VES-3-06 CO:R:IT:C 112901 JBW
Ms. Anne Smith
Project Coordinator
General Offshore Corporation
Post Office Box 21726
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33335-1726
RE: Coastwise; Cable Laying; Transportation; Virgin Islands; 46
U.S.C. app. 883; 46 U.S.C. app. 877.
Dear Ms. Smith:
This letter is in response to your letter dated October 12,
1993, in which you request a ruling on the application of the
coastwise laws to the transportation and laying of submarine cable
by a foreign-flag ship.
FACTS:
General Offshore Corporation engages in the installation of
submarine cable. General Offshore is now bidding for jobs as a
subcontractor on behalf of AT&T to lay cable at Vero Beach,
Florida, and St. Thomas, United States Virgin Islands. General
Offshore charters a foreign-flag cable laying ship. AT&T requires
that the ship load cable at Simplex Wire & Cable Company in
Portsmouth, New Hampshire. The ship will then proceed to the
installation sites to lay the cable.
ISSUE:
Whether the transportation by a foreign-flag cable laying ship
of submarine cable from New Hampshire to Florida or to the United
States Virgin Islands where the cable is laid directly from the
ship is an engagement in the coastwise trade.
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
The coastwise laws generally prohibit the transportation of
passengers or merchandise between points in the United States
embraced within the coastwise laws in any vessel other than a
United States built, owned, and documented vessel. 46 U.S.C. app.
289 (1988) & 46 U.S.C.A. app. 883 (West Supp. 1993). The
coastwise laws apply to points in the territorial sea, 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, in cases where the baseline and
the coastline differ.
The Customs Service has held that the sole use of a non-
coastwise-qualified vessel to lay cable between points in the
United States or in international waters does not violate the
coastwise laws. Headquarters Ruling Letter 110180, dated May 18,
1989. Further, we have held that the transportation of the cable
by the cable laying vessel from a point in the United States to a
point in United States territorial waters where it is laid by the
vessel is not an engagement in the coastwise trade. Id. If,
however, the cable is laden onto the cable laying vessel at one
United States point and carried to a second United States point
where it is either temporarily unladen into an onshore storage
depot or unladen onto another vessel in United States territorial
waters, a violation occurs. Headquarters Ruling Letter 110402,
dated August 18, 1989.
From these rules, we conclude that the transportation by a
foreign-flag cable laying ship of submarine cable from New
Hampshire to Florida where the cable is laid directly from the ship
is not an engagement in the coastwise trade. If the cable is
unladen from the foreign-flag vessel at another point in the United
States other than as part of the cable laying operation, then a
violation occurs.
The United States coastwise laws do not currently extend to
the United States Virgin Islands. 46 U.S.C. app. 877. The
transportation of cable from New Hampshire to the United States
Virgin Islands is therefore not an engagement in the coastwise
trade under United States law. You should consult with authorities
in the Virgin Islands to determine what restrictions, if any, are
placed by the laws of the Virgin Islands on the use of a foreign-
flag cable laying vessel in the waters of the United States Virgin
Islands.
HOLDING:
The transportation by a foreign-flag cable laying ship of
submarine cable from New Hampshire to Florida where the cable is
laid directly from ship is not an engagement in the coastwise
trade. The United States coastwise laws do not apply to the United
States Virgin Islands. The transportation of cable from New
Hampshire to the United States Virgin Islands is not an engagement
in the coastwise trade. Whether a foreign-flag vessel may lay
cable in the waters of the United States Virgin Islands is a
question to be resolved under the laws of the Virgin Islands.
Sincerely,
Arthur P. Schifflin
Chief