VES-3-02-OT:RR:BSTC:CCR H328183 DMK
Chris Hart Holman Fenwick Willan USA LLP
5151 San Felipe, Suite 400
Houston, TX 77056
RE: Coastwise Transportation; Lifting; Outer Continental Shelf; Wind Turbines; 46 U.S.C. §§ 55102, 55103; Merchandise; Passengers; Lifting; Vessel Equipment; Deck Module; 19 C.F.R §§ 4.50(b), 4.80, 4.80a, 4.80b.
Dear Mr. Wray;
This letter is in response to your October 24, 2022, ruling request submitted on behalf of your client, Hydra Ops, LLC (“Hydra”), regarding whether the installation of a deck module on a fixed platform and associated activities by a non-coastwise qualified vessel over the Outer Continental Shelf (“OCS”), as described below, would violate the coastwise laws. Our decision follows.
FACTS
The following facts are from your client’s October 24, 2022, ruling request and supporting information and November 21, 2022, response to our request for information. Your client has requested U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to determine whether the transport and installation of a deck module on a fixed platform and associated activities on the OCS would violate the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 55102, the Towing Statute, and the Passenger Vessel Services Act, 46 U.S.C. § 55103 (“PVSA”).
Hydra has been contracted to perform the transport and installation of a wing deck module on the sub cellar deck of the [ ] (the “Platform”). Hydra proposes to use a non-coastwise-qualified vessel, the [ ] (the “Vessel”) to perform this work. You have provided a list of project crew and their duties, information on the Platform and surrounding area, information on the deck module, and a list of materials, tools, and equipment to be utilized in the operation.
Hydra proposes to begin mobilization at Port Arthur, Texas. At Port Arthur, the Vessel will take on the Vessel Installation Crew and may change members of the Marine Crew. The Vessel will not take on any merchandise, equipment, or materials, other than the crew’s personal effects and hand tools.
The Vessel will then transit to the Platform, where the Vessel will use its crane to lift half the Installation Crew members by means of an offshore man basket from the Vessel to the Platform. After this, the Vessel will move to a standoff location approximately 500 meters away from the Platform and maintain its position using the Vessel’s dynamic positioning system. Every twelve hours, the Vessel will return alongside the Platform and use its crane to effect a crew change, before returning to the standoff location.
The Vessel will house the Installation Crew who are not currently working. Meals for all Installation Crew members will be prepared on the Vessel. Twice per day, the Vessel will return to the Platform to transfer the meals for Installation Crew members who are currently on the Platform. In effect, the Vessel will transit between the standoff location and the Platform every six hours to transfer either crew or meals. The Vessel will be re-supplied with these provisions from a U.S. port via a coastwise-qualified vessel.
Hydra contemplates that Installation Crew changes may be necessary. If this is done, the Vessel will move to a position about or beyond 500 meters from the Platform. There, the Vessel will use its crane to move crew on and off a coastwise qualified vessel, which will transit crew changes to and from Freeport, Texas. It is possible that a U.S.-registered helicopter will be used for crew changes rather than the coastwise-qualified vessel. You contend that moving to this position is necessary for safety and practical reasons and to mitigate risk to human life and health, avoid damage to the Platform and Vessel, and allow efficient use of limited deck space on the Platform and more available deck and storage space on the Vessel. To support this contention, you have provided information on the level of acceptable risk and a diagram depicting the oil and gas pipelines near the Platform.
In the alternative, Hydra contemplates that the Installation Crew would not embark on the Vessel at Port Arthur and would instead be transported from a U.S. port to the Vessel via coastwise-qualified vessels or U.S. registered helicopters. The Installation Crew would be accommodated on the Vessel and move back and forth between the Vessel and the Platform via personnel basket. The Vessel would still move back and forth 500 meters from the standoff position to the Platform during shift changes and meal deliveries.
