OT:RR:CTF:VS H346628 RMC
Robert Stelzer
Safety Power America, Inc.
575 South Mansfield St.
Ypsilanti, MI 48197
RE: Country of Origin and USMCA Eligibility of the ecoCUBE Air Purification Device
Dear Mr. Stelzer:
This is in response to your correspondence of March 16, 2025, in which you ask U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to address the country of origin of the ecoCUBE air
purification device under the substantial transformation standard and its eligibility for preferential
tariff treatment under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (“USMCA”). Your request,
submitted as an electronic ruling request, was forwarded to this office from the National
Commodity Specialist Division for response.
We determined that certain information submitted in connection with this internal advice
request should be treated as confidential. Therefore, pursuant to the requirements of 19 C.F.R.
§177.2(b)(7), the information contained within brackets and all attachments to this internal advice
request, forwarded to our office, will not be released to the public and will be withheld from
published versions of this decision.
FACTS:
The good at issue is the ecoCUBE air purification device for large combustion engines. Like
a catalytic converter in a vehicle, the ecoCUBE is designed to meet emissions standards for large
internal combustion engines in industrial applications such as back-up power generators. According
to the information provided, Safety Power America, Inc. produces the ecoCUBE at its facilities in
Canada. You state that it is classified in subheading 8421.32, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (“HTSUS”).
In your submission, you explain that the ecoCUBE consists of three major components: (1)
the SCR air purification catalyst; (2) the DPF air purification catalyst; and (3) the stainless-steel
housing.
Under the first production scenario, the SCR and DPF purification catalysts are produced in
the United States and installed into a stainless-steel housing produced in Canada using U.S.-origin
1
steel. The housing is then fitted with mineral wool insulation and covered with light-gauge
aluminum cladding in Canada to complete the product. Under the second scenario, the following
additional steps would also occur in Canada: commodity temperature and pressure sensors are
added to the housing and wired to a function box and a urea injector is bolted onto the housing.
You provided the following bill of materials for the good:
Material Quantity Classification Value Originating Country of Origin
Name (USD) Status
SCR 18 8421.32 $[ ] Originating United States
Catalyst elements
DPF 32 8421.32 $[ ] Originating United States
Catalyst elements
Stainless 7,500 7219.21 $[ ] Originating United States
Steel pounds
Stainless 2,100 7219.22 $[ ] Originating United States
Steel pounds
Insulation 496 6806.10 $[ ] Non- China
originating
Cladding 496 7606.12 $[ ] Non- China
originating
Gaskets 6815.13 6 $[ ] Originating United States
Nuts, 7318.15 350 $[ ] Originating Canada
bolts,
washers
Sensors 9026.90 6 $[ ] Non- Various
originating
In your ruling request, you request a determination of whether the ecoCUBE qualifies for
preferential tariff treatment under the USMCA and seek confirmation “under CBP’s substantial
transformation test . . . on whether the product remains of U.S. origin or shifts to Canadian origin
under [the two scenarios].”
ISSUES:
I. Whether the good is eligible for preferential tariff treatment under the USMCA when it is
imported from Canada into the United States.
II. What is the country of origin of the merchandise under the substantial transformation
standard?
2
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
I. USMCA
The USMCA was signed by the Governments of the United States, Mexico, and Canada on
November 30, 2018. The USMCA was approved by the U.S. Congress with the enactment on
January 29, 2020, of the USMCA Implementation Act, Pub. L. 116-113, 134 Stat. 11, 14 (19 U.S.C. §
4511(a)). General Note (“GN”) 11 of the HTSUS implements the USMCA. GN 11(b) sets forth
the criteria for determining whether a good is an originating good for purposes of the USMCA. GN
11(b) states:
For the purposes of this note, a good imported into the customs territory of the United
States from the territory of a USMCA country, as defined in subdivision (l) of this note, is
eligible for the preferential tariff treatment provided for in the applicable subheading and
quantitative limitations set forth in the tariff schedule as a “good originating in the
territory of a USMCA country” only if—
(i) the good is a good wholly obtained or produced entirely in the territory of one or
more USMCA countries;
(ii) the good is a good produced entirely in the territory of one or more USMCA
countries, exclusively from originating materials;
(iii) the good is a good produced entirely in the territory of one or more USMCA
countries using nonoriginating materials, if the good satisfies all applicable
requirements set forth in this note (including the provisions of subdivision (o)); or
…
Here, the good will be produced in Canada using originating and non-originating materials
(namely, materials of subheadings 6806.10, 7606.12, and 9026.90, HTSUS). Therefore, the
merchandise will not qualify as originating pursuant to GN 11(b)(i) or (ii). We must therefore
consider whether the merchandise qualifies as originating pursuant to GN 11(b)(iii).
For a good of subheading 8421.32, HTSUS, the applicable rule of origin in GN 11(o)/84.70
requires:
(A) A change to subheadings 8421.19 through 8421.39 from any other heading; or
(B) A change to subheadings 8421.19 through 8421.39 from subheadings 8421.91 through
8421.99, whether or not there is also a change from any other heading, provided there is
a regional value content of not less than:
(1) 60 percent where the transaction value method is used; or
(2) 50 percent where the net cost method is used.
3
Here, you have provided the information necessary to apply the tariff shift rule in GN
11(o)/84.70(A). Because no non-originating materials of heading 8421 are used in the production of
the ecoCUBE, the goods will qualify as originating pursuant to GN 11(o)/84.70(A) and, provided
that all other requirements are met, they will be eligible for preferential tariff treatment under the
USMCA when imported into the United States from Canada.
