OT:RR:BSTC:CCR H329165 MF
John Waldron. Esq.
Blank Rome LLP
1825 Eye Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
RE: Coastwise Transportation; 46 U.S.C. 55102; 19 CFR 4.80(b)
Dear Mr. Waldron:
This is in response to your December 22, 2022, ruling request on behalf of your client [ ] regarding whether the transportation of monopiles and transition pieces on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf ("OCS"), as described below, would violate the coastwise laws. Our decision follows.
FACTS
The following facts are from your December 22, 2022, ruling request and supplemental responses to CBP. Your client, [ ] (hereinafter "[ ]")] proposes to transport and unlade "monopiles" and "transition pieces" to construct wind turbine generators (" ") in conjunction with the construction of the [" " and " " ] (hereinafter " ") located on the OCS off the [ ].
The [ ] is described in the ruling request as an offshore wind energy farm that is expected to consist of approximately [ ] WTGs. Each installed WTG will consist of a tower and nacelle unit attached to a monopile foundation ("MP"). The tower will be installed atop the monopile foundation through the use of a transition piece ("TP").
Inter-array cables ("IAC") will be installed from one turbine to another and are connected between individual offshore wind turbines in order to link together multiple individual turbines in strings to the offshore substation. IACs allow multiple turbines to be connected together to facilitate a single connection for a string of wind turbines to an offshore substation without the need to connect individual cables from each offshore wind turbine directly to the offshore substation. No IAC will be connected to a WTG site until the MP and TP have been installed at a particular WTG site. The IAC construction work will be conducted by a U.S.-flag or foreign-flag cable laying vessel. An export cable will be used to connect the offshore substations to the onshore transmission grid. The export cable construction work will be conducted by a U.S.-flag or foreign-flag cable laying vessel.
For both types of cable, the vessel performing cable laying operations will pay out and lower cable to the seabed between turbines or between the offshore stations and the shoreline. The cable in all cases will not be landed as cargo but will be paid out in the course of installation operations (i.e., paid out instead of unladen).
The cable laying, both for the export cable and IAC, is independent of the MP/TP installation work, and it may commence, before, after, or contemporaneously with the installation of the MPs/TPs. Under current plans, the MPs and substations will be installed well in advance (up to a year) of the cables. It is possible the export cable (used to connect the offshore substations to the onshore transmission grid) may be laid on the seabed before a particular MP is placed in position at a particular WTG turbine site, but in no case will the distance between the IAC and a particular WTG site be closer than approximately [ ] NM. Also, the distance between any pre-laid, wet-stored cable and the substations will be no closer than [ ] nautical miles.
The construction and installation of the substations will occur as follows. Each substation will consist of a jacket (a steel frame consisting of a deck truss structure supported by a welded tubular structure that is piled to the seafloor) and a topside (steel structure above water attached to a jacket). If the substation site is pristine (e.g., there is no scour protection in place), a foreign-flag vessel will transport the jacket from either a U.S. port or a foreign port to the installation site. If the site is not pristine (e.g., there is scour protection in place), a foreign-flag vessel will transport the jacket from a foreign port to the installation site. Subsequent to jacket installation, substation topsides, two in total, will be transported directly from a foreign port and installed onto jacket foundations in the windfarm fields on the OCS. These completed substations will not be located any closer than [ ] NM to the closest WTG.
You posit several different scenarios regarding the contemplated MP and TP installation, substation installation, and cable laying, as discussed below:
Scenario A: The installation vessel loads several MPs and TPs on deck at a U.S. port. The vessel then proceeds to a WTG location and installs an MP and a TP at that location. The installation vessel then proceeds to the next WTG location and installs an MP and then a TP at that location. The installation vessel continues installing MPs and TPs in this sequence until all MPs and TPs on deck have been installed. The vessel will then return to the U.S. port location, load more MPs and TPs, and repeat this sequence until all MPs and TPs are installed for the project.
Scenario B: The non-coastwise qualified installation vessel loads several MPs and TPs on deck at a U.S. port location. The vessel then proceeds to a WTG location and installs an MP only. The installation vessel then proceeds to the next WTG location and installs another MP only. The installation vessel continues installing MPs until all MPs on deck have been installed. The vessel then returns to the WTG sites at which the MPs were installed and installs TPs on top of the MPs until all TPs on deck have been installed. The vessel will then return to the U.S. port location, load more MPs and TPs, and repeat this sequence until all MPs and TPs are installed for the project.
