OT:RR:BSTC:CCR H346762 KAM
Ms. Emily Huggins Jones
Troutman Pepper Locke LLP
401 9th Street, NW
Suite 100
Washington, DC 20004
RE: Coastwise Transportation; Undersea Cable Laying; Dredging; 46 U.S.C. § 55012; 46
U.S.C. § 55109.
Dear Ms. Jones:
This responds to your March 14, 2025, letter and supplements (collectively the “ruling
request”) in which you request a ruling on behalf of your client, [ ] (“the Company”)
determining that the proposed use of cable lay and burial equipment to effect the installation of
electric transmission cables would not violate the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 55012, or the Dredging
Statue, 46 U.S.C. § 55109. 1 Our decision follows.
FACTS:
The following facts are taken from your ruling request. CBP issued ruling [
] ] to the Company regarding a proposed operation to install two solid state high
1
You have asked this office for confidential treatment of all information contained in brackets, which includes your
client’s name. CBP Regulations at 19 C.F.R. § 177.2(b)(7) provide that the requester of a ruling from our office may
ask that privileged or confidential commercial or financial information supplied for purposes of preparing the
requested ruling not be disclosed. Such requests will be considered if the information is clearly identified and the
reasons for requesting that information not be disclosed are provided. If this office receives a Freedom of
Information Act request for your submission, Regulations at 6 C.F.R. § 5.12, et seq. regarding the disclosure of
business information provide that the submitter of business information will be advised of receipt of a request for
such information whenever the business submitter has in good faith designated the information as commercially or
financially sensitive information. We accept your request for confidential treatment as a good faith request.
1
voltage direct current electric power transmission cables in [ ], New York State
2
waters (“the Project”). The Project contemplated in [ ] used a variety of vessels to
complete the work, including two cable lay vessels and one trenching support vessel (“TSV”). 3
The Project also required the use of several remotely operated vehicles (“ROVs”) and several
cable burial tools equipped with water jetting systems that use high-pressure water jetting action
to temporarily liquify the seabed, creating a depression into which the cable would be laid on the
seafloor. 4 Our ruling [ ] held that the proposed cable laying and burial operations
did not constitute dredging within the meaning of the Dredging Statute, 46 U.S.C. § 55109, nor
coastwise trade within the meaning of the Jones Act 46 U.S.C. § 55102 and 19 C.F.R. § 4.80b(a).
The Project was intended to be completed in five phases. 5 Since CBPs issuance of ruling
[ ], the Company has completed Phases 1-3 of the Project. 6 The Company intends to
begin Phases 4 and 5 of the Project starting in July 2025. 7 You state that the remaining work will
be divided into two parts:
• Part One: As described in [ ], the Cable Lay Vessel will pay out electric
transmission cable and lay it along the [ ] riverbed. Beginning in July 2025,
Trenching Support Vessel 2 will be employed, along with Remedial Burial Tool 5, (and
alternately Remedial Burial Tool 2) to bury the surface-laid cable installed by Cable Lay
vessel 2 using high-pressure water jets to fluidize the riverbed, which allows the cable to
settle into the trench created by the jetting tool. The soil fluidized by Remedial Burial
Tool 5 will naturally settle over the buried cable, and no riverbed material will be
removed.
• Part Two: Beginning in September 2025, Trenching Support Vessel 2 will be deployed,
along with Remedial Burial Tool 5 (and alternately Remedial Burial Tool 2), to bury
cable that was previously surface-laid by Cable Lay Vessel 1 and Cable Lay Vessel 2
during the now completed 2024 Project Phases. The technology and methodology used
for Part Two will be the same process described above in Part One. 8
The Replacement Vessels and Tools
Due to “vessel and equipment availability developments,” the Company’s subcontractor
seeks to substitute new equipment for the trenching support vessel, [ ] and one of the
9
remedial burial tools [ ], that were previously ruled upon by CBP. You ask us to
approve the two replacement pieces of equipment, which will use the same methodology and
will be employed for the same purpose as those they will replace, which were originally in the
subjects of our ruling [ ]. You state that both replacement pieces of equipment use
2
[ ] – Ruling Request - at 1.
3
Id. at 2.
4
Id.
5
Id.
6
Id. at 1, 2.
7
Id. at 2.
8
Id. at 3.
9
Id. at 2.
2
the same methodology and will be employed for the same purpose as in the Initial Ruling
Request. 10
The replacement vessel, [ ], is a Greek-flagged trenching support vessel
(“Trenching Support Vessel 2”) and is functionally equivalent to the TSV it will replace
[ ] (“Trenching Support Vessel 1”). 11 You state Trenching Support Vessel 2 will
complete the work of Phase 4, and other work previously ruled upon in [ ]. 12 The
second replacement tool, [ ] (“Remedial Burial Tool 5”), will replace [ ]
13
(“Remedial Burial Tool 3”). Remedial Burial Tool 5 will be the functional equivalent of
Remedial Burial Tool 3.
