dental
goods 	and 	services.
2. 	Rules 	of 	Professional 	Conduct
The 	Board 	has 	also 	promulgated 	a 	set 	of 	"Rules 	of
Professional 	Conduct" 	(sections 	8.16.701 	through 	8.16.722). 	We 	are
currently 	in 	the 	process 	of 	evaluating 	issues 	that 	could 	have 	a
bearing 	on 	these 	rules 	and, 	therefore, 	must 	defer 	any 	comments 	on
them 	until 	a 	later 	date. 	At 	your 	reques~, however, 	we 	would 	be
happy 	to 	submit 	our 	commen~s on 	these 	provisions 	to 	you 	when 	our
evaluation 	is 	cOffiplete.
CONCLUSION
The 	Board may 	wish 	to 	modify 	its 	rules 	to 	ta}~e into 	account
the 	concerns 	discussed 	above. 	If 	the 	Board 	would 	like 	us 	to 	review
any 	proposed 	changes 	in 	these 	rules 	or 	to 	offer 	our 	views 	on 	its
Rules 	of 	Professional 	Conduct 	when 	we 	are 	able 	to 	do 	so, 	we 	would
be 	pleased 	to 	comply. 	We 	also 	thank 	the 	Board 	for 	its 	willingness
7

to 	consider 	our 	comments. 	Please 	let 	us 	know 	if 	we 	can 	be 	of
further 	assistance.
Sincerely 	yours,
~t!d/d!11zClaude 	C. 	wild 	III
Regional 	Director
8