Federal Trade Commission
Documents Received
Apr. 26, 1996
P894219
B18354900144

                                                  April 1, 1996
The Honor-able Robert Pitofsky
Chairman
Federal Trade Commission
Sixth and Pennsylvania, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20580
Dear Chairman Pitofsky:
     I am writing to urge that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
not abandon or change its long-standing "all or virtually all"
standard applicable to unqualified "Made in USA" claims for
product advertising and labeling. In 1994, Congress clearly
mandated that products introduced, advertized, or sold in
commerce with such a claim must be consistent with FTC decisions
and orders issued pursuant to section 5 of the FTC Act regarding
this standard. As a result of these decisions and orders, the
standard has for many years continued to be adhered to by many
manufacturers who proudly meet its requirements and use the "Made
in USA" label in the advertisement and sale of their products.
     I have been closely reviewing this issue for the past two
years.  After careful consideration, I believe that the FTC's
current policy should be maintained, and a more flexible
definition of "Made in the USA" should not be employed.
     I applaud the FTC for examining this issue and opening up
the process to public comments. However, I am somewhat concerned
over the manner in which the FTC is going about the regulatory
review process. Comments, informal surveys and workshops
certainly should be part of the process. But they should not
replace or supplant the FTC"s formal regulatory review regime. If
the FTC decides to make any changes in the standard, I would
respectfully urge that you adhere closely to the standard federal
rulemaking process.
     It is clear that some U.S. manufacturers who utilize a
certain percentage of foreign made parts or labor are pushing to
have the FTC's "all or virtually all" standard relaxed. On the
surface, these manufacturers make a reasonable argument. However,
after examining the options available to such manufacturers under
current law, and the long-term impact of a relaxed standard, it
is clear that weakening the FTC's standard will have a negative
impact on American workers and serve to mislead or deceive
American consumers.
     I would point out that it is not necessary to change the
current standard in order to deal with products containing
foreign parts or labor. Both the FTC and Congress have not
precluded any manufacturer with such foreign content or
involvement from choosing to advertize or label their products as
"Made in USA" so long as they qualify that claim (e.g. "Made in
USA of foreign and domestic components.") As the FTC's notice of
October 1995 explains, the law does not require any manufacturer
to disclose the degree of domestic or foreign origin or content
of their products. However, if manufacturers choose, at their
discretion, to advertize or label their products as "Made in USA"
their claims must be truthful and substantiated.
                                 
                           (next page)


The Honorable Robert Pitofsky
Page Two
April 1, 1996



     The historical test adopted by the FTC and Congress for
unqualified claims is, as it should be, rigorous, but it is not
unfair. It should continue to be reserved for those products that
can truthfully meet it.  For those products that, as a result of
globalization of production, include foreign components or labor,
the FTC should continue to make available the alternative of a
qualified "Made in USA" label.

     While other approaches may seem reasonable, in the long run,
weakening the current standard would cause the "Made in the USA"
label to have less value to the manufacturers of products with
labor and components of "all or virtually all" domestic origin,
and to the consumers who prefer such products. For American
manufacturers who utilize foreign parts or labor, a qualified
"Made in USA" standard remains a viable and reasonable option.

     Once again, I urge the FTC to retain the current "Made in
the USA" labeling and consideration. I look forward to your
advertising standard.  Thank you for your time and consideration.
I look forward to your response.

                          Respectfully,


                          James A. Traficant, Jr.
                          Member of Congress


JAT/pm

c: The Honorable John Dingell