OT:RR:BSTC:CCR H364652 KAM
Vincent Mattiola
16192 Coastal Hwy
Lewes, DE 19958
RE: Coastwise Transportation; 46 U.S.C. § 55103; 19 C.F.R. § 4.80a(b)(1).
Dear Mr. Mattiola;
This is in response to your September 29, 2026, ruling request on behalf of CetoSea, Inc.,
in which you inquire as to whether the operation of the non-coastwise-qualified vessel, the yacht
S/V TICLUNA (“vessel”), in United States (“U.S.”) territorial waters would constitute a
violation of 46 U.S.C. § 55103 and 19 C.F.R. § 4.80a(b)(1). Our decision follows.
FACTS:
The following facts are from your ruling request and supplements thereto. The sailing
vessel at issue, the S/V TICLUNA, was built in France in 2022, and is United States-flagged.
The vessel holds a recreational endorsement. 1 The vessel is owned by the U.S. corporation
Triple Decker Holdings, LLC.2 Your business, CetoSea Inc., has been hired by Triple Decker
Holdings, LLC, for vessel management, training, and Captain services for the vessel. 3 Your
request states that the vessel intends to transport paying passengers from Annapolis, Maryland,
for daytime sailing trips for the purpose of “showcasing yacht models” and “hosting guests
onboard.”4 The vessel will then return to the same marina in Annapolis, Maryland, after several
hours where the passengers will disembark. 5 The voyage will be “entirely contained within the
territorial waters of the United States,” never leaving the Chesapeake Bay. 6 Specifically, you
state:
1
Vincent Mattiola, Re: Request for Carrier Ruling - SV TICLUNA, (Oct. 1, 2026).
2
Vincent Mattiola, Re: Request for Carrier Ruling - SV TICLUNA, (Sept. 29, 2026).
3
Vincent Mattiola, Re: Request for Carrier Ruling - SV TICLUNA, (Oct. 1, 2026).
4
Vincent Mattiola, Re: Request for Carrier Ruling - SV TICLUNA, (Sept. 29, 2026).
5
Id.
6
Id.
We desire to give interested parties the opportunity to sail aboard SV TICLUNA as
a showcase of the yacht model on behalf of the manufacturer. This is a privately-
owned vessel and is not listed for sale, however prospective parties wish to spend
time aboard the boat underway to learn about her particulars and comfort, possibly
with the intention of ordering a new vessel from the manufacturer.
ISSUE:
Whether the voyage described above, entirely within the territorial waters of the United
States, would constitute a violation of 46 U.S.C. § 55103 as implemented by 19 C.F.R. §
4.80a(b)(1)?
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
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.7 The coastwise laws apply to the United
States, including the island territories and possessions of the United States, with the exception of
American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands. 8
The Chesapeake Bay is considered internal waters of the United States, over which it
exercises complete sovereignty and territorial jurisdiction. See e.g., 33 U.S.C. § 451b. The
Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries are classified as internal waters of the United States
because they lie shoreward of the territorial sea baseline. See e.g., 33 U.S.C. § 151 and 33
C.F.R. §§ 2.24, 80.01, and 80.510. The Supreme Court discussed the nature of the United
States’ jurisdiction over internal waters in United States v. Louisiana, saying, in pertinent part:
Under generally accepted principles of international law, the navigable sea is
divided into three zones, distinguished by the nature of the control which the
contiguous nation can exercise over them. Nearest to the nation’s shores are its
inland, or internal waters. These are subject to the complete sovereignty of the
nation, as much as if they were a part of its land territory, and the coastal nation has
the privilege even to exclude foreign vessels altogether. Beyond the inland waters,
and measured from their seaward edge, is a belt known as the marginal, or
territorial, sea. Within it, the coastal nation may exercise extensive control, but
cannot deny the right of innocent passage to foreign nations. 9
Accordingly, the internal waters of the United States are subject to the coastwise laws of the
United States and also “subject to the complete sovereignty of the nation, as much as if they were
a part of its land territory.”10
7
33 C.F.R. § 2.22(a)(2) (2013).
8
See 46 U.S.C. § 55101.
9
United States v. Louisiana, 394 U.S. 11, 22 (1969) (Citations omitted).
10
United States v. Louisiana, 394 U.S. 11, 22 (1969) (Citations omitted).
2
The Passenger Vessel Services Act of 1886 (46 U.S.C. § 5510311), the coastwise law
applicable to the transportation of passengers, provides:
(a) 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-
(1) is wholly owned by citizens of the United States for purposes of
engaging in coastwise trade; and
(2) 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.
(b) Penalty. The penalty for violating subsection (a) is $300 for each passenger
transported and landed.
A vessel is said to be “coastwise qualified” after it has obtained a coastwise endorsement from
the U.S. Coast Guard. CBP regulations at 19 C.F.R. § 4.50(b) define a passenger as “any person
carried on a vessel who is not connected with the operation of such vessel, her navigation,
ownership, or business.” People carried onboard a vessel for recreational purposes, whether or
not they pay a fee are considered "passengers," and their carriage between places in the United
States or entirely within United States waters would be in violation of the coastwise laws. See
H112098, (May 6, 1992).
In its administration of 46 U.S.C. § 55103, CBP has consistently ruled that the carriage of
passengers entirely within United States territorial and internal waters, even though the
passengers disembark at their point of embarkation and the vessel touches no other coastwise
point, is considered coastwise trade subject to the coastwise laws. See HQ 113430 (May 3,
1995); HQ 113379 (Mar. 23, 1995), H335919 (Dec. 26, 2026); see also Demarest v. United
States, 2026 FL S.D. Case NO. 25-10001, Docket No. 33, Magistrate’s Report and
Recommendation, pp. 10-11 (Feb. 24, 2026) (adopted in full, Mar. 15, 2026). On the other hand,
the transportation of passengers to the high seas (i.e. beyond U.S. territorial waters) and back to
the point of embarkation, assuming the passengers do not go ashore, even temporarily, at another
U.S. point, often called a “voyage-to-nowhere,” is not considered coastwise trade. 12 Therefore, a
vessel would not be engaged in coastwise trade if it transports passengers beyond the U.S.
territorial sea and the passengers embark and disembark at the same coastwise point.
Your request states that the vessel holds a recreational endorsement, not a coastwise
endorsement. Further, the proposed transportation of passengers takes place solely within
Chesapeake Bay, internal waters of the United States. Your request also states that embarkation
and disembarkation will both occur at the same marina in Annapolis, Maryland. The carriage of
passengers entirely within internal waters, even though the passengers disembark at the same
point as their point of embarkation and the vessel touches no other coastwise point, is considered
coastwise trade subject to the coastwise laws. Therefore, since the voyage takes place entirely
11
Recodified by Pub. L. 109-304, enacted on October 6, 2006.
3
within the internal waters of the United States, the voyage would not qualify as a “voyage-to-
nowhere,” and would constitute a violation of 46 U.S.C. § 55103.
HOLDING:
The voyage as described above, which would remain wholly within U.S. internal waters,
would be in violation of 46 U.S.C. § 55103 and 19 C.F.R. § 4.80a(b).
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 CBP 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 facts at hand vary
from the facts stipulated to herein, this decision shall not be binding on CBP as provided for in
19 C.F.R. § 177.2(b)(1), (2), and (4), and § 177.9(b)(1) and (4).
Sincerely,
W. Richmond Beevers
Chief, Cargo Security, Carriers, and
Restricted Merchandise
Office of Trade, Regulations & Rulings
4