VES-3-02-OT:RR:BSTC:CCI H108295 WRB
Michael Beggs
General Manager
Inchcape Shipping Services
9000 Regency Square Blvd.
Suite 206
Jacksonville, FL 32211
RE: Coastwise Transportation; 46 U.S.C. § 55103; 19 C.F.R. § 4.50(b)
Dear Mr. Beggs:
This letter is in response to your correspondence dated June 3, 2010, in which you request a ruling on whether the coastwise transportation of two individuals mentioned therein aboard the M/V CETUS LEADER constitutes a violation of 46 U.S.C. § 55103. Our ruling on your request follows.
FACTS
The voyage in question involves the transportation of the subject individuals aboard the non-coastwise-qualified M/V CETUS LEADER (“the vessel”). The individuals will embark June 14, 2010 at Jacksonville, Florida, travel coastwise to Newark, New Jersey, arriving June 17, 2010, and then depart aboard the vessel for a foreign destination. The individuals are the chief engineer’s wife and minor son.
ISSUE
Whether the individuals described above would be “passengers” within the meaning of 46 U.S.C. § 55103 and 19 C.F.R. § 4.50(b)?
LAW AND ANALYSIS
The coastwise passenger statute, 46 U.S.C. § 55103, states that no foreign vessel shall transport passengers “between ports or places in the United States to which the coastwise laws apply, either directly or by way of a foreign port,” under a penalty of $300 for each passenger so transported and landed. See also 19 C.F.R. § 4.80(b)(2). The coastwise laws generally apply to points in the territorial sea, which is defined as the belt, three nautical miles wide, seaward of the territorial sea baseline, and to points located in internal waters, landward of the territorial sea baseline.
Under 46 U.S.C. § 55103, a “passenger” is any person carried aboard a vessel “who is not connected with the operation of the vessel, her navigation, ownership, or business.” See also 19 C.F.R. § 4.50(b). In this regard, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) provides a strict interpretation of “passenger” defining the term as persons transported on a vessel unless they are “directly and substantially” connected with the operation, navigation, ownership or business of that vessel itself. See Customs Bulletin of June 5, 2002, Vol. 36, No. 23, at p. 50.
It is CBP’s longstanding position that the spouse and children of officers of a vessel are not passengers for purposes of the passenger coastwise statute. See General Letter No. 117 (May 20, 1916) from the former Bureau of Navigation. A chief engineer qualifies as an “officer of a vessel,” therefore, the spouse and children of the vessel’s chief engineer may be aboard a non-coastwise-qualified vessel during a coastwise voyage and are not “passengers” within the meaning of 46 U.S.C. § 55103 and 19 C.F.R. § 4.50(b). See Headquarters Ruling Letter H007256, dated February 26, 2007; Headquarters Ruling Letter H020279, dated November 30, 2007. Consequently, the coastwise transportation of the subject individuals is not in violation of 46 U.S.C. § 55103.
HOLDING
The subject individuals are not “passengers” within the meaning of 46 U.S.C. § 55103 and 19 C.F.R. § 4.50(b). Therefore, the coastwise transportation of such individuals is not in violation of 46 U.S.C. § 55103.
Sincerely,
Glen E. Vereb, Chief
Cargo Security, Carriers and Immigration Branch