Use of a foreign vessel to lay cable in U.S. waters

HQ 110756 January 26, 1990 VES-3-01 CO:R:P:C: 110756 LLB CATEGORY: Carriers Mr. K. A. Grainger Harmstorf Corporation 60 East 42nd Street New York, New York 10165 RE: Use of a foreign vessel to lay cable in U.S. waters Dear Mr. Grainger: This is with reference to your letter of January 2, 1990, concerning the proposed operation of a foreign cable-laying vessel in U.S. waters. FACTS: It is proposed to use a Norwegian-flag vessel to lay cable across the Cook Inlet, Alaska. A French-flag cargo vessel would arrive from a foreign location with three cable containers weighing 400 tons, and would transship those containers to the Norwegian cable laying vessel in either Seattle or Los Angeles. The Norwegian vessel would then proceed to Cook Inlet and lay the three cables across the Inlet. The cables would be transshipped in Seattle or Los Angeles for the reason that there is no 400 ton lift-capacity facility in Alaska. ISSUE: Is either the transshipment of cable arriving from a foreign port, between two foreign-flag vessels in a U.S. port, or the laying of that cable between U.S. points a violation of the Jones Act merchandise statute, 46 U.S.C. App. 883. LAW AND ANALYSIS: Section 883, title 46, United States Code Appendix, prohibits the transportation of merchandise between ports or places in the United States on a vessel not documented for the coastwise trade. The Customs Service has consistently held that the laying of underwater cable between two points embraced within the coastwise laws of the United States by a foreign vessel is 2 not a violation of any law administered by this agency. such a vessel, however, could not be used to transport the cable between U.S. points by lading it at one point and unlading it at another. It is the fact that the cable is not landed as cargo, but only paid out in the course of the laying operation, which makes the activity permissible. HOLDING: After thorough analysis of the facts and applicable law in this case, we have determined that the proposed transshipment and laying of cable, as outlined above, would not constitute a violation of 46 U.S.C. App. 883. Sincerely, B. James Fritz Chief Carrier Rulings Branch