Regarding other departures from the initial ruling [ ], you state:
In the Initial Ruling Request, the work described in Phase 4 and Phase 5 included
Cable Lay Vessel 2 (the “[ ]”) burying cable with the use of Burial Tool 1
(the “[ ]”) as well as surface laying cable that would then be buried using
one or more of the remedial burial tools previously approved for use during the
2024 work (e.g., the [
]). The work described in Part One and Part Two of the current March
14, 2025 Ruling Letter Request does not contemplate the use of Burial Tool 1.
During Part One and Part Two of the 2025 work, all of the cable will be surface
laid by Cable Lay Vessel 2. The surface-laid cable will subsequently be buried by
Remedial Burial Tool 2 (the [ ]) or the Replacement Tool. The
remedial burial tools will be deployed from either Cable Lay Vessel 2 (the
“[ ]”), approved in the Initial Ruling Request, or Trenching Support Vessel 2
(the “[ ]”), the new vessel discussed in our March 14, 2025 Ruling Letter
Request, which will replace the [ ]. 14
Otherwise, the work described in the ruling request does not differ from the work
described in [ ].
ISSUE:
1. Whether the proposed use of cable lay and burial equipment as described above would
violate the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 55012.
2. Whether the proposed use of cable lay and burial equipment as described above would
violate the Dredging Statue, 46 U.S.C. § 55109.
10
Id.
11
Id.
12
Id.
13
Id.; RFI 5-8-25.
14
Email dated May 8, 2025.
3
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
The Jones Act
The coastwise law applicable to the transportation of merchandise, often referred to as
“the Jones Act,” is found at 46 U.S.C. § 55102, 15 and provides that:
(b) Requirements. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter or chapter 121 of this title
[46 U.S.C. §§ 55101 et seq. or 12101 et seq.], 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 [46 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq.] or is exempt from documentation but would
otherwise be eligible for such a certificate and endorsement.
The Jones Act specifically prohibits the coastwise transportation of “merchandise”
between coastwise points by non-coastwise qualified vessels. Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. § 55102(a):
“[m]erchandise includes (1) merchandise owned by the United States Government, a State, or a
subdivision of a State; and (2) valueless material.” 16 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.” 17
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 term “territorial waters” is defined in
regulation as synonymous with the term “navigable waters,” and encompasses both the U.S.
territorial sea and U.S. internal waters.
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. 18 CBP has
previously reasoned that 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
15
Formerly 46 U.S.C. App. § 883. See Pub. L. 109-304 (Oct. 6, 2006).
16
46 U.S.C. § 55102(a).
17
19 U.S.C. § 1401(c).
18
See, e.g., HQ 115431 (Sept. 4, 2001), HQ 115333 (Apr. 27, 2001).
4
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. 19
In the instant matter, your request states that an electric transmission cable will be paid
out along the [ ] riverbed, a coastwise point within the internal waters of the United
States. As such, the coastwise laws apply to the proposed cable laying operation. Your request
states that the subject cable will be “paid out” onto the riverbed of the [ ] using
Trenching Support Vessel 2 and subsequently buried using Remedial Burial Tool 5. The only
difference between [ ] and the ruling request are the replacement tools used in the
cable lay operation, and the functions they will perform in the operation, as described in the
FACTS section above. Otherwise, you state the operation will remain the same. In [
], CBP determined that the initial cable placement, the later connection with another
cable, and the cable-pull in operations did not constitute transportation of merchandise in
violation of the Jones Act, since the cable was entirely “paid out” from the Trenching Support
Vessel and the later operations were “still part of the cable laying process.” 20 Therefore, since the
core of these operations has not changed, for the same reasons as stated in [ ], the
proposed cable burial operation would not be in violation of the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 55102.
The Dredging Statute
Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. § 55109(a), only coastwise-qualified vessels may engage in
dredging in the navigable waters of the United States, providing, in pertinent part:
[A] vessel may engage in dredging in the navigable waters of the United States only if—
(1) the vessel is wholly owned by citizens of the United States for purposes of
engaging in the coastwise trade;
(2) the charterer, if any, is a citizen of the United States for purposes of
engaging in the coastwise trade; and
(3) the vessel has been issued a certificate of documentation with a coastwise
endorsement under chapter 121 of this title or is exempt from documentation but
would otherwise be eligible for such a certificate and endorsement
CBP has consistently held the term “navigable waters of the United States” to include the
territorial sea of the United States, and internal waters. 21 The territorial sea 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. 22
Dredging is defined as “excavation” by any means:
19
See, e.g., HQ 114833 (Apr. 20, 2000).