Scenario C: Installation of the substations and export cable is scheduled to occur while the installation of the MPs and TPs is ongoing. The closest any IAC or export cable will be to a WTG turbine site or a substation site will be approximately [ ] NM.
ISSUES
1. Whether the transportation of the monopiles and transition pieces by a non-coastwise-qualified vessel as described in Scenarios A and B violates the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. 55102?
2. Whether the use of a non-coastwise-qualified vessel to lay the IAC or export cable as described in Scenario C violates the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. 55102?
3. Whether the use of a non-coastwise-qualified vessel to construct the substations as described in Scenario C violates the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. 55102?
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Generally, the coastwise laws prohibit the transportation of merchandise between points in the United States embraced within the coastwise laws in any vessel other than a vessel built in, documented under the laws of, and owned by citizens of the United States. Such a vessel, after it has obtained a certificate of documentation with a coastwise endorsement from the U.S. Coast Guard, is said to be "coastwise qualified."
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.[1] In addition, Section 4(a) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953, as amended ("OCSLA"), provides that the Constitution and laws and civil and political jurisdiction of the United States are extended to:
i) the subsoil and seabed of the outer Continental Shelf
ii) all artificial islands on the outer Continental Shelf
iii) installations and other devices permanently or temporarily attached to the seabed, which may be erected thereon for the purpose of exploring for, developing, or producing resources, including non-mineral energy resources; or
iv) any such installation or other device (other than a ship or vessel) for the purpose of transporting or transmitting such resources.[2]
The coastwise law applicable to the transportation of merchandise, often referred to as "the Jones Act," is found at 46 U.S.C. 55102,[3] and provides in pertinent part:
Except as otherwise provided in this chapter or chapter 121 of this title, a vessel may not provide any part of the transportation of merchandise by water, or by land and water, between points in the United States to which the coastwise laws apply, either directly or via a foreign port, unless the vessel-
1) is wholly owned by citizens of the United States for purposes of engaging in the coastwise trade; and
2) has been issued a certificate of documentation with a coastwise endorsement under chapter 121 or is exempt from documentation but would otherwise be eligible for such a certificate and endorsement.
The Jones Act only partially defines the term "merchandise," setting forth that merchandise "includes ... merchandise owned by the United States Government, a State, or a subdivision of a State" and "valueless material." See 46 U.S.C. 55102(a). CBP utilizes as well the definition of "merchandise" in 19 U.S.C. 1401(c): "goods, wares, and chattels of every description, and includes merchandise the importation of which is prohibited, and monetary instruments as defined in section 5312 of Title 31." Furthermore, by interpretations in its administrative letter rulings for purposes of the Jones Act, CBP has distinguished the transportation of "vessel equipment" from "merchandise."
Issue One: Transportation of Merchandise - Monopiles and Transition Pieces (Scenarios A and B)
The Jones Act specifically prohibits the coastwise transportation of "merchandise" between coastwise points by non-coastwise-qualified vessels. To determine if the proposed transportation occurs between coastwise points, we examine the points at which the construction materials (monopiles, transition pieces, etc.) will be laden and unladen. The United States' exercise of sovereignty on the OCS is measured by the acts of Congress extending jurisdiction for specified purposes. Regarding the points between which merchandise is transported for Jones Act purposes, CBP interprets the OCSLA to provide CBP jurisdiction where there is an installation or device attached to the seabed serving a purpose as articulated in the OCSLA - the exploration for, or development, production, transmission, or transportation of resources. CBP has long held that an installation or device attached to the seabed of the OCS for a purpose articulated by the OCSLA creates a coastwise point. See, e.g., HQ 116350 (Jan. 18, 2005) (relating to a "suction anchor...[in] the seabed of the OCS in the immediate vicinity of, and in direct relation to, an exploratory wellhead already in existence at that location"). Furthermore, CBP recognizes that the OCSLA contemplates construction activity to be part of the development of resources, such that an installation or structure need not be completed to be embraced by the OCSLA's jurisdictional reach. 43 U.S.C. 1333(a)(1); see also HQ H265370 (Sept. 3, 2015).[4]
In both sequences posited above, the monopiles and transition pieces are to be loaded aboard a non-coastwise-qualified vessel at a United States East Coast port and transported to [ ]'s lease area on the Outer Continental Shelf. The Vessel will either keep station by using dynamic positioning ("DP") or "jack-up" during installation activities, dependent on the vessel. While the East Coast port constitutes a coastwise point, the pristine seabed of the OCS does not constitute a coastwise point until, as noted above, some "installation or device" is temporarily or permanently affixed to the OCS for the purposes of exploration for, or development, production, transmission, or transportation of resources. We have previously addressed the installation of monopiles. See HQ H317289 (Mar. 25, 2021) ("the pristine seabed on the OCS is not a coastwise point, but, with the placement of scour protection material or a monopile there, the seabed location becomes a coastwise point"...) (emphasis added). As such, the matter hinges on whether the items at issue are transported to a coastwise point, and pursuant to CBP regulations, the agency views the coastwise transportation of merchandise to take place when said merchandise is laden at one coastwise point and unladen at another coastwise point. See 19 CFR 4.80b(a).
Consistent with HQ H318758 (Jun. 6, 2022), where CBP held that the application of the "first" layer of scour protection (whether completed at that time or not) establishes a coastwise point, in Scenario A and Scenario B the installation of each monopile would establish a coastwise point. See also HQ H300962 (Apr. 14, 2022) (stating that the coastwise laws "preclude[] any simultaneous transportation of ... [a] monopile or other components to the [construction] site [which is a coastwise point] from another coastwise point on a non-coastwise-qualified vessel"); HQ H328718 (Jul. 17, 2023) (stating that "upon the installation of the monopiles at each location, each monopile would then be considered a coastwise point, at which no other merchandise, if laden at another coastwise point, could be unladen other than by a coastwise-qualified vessel"). Because the monopiles in either scenario will be installed at a pristine location of the seabed, the transportation of the monopiles to that location by a non-coastwise-qualified vessel does not violate the Jones Act.
It should be noted that the legality of the installation of the monopiles presumes the use of a dynamically positioned vessel. In a recent ruling, CBP clarified circumstances under which the use of a non-coastwise-qualified jack-up vessel for monopile installation would be inconsistent with the requirements of the Jones Act. See HQ H333956 ("The use of a foreign-flagged jack-up vessel to transport monopiles between a U.S. port and an installation site on the OCS would violate the Jones Act, because a second coastwise point is established once the jack-up vessel attaches itself to the seabed for the purposes of monopile installation. Consequently, merchandise would be laden at one coastwise point (the U.S. port) and unladen at another coastwise point (the jacked-up vessel[.])") While, as noted above, [ ] request is uncertain as to whether a dynamic positioning or a jack-up vessel will be used, only the former would comply with the requirements of the Jones Act for this operation.
Regarding the sequential installation of both monopiles and transition pieces, [ ] attempts to analogize between the multiple components of a completed wind installation and multiple layers of scour material which can be applied prior the establishment of a coastwise point, contending that prior to the completion of the installation of both components, no coastwise point is established. This is not supported by CBP's position stated in HQ H317289 (that monopiles constitute coastwise points. Moreover, with respect to Scenario B the analogy ignores a fundamental distinction set out in HQ H300962: while a "single scour-laying vessel can apply whatever volume of scour rock, in however many separate layers, [that] it might apply at the site for that vessel's immediate (present) visit to the site" (emphasis added), in Scenario B the addition of the transition pieces is intended to occur during return visits to the locations where monopiles have already been installed.
Furthermore, because of CBP's well-established position regarding marine construction, CBP does not accept [ ] analogy for either Scenarios A or B. The laying of scour rock is a clearly distinct operation whereby the material is deposited upon the pristine seabed; not only is this a unique construction activity but it also involves unique components (scour). The next stage - installation of the monopile - is itself a separate and unique construction activity with a unique component (monopile). As CBP's letter rulings have established, whichever comes first at the pristine seabed (scour placement or monopile installation) establishes the coastwise point. The construction of the overall "wind farm" facility is a multi-step process, but it does not need to be complete before coastwise points are established. The placement of monopiles and subsequent installation of transition pieces (as well as towers, nacelles, and blades) comprises a complex and segmented construction process. The monopile itself must be driven into the sea floor[5] and the transition piece is subsequently affixed thereupon.[6] Next, a tower must be affixed to the transition piece and a nacelle unit placed and secured atop the tower.[7] Lastly, WTG blades are lifted to the nacelle and mated using a bolt and flange system.[8] The installation of a monopile, or scour (depending on the process chosen), within this broader process is the first step in a process of marine construction.
