I 
117TH CONGRESS 
2D SESSION 
H. R. 9548 
To require the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection to 
make certain determinations in enforcing the Jones Act, and for other 
purposes. 
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
DECEMBER 14, 2022 
Mr. GARAMENDI introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Com-
mittee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Com-
mittee on Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within 
the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 
A BILL 
To require the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection to make certain determinations in enforcing 
the Jones Act, and for other purposes. 
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Close Agency Loop-
holes to the Jones Act’’. 
SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 
Congress finds the following: 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
17:32 Dec 27, 2022
Jkt 039200
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H9548.IH
H9548
pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
(1) In 1920, Congress enacted the Merchant 
Marine Act (chapters 121 and 551 of title 46, 
United States Code), commonly referred to as the 
‘‘Jones Act’’. 
(2) In 1953, Congress enacted the Outer Conti-
nental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.) ap-
plying the Constitution, laws, and civil and political 
jurisdiction of the United States to the outer Conti-
nental Shelf. 
(3) In 2020, Congress enacted section 9503 of 
the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (Public Law 
116–283) affirming that application of the Constitu-
tion, laws, and civil and political jurisdiction of the 
United States to the outer Continental Shelf also ap-
plies to non-mineral energy resources and exploring 
for, developing, producing, transporting, or transmit-
ting such resources. 
(4) Therefore, the Jones Act prohibits the use 
of a non-Jones Act qualified vessel for the provision 
of any coastwise transportation of merchandise to or 
from a port of the United States (including terri-
tories or possessions to which the coastwise laws 
apply) to any point on the outer Continental Shelf, 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
17:32 Dec 27, 2022
Jkt 039200
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H9548.IH
H9548
pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
or between any two points on the outer Continental 
Shelf. 
(5) U.S. Customs and Border Protection (here-
inafter referred to as ‘‘CBP’’) is responsible for in-
terpreting and enforcing the Jones Act. CBP has 
issued ruling letters and other interpretative guid-
ance to requesting parties that provide the descrip-
tion of proposed activities. 
(6) Unlike most federal agencies, CBP is re-
quired by section 625(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 
(19 U.S.C. 1625(c)) to follow its past interpretive 
guidance and treatments of ‘‘substantially identical 
transactions,’’ unless it institutes a public notice and 
comment process to modify or revoke that interpre-
tative guidance. As a result, CBP and market par-
ticipants treat as binding ruling letters and interpre-
tative guidance in addressing whether and how the 
Jones Act applies in substantially identical factual 
situations. 
(7) Thus, CBP’s ruling letters—even if legally 
incorrect—have substantial impacts: When CBP 
purports to authorize a foreign vessel to transport 
merchandise between coastwise points, unless or-
dered by a Federal court to rescind such ruling let-
ters, CBP does not take enforcement action against 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
17:32 Dec 27, 2022
Jkt 039200
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H9548.IH
H9548
pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
other foreign vessels engaging in substantially iden-
tical transactions, and vessel operators accordingly 
rely on CBP’s past ruling letters and guidance 
issued to other parties. 
(8) Over several decades, CBP has purported to 
create an array of exemptions from the prohibitions 
of the Jones Act for the benefit of foreign vessels. 
(9) On December 11, 2019, CBP published 
Customs Bulletin and Decisions, Vol. 53, No. 45 
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘2019 Decision’’) re-
voking a handful of its interpretations, recognizing 
that the analyses employed therein were inconsistent 
with the Jones Act and original congressional intent, 
including by using statutory language ‘‘out of con-
text,’’ having been superseded by amendments, or 
being predicated on CBP-created distinctions that 
had always been ‘‘irrelevant’’ under the Jones Act. 
(10) However, the 2019 Decision still left in 
force many ruling letters inconsistent with the Jones 
Act and original congressional intent, espousing the 
same unlawful doctrines, revoked others that prop-
erly interpreted the Jones Act, and created several 
new loopholes that purport to immunize much of the 
same foreign vessel activities that are now, and have 
always been, prohibited under the Jones Act. 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
17:32 Dec 27, 2022
Jkt 039200
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H9548.IH
H9548
pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS