(a) A coastwise endorsement entitles a vessel to employment in unrestricted coastwise trade, dredging, towing, and any other employment for which a registry or fishery endorsement is not required.
(b) If eligible for documentation and not restricted from coastwise trade by paragraph (c) or (d) of this section, the following vessels are eligible for a coastwise endorsement:
(1) Vessels built in the United States (§ 67.97);
(2) Forfeited vessels (§ 67.131);
(3) Vessels granted coastwise trading privileges by special legislation (§ 67.132);
(4) Wrecked vessels (§ 67.133);
(5) Captured vessels (§ 67.134); and
(6) Vessels purchased, chartered, or leased from the Secretary of Transportation by persons who are citizens of the United States (46 U.S.C. 57109).
(c) A vessel otherwise eligible for a coastwise endorsement under paragraph (b) of this section permanently loses that eligibility if:
(1) It is thereafter sold in whole or in part to an owner:
(i) Not a citizen as defined in subpart C of this part, or
(ii) Not a person permitted to document vessels pursuant to 46 CFR part 68;
(2) It is thereafter registered under the laws of a foreign country;
(3) It undergoes rebuilding as defined in § 67.177 outside of the United States; or
(4) It is a crude oil tanker of 20,000 deadweight tons or above, and after October 17, 1978, has segregated ballast tanks, a crude oil washing system, or an inert gas system installed outside of the United States as defined in § 67.3.
(d) A vessel otherwise eligible for a coastwise endorsement under paragraph (b) of this section loses that eligibility during any period in which it is:
(1) Owned by a corporation which does not meet the citizenship requirements of § 67.39(c);
(2) Owned by a partnership which does not meet the citizenship requirements of § 67.35(c); or
(3) Mortgaged to a person not identified in § 67.233(b).
[CGD 89-007, CGD 89-007a, 58 FR 60266, Nov. 15, 1993; 58 FR 65131, Dec. 13, 1993, as amended by CGD 94-008, 59 FR 49846, Sept. 30, 1994; CGD 94-040, 61 FR 17815, Apr. 22, 1996; USCG-2002-13058, 67 FR 61278, Sept. 30, 2002; USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49230, Sept. 25, 2009; USCG-2016-0531, 82 FR 43863, Sept. 20, 2017]
Notes of Decisions
UFO Chuting of Hawaii, Inc. v. Smith, 508 F.3d 1189 (9th Cir. 2007).
“’ ” (quoting 46 C.F.R. § 67.19 (a)))). Therefore, because Hawaii law “completely exclude[d] the plaintiffs from conducting their federally-licensed tour boat business” at all times, it “effectively rendered it impossible for the plaintiffs to comply with both federal and state…”
Portland Pipe Line Corp. v. City of S. Portland, 288 F. Supp. 3d 321 (D. Me. 2017).
“at 36-37 (citing 46 C.F.R. § 67.19 (a) ). PPLC concludes that "The Ordinance's complete ban on the loading of oil onto marine tank vessels interferes with federal licensing of tanker vessels in coastwise trade" because it "prohibits the entry of licensed vessels into the Harbor…”
Gallenstein v. Testa, 2014 Ohio 98 (Ohio 2014).
· cites it 2× “17 (registry endorsement), 46 C.F.R. 67.19 (coastwise endorsement), 46 C.”
Young v. Coloma-Agaran, 340 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2003).
“1 & 67) (“[T]he long-held policy of the Coast Guard [is] that the right to engage in the restricted trades is an entitlement that appertains to the vessel and arises as a matter of law upon meeting the requisite conditions.”
Mount v. Keahole Point Fish, LLC, 147 F. Supp. 3d 1116 (D. Haw. 2015).
“See 46 C.F.R. § 67.19 (a). Indeed, were the Kam-pachi Vessels to engage in "towing without coastwise endorsements, * Defendants would be subject to monetary fines and possible forfeiture of the vessels and their equipment.”
Curtin Mar. Corp. v. Pac. Dredge etc. (Cal. Ct. App. 2022).
“§ 12112 (a)(2)(A), 46 C.F.R. §§ 67.19 , 67.97.) 3 vessel is considered “rebuilt foreign” (and thus ineligible for coastwise trade) if “any considerable part of its hull or superstructure is built upon or substantially altered outside of the United States.”
Ufo Chuting of Hawaii, Inc. v. Smith (9th Cir. 2007).
“’ ” (quoting 46 C.F.R. § 67.19 (a))). Therefore, because Hawaii law “completely exclude[d] the plaintiffs from con- ducting their federally-licensed tour boat business” at all times, it “effectively rendered it impossible for the plaintiffs to comply with both federal and state…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.