II. Substantial Transformation
The test for determining whether a substantial transformation will occur is whether an article
emerges from a process with a new name, character, or use, different from that possessed by the
article prior to processing. See Texas Instruments Inc. v. United States, 69 C.C.P.A. 151 (1982). In order
to determine whether a substantial transformation has occurred, CBP considers the totality of the
circumstances and makes such determinations on a case-by-case basis. CBP has stated that a new
and different article of commerce is an article that has undergone a change in commercial
designation or identity, fundamental character, or commercial use. A determinative issue is the
extent of the operations performed and whether the materials lose their identity and become an
integral part of the new article. This determination is based on the totality of the evidence. See
National Hand Tool Corp. v. United States, 16 C.I.T. 308 (1992), aff’d, 989 F.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In National Hand Tool Corp. v. United States, 16 CIT 308 (1992), aff’d, 989 F.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir.
1993), sockets and flex handles were either cold formed or hot forged into their final shape, speeder
handles were reshaped by a power press after importation, and the grip of the flex handles were
knurled in the United States. The imported parts were then heat treated which strengthened the
surface of the steel, and cleaned by sandblasting, tumbling, and/or chemical vibration before being
electroplated. In certain instances, various components were assembled together which the court
stated required some skill and dexterity. The court determined that the imported components were
not substantially transformed by the strengthening, cleaning, and assembly performed in the United
States; therefore, they remained products of Taiwan. In making its determination, the court focused
on the fact that the components had been cold-formed or hot-forged “into their final shape before
importation,” and that “the form of the components remained the same” after the assembly and
heat-treatment processes performed in the United States. Although the court stated that a
predetermined use would not preclude the finding of a substantial transformation, the determination
must be based on the totality of the evidence. No substantial change in name, character or use was
found to have occurred as a result of the processing performed in the United States.
Assembly operations that are minimal or simple, as opposed to complex or meaningful, will
generally not result in a substantial transformation. Factors which may be relevant in this evaluation
may include the nature of the operation (including the number of components assembled), the
number of different operations involved, and whether a significant period of time, skill, detail, and
quality control are necessary for the assembly operation. If the manufacturing or combining process
is a minor one which leaves the identity of the article intact, a substantial transformation has not
occurred. Uniroyal, Inc. v. United States (“Uniroyal”), 3 CIT 220, 542 F. Supp. 1026 (1982), aff’d 702 F.
2d 1022 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
In HQ H312891, dated October 14, 2021, CBP held that the “monolithic core” imparted the
essence to a catalytic converter. The monolithic core consisted of a ceramic substrate and precious
metals with thousands of holes that filter and covert automobile gasses and emissions into non-toxic
substances. In that case, the Canadian monolithic core—which accounted for more than 50% of
4
the value of the finished catalytic converter—was sent to China for final processing. The Chinese
operations consisted of “canning,” or wrapping the monolithic core with a U.S.-origin fiber mat,
wrapping it into a metal shell, and attaching the housing along with the inlet and outlet pipes.
We noted that “[i]n HQ H168212, CBP stated that the monolithic core of an underfloor
assembly imparted the essential character because the function of purifying auto exhaust emissions
was performed by the monolithic core.” HQ H168212 explained that “the monolithic cores provide
and solely perform the actual purification of auto emission gases function.” In that case, as in
H312891, the purpose of the device was to convert emission gases into non-toxic substances; the
other components were secondary and did not change any part of the core to enable it to perform
its function. Accordingly, in both cases, CBP found that the country of origin of the finished
catalytic converts was that of the monolithic core.
Here, the ecoCUBE incorporates two core components, the SCR purification catalyst and
DPF purification catalyst, that carry out the core function of purifying emissions. Both of these
components are of U.S. origin and together account for approximately 75% of the value of the
materials used in the production of the good. As in H168212 and H312891, the additional materials
are secondary and do not change any part of the SCR and DPF purification catalysts to enable them
to perform the function of purifying emissions. Moreover, the Canadian assembly operations are
simple and do not rise to the level of complexity and meaningfulness that would result in a
substantial transformation. Accordingly, the U.S.-origin SCR and DPF catalysts impart the essence
under both production scenarios, and the country of origin of the ecoCUBE is the United States
under the substantial transformation standard.
HOLDING:
Based on the information provided, the merchandise qualifies as USMCA originating goods
and will be eligible for preferential tariff treatment under the USMCA, provided that all other
applicable requirements are met. Under the substantial transformation standard, the country of
origin of the merchandise is the United States.
Please note that 19 C.F.R. § 177.9(b)(1) provides that “[e]ach ruling letter is issued on the
assumption that all of the information furnished in connection with the ruling request and
incorporated in the ruling letter, either directly, by reference, or by implication, is accurate and
complete in every material respect. The application of a ruling letter by a Customs Service field
office to the transaction to which it is purported to relate is subject to the verification of the facts
incorporated in the ruling letter, a comparison of the transaction described therein to the actual
transaction, and the satisfaction of any conditions on which the ruling was based.”
5
A copy of this ruling letter should be attached to the entry documents filed at the time this
merchandise is entered. If the documents have been filed without a copy, this ruling should be
brought to the attention of the CBP officer handling the transaction.
Sincerely,
Monika R. Brenner, Chief
Valuation and Special Programs Branch
6