VES-3-02-OT:RR:BSTC:CCI H020279 JLB
Ms. Nora Pasca
Norton Lilly International-OPS
249 E. Ocean Blvd., Suite 200
Long Beach, California 90808
RE: Coastwise Transportation; 46 U.S.C. § 55103; 19 C.F.R. § 4.50(b)
Dear Ms. Pasca:
This letter is in response to your correspondence dated November 28, 2007, in which you request a ruling on whether the coastwise transportation of the individual mentioned therein aboard the M/V APL CHINA 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 individual aboard the non-coastwise-qualified M/V APL CHINA (“the vessel”). The individual will embark on December 4, 2007 at Los Angeles, California and will disembark at the port of Oakland, California on December 5, 2007. The subject individual is the wife of the vessel’s chief engineer.
ISSUE
Whether the individual described above would be a “passenger” within the meaning of 46 U.S.C. § 55103 and 19 C.F.R. § 4.50(b)?
LAW AND ANALYSIS
The coastwise passenger statute, former 46 U.S.C. App. § 289 recodified as 46 U.S.C. § 55103, pursuant to P.L. 109-304 (October 6, 2006), 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 pp. 50.
However, CBP has long held that immediate family members (i.e. a spouse and children) of officers of a vessel are not passengers since they are connected to the ownership and business of the vessel. See U.S. Customs Service General Letter No. 117 (May 20, 1916); Customs Bulletin of June 5, 2002, Vol. 36, No. 23, at pp. 50. In Headquarters Decision H007256, dated February 26, 2007, we held that a chief engineer qualifies as an "officer of the vessel"; therefore, his spouse may be aboard a non-coastwise qualified vessel during a coastwise voyage and is not a "passenger" under 46 U.S.C. § 55103 and 19 C.F.R. § 4.50(b). Consequently, the coastwise transportation of the subject individual is not in violation of 46 U.S.C. § 55103.
HOLDING
The subject individual is not a “passenger” within the meaning of 46 U.S.C. § 55103 and 19 C.F.R. § 4.50(b). Therefore, the coastwise transportation of such an individual is not in violation of 46 U.S.C. § 55103.
Sincerely,
Glen E. Vereb, Chief
Cargo Security, Carriers and Immigration Branch