ponse to your request of February 16, 2008, with respect to the coastwise transportation of a certain individual. Our ruling is set forth below.

HQ H023422 February 19, 2008 VES-3-02:OT:RR:BSTC:CCI H023422 ALS CATEGORY: Carriers Ms. Toni Medina Vessel Agent APM Terminals 2500 Navy Way Terminal Island, California 90731 Dear Ms. Medina: This letter is in response to your request of February 16, 2008, with respect to the coastwise transportation of a certain individual. Our ruling is set forth below. FACTS: You ask whether a certain individual may be transported on the non-coastwise qualified SL METEOR ("vessel"), from Los Angeles, California to Oakland, California. The individual was to have embarked on February 18, 2008 in Los Angeles and will disembark in Oakland on February 19, 2008. You state that the individual is the wife of an officer of the vessel, the “1st Engineer on the SL METEOR.” ISSUE: Whether the subject individual is a "passenger" within the meaning of 46 U.S.C. § 55103 and 19 CFR 4.50(b). LAW AND ANALYSIS: Generally, the coastwise laws prohibit the transportation of passengers or 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 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. The coastwise law applicable to the carriage of passengers is found in 46 U.S.C. § 55103 (recodified by Pub. L. 109-304, enacted on October 6, 2006) and provides that: In General. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter or chapter 121 of this title, a vessel may not transport passengers between ports or places in the United States to which the coastwise laws apply, either directly or via a foreign port, unless the vessel is wholly owned by citizens of the United States for purposes of engaging in the coastwise traffic; and 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. Penalty. The penalty for violating subsection (a) is $300 for each passenger transported and landed. Section 4.50(b), Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Regulations (19 CFR 4.50(b)) provides as follows: A passenger within the meaning of this part is any person carried on a vessel who is not connected with the operation of such vessel, her navigation, ownership, or business. You state that the individual is the wife of an officer of the vessel, the “1st Engineer on the SL METEOR.” In this context, and in accordance with previous Headquarters rulings, workmen, technicians, or observers transported by vessel between ports of the United States are not classified as "passengers" within the meaning of 46 U.S.C. § 55103 and 19 CFR 4.50(b), if they are required to be on board to contribute to the accomplishment of the operation or navigation of the vessel during the voyage or are on board because of a necessary vessel ownership or business interest during the voyage. CBP Ruling HQ 101699 (November 5, 1975); see also CBP Ruling HQ 116721 (September 25, 2006). We also note, however, that we have consistently held that wives and children of the officers of a vessel are not passengers. See, e.g., CBP Ruling H012513 (June 11, 2007), and Bureau of Navigation General Letter No. 117 of May 20, 1916. A First Engineer qualifies as an “officer of the vessel;” therefore, the spouse of a First Engineer may be transported aboard a non-coastwise qualified vessel during a coastwise voyage and is not a “passenger” for purposes of administering 46 U.S.C. § 55103. See Cust. Bull., Vol. 36, No. 23, p. 50 (June 5, 2002); CBP Ruling HQ H007256 (February 26, 2007). Thus, in the present case, to the extent that the individual is the wife of the First Engineer, such individual would not be considered to be a passenger. See HQ H007256, supra. We find such to be the case here. Accordingly, 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 CFR 4.50(b). Therefore, the coastwise transportation of such individual is not in violation of 46 U.S.C. § 55103. Sincerely, Glen E. Vereb Chief Cargo Security, Carriers and Immigration Branch