The Installation Crew will perform their function by doing construction work on the Platform. The Installation Crew will also perform some pre-installation tasks onboard the Vessel, including rigging and lifting of construction materials to be placed on the Vessel and inspecting and maintaining lifting equipment to be used in the project. The Installation Crew will use their personal hand tools for the entirety of the project.
The deck module to be installed on the Platform will be transported from a U.S. port directly to the Platform by a coastwise-qualified tug and barge. There, the Installation Crew will use the strand jacks which the Installation Crew previously set up on the Platform to lift the module from the barge to the Platform. Other materials used will be transported from a U.S. port via coastwise-qualified vessels, in one of three scenarios.
In the first scenario, the materials would be lifted from the coastwise-qualified vessel and placed on the Platform using the Platform’s crane. Under some circumstances, the Vessel may come alongside the Platform, maintain its position using dynamic positioning, and use the Vessel’s crane to unlade materials onto the Platform.
In the second scenario, the materials would be lifted from the coastwise-qualified vessel and placed on the Platform using the Platform’s or the Vessel’s crane, as in the first scenario. Then, some materials would be transferred from the Platform to the Vessel using the Platform’s crane, temporary winches installed on the Platform, or the Vessel’s crane. Then the vessel would return to its standoff position 500 meters from the Platform, where it would remain stationary using dynamic positioning, before returning to the Platform to transfer the materials back from the Vessel to the Platform, using the Platform’s crane, the Vessel’s crane, or temporary winches.
In the third scenario, the materials would be lifted from the coastwise-qualified vessel and placed on the Vessel using the Vessel’s crane, at the standoff position approximately 500 meters away from the Platform. The Vessel will remain stationary using dynamic positioning. During a future crew change or meal transfer, the Vessel will also transfer the materials which it previously lifted from the coastwise-qualified vessel.
You contend that moving to and from the 500-meter standoff position in the second and third methods is necessary for the same safety and practical reasons as stated above.
After the project is completed, the Vessel will return to Port Arthur, where the Installation Crew will disembark. No merchandise, equipment, or materials will remain on the Vessel and accordingly none will be unladen at Port Arthur except for the hand tools and personal effects of the Installation Crew.
ISSUES
Whether transporting the Installation Crew for the entirety of this project by a non-coastwise qualified vessel violates the PVSA, 46 U.S.C § 55103?
In the alternative, whether housing and transporting the Installation Crew between the standoff position and the Platform violates the PVSA, 46 U.S.C. § 55103?
Whether transportation of the Installation Crew’s tools on the Vessel would constitute a violation of the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 55102?
Whether preparing the meals aboard the Vessel and transferring the meals to the Platform for the Installation Crew would constitute a violation of the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 55102?
Whether transferring materials as described in the first scenario would constitute a violation of the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 55102?
Whether transferring materials as described in the second scenario would constitute a violation of the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 55102?
Whether transferring materials as described in the third scenario would constitute a violation of 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. In addition, Section 4(a) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953, as amended, provides that the Constitution and laws and civil and political jurisdiction of the United States are extended to:
the subsoil and seabed of the outer Continental Shelf
all artificial islands on the outer Continental Shelf
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
any such installation or other device (other than a ship or vessel) for the purpose of transporting or transmitting such resources.
Issue 1: Whether transporting the Installation Crew for the entirety of this project by a non-coastwise qualified vessel violates the PVSA, 46 U.S.C § 55103?
First, we determine whether transporting the Installation Crew aboard the Vessel violates the coastwise laws. The coastwise law applicable to the transportation of passengers, the PVSA, is found at 46 U.S.C. § 55103, and provides, in pertinent part:
[…] 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 trade; 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.
The applicable regulation at 19 CFR § 4.50(b) defines a passenger as “any person carried on a vessel who is not connected with the operation of such vessel, her navigation, ownership, or business.”
