Federal Trade Commission Received Documents July 1, 1996 P894219 B18354900193 Electronic Industries Association Office of the Secretary Federal Trade Commission Room 159 6th and Pennsylvania Ave, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20580 RE: Made in USA Policy Committee FTC File No. P894219 Dear FTC Officer: On behalf of the Electronic Industries Association (EIA), I would like to submit the attached supplemental comments in the Federal Trade Commission's review of "Made in USA" labeling. The comments reflect discussions among EIA member companies that represent the many different sectors of the electronics industry. We hope that these supplemental comments will be helpful in your deliberations on this important standard. If you have any questions on this, please feel free to contact either Tim Harr, Motorola, at (202) 371-6862, Maggie Angell, EIA, at (703) 907-7579, or me at (703) 907-7686. Sincerely, Douglas Johnson Manager Government & Legal Affairs EIA/CEMA COMMENTS OF ELECTRONIC INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION IN RESPONSE TO SUPPLEMENTAL FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION QUESTIONS ON OMADE IN U.S.A.O LABELING OMade in U.S.A. Policy Comment,O FTC File No. P894219 The following comments are submitted on behalf of the Electronic Industries Association (OEIAO) in response to the supplemental questions propounded by the Federal Trade Commission in its Federal Register Notice of April 26, 1996, pertaining to country-of-origin labeling of products. EIA has participated fully in these FTC proceedings and appeared at the FTC workshop on this matter. In line with the FTCOs request, we will attempt to minimize repetition of the points that we have made already in our initial submission to the Commission and in our oral statements at the workshop. We have also been working closely with the ad hoc group established under the leadership of the International Mass Retail Association to try to forge a consensus among parties seeking a middle-ground solution to this issue. While there are certain minor areas in which we disagree with that groupOs document (in particular its treatment of OAssembled in...O and its failure to address the question of a OlesserO marking, discussed below), we believe that the basic thrust of the document and its underlying principles represent a fair and balanced approach. The EIAOs comments also represent a consensus developed between many companies with differing points of view. EIAOs 1000-plus member companies represent every major sector of electronics, including components, consumer electronics, electronic information, industrial electronics, government electronics and telecommunications. These companies are responsible for a large portion of AmericaOs exports. Overall, the electronics industries generated more than $375 billion in factory sales in 1995, and more than 1.7 million Americans in over 16,000 establishments make their livelihood in the electronics industries. I. GENERAL SUMMARY EIA was spurred to play an active role in this proceeding because we felt that it was crucial that the CommissionOs prior unattainable OMade in U.S.A.O labeling standard of 100% U.S. content be replaced with a standard that can be achieved by electronics products that are truly produced (not just final-assembled) in the United States, and because we felt that it was important that some separate OlesserO country-of-origin marking be developed that could be used wherever a product is sold, in the U.S. or abroad. EIAOs specific responses to the CommissionOs questions are generally based on four tenets, summarized below. We support these tenets, not only for the reasons set forth below, but also for the reasons set forth in EIAOs initial submission and its testimony before the Commission. (1) The CommissionOs prior position based on 100% U.S. content is inappropriate and counter-productive in that it precludes any electronics manufacturer, no matter how OAmericanO its operations, from communicating that fact to consumers. (2) The test for whether a product is OmadeO in the United States should comport with the plain meaning of the word OmadeO and therefore should be based on whether the manufacturing process for that particular product occurs predominantly in the U.S. and is completed in the U.S. If a producer starts with the basic materials, subcomponents, or other inputs that are normally considered the raw materials for product X, and uses these inputs to manufacture product X in the United States, product X by any normal definition should be considered OMade in U.S.A.,O whatever the source of the basic inputs. (3) The Commission should develop a simple minimal OlesserO product-origin marking that manufacturers can use on a product that is substantially transformed in the U.S., whether it is sold in the U.S. or exported under foreign customs country-of-origin marking rules. Through education concerning the limited meaning of such marking and through prohibitions on U.S.