When addressing maritime construction, of which the installation of monopiles is clearly one distinct portion of the construction process, CBP previously has analyzed the status of structures constituting partially completed maritime infrastructure as coastwise points. Notably, a variety of long-standing and unchallenged rulings addressing the development of oil drilling platforms makes CBP's position clear. Specifically, the completion of the first stage of a complex or multi-stage construction process resulting in the creation of a section or segment of a larger structure, in this instance a monopile, results in the creation of a coastwise point.
For example, in HQ 106528 (Dec. 14, 1983), where the transportation of an oil platform jacket was at issue, Customs described the installation site where a "templet and casing" were attached to the seabed as a coastwise point. Later, in HQ 107622 (May 30, 1985), again addressing the proposed transportation of a platform jacket, the installation site where a subsea wellhead was already in place, was also deemed a coastwise point. In both of these rulings, the initial installation of a device attached to the seabed for the purpose of exploring for, developing, or producing resources was determined to be the act required to establish a coastwise point, not the completion of an oil platform.
Other instructive rulings in the instant matter are HQ 106974 (Aug. 24, 1984) and HQ 107602 (May 10, 1985). In H106974 Customs ruled that "once the jacket for the [oil] platform is installed at a location on the outer continental shelf it becomes a domestic point pursuant to section 4(A) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (citation omitted) without regard to whether or not the installation is in one continuous operation." Further explicating its position, in H107602 Customs stated that "a platform jacket affixed to the OCS for the purpose of exploring for, developing, or producing resources therefrom is a coastwise point and that transportation of oil production platform components, including modules and various pieces of equipment, from a point in the United States to the platform jacket is coastwise transportation (citations omitted)."
Decades later, CBP's position has endured. In HQ 116350, Customs found that an "exploratory wellhead sunk into the seabed of the OCS for future resource exploration, development or production, would clearly constitute a coastwise site...". In light of this longstanding position, the consistency of CBP's position on monopiles is clear.
The OCSLA does not define installation or device. CBP, however, looks to common meanings of the terms. An installation can be defined as a "piece of equipment installed for use,"[9] and a device as "a thing made or adapted for a particular purpose, especially a piece of mechanical or electronic equipment."[10] A monopile is adapted for the purpose of securing and physically stabilizing a structure. And it is obviously a piece of equipment installed (through piledriving) for usage. Because monopiles clearly are embraced within either of these definitions, and thus covered under the language of the OCSLA, CBP will not depart from its longstanding position on marine construction as articulated above. As such, we reject [ ]'s contention that the installation of monopiles does not result in the establishment of a coastwise point.
It has been CBP's longstanding position that an installation or device which comes into contact with the pristine seabed of the OCS for an OCSLA purpose becomes a coastwise point, even if only in contact with the seabed temporarily or for the purposes of construction. For example, a non-coastwise-qualified jack-up vessel becomes a coastwise point when in contact with the pristine seabed of the OCS for the purposes of constructing a WTG. See e.g. HQ H327590 (Dec. 16, 2022); HQ H320052 (May 11, 2022); HQ H316313 (Feb. 4, 2021). Further, CBP has unequivocally held that a monopile foundation installed on the pristine seabed of the OCS becomes a coastwise point at the time of installation. See e.g. HQ H329275 (Apr. 18, 2023), "CBP has previously ruled that a coastwise point is created when a monopile is installed in the seafloor;...."; and see HQ H328718 (Jul. 17, 2023), "...upon the installation of the monopiles at each location, each monopile would then be considered a coastwise point, at which no other merchandise, if laden at another coastwise point, could be unladen other than by a coastwise-qualified vessel."
With regard to the installation of the MPs themselves, we note that a significant difference obtains depending on the type of installation vessel used; dynamically-positioned or jack-up. As we held in HQ H328718 (July 17, 2023):
The transportation and installation of monopile foundations from a U.S. coastwise point to a pristine seabed site on the OCS by a non-coastwise-qualified, dynamically positioned installation vessel would not violate the Jones Act so long as the installation vessel is not anchored or attached to the installation site.
The transportation and installation of monopile foundations by a non-coastwise-qualified jack-up vessel from a U.S. coastwise point to a pristine seabed site on the OCS where the jack-up vessel attaches itself to the seabed would violate the Jones Act.