In accordance with previous CBP rulings, individuals transported between coastwise points 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 onboard to contribute to the accomplishment of the operation or navigation of the vessel during the voyage or are onboard because of a necessary vessel ownership or business interest during the voyage. See, e.g., HQ H311603 (Aug. 31, 2020); HQ H183157 (Sept. 2, 2011); HQ H168214 (May 26, 2011); HQ H036016 (Aug. 29, 2008).
Specifically, CBP has previously ruled that individuals transported aboard a jack-up vessel who perform pre-installation and maintenance tasks onboard the jack-up vessel are still not considered passengers when the individuals disembark to a platform to perform installation and commissioning work. HQ H316313 (Feb. 4, 2021). This is true “[t]o the extent that the individuals will be engaged in any shipboard activities while traveling […] that would be ‘directly and substantially’ related to the operation, navigation, or business of the vessel itself[.]” HQ H300962 (Apr. 4, 2022).
In this case, the Installation Crew is aboard to assist in installing the deck module on the Platform. The Vessel is an important part of that installation. The Installation Crew will perform pre-installation and maintenance work aboard the Vessel, and you contemplate using the Vessel’s crane for part or all of the installation. The Installation Crew will be housed aboard the Vessel for the duration of the project. The Vessel will be engaged in installing the deck module, and the Installation Crew will be used for that installation. We determine that the Installation Crew will be directly and substantially related to the operation, navigation, or business of the Vessel and are not considered “passengers” as contemplated by the PVSA. Accordingly, the transportation of the Installation Crew aboard the Vessel would not constitute a violation of the PVSA, 46 U.S.C. § 55103.
Issue 2: In the alternative, whether housing and transporting the Installation Crew between the standoff position and the Platform violates the PVSA, 46 U.S.C. § 55103?
Next, we determine whether the alternative scenario, where the Installation Crew will be transported by via coastwise-qualified vessels or U.S. registered helicopters to the Vessel or the Platform, where the Vessel will be used to house and transport the Installation Crew between the standoff position and the Platform violates the PVSA, 46 U.S.C. § 55103.
As noted above, the Installation Crew are not considered “passengers” as contemplated by the PVSA. Accordingly, the transportation of the Installation Crew in this manner would not constitute a violation of the PVSA, 46 U.S.C. § 55103.
Issue 3: Whether transportation of the Installation Crew’s tools on the Vessel violates the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 55102?
Next, we determine whether transporting the personal hand tools of Installation Crew members on the Vessel, including transferring the hand tools alongside the Installation Crew members between the Vessel and the Platform, would constitute a violation of the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 55102. The coastwise law applicable to the transportation of merchandise, often referred to as “the Jones Act,” is found at 46 U.S.C. § 55102, 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—
is wholly owned by citizens of the United States for purposes of engaging in the coastwise trade; 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.
Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1401(c), the word “merchandise” is defined as “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.” For purposes of the Jones Act, merchandise also includes “valueless material.” See 46 U.S.C. § 55102(a)(2). To determine whether transportation between coastwise points occurs, CBP examines the points at which merchandise is laden and unladen. HQ H316313 (Feb. 4, 2021). Regardless of whether merchandise is unladen at a coastwise point, if the merchandise is laden at a foreign port, there is no transportation between coastwise points. HQ H309176 (Jan. 27, 2021); HQ H143075 (Feb. 24, 2011).
CBP has interpreted merchandise not to include “vessel equipment,” that is, items which are “necessary and appropriate for the navigation, operation or maintenance of a vessel and for the comfort and safety of the persons on board.” Necessary and appropriate items are those that are integral to the function of the vessel and are carried by the vessel, including items that aid in the “installation, inspection, repair, maintenance, surveying, positioning, modification, construction, decommissioning, drilling, completion, workover, abandonment or other similar activities or operations of wells, seafloor or subsea infrastructure, flow lines, and surface production facilities.” Whether articles constitute vessel equipment is a fact-specific, case-by-case determination.
