Coastwise Transportation; 46 U.S.C. § 55103; 19 C.F.R. § 4.50(b)

HQ H031468 June 23, 2008 VES-3-02-OT:RR:BSTC:CCI H031468 JLB CATEGORY: Carriers Mr. Scott Robinson Vessel Manager Maersk Line, Ltd. One Commercial Place, 20th floor Norfolk, Virginia  23510 RE: Coastwise Transportation; 46 U.S.C. § 55103; 19 C.F.R. § 4.50(b) Dear Mr. Robinson: This letter is in response to your correspondence dated June 23, 2008, in which you request a ruling on whether the coastwise transportation of the individuals mentioned therein aboard the MAERSK VIRGINIA 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 individuals aboard the non-coastwise-qualified MAERSK VIRGINIA (“the vessel”). The two individuals will embark on June 30, 2008 at Newark, New Jersey and will disembark at the port of Charleston, South Carolina on July 5, 2008. The subject individuals are the master’s daughter and the wife of the first engineer. ISSUE Whether the individuals described above would be “passengers” 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. 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 Ruling Letter H023422, dated February 19, 2008, we held that a first engineer qualifies as an "officer of the vessel," therefore, his spouse is not a “passenger” within the meaning of 46 U.S.C. § 55103 and 19 C.F.R. § 4.50(b). Additionally, in Headquarters Ruling Letter H012513, dated June 11, 2007, CBP held that a master also qualifies as an “officer of a vessel,” accordingly his child does not constitute a “passenger.” Consequently, the coastwise transportation of the subject individuals is not in violation of 46 U.S.C. § 55103. HOLDING The subject individuals are not “passengers” within the meaning of 46 U.S.C. § 55103 and 19 C.F.R. § 4.50(b). Therefore, the coastwise transportation of such individuals is not in violation of 46 U.S.C. § 55103. Sincerely, Glen E. Vereb, Chief Cargo Security, Carriers and Immigration Branch