20
[ ]
21
See, e.g., HQ 242469 (June 26, 2013); HQ 102989 (June 10, 2010).
22
33 C.F.R. 2.22.
5
The word “excavate” is derived from a latin (sic.) word meaning to hollow out. Its
common, plain and ordinary meaning is to make a cavity or hole in, to dig out,
hollow out, to remove soil by digging, scooping out, or other means. The common
plain and ordinary meaning of the word “dredging” is the removal of soil from the
bottom waters by suction or scooping or other means. 23
CBP has consistently held that the term “dredging” within the meaning of 46 U.S.C. §
55109, is “the use of a vessel equipped with excavating machinery in digging up or otherwise
removing submarine material.” 24 Furthermore, CBP has consistently held that the use of certain
devices to create underwater trenches for the purpose of cable laying does not constitute
“dredging.” In particular, CBP has stated that the use by cable-laying vessels of cable-burial
devices employing a jetting action resulting in the emulsification of the seabed, temporarily
displacing sediment, surrounding the cable does not constitute an engagement in dredging. 25
Furthermore, CBP has also determined that the use of “a share or plow and cutting disc” that
creates “a very narrow ‘slice” of the seabed under which the cable is buried is not an engagement
in dredging.” 26 Specifically, CBP has reasoned that the use of a jetting tool to temporarily lift a
“narrow ‘slice’” of the seabed amounts to a “temporary manipulation of the seabed” as opposed
to the creation of a furrow or trench by operation of a share or plow and disc cutting wheel. 27 As
such, this process is not considered “dredging” within the meaning of 46 U.S.C. § 55109.
Your request states that an electric transmission cable will be paid out and laid along the
[ ] riverbed, a coastwise point within the internal waters of the United States. As such, the
coastwise laws apply. Your request states that jetting devices and cable burial technology will
fluidize the seabed by using pressurized water jets without the use of a mechanical plow or
cutter. You affirm that this process will not remove or excavate any material from the [ ]
riverbed. You state that Remedial Burial Tool 5 will utilize water jets to fluidize the riverbed for
burial purposes, creating a temporary trench up to 0.90 meters wide and up to 3.4 meters deep.
The only change between [ ] and the ruling request are the replacement tools used in
the cable lay operation. In [ ], CBP affirmed that a burial tool that used a water
jetting system that supplies high pressure water to the cutting nozzles of a stinger to fluidize the
riverbed, and the use of remedial burial tools to fluidize the seabed did not constitute dredging
for the purposes of 46 U.S.C. § 55109. 28 Instead, CBP determined that these actions amounted to
a “temporary manipulation of the seabed,” rather than the creation of a trench. Therefore, for the
23
Gar-Con Development v. State, 468 So. 2d 413, 414-415 (Fla. App. 1 Dist. 1985); The International Maritime
Dictionary defines a dredge as, “[a] vessel or floating structure equipped with excavating machinery, employed in
deepening channels and harbors, and removing submarine obstructions such as shoals and bars.” De Kerchove,
International Maritime Dictionary, Second Edition (1961), p. 241.
24
See HQ 103692 (Dec. 28, 1978), published as Customs Service Decision (C.S.D.) 79-331; HQ 109910 (Jan. 26,
1989), published as C.S.D. 89-64.
25
See, e.g., HQ 109412 (Mar. 29, 1988), published at C.S.D. 88-7; HQ 109882 (Dec. 2, 1988); HQ 115646 (Apr. 12,
2002); HQ 115972 (Apr. 22, 2003); HQ 116117 (Feb. 26, 2004); HQ 311602 (Mar. 25, 2022); HQ 300962 (Apr. 14,
2022); HQ 329630 (Mar. 9, 2023).
26
See, e.g., HQ 113223 (Sept. 29, 1994) (relating to the use of an underwater trencher digging a 300 mm width
trench) (citing to HQ 109412 (Mar. 29, 1988), published as C.S.D. 88-7).
27
See HQ 109412 (Mar. 29, 1988), published at C.S.D. 88-7.
28
[ ]
6
same reasons as stated in [ ], the activity is not within the ambit of 46 U.S.C. §
55109 and does not constitute dredging for the purposes of the Dredging Statute.
HOLDING:
1. The proposed use of cable lay and burial equipment as described above would not violate
the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 55012.
2. The proposed use of cable lay and burial equipment as described above would not violate
the Dredging Statue, 46 U.S.C. § 55109.
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 terms
of the import or export contracts and results of the sampling records 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,
W. Richmond Beevers, Chief
Cargo Security, Carriers and Restricted Merchandise
Branch
Office of Trade, Regulations & Rulings
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
7