The country of origin of optical fiber cables

N356189 December 3, 2025 OT:RR:NC:N2:212 CATEGORY: Origin Jason Waite Alston & Bird, LLP 950 F Street, NW Washington, DC 20004-1404 RE: The country of origin of optical fiber cables Dear Mr. Waite: In your letter dated November 18, 2025, you requested a country of origin ruling on behalf of your client, Lightera, LLC. There are three items at issue with this request, which are described as optical fiber cables, and individually identified by the model numbers below: AccuRiser 200 Rollable Ribbon Cable (AccuRiser) AccuTube+ Rollable Ribbon Cable (AccuTube) Fortex 288F Cable (Fortex) The subject cables are constructed similarly, each comprised of a bundle of optical fibers encased in various jacketing material. The primary difference between models is the number of fibers which are incorporated. We note that the cables are not terminated with connectors and are imported into the United States on reels. The cables are used for various telecommunications and data communication applications. For all three cables, the manufacturing process begins with the manufacture of the optical preform in the United States through various steps including vapor deposition, purification, and cladding. The remainder of the subsequent steps, though similar, are performed in different stages for each model of cable. For the AccuRiser and AccuTube cables, the preform is heated in and drawn into individual optical fibers in the United States. These fibers are then individually sheathed with an acrylate coating for protection. The individual fibers are then connected in groups of 24 in a ribbon structure. These ribbons are then sent from the U.S. to Brazil. In Brazil, the ribbons are rolled together into a tube before strength members and various levels of jacketing are added. The structure, number of fibers, and composition of jacketing differs between the two models, but would not alter the end function of the cable. The finished cable is then exported to the U.S. For the Fortex cable, the optical preform is sent to Brazil where it is heated and drawn into individual optical fibers. The fiber is individually sheathed and colored. The individual fibers are then grouped together and covered with a buffer tube. These tubes are then arranged around a central dielectric to form a cable core, consisting of up to 288 optical fibers. Further jacketing is then added to the outside of the cable before it is exported to the U.S. When determining the country of origin, the substantial transformation analysis is applicable. See, e.g., Headquarters Ruling Letter (“HQ”) H301619, dated November 6, 2018. 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, 681 F.2d 778 (C.C.P.A. 1982). 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). Regarding the origin of the subject cables, the glass preforms are manufactured with specific optical attributes via an intense and detailed process. The drawing of the fibers preserves these key properties such as refractive index, core and cladding structure, and chemical composition. Additionally, the drawing process only merely alters the physical size while maintaining the chemical and optical properties. Based on this, it is the opinion of this office that the optical preform imparts the character of the finished cables. Further, the processes performed in Brazil in all three scenarios, would not substantially transform the U.S. originating goods into new and different articles of commerce. As such, the country of origin of the AccuRiser, AccuTube, and Fortex fiber optic cable will be the United States. Whether an article may be marked with the phrase "Made in the USA" or similar words denoting U.S. origin, is an issue under the authority of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). We suggest that you contact the FTC Division of Enforcement, 6th and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20508 on the propriety of proposed markings indicating that an article is made in the USA. The holding set forth above applies only to the specific factual situation and merchandise description as identified in the ruling request. This position is clearly set forth in Title 19, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Section 177.9(b)(1). This section states that a ruling letter is issued on the assumption that all of the information furnished in the ruling letter, whether directly, by reference, or by implication, is accurate and complete in every material respect. In the event that the facts are modified in any way, or if the goods do not conform to these facts at time of importation, you should bring this to the attention of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and submit a request for a new ruling in accordance with 19 CFR 177.2. Additionally, we note that the material facts described in the foregoing ruling may be subject to periodic verification by CBP. This ruling is being issued under the provisions of Part 177 of the Customs and Border Protection Regulations (19 C.F.R. 177). A copy of the ruling or the control number indicated above should be provided with the entry documents filed at the time this merchandise is imported. If you have any questions regarding the ruling, please contact National Import Specialist Luke LePage at luke.lepage@cbp.dhs.gov. Sincerely, (for) Deborah Marinucci Designated Official Performing the Duties of the Division Director National Commodity Specialist Division