Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

37026

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
representing manufacturers, distributors, and suppliers of personal care products, suggested incorporating a safe harbor for good actors who are trying to overcome the difficulties in sourcing domestic components and materials. 53 PCPC explained, a safe harbor provision for unqualified claims would not dilute the purpose of the FTCs goal with this proposed ruleto deter bad actors from making false claims. Rather, such a provision would provide businesses who in good faith make every reasonable effort to make as much of their product as possible in the U.S. the flexibility to comply with any new regulations. 54
Alternatively, RILA suggested that to avoid deterring retailers and marketplaces from offering products with MUSA labels the final rule should include an express statement . . . that allows retailers and marketplaces that have exercised reasonable due diligence to rely on documented supplier and vendor certifications to substantiate MUSA labeling claims. 55

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1

3. Analysis The Commission has concluded it is not necessary to undertake additional consumer perception testing before adopting the proposed Rule.
Accordingly, the Commission adopts the all or virtually all standard to govern unqualified claims as proposed in the NPRM. Although some commenters speculated consumer perception may have shifted over time, or argued the Commission should adopt a new standard for unqualified claims, there is no evidence on the record disputing the Commissions past findings that at least a significant minority of consumers expect a MUSAadvertised product to be all or virtually all made in the United States. Nor is there evidence suggesting new perception testing would find otherwise.
Indeed, the limited survey evidence submitted in conjunction with the 2019
workshop on MUSA claims suggested consumer perception has remained stable since the 1990s. Specifically, one panelist, Mark Hanna of Richline Group, Inc. submitted a survey, conducted in 2013, which found almost 3 in 5
Americans 57% agree Made in America means all parts of a product, including any natural resources it contains, originated in the United 53 PCPC 587. Although not specifically advocating for a good-faith claim safe harbor, the Family Farm Action Alliance similarly argued the FTC should continue its practice of counseling inadvertent offenders into compliance 543.
54 PCPC 587 at 3.
55 RILA 570.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:14 Jul 13, 2021

Jkt 253001

States.56 Additionally, the survey found 33 percent of consumers thought 100
percent of a product must originate in a country for that product to be labeled as Made in that country.57 These findings are consistent with the FTCs 1995 survey, which found roughly 30
percent of consumers would be deceived by an unqualified MUSA
claim for a product where 70 percent of the cost was incurred in the United States.58 As Hanna explained during the workshop, at least 25% of the consumers were skeptical that if theres something introduced to that finished product other than something that originated in the US now, they didnt think it should be made in the USA. 59
Accordingly, the Commission has a reasonable basis to conclude the all or virtually all standard accurately represents current consumer perception regarding unqualified MUSA claims.
Should future consumer research clearly establish the all or virtually all standard is inapplicable to a specific class of products, entities may petition the Commission for an exemption from the Rules requirements, as discussed in Section III of this document.
While commenters proposed alternative standards that might promote certain policy goals, the Commission declines to adopt these alternative proposals for the reasons discussed below. Section 45a authorizes the Commission to issue rules to ensure products labeled as Made in the U.S.A., or the equivalent thereof, comport with the requirements of Section 5 of the FTC Act that prohibit unfairness or deception. The all or virtually all standard is designed to prevent consumer deception and, therefore, the Commission declines to:
1 Adopt a bright-line, percentagebased standard; 2 include a broad carve-out for inputs not available in the United States; 3 incorporate CBPs substantial transformation standard;
56 Commission staff considered this study previously as part of a request for a staff advisory opinion on unqualified MUSA claims for recycled gold jewelry products. See Response to Request for FTC Staff Advisory Opinion Sept. 9, 2014, https
www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/closing_
letters/made-usa/140909madeisusajvc.pdf declining to provide an opinion stating MUSA
claims for recycled jewelry do not deceive consumers based on perception evidence provided by Richline Group.
57 See also Hanna, Transcript of Made in USA: An FTC Workshop Sept. 26, 2019 hereinafter, MUSA Tr. at 14 study showed 25% or 30% of American consumers really did feel that everything, including the natural resource, including the gold, had to be part of the final product in order to say it was made in the USA.
58 62 FR 25020, 25036.
59 Hanna, MUSA Tr. at 15.

PO 00000

Frm 00026

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

or 4 provide a safe harbor for goodfaith efforts to comply.
First, percentage-based, bright-line rules could allow deceptive unqualified claims in circumstances where the low cost of the foreign input does not correlate to the importance of that input to consumers. For example, the Commissions enforcement experience has established unqualified U.S.-origin claims for watches that incorporate imported movements may mislead consumers because, although the cost of an imported movement is often low relative to the overall cost to manufacture a watch, consumers may place a premium on the origin and quality of a watch movement and consider the failure to disclose the foreign origin of this component to be material to their purchasing decision.
Under those circumstances, the foreign movement likely is not a de minimis consideration for consumers, and an unqualified U.S.-origin claim for a watch containing an imported movement would likely deceive consumers.60 The Policy Statement has instructed marketers since the 1990s that the cost of foreign versus U.S. parts and labor is only one factor to consider in determining how material a part may be to consumers.61 Accordingly, the Commission declines to adopt a percentage-based standard because the all or virtually all standard is better tailored to prevent unqualified U.S.origin claims that will mislead consumers in making purchasing decisions. By maintaining this precedent, the rule accounts for the likelihood consumers interpret MUSA
claims somewhat differently for different product categories.
Second, the record similarly does not support excluding foreign content unavailable in the United States from the all or virtually all analysis.
Specifically, as described above, consumer perception testing has consistently shown consumers expect products labeled as MUSA to contain no more than a de minimis amount of foreign content. There is no evidence this takeaway varies in scenarios where some parts or inputs are not available in the United States. Indeed, the Policy Statement explains unqualified claims for such products could be deceptive, for example, if the nonindigenous imported material constitutes the whole or essence of the finished product e.g., the rubber in a rubber ball or the coffee 60 See, e.g., FTC Staff Closing Letter to Niall Luxury Goods, LLC Nov. 20, 2015, available at https www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/
closing_letters/nid/151120niall_letter.pdf.
61 See Policy Statement, 62 FR 63756, 63768.

E:FRFM14JYR1.SGM

14JYR1