-origin claims to consumers, the Commission could ensure that consumers were not misled by such a lesser mark. (4) If the Commission determines to use a OMade in U.S.A.O labeling test that turns to one degree or another on the cost or value OcontentO of a product, any such analysis should use a Oone-step-backO approach. This type of approach looks at the origin of the components used in the final assembly in addition to the place where the final assembly occurs. In most cases, this will be the place in which the one-step-back component or intermediate material was OtransformedO from something else. In its initial comments, EIA recommended that, if a U.S. electronics producer uses primarily U.S.-built subassemblies and performs the remaining manufacturing steps in the U.S., its products should be eligible for a OMade in U.S.A.O label, whatever the source of the basic electronic and mechanical parts used to build those subassemblies. EIA explained that such a standard, applied properly, would meet the expectations of consumers with regard to OMade in U.S.A.O labels and advertising. We believe that that position is supported by the studies presented to the FTC, by testimony at the workshop, and by comments presented in this proceeding. As is more fully discussed in our responses to Section 3 of the CommissionOs supplemental questions, below, the consumer studies indicate that most people think that OMade in the U.S.A.O means simply that the product was made, in the normal sense of the word, in this country. II. COMMENTS ON SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONS 1. All or Virtually All Standard A. & B. One-step-back approach EIA strongly believes that if any content standard is used for manufactured products made from many different parts, it should look only one step back. However, even if a one-step-back approach were used, in the vast majority of cases the Oall or virtually allO standard would remain a barrier that would cut off the ability of U.S. manufacturers to communicate to consumers that an electronics product was U.S.-made. Therefore, the standard is still unacceptable. The one-step-back approach to be used with any OcontentO test should go back to the point in the manufacturing process at which the materials or components themselves are the product of a transformation from different products. For example, chair backs and legs are components that have been transformed from a different product, such as pine boards. In determining if a chair is made in the U.S., the one-step-back approach would look to the place where the chair backs and legs were created. If they were created in the U.S., they would be considered U.S. components. By contrast, if the chair legs and backs were merely sanded and painted in the U.S., but were created overseas, the one-step-back approach would look back past the painting step (because it did not transform the chair arms and backs into different products), and consider the components to be foreign. In the case of an electronics product, the one-step-back approach would usually look back to where the OsubassembliesO were created. These subassemblies generally represent the substantial majority of the value of an electronics product. They are generally created when Opiece parts,O (for example, transistors, capacitors, integrated circuits, and similar small parts) are connected to circuitry (OpopulatedO) on a blank printed circuit board or some other subassembly platform to create, for example, a logic board, an audio module, or a data processing subassembly. Through this process, piece parts with discrete identifiable characteristics are transformed into a more complex product with very different characteristics. This one-step-back approach, which looks back to manufactured components that were transformed from different products, is consistent with consumersO views of what OMade in U.S.A.O means. It is generally the case that this transformation from Oraw materialsO to dedicated Ointermediate productsO destined for use in a particular final product constitutes the key element of OmakingO a product. For a chair, it is the creation of the arms, legs, seat and back; for a bike it is the creation of the frame, wheels, handlebars, gears, brakes, pedals and seat; or for a phonograph it is the creation of a tone-arm, the turntable, the motor, and the chassis. Thus, if a content test focuses on where these one-step-back intermediate products are made, it will probably reflect where the final product is Omade.O C. Raw Materials The source of raw materials should not be the focus of any standard for where a product is Omade.O See Section 1, A and B, above. D. OVirtually AllO Definition If the Oall or virtually allO test is used, Ovirtually allO should not require more than 90 percent U.S. content. A standard of 85 percent would be even better. At an 85 percent standard, with a one-step-back approach (see above), some portion of the electronics industry might be able to claim OMade in U.S.A.O with respect to certain products. This is slightly preferable to a complete exclusion of such labels, but it is still not a desirable standard since it does not allow truly American producers to communicate that fact to consumers. One further problem with any very high percentage standard is that it is likely to create substantially more wasteful accounting work to ensure that the product meets the percentage standard because even a small variance in sourcing could undermine calculations previously relied upon. 2. Percentage Content Standard (e.g. 50%) EIA opposes a content test that turns substantially on the origins of the materials or sub-parts