The use of a non-coastwise qualified jack-up vessel to install monopile foundations at a pristine seabed site on the OCS would not violate the Jones Act, so long as the jack-up vessel is not transporting these monopile foundations from another coastwise point.
We adopt the same reasoning here.
Nonetheless, the MPs would constitute coastwise points when installed on the seabed of the OCS. As we discussed in H328718, no other merchandise, if laden at another coastwise point, could be unladen other than by a coastwise-qualified vessel. Accordingly, the transportation of the TPs and their installation on the previously-installed MPs would violate the Jones Act if transported by a non-coastwise-qualified vessel from a coastwise point.
It is also noteworthy, however, that CBP has consistently determined that the installation of WTG components by a non-coastwise-qualified vessel is permissible when such vessel remains completely stationary or only makes incidental movements subordinate to and a direct consequence of any lifting operations during the installation process. For example, in H327590 (Dec. 16, 2022), CBP held:
The transportation of the subject WTG components onboard the coastwise-qualified Barge and towed by the coastwise-qualified Tug from a U.S. port to the Jack Up Vessel attached to the seabed of the OCS would not be in violation of 46 U.S.C. 55102 because the transportation between coastwise points would be effected by coastwise-qualified vessels.
The installation of the WTG units by the Jack Up Vessel attached to the seabed of the OCS would not be in violation of 46 U.S.C. 55102 because installation activity is not a coastwise trade and the foreign-flagged Jack Up vessel would remain completely stationary or only make incidental movements subordinate to and a direct consequence of any lifting operations during the installation process.
Similarly, in H316313 (Feb. 4, 2021), we determined that the transportation of WTG components aboard a coastwise-qualified tug and barge from a U.S. port to a jack-up vessel attached to the seabed of the OCS would not be in violation of the Jones Act because the transportation between coastwise points would be effected by coastwise-qualified vessels; and the installation of WTG units by a jack-up vessel attached to the seabed of the OCS would not be in violation of the Jones Act because the foreign-flagged jack-up vessel would remain completely stationary during the installation process. The same holds true in the present matter. It is our position that the transportation of the TPs aboard a non-coastwise-qualified, dynamically positioned vessel from a U.S. coastwise point and their installation on the MPs would violate 46 U.S.C. 55102, even if it was the same vessel which transported the MPs and installed them. However, the non-coastwise-qualified, dynamically positioned vessel may install the TPs onto the MPs, provided it remains stationary during the lifting operation, and any transportation of the TPs between coastwise points is effected by coastwise-qualified vessels.
The proposed transportation of the TPs as contemplated in Scenario B likewise results in a violation of the Jones Act. Because the installation of the MP creates a coastwise point, a scenario where the installation vessel installs MPs, departs each MP installation site, and later returns to each MP site to install the TP, would unequivocally result in an unlading of each TP at a coastwise point after having transported the TP from a different coastwise point (the port of lading). Therefore, Scenario B is inconsistent with the requirements of the Jones Act.
Issue Two: Laying of Cable (Scenario C)
It has been CBP's longstanding position that the initial placement of cable by paying the cable out from the vessel does not constitute transportation under the Jones Act. CBP has long held that the sole use of a vessel in laying pipe or cable between two coastwise points is not considered a use in the coastwise trade of the United States. See, e.g., HQ 115431 (Sept. 4, 2001); HQ 115333 (Apr. 27, 2001). In doing so, CBP has reasoned those situations in which material is not landed as cargo but is only paid out in the course of the installation operation makes such operation permissible (i.e., "paid out/not unladen"). Further, since the use of a vessel in pipe or cable laying is not a use in the coastwise trade, a non-coastwise-qualified vessel may carry pipe or cable which is laid between such points by that vessel. However, the transportation of pipe or cable by any vessel other than the vessel that is laying pipe to a pipe-laying location at a point within U.S. territorial waters would be considered coastwise trade and would therefore have to be accomplished by a vessel meeting the statutory requirements entitling it to engage in such trade. See, e.g., HQ 114833 (Apr. 20, 2000). Based upon the facts presented for Scenario C, the proposed use of a non-coastwise-qualified cable-laying vessel would not be in violation of the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. 55102.[11]
Issue Three: Installation of Substations (Scenario C)
[ ]'s Scenario C indicates that the substation jackets will be transported to the installation site on the OCS by a foreign-flag vessel either originating from a domestic or foreign port depending upon the presence of scour protection at the installation site. In either case, the transportation of the jacket will be consistent with the requirements of the Jones Act. If the installation occurs at a pristine site as opposed to a pre-existing coastwise point the jacket will not be unladed at a coastwise point, therefore no coastwise transportation of merchandise will have occurred. Alternatively, if the installation occurs at a site with pre-existing scour protection, there will have been no coastwise transportation because the installation vessel will have originated from a foreign port not constituting a coastwise point. In either scenario, only one coastwise point will be involved and the Jones Act will not be implicated.