CBP has consistently held that vessel equipment consists of articles necessary to carry out a vessel’s function. HQ H029417 (June 5, 2008). See also HQ H321240 (Mar. 21, 2022); HQ H058647 (May 18, 2009). However, if the goods are intended to perform a function separate from that of the vessel, it may be considered merchandise. HQ H322233 (Sep. 2, 2022). These tools will accompany the Installation Crew when they first embark on the Vessel and are carried by the individual Installation Crew members who will use the tools when they transfer to and from the Platform. The tools will be used for projects on both the Platform and the Vessel.
We determine that these hand tools are necessary and appropriate for the navigation, operation, or maintenance of the Vessel and are integral to the function of the Vessel, as they are used by the Installation Crew to aid in the installation of the deck module and other related activities while aboard the Vessel and the Platform. Therefore, we determine that these hand tools are not merchandise. This comports with our prior ruling in HQ H316313 (Feb. 4, 2021), in which we ruled that similarly used hand tools were vessel equipment. Accordingly, the transportation of the Installation Crew’s tools on the Vessel would not constitute a violation of the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 55102.
Issue 4: Whether preparing the meals aboard the Vessel and transferring the meals to the Platform for the Installation Crew violates the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 55102?
Next, we determine whether preparing meals aboard the Vessel which are then transferred to the Platform to be eaten by the Installation Crew would constitute a violation of the Jones Act. There is no statutory or regulatory definition of the term “vessel supplies” for the purpose of 19 U.S.C. § 1309 and § 1317. However, in Treasury Ruling T.D. 49815 (Mar. 13, 1939), the agency set forth its interpretation of the term, stating:
The term “supplies” as used in section 309, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, includes articles commonly known as “sea stores,” that is food, medicines, toiletries, and so forth, and in addition, all consumable articles necessary and appropriate for the propulsion, operation and maintenance of the vessel, such as coal, grease, gasoline, fuel oil, caulking cotton, putty, paint, waste, wiping rags, sandpaper, emery cloth, candles, polishes, cleansing compounds, and solvents.
In T.D. 22433 (Aug. 9, 1909), furthermore, the agency held that sea stores (i.e., “vessel supplies”) include such articles as are intended for the health and sustenance of the crew, or for the consumption of persons on the ship such as the officers, crew, and passengers. Likewise, T.D. 35824 (Oct. 21, 1915) held that sea stores includes provisions taken on board solely for use by the crew of a vessel and consumed by them. the decision of the U.S. Customs Court in American Mail Line, Ltd. (Seattle) equated the term “sea stores” with the term “supplies” in Customs law. The American Mail Line Court acknowledged the congruity of the two terms, saying, “…consumable supplies or sea stores, which are always kept aboard the vessel for use and consumption by the crew and passengers and are never brought ashore or sold to anyone.” (Emphasis added).
The meals in this case are intended to be consumed by the Installation Crew, which we have already determined are considered crewmembers of the Vessel. The meals will not be brought ashore or sold to anyone as merchandise. Therefore, we determine that the meals prepared on the Vessel to be eaten by the Installation Crew aboard the Platform are consumable supplies or sea stores, and not merchandise. Accordingly, transferring the prepared meals from the Vessel to the Platform for Installation Crew member meals does not constitute the transportation of merchandise, and therefore does not violate the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 55102.
Issue 5: Whether transferring materials as described in the first scenario violates the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 55102?
Next, we determine whether transporting materials from a U.S. port aboard a coastwise-qualified tug and barge to the Platform, where they will be unladed to the Platform using either the Platform’s or the Vessel’s crane, would constitute a violation of the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 55102. CBP has previously held that the use of a non-coastwise-qualified crane vessel to lade and unlade cargo or to construct or dismantle a marine structure is not coastwise trade and does not violate the coastwise laws, provided any movement is effected exclusively by the crane and not by any movement of the vessel, except for necessary movement which is incidental to a lifting operation while it is taking place. See HQ H320052 (May 11, 2022); HQ 115940 (Apr. 17, 2003). It is undisputed that both the U.S. port and the Platform are considered coastwise points for the purposes of the Jones Act. Additionally, you do not dispute whether the materials are merchandise. Therefore, transportation must be performed by coastwise-qualified vessels.