acquired at the beginning of the manufacturing process for such a product. Such a standard will lead to inequitable results, inefficient efforts, and burdensome tracking obligations. Moreover, it perpetuates a distorted view of what OMade inO means that is contrary to the natural views of most consumers. The consumer studies presented by various groups at the CommissionOs workshop, and other data submitted in response to the first round of Commission questions, pushed the respondents to decide what percentages of content (and what form of content) should be required for OMade in U.S.A.O labeling. Consumers were asked to react to all sorts of numbers, percentages, and scenarios. But what became obvious as the results of the studies were summarized was that in all the studies that initially asked the open-ended question: OWhat does OMade in the U.S.A.O mean?O the overwhelming response of consumers was not that is means X percent parts or labor, but rather that it means simply that the product was made, built, manufactured, created, in America. What people think of when they hear that something is OmadeO somewhere is that this is the location where the thing was created. Particularly useful in thinking through the OMade in U.S.A.O labeling issue was the analysis of Professor Beales from George Washington University, which echoed and built upon the similar testimony of Professor Wind. Both professors noted that the survey showed a much simpler interpretation of OMade in U.S.A.O than that promoted by the more complex questions based on content. Both found that consumers generally felt that OMade in U.S.A.O means that a product is OmadeO in this country; no more, no less. Professor Beales then quite appropriately cited the definition of OmadeO or Omake O in the standard dictionary. This cut through the Gordian knot that others have tied before the Commission. After all, the dictionary is created by experts going out among the people, analyzing their writing and listening to their words, to determine what they mean, intend or understand a particular word to mean. According to the experts writing dictionary after dictionary, what people understand when they hear OmakeO is: Obring into existence by shaping, changing or combining material," Obring into being by forming, shaping or altering material," Oto put together from components," Ocreate," Ofashion," Oform," Ofabricate," etc. All of these definitions of OmakeO have one thing in common: They all pertain to the process of creating the object, and they all ignore the source of the raw components used in that process. The Commission should be wary of taking a word like OmakeO with a clear and consistent meaning and loading it up with extra meaning. While some interests may seek to add extra meanings onto the term OMade in,O the CommissionOs role should be to achieve some clarity and consistency with the plain meaning of this word. Anyone who wants to add additional meanings can do so by adding additional words. The efforts by those who would like the words Omade inO to carry requirements in terms of materials content or other tests should be rejected by the Commission, unless the content test is designed to serve as an accurate surrogate measure for where the process of making the product really occurs. This approach is discussed in subsection D, below. A. Percentage to be Used While EIA does not support a content test that turns substantially on the source of the raw materials or generic parts, some formulations of a content test might turn primarily on where the manufacturing processes that creates the product takes place. This possibility is discussed below in subsection D. In any test under which materials and parts content is a factor, EIA believes that the content percentage should be relatively low, in the range of 50 percent, so that this factor is less important relative to the question of where the product is actually Omade.O If the content test is designed to look only one step back and to serve as a surrogate measure for where the production process takes place, then, too, the percentage should lie in the 50 percent range, so long as the standard also requires that the final assembly steps occur in the United States. This will ensure that the predominant part of the overall production process occurs in the U.S.. B. Costs Included Consistent with the comments in subpart A, above, in any content test, all costs pertaining to the process of OmakingO the product, from inception through engineering, design, development, and manufacture (including all factory overheads and management costs) should be included to the greatest extent possible. Indeed, these are the costs that are the best indicators of where the designers, engineers, assemblers, and other workers who create that product are, and thus where the product is OmadeO. Costs incurred after the product is completed, tested and packaged may not be appropriate to determine where a product is made. Costs of basic materials and parts from which the products are created should not be considered. C. Fluctuations in Content In the electronics industry, any content percentage standard that includes the basic electronic piece parts costs would fluctuate daily, as particular small parts were received from different suppliers and plugged into the manufacturing line. By contrast, a content test that looked Oone-step-backO to where the dedicated subassemblies and intermediate components were created would not be subject to fluctuations as often because the change in origin of a few piece parts would not change the origin of the new intermediate components produced using those piece parts. D. Computation Issues For the reasons set forth in Section 1, A and B, any content test should be based on the value of components Oone step backO in the production process. This will increase the likelihood that the test will focus more on Owhere the product is madeO rather than Owhat the product is made out of.O Content tests that look only one step back are used under several federal provisions that try to ensure that a product is sufficiently processed in a particular country to deserve whatever special treatment the U.S. has bestowed on products of that country. Such tests include the Buy American test, the test for favorable treatment in the Caribbean Basin Initiative or the Israeli Free Trade Agreement, and the test for NAFTA preference rules. For any product that has a multi-phase production process, these tests tend to qualify those products that are produced in that country from basic materials (whatever their origin) through the normal production phases to the final product. Even though the tests are nominally content tests, they generally consider the origin of the components used in the final production step (so long as they have been converted from different products). These tests do not look at the origin of the basic piece parts or raw materials used to make those components. If the Commission adopts a content test of some kind, it should be similar in purpose to these existing tests; that is, a test that is in fact a surrogate for a manufacturing process test. As described above, a large portion of manufactured products go through two major transformation steps between the raw parts or materials and the final product: from wood to chair parts and from chair parts to the finished chair; from shaped metal to bicycle parts and from bicycle parts to finished bicycles; or from basic electronic and mechanical piece parts to facsimile machine subassemblies and from those subassemblies to the finished fax machine. A content test that uses a one-step back approach in effect turns on the country in which these two steps take place. The test holds that the component used for final production (the intermediate product) originates in the country in which it is created. Such a content test thus looks to where the first manufacturing step occurs, so long as the second final step also occurs there. Because such a test is close to a process-based test for complex manufactured products, it works relatively well with respect to most consumer electronics products which do have multi-step production processes. However, for products with only a single-step production process, such a test, even if it goes only one-step-back, may be based too much on the source of the raw materials and not enough on where the actual production process takes place. Therefore, such a test may not always be a good surrogate for a process test in the case of such products. Participants from such industries may shed some light on this question. 3. Substantial Transformation Standard A(i). Which Customs Standard As EIA stated in its initial submission, a pure substantial transformation test is not appropriate for OMade in U.S.A.O labeling and advertising claims in certain circumstances because substantial transformation can be achieved in some instances without going through a majority of the manufacturing process. The same is true of other Customs marking tests, because any Customs test must accommodate the need to put a country of origin on a product even if it is not really OmadeO in any one country. While substantial transformation may require a majority of the manufacturing process in the case of certain types of products, this is not the case for some electronics products. For example, an electronics product produced from a pre-assembled logic board from Japan, a pre-assembled processing board from Brazil, two dozen small U.S. and foreign mechanical and electrical parts, and a chassis made in Canada, might well be substantially transformed in the U.S., but the majority of the overall process of OmakingO the product occurred when the two populated circuit boards were created overseas. Therefore EIA does not endorse a pure substantial transformation test, or any similar country-or-origin test used by Customs, as a OMade in U.S.A.O label test. EIA does, however, believe that it may be an appropriate test for a OlesserO product marking such as OProduct of U.S.A.O that would not convey to consumers that the product was OmadeO in the U.S., but something less (see Response to Section 4A, below). Such a OlesserO marking would be understood to match existing Customs standards, and might be based on substantial transformation alone. A(ii) Modified Substantial Transformation While substantial transformation alone is not a sufficient test for OMade in U.S.A.O labeling, substantial transformation is almost certainly a necessary step in order for a product to be labeled OMade in U.S.A.O. Because OmakeO is a verb that describes a process of transformation, such a transformation