Federal Trade Commission Received Documents July 1, 1996 P894219 B18354900190 [WELDBEND CORPORATION] June 28, 1996 Office of the Secretary Federal Trade Commission Sixth Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Room 159 Washington, D. C. 20580 Re: Made in USA Policy Comment FTC File No. P894219 Ladies and Gentlemen: Weldbend Corporation strongly supports the current "Made in USA" policy of the Federal Trade Commission. We believe that no one should be able to claim that a product is "Made in USA" unless it is manufactured here in the United States from U.S.-origin materials. We produce carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings at our plant in Argo, Illinois. In our industry, being able to make the "Made in USA" claim is very important. Our customers want to buy fittings that are manufactured in the United States from U.S. steel. When they choose a fitting that is "Made in USA," they feel confident about the product's quality and reliability and they know that they are supporting American jobs. At Weldbend, we have made millions of dollars of investments in plant and equipment to earn the right to call our fittings "Made in USA." By combining the most advanced technology and the most efficient workforce, we have competed successfully against our competitors from around the world. We have demonstrated that it is possible to make world-class fittings right here in America, without depending on foreign materials or foreign labor. Because of our efforts, the overwhelming majority of our products can be marked "Made in USA," and we are constantly increasing that percentage by expanding our U.S. plant and equipment. There are, of course, some in our industry -- and I am sure in other industries -- who would like to enjoy the benefit of "Made in USA" claims without working for it. They would like to claim that their products are "Made in USA" even though they use foreign steel or other foreign materials. Some of our competitors, for example, would be delighted to replace the current "all or virtually all" standard with a lesser standard based on percentage U.S. content or on "substantial transformation" in the United States. Adopting either of these alternatives would replace a clearcut standard with utter confusion. Let me explain why. The steel pipe from which a fitting is made represents 100 percent of the materials and a high proportion of the total value of a fitting, particularly a large fitting. Therefore, if a percentage content standard were adopted, larger fittings forged in the United States of foreign steel might continue not to be eligible for the "Made in USA" claim, while smaller fittings, undergoing the exact same processing in the United States, might suddenly be "Made in USA." This confusing result makes no sense. A "substantial transformation" standard would also be confusing, in part because "substantial transformation" means different things. A "substantial transformation" standard based on the NAFTA marking rules would enable Weldbend's competitors to import foreign steel pipe, forge it in the United States, and call the finished product "Made in USA," even though the imported steel pipe would represent 100 percent of the materials and a high proportion of the value of the finished fitting. Alterna- tively, a "substantial transformation" standard based on the marking rules for non-NAFTA products would enable Weldbend's competitors to import foreign forgings, process them in the United States, and call the finished product "Made in USA," even though the imported forging would represent all of the materials and well over one half of the value of the finished fitting. Neither of these "substantial transformation" standards corres- ponds to the consumer's understanding of "Made in USA." Therefore, I urge the Commission to retain the current "Made in USA" standard and to reject the attempts to dilute it. Dilu- tion of the current standard would also dilute the meaning of all that Weldbend has done to keep the most competitive fittings producer in the world here in America. Sincerely yours, James J. Coulas, Sr. President