Additionally, the transportation of the topsides, having originated from a foreign port and not a coastwise point, will not take place between two coastwise points. The only coastwise point involved will be the jacket previously placed at the installation site where the transportation terminates. As such, the completion of the substations through transportation and installation of the topsides, to and upon the jackets, would also not be in violation of the Jones Act. We find that the installation of the substations as discussed supra does not constitute transportation between two coastwise points under the Jones Act.
HOLDINGS
1. The transportation and installation of monopile foundations from a U.S. coastwise point to a pristine seabed site on the OCS by a non-coastwise-qualified, dynamically positioned installation vessel would not violate the Jones Act so long as the installation vessel is not anchored or attached to the installation site.
2. The transportation and installation of monopile foundations by a non-coastwise-qualified jack-up vessel from a U.S. coastwise point to a pristine seabed site on the OCS where the jack-up vessel attaches itself to the seabed would violate the Jones Act.
3. The transportation of the transition pieces and their installation on the previously-installed monopile foundations would violate the Jones Act if transported by a non-coastwise-qualified vessel from another coastwise point.
4. A non-coastwise-qualified, dynamically positioned vessel may install the transition pieces onto the monopile foundations, provided it remains stationary during the lifting operation, and any transportation of the transition pieces between coastwise points is effected by coastwise-qualified vessels.
5. The use of a non-coastwise-qualified vessel to lay export cable or inter-array cable on the pristine seabed on the OCS as described in Scenario C would not be in violation of 46 U.S.C. 55102.
6. The use of a non-coastwise-qualified vessel to either (1) transport substation jackets laden at a foreign port and install them at a site on the OCS containing pre-placed scour protection, or (2) transport substation jackets laden at a domestic port and install them on the pristine seabed of the OCS as described in Scenario C, would not be in violation of 46 U.S.C. 55102. In addition, the subsequent installation of the substation topsides transported from a foreign port by a foreign-flag transportation vessel and installed by a foreign-flag crane vessel would not be in violation of 46 U.S.C. 55102.
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." If the facts of the construction activities engaged in on the OCS vary from the facts stipulated to herein, or CBP ascertains discrepancies based upon a review of any other pertinent information, this decision shall not be binding on CBP as provided for in 19 C.F.R. 177(b)(1), (2) and (4), and 177.9(b)(1) and (2).
Sincerely,
Wiley Richmond Beevers
Chief/Supervisory Attorney-Advisor
Cargo Security, Carriers and Restricted Merchandise Branch
Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
-----------------------
[1] 33 U.S.C. 1362(8).
[2] 43 U.S.C. 1333(a)(1)(A), as amended by H.R. 6395, 116th Cong. 9503 (2021).
[3] Formerly 46 U.S.C. App. 883. See Pub. L. 109-304 (Oct. 6, 2006).
[4]See HQ H265370 (Sept. 3, 2015) ("The laying of pipes, in addition to the construction of platforms and wells on the OCS, evidences exploration, development, and production of resources from the OCS.").
[5] Installation of offshore wind turbines: A technical review, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 139 (2021) at 6.
[6] Id.
[7] Id. at 17.
[8] Id. at 15-16.
[9] Installation, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/installation, (last visited August 24, 2023).
[10] Device, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/device, (last visited August 24, 2023).
[11] See, e.g., HQ H333956 (Sept. 14, 2023) ("Regarding the point at which the monopiles are to be installed, the requestor stated that these will be no less than [ ] nautical miles from cable that previously has been laid on the seafloor. Furthermore, the monopiles will be the first item to be installed at the location. In CBP's evaluation of the facts presented, CBP considers the location for monopile installation to be a pristine site prior to the installation of the monopile.").
-----------------------