is essential to any OMade in U.S.A.O claim. A proper test would require that a product be substantially transformed to its final form as well as to undergo a majority of the overall process of manufacture in the U.S. This would be a fair standard for OMade in U.S.A.O labeling. The majority of processing requirements should not turn on the source of the basic materials from which the product is made, however; i.e., it should not be a parts content test. See discussion in Section 2, above. A discussion of the appropriate process-based test is presented in subsection D, below. Any such test that requires more than just Osubstantial transformationO creates some additional costs for businesses that want to label their products OMade in U.S.A.O in foreign markets but could not do so in the U.S. However, these costs could be avoided by the adoption of the lesser OProduct of U.S.O marking suggested above and discussed in Section 4, below. A(iii) WTO Standard For the reasons set forth above pertaining to substantial transformation and the other Customs standards, the WTO (World Trade Organization) standard alone is not an appropriate OMade in U.S.A.O labeling standard. Furthermore, the WTO standard is still under development and is subject to future change. B. Consumer Perceptions The empirical evidence presented to the Commission supports one conclusion consistently: When consumers are initially asked what they think OMade in U.S.A.O means, they state that it means that the product was manufactured, put together, built, created, etc. in the United States. Therefore, empirical evidence does suggest that consumers think about the phrase OMade in U.S.A.O in terms of the process by which parts of materials are transformed into a finished product. As discussed in our responses to Section 2, the plain English meaning of the word OmakeO is exactly what consumers think about when they hear the phrase. It is only later, when forced to answer specific pre-determinative questions requiring them to decide on percentages of cost, location of assembly versus parts, labor versus assembly, and so forth, that the consumers by necessity try to make distinctions that did not enter their minds when the question was simply: OWhat does Made in U.S.A. mean?O. Moreover, the OpercentageO questions by their very nature leave much room for interpretation and inconsistent factual premises. For example, when asking consumers whether X percent of the product content should be U.S., the questions do not define whether the content is measured one step, two steps or further back, or whether labor includes the final transformation of the product or also labor earlier in the production process. Therefore, when different consumers say that 75% of materials and labor should be U.S., they may mean very different things. For example, for a vacuum cleaner, does the survey answer mean that the motor, the handle, the vacuum chamber, the brushes, the housing and the handle were manufactured in the U.S. (or at least 3 out of 4 were) and that 75 percent of the labor to assemble them into the final product was U.S.? Or does it mean that 75 percent of the labor used to make those components was U.S. as well? Or does it mean that 75 percent of the metal, plastic, wires, ball bearings, armatures, etc. was U.S. as well? Or does it mean that 75 percent of the labor to make the metal, plastic, and wires was U.S.? Obviously, each interpretation results in a very different standard. Thus, in a false quest for more meaningful answers through asking consumers more detailed, numerically-specific questions, the survey takers have in fact moved to less meaningful answers, because the presumptions underlying the questions are unknown. The most meaningful consumer answer was the one given to the most basic and most important question: OWhat does OMade in U.S.A.O mean?O. The overwhelming answer to that question was the plain English answer: The product is created, manufactured, OmadeO in this country. C. Meaning of Foreign Origin Claims What little evidence has been presented on the topic of foreign origin claims suggests that where consumers are affirmatively seeking products made in specific foreign countries, they understand the term OMade in XO to mean essentially the same thing as it does in OMade in U.S.A.O labels. In sum, the consumers expect the words to mean what they say, no more, no less. Also, while consumers may want particular products to be made in the countries famous for making those products well (e.g. French wine, German photographic equipment, Italian leather), with respect to other countries of origin there is indifference or even a negative connotation to such origin. D. Other Process-Oriented Standards The Commission should adopt a process-oriented test that goes beyond simple substantial transformation because a substantial transformation test may not subsume the overall process of making many products. As noted earlier, numerous tests exist that reflect efforts to ensure that a product is really made in a particular country before it can receive benefits that have by law been bestowed on products of that country. Examples of this include: (1) the OBuy AmericanO test that favors U.S. goods and is a form of one-step-back content plus final assembly test; (2) the Caribbean Basin Initiative test, which