# De minimis is not just a percentage
I happened to get on a Pikachu-themed plane today.
Ten thousand volts. Feels like this trip will go smoothly.
---
Somewhere during the flight, I kept thinking about de minimis.
Most people treat it as a math problem.
A percentage.
Above or below a threshold.
Run the numbers, and you get an answer.
But in practice, it rarely feels that simple.
---
Take a common scenario.
A product is designed using U.S.-origin EDA software.
By the time you look at the finished product,
the software is not physically embedded.
In some calculations, its contribution can even appear close to zero.
But without that software, the design would not exist in the first place.
So the question becomes:
Are you measuring the product based on what it is,
or based on how it came into existence?
👉 Preliminary analysis:
If the software is indispensable to the creation of the product, a purely percentage-based view may understate the actual level of dependency.
👉 Preliminary conclusion:
Even where the numerical threshold appears low, it may still be necessary to consider whether FDPR or other jurisdictional extensions could apply, rather than relying solely on de minimis.
---
A second scenario involves manufacturing equipment.
Certain processes rely on equipment incorporating U.S.-origin technology,
such as etching or metrology tools.
It is easy to say that equipment is just a tool,
not part of the product itself.
But if that step is critical to production,
the product cannot be made without it.
At that point, the distinction starts to blur.
Is the equipment merely a tool,
or does it effectively define what the product can be?
👉 Preliminary analysis:
Where equipment determines whether a product can be produced at all, its role may rise to the level of structural dependency rather than incidental use.
👉 Preliminary conclusion:
Even if such equipment is not counted toward product composition, it should not be assumed that export control exposure can be excluded without further analysis.
---
A third situation is more commercial.
A product contains a small amount of U.S.-origin components.
On paper, alternatives exist.
But replacing them would require requalification,
customer re-approval, and possibly redesign.
In semiconductor supply chains,
that process can take months or longer.
So the real question becomes:
Is substitutability theoretical,
or practical?
👉 Preliminary analysis:
When substitution is technically possible but commercially impractical, the notion of “replaceability” may not meaningfully reduce dependency.
👉 Preliminary conclusion:
Even if de minimis thresholds appear satisfied, a deeper assessment of practical dependency may still be required.
---
So going back to de minimis.
It is, of course, about percentages.
But it is not only about percentages.
---
It starts to look more like a question of structure.
What does the product depend on?
What can be removed,
and what cannot?
And if something can be removed in theory,
what does it cost in reality?
---
At that point, de minimis stops being a calculation.
It becomes an assessment.
---
Percentages are only the surface.
Dependency is the core.
---
Sometimes, the real issue is not how much U.S. content you have.
It is whether your product can exist without it.
