Let me give you the American context on that. The TPP debate finally ended up stumbling on a few pieces. Rules of origin as they pertain to automotive was one that didn't work for us, but worked for the Japanese. The idea was to have a better definition of what originating means, to tighten how they might dispute that and how they might audit that, and then by the way they'd lower it. The argument came from the American-based assemblers trade organization, the American Automotive Policy Council, which told the USTR they might be at 62.5% regional value content, but in practice, given the matrix of products they had to use, the 29 product categories to prove compliance, they really only had 53. So, if they conceded 45 to the Japanese, it wasn't that much of a concession. Hopefully, they got something better in return.
In this context, the commerce secretary and the treasury secretary are informed by that exhortation. In practice, they were really at 53%, so their commentary and the commentary we're hearing from Washington and from our commercial partners is the administration will be seeking to tighten those rules of origin and how we determine origination, tighten tracing requirements and tracing rules. We're going to try to get to 62.5% because they think they'll be able to repatriate some of the capacity there through that.
I don't want to generalize for Mexico, but Canada is a very compliant trading partner, at least in our business. Our businesses generally are looking at the spirit of the law which is, I think, a higher standard than the letter of the law and of the agreement, so generally we'd be supportive of that. Tighten it; no problem. I could tell you where the stuff comes from.