uses a two-step transformation approach to determine if there is the required amount of Caribbean content; or (3) the NAFTA preference test, which uses different tests for different products, each test designed to ensure that the product is really OmadeO in the NAFTA countries. For administrative reasons, U.S. Customs and government contracting authorities often have adopted standards that could be applied with some mathematical precision, and therefore have turned in part to a content test. However, all of these tests are surrogates for the real test that the agencies were seeking to apply: i.e., was the product really made in that country. In each case, the agencies have tried to avoid a pure cost-of-raw-parts-content rule for complex manufactured products. The FTC certainly need not use a cost-of-parts-content test. The goal of the FTCOs product labeling oversight is to prevent substantial numbers of consumers from being misled. The surveys suggest that this goal will be achieved so long as products that claim OMade in U.S.A.O really are Omade,O created, brought into being, in the U.S. Therefore, whatever standard the FTC applies should be targeted at this goal. In essence, the test should permit the use of a OMade in U.S.A.O label where the process of making the product, starting with the basic materials used by that particular product industry, takes place predominantly in the United States and is ultimately completed in the United States. For example, if the basic materials of the furniture industry are wood, fabric, springs, stuffing, and fasteners, the test would ask whether the process of producing a particular piece of furniture from those elements took place predominantly in the United States and was completed in the United States. For a sofa, that process might include building the frame, mounting the seating support and springs, padding the frame, creating the cushions, and upholstering and covering the sofa. If that process, or the substantial majority of it, takes place in the U.S., and those sofa elements are ultimately transformed into a sofa (using fasteners, and other assembly materials) in the United States, then the sofa is OmadeO in the United States and should be able to be so labeled, no matter where the basic materials originated. In the electronics industry, the standard would likewise focus on the steps necessary to create the final product out of the basic materials used in that industry. The basic materials include capacitors, filters, memory modules, unpopulated circuit boards, semiconductors, key pads, and the like. The process of making the final product generally includes: (1) designing and engineering the product (including selecting and specifying the basic parts needed); (2) manufacturing the basic parts into specialized and dedicated circuit modules, populated circuit boards, or other subassemblies; and (3) using those subassemblies along with additional mechanical and electrical parts to assemble the final product. If that process, or the substantial majority of it, occurs in the U.S., and the final production process takes place in the U.S., then that electronics product is OmadeO in the U.S. under any normal definition of Omade,O and could be so labeled. In summary, whatever test the Commission adopts should be designed to determine whether a product goes though the process of coming into being in the United States. This test will meet consumer expectations, which are generally that OMade in U.S.A.O means that the product was manufactured here. This test will also be relatively easy and inexpensive for most manufacturers to apply. Such a test should obviate the need in most cases for calculating and re-calculating ever-changing details concerning the origin of every piece part, steel bar, board, or transistor. It should generally eliminate the need to run a burdensome accounting exercise for every product. Most manufacturers who essentially build a product from basic materials to final product in the U.S. will be able to conclude easily that they may use a OMade in U.S.A.O label without the need to perform detailed accounting exercises. In the case of consumer electronics, for example, a company that starts with piece parts, builds the substantial majority of its dedicated major subassembly components in the U.S. and then assembles the product in the U.S. (using those major subassemblies and additional smaller parts from various sources) will be able to conclude without any complicated accounting exercise that the product can be labeled OMade in U.S.A.O. A consumer who walked through the factory would conclude the same thing. By contrast, a company that makes most of its key subassemblies off-shore would be able to conclude without further inquiry that the product should not bear a OMade in U.S.A.O label. E. Other CountriesO Marking Requirements EIA does not have comprehensive information on the country-of-origin marking requirements of all foreign countries for all products. However, several countries do have such requirements, which include electronics products, and there is considerable activity in this area globally, so additional countries are likely to impose such requirements. The countries that currently have such requirements require certain words to be used and reject some formulations. Moreover, these