In this scenario, you will use a coastwise-qualified tug and barge to transport the materials. Both the Platform and the Vessel are contemplated to use their cranes to unlade the materials from the coastwise-qualified barge to the Platform. In accordance with prior CBP rulings, use of a non-coastwise-qualified crane vessel to lade and unlade cargo does not constitute coastwise trade, provided any movement is effected exclusively by the crane and not by any movement of the vessel, except for necessary movement which is incidental to a lifting operation while it is taking place. This is true in this scenario. Because neither the Vessel nor the Platform are transporting any of the materials, and any movement of the materials is effected exclusively by the Platform and/or Vessel cranes, except for necessary movement which is incidental to a lifting operation, the activities described in the first scenario do not constitute coastwise trade and accordingly do not violate the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. 55102.
Issue 6: Whether transferring materials as described in the second scenario violates the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 55102?
Next, we determine whether transferring some materials from the Platform to the Vessel, transporting it 500 meters to the Vessel’s standoff position, before returning to the Platform to transfer the materials back violates the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 55102.
CBP has determined that a “lifting operation” includes “the lifting by cranes, winches, lifting beams, or other similar activities or operations, from the time that the lifting activity begins when unlading from a vessel or removing offshore facilities or subsea infrastructure until the time that the lifting activities can be safely terminated in relation to the unlading, installation, or removal of offshore facilities or subsea infrastructure. Lifting operations encompass the initial vertical movement of an item from a lower position to a higher position, and any additional vertical or lateral movement necessary … to safely place into position or remove an item from the vicinity of an existing structure, facility or installation.” 53 Cust. Bull & Dec. 45, p. 95 (Dec. 11, 2019).
In addition, lateral movement of a vessel or item in the immediate vicinity of the lifting operation is not “transportation” but merely a movement subordinate to and a direct consequence of the lifting operation. 53 Cust. Bull. & Dec. 45, p. 95 (Dec. 11, 2019). However, allowing only incidental movement “is overly restrictive and does not accurately reflect the concept of coastwise transportation under the Jones Act” and some movement is permissible to the extent necessary to satisfy the demands of the lifting operation or to avoid risk to human life or damage to the marine environment. Id. This leeway applies to the entirety of a lifting operation, “from the time that the lifting activity begins when unlading from a vessel or removing offshore facilities or subsea infrastructure until the time that the lifting activities can be safely terminated in relation to the unlading, installation, or removal of offshore facilities or subsea infrastructure” and includes “incidental movement while lifted items are temporarily placed on the deck of the lifting vessel as necessary for the safety of certain lifted items, as well as surface and subsea infrastructure, and the vessels and mariners involved[.]” Id. Accordingly, provided that lateral movement of the vessel or the item in the vicinity of the structure which is subordinate to and a direct consequence of the lifting operations is necessary for safety and practical concerns, during the lifting operation some movement of the vessel may be allowable and some materials can be temporarily placed on the deck of the lifting vessel. Id.
In the second scenario, there are three separate lifting operations. The first lifting operation involves lifting the materials from the barge to the Platform. The second lifting operation involves lifting the materials from the Platform to the Vessel. The Vessel then moves 500 meters to a standoff location until the materials are needed, at which time the third lifting operation occurs wherein the materials are lifted from the Vessel to the Platform. Each of these three operations involves vertical or lateral movement to place or remove materials from the vicinity of an existing structure, facility, or installation. Additionally, in between each of these operations, the lifting operation can be – and is – safely terminated. While materials can be temporarily placed on the deck of a vessel during a lifting operation, we determine that in this case placing the materials on the deck of the Vessel, sailing to a standoff position where the materials are kept for an indefinite period, before returning to the Platform and unlading the materials constitutes separate lifting operations, and not a single lifting operation with temporary storage on the Vessel.