rules are subject to change. For example, it appears that generally, a OProduct of U.S.A.O marking is acceptable, but for some countries markings such as OAssembled in U.S.A.O or OAssembled in U.S.A. of domestic and imported componentsO or O80 percent made in U.S.A.O may not. Each of these latter markings may suggest that the product may not really have the United States as its country of origin and that there is some information not being given. For example, OAssembledO is generally considered to be a lower level of origin claim. It suggests that although a product may have been final-assembled in the U.S., it may have been predominantly made elsewhere. The surveys submitted in connection with the Commission proceeding confirm that most consumers believe that OAssembledO represents a claim only with respect to where the final assembly process takes place. Thus, assembly does not always constitute substantial transformation or bestow country-of-origin under customs country-of-origin rules. 4. Other Issues A. Other approaches See response to Section 3 and 3(D), above. B. Lesser terms It is of great importance that the Commission pave the way for acceptance of a OlesserO U.S. country-of-origin marking that could be used for products that are processed in the United States to a sufficient degree that foreign countries (and their customs authorities) consider them to be products of the United States. As the world moves to harmonized customs standards, rules of origin and of marking are becoming more consistent and universal. It will be increasingly burdensome on U.S. companies with global as well as U.S. sales if they are not able to mark their products consistently as to origin, wherever these products are sold. For many products in the electronics field, distribution is global rather than national. Distributors selling U.S. electronics products may operate out of Los Angeles, Tokyo, or Tel Aviv, and may sell to customers in Seoul, New York, and Mexico City. If these distribution channels must carry (and U.S. producers must create) a special separate stock of every U.S. product that has the U.S.-origin marking deleted so that it will be able to sell that product if the order comes from a U.S. customer, it will increase the cost and reduce the efficiency and competitiveness of U.S. products. Compliance will be burdensome, errors will be made, and overall U.S. interests will suffer. While one half of the FTC is charged with protecting consumers from deception, the other half is charged with promoting fair and equitable competition. Hobbling U.S. companies with a variable marking burden that none of their foreign competitors must bear will add an element of inequality and unfairness to the competition, and should be avoided. There is a solution that the FTC has the ability to implement and which should serve both halves of the FTCOs charter. The Commission should permit the use of a OlesserO marking for goods of U.S. producers that are sufficiently manufactured in America to become U.S. products for international customs purposes, but not sufficiently manufactured in America to meet consumer expectations for a OMade in U.S.A.O label or advertising claim. The lesser marking itself would be of limited size and visibility to customers. The lesser marking would not claim or imply that the product was truly OmadeO in the United States. Any claim on labels, packaging, promotion or advertising that the product was OmadeO, Omanufactured,O or OproducedO in the U.S.A. could be deemed deceptive by the Commission in its final conclusions in this proceeding. Furthermore, the Commission and interested parties would publicize the fact that this lesser marking did not represent a true OMade in U.S.A.O claim. As a result, consumers would not be misled by the lesser marking. At the same time, the ability to use a consistent marking world-wide would ensure that the competitiveness of U.S. products would not be unfairly and unnecessarily reduced. If the lesser marking is to be effective in solving the significant and growing marking burden for U.S. producers described above, the lesser marking must be adequate to meet international customs standards as to wording, placement and size. Wording is the major issue. The phrase OProduct of O is generally accepted by international customs authorities. Furthermore, from a consumerOs point of view, OProduct of U.S.O may not be imbued the same emotions or send the same message as OMade in U.S.A.O. Thus, this may be a lesser marking that would work. If some even less evocative marking, such as OOrigin U.S.A.O were found to be acceptable as an origin marking under international customs standards, such a marking could be used instead. The size and location of the marking would be the smallest and least evident necessary to meet international customs requirements. C. Unlabeled Products The CommissionOs current approach of not requiring content labels on products produced in the U.S. should not be changed. In an increasingly global economy, new requirements to disclose content would be burdensome, difficult, and of little benefit to consumers. Current U.S. Customs rules requiring that foreign products that do not undergo substantial change in the U.S. continue to carry their foreign origin labels are sufficient to protect against consumer deception.