You have provided information explaining that the need to move the materials is due to the need for a safety zone to protect the crew, vessels, and subsea infrastructure. However, the exception stated in 53 Cust. Bull. & Dec. 45 applies during the entirety of a lifting operation, and we have determined that these are separate lifting operations. Accordingly, the exception does not apply.
However, to determine whether transportation between coastwise points occurs, CBP examines the points at which merchandise is laden and unladen. HQ H316313 (Feb. 4, 2021). In this case, the merchandise would be laden on the Vessel at the Platform, which would then transit 500 meters to a standoff position and maintain its location with dynamic positioning, and then the Vessel return to the Platform. Provided that the Vessel returns to the same point for unlading that it used for lading, there would be no movement of merchandise between coastwise points and accordingly no violation of the Jones Act. If, however, the Vessel unlades the merchandise at a different point than it laded the merchandise or to any other coastwise point, then the Vessel would have engaged in coastwise transportation of merchandise and accordingly violated the Jones Act. This comports with our prior rulings in which we determined that no coastwise transportation occurred if merchandise was laden and unladen at the same location, despite the vessel moving in between lading and unlading. See, e.g., HQ H294296 (Apr. 3, 2018); HQ H008396 (Jun. 4, 2007). Accordingly, we determine that, provided the merchandise is laded and unladed at the same location, no coastwise transportation would take place and, therefore, no violation of the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 55102.
Issue 7: Whether transferring materials as described in the third scenario violates the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 55102?
Finally, we determine whether using the Vessel’s crane to transfer merchandise from a coastwise-qualified barge to the Vessel at the standoff position, holding the materials for an indefinite period of time, before transporting the merchandise to the Platform would violate the Jones Act. We determine that the operation as described in the third scenario does not constitute a single lifting operation, but instead constitutes two lifting operations, separated by an indefinite period of storage wherein the lifting operation is safely terminated. Because, as noted above, the safety exception applies to the entirety of a lifting operation and not to transportation between separate lifting operations, the exception does not apply in this case.
In this case, the merchandise would be laded at a coastwise point (a U.S. port) and transported most of the way by a coastwise-qualified vessel. Once the coastwise-qualified vessel reaches the standoff position, the merchandise would be transferred to the Vessel. At that point, the Vessel would transport the merchandise the remainder of the distance, where it would be unladed at a second coastwise point, the Platform. Accordingly, we determine that the operation as described in the third scenario includes using a non-coastwise-qualified vessel for part of the transportation of merchandise between coastwise points, and therefore violates the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 55102.
HOLDINGS
The proposed transportation of the Installation Crew for the entirety of this project by a non-coastwise qualified vessel would not constitute a violation of the PVSA, 46 U.S.C § 55103.
The proposed alternative housing and transportation of the Installation Crew between the standoff position and the Platform would not constitute a violation of the PVSA, 46 U.S.C. § 55103.
The proposed transportation of the Installation Crew’s tools on the Vessel would not constitute a violation of the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 55102?
The proposal to prepare the meals aboard the Vessel and transfer the meals to the Platform for the Installation Crew would not constitute a violation of the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 55102.
The proposed transfer of materials as described in the first scenario would not constitute a violation of the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 55102.
The proposed transfer of materials as described in the second scenario would not constitute a violation of the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 55102, provided the materials are unladen and laden on the Platform at the same coastwise point. If, the Vessel unlades the merchandise at a different point than it laded the merchandise, then a violation of the Jones Act would occur.
The proposed transfer of materials as described in the third scenario would constitute a violation of the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 55102.
Sincerely yours,
W. Richmond Beevers
Chief, Cargo Security, Carriers and Restricted Merchandise Branch
Office of Trade; Regulations and Rulings
U.S. Customs and Border Protection