Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

U.S. cabotage laws

Expand Messages
  • Phelps Hobart
    Members and Friends, For some of us this is review material; for others an introduction to this critical aspect of maritime law. Our council luncheon 1130,
    Message 1 of 1 , Apr 13, 2008
      Members and Friends,
      For some of us this is review material; for others an introduction to this critical aspect of maritime law.
      Our council luncheon  1130, Monday, June 9th will hopefully have a panel of speakers on United States cabotage laws. For the occasion we are moving from our lovely lady S. S. JEREMIAH O'BRIEN's hold # 2 over to Quinn's Lighthouse Restaurant on the Oakland Estuary.
      Save the date. If you would like to be a panel participant please contact me.
      (916) 739-6949 | PMMC at cwo dot com
      Welcome to Quinn's Lighthouse Restaurant & Pub ... a quiet and relaxing dining atmosphere overlooking the gorgeous Oakland Estuary. ...
      www.quinnslighthouse.com - 9k - Cached

      Merchant Marine Act of 1920

      From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

      (Redirected from Jones Act (sailor rights))
      Jump to: navigation, search

      The Merchant Marine Act of 1920 is a United States Federal statute that regulates maritime commerce in U.S. waters and between U.S. ports. It is a cabotage law which also contains provisions regarding seamen's rights. It is commonly referred to as the Jones Act[1], in reference to the bill's sponsor Senator Wesley L. Jones of Washington.


      It is necessary for the national defense and for the proper growth of its foreign and domestic commerce that the United States shall have a merchant marine of the best equipped and most suitable types of vessels sufficient to carry the greater portion of its commerce and serve as a naval or military auxiliary in time of war or national emergency, ultimately to be owned and operated privately by citizens of the United States; and it is declared to be the policy of the United States to do whatever may be necessary to develop and encourage the maintenance of such a merchant marine, and, in so far as may not be inconsistent with the express provisions of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall, in the disposition of vessels and shipping property as hereinafter provided, in the making of rules and regulations, and in the administration of the shipping laws keep always in view this purpose and object as the primary end to be attained.

      –Sec. 1. Purpose and policy of United States (46 App. U.S.C. 861 (2002)), MARAD


      The cabotage provisions restrict the carriage of goods or passengers between United States ports to U.S. built and flagged vessels. In addition, at least 75 percent of the crewmembers must be U.S. citizens. Moreover foreign repair work of U.S.-flagged vessels' hull and superstructure is limited to 10 percent foreign-built steel weight.[1] This restriction largely prevents American ships from refurbishing their ships at overseas shipyards.

       Seaman's rights

      The U.S. Congress adopted the Merchant Marine Act in 1920, formerly 46 USC Sec. 688 and codified on October 6, 2006 as 46 USC Sec. 3010. The Act formalized the rights of seaman which have been recognized for centuries.

      "From the very beginning of American civilization, courts have protected seaman whom the courts have described as 'unprotected and in need of counsel; because they are thoughtless and require indulgence; because they are credulous and complying; and are easily overreached. They are emphatically the wards of admiralty.'" Capitol Hill Hearing Testimony, Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee; Testimony by John Hickley, attorney at law. Congressional Quarterly. March 27, 2007.

      It allows injured sailors to obtain damages from their employers for the negligence of the shipowner, the captain, or fellow members of the crew. It operates simply by extending similar legislation already in place that allowed for recoveries by railroad workers and providing that this legislation also applies to sailors. Its operative provision is found at 46 U.S.C. 688(a), which provides:

      "Any sailor who shall suffer personal injury in the course of his employment may, at his election, maintain an action for damages at law, with the right to trial by jury, and in such action all statutes of the United States modifying or extending the common-law right or remedy in cases of personal injury to railway employees shall apply..."

      This allows U.S. seamen to bring actions against ship owners based on claims of unseaworthiness or negligence. These are rights not afforded by common international maritime law.

      The United States Supreme Court, in the case of Chandris, Inc., v. Latsis, 515 U.S. 347, 115 S.Ct. 2172 (1995), has ruled that any worker who spends more than 30 percent of his time in the service of a vessel on navigable waters qualifies as a seaman under the act. An action under the act may be brought either in a U.S. federal court or in a state court.


      Critics note that the legislation results in costs for moving cargoes between U.S. ports that are far higher than if such restrictions did not apply. In essence, they argue, the act is protectionism.

      Opponents contend that the U.S. shipbuilding industry has suffered as a result. Ship operators are given an incentive to maintain veteran U.S.-built vessels rather than replace them with new tonnage. In addition, U.S. shipyards have adapted to building only those ships that are needed by operators, with price tags that reflect their all-American workforces. Subsequently, the claim is that U.S. shipbuilders have long since priced themselves out of the international market for merchant ships.

      A 2001 U.S. Department of Commerce Study study indicates that U.S. shipyards built only 1 percent of the world's large commercial ships. Ships are virtually never ordered in U.S. shipyards unless they are for use in Jones Act trade. The report concluded that the lack of United States competitiveness stemmed from foreign subsidies, unfair trade practices, and lack of U.S. productivity.[2]

      Moreover, critics point to the lack of a U.S.-flagged international shipping fleet. They claim that it makes it economically impossible for U.S.-flagged, -built, and -crewed ships to compete internationally with vessels built and registered in other nations with crews willing to work for wages that are a fraction of what their U.S. counterparts earn.

      "The Jones Act steals jobs from American seamen who could be working on coastwise freighters and feeders." Rob Quartel, president of the Reform Coalition.[3]


      Supporters of the Jones Act maintain that the legislation is of strategic economic and wartime interest to the United States. The act, they say, protects the nation's sealift capability and its ability to produce commercial ships. In addition, the act is seen as a vital factor in helping maintain a viable workforce of trained merchant mariners for commerce and national emergencies. Supporters say that it also protects seafarers from deplorable living and working conditions often found on foreign-flagged ships.[2]

      Some proponents make the case that allowing foreign-flagged ships to engage in commerce in our domestic sea lanes would be like letting a foreign automaker establish a plant in the U.S. which doesn't have to pay U.S. wages, taxes, or meet national safety or environmental standards.[3]

      "If someone were to propose that we let foreign workers compete with GM workers in the U.S., they would be laughed at." Arthur J. Volkle, associate general counsel, MARITRANS Inc.; a Philadelphia-based tug and barge operator.[3]

       Waivers of Jones Act provisions

      Requests for waivers of certain provisions of the act are reviewed by the United States Maritime Administration on a case by case basis. Waivers have been granted for example, in cases of national emergencies or in cases of strategic interest. For instance, declining oil production prompted MARAD to grant a waiver to operators of the 512-foot Chinese vessel Tai An Kou to tow an oil rig from the Gulf of Mexico to Alaska. The jackup rig will be under a two-year contract to drill in the Alaska's Cook Inlet Basin. The waiver to the Chinese vessel is said to be the first of its kind granted to an independent oil-and-gas company.[4]

      In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff temporarily waived the Jones Act for foreign vessels carrying oil and Natural gas from September 1 to 19, 2005. [2][3]

      Pressure exerted by 21 agriculture groups, including the American Farm Bureau Federation, failed to secure a Jones Act waiver following Hurricane Katrina. The groups contended that farmers would be adversely affected without additional shipping options to transport grains and oilseeds.[4]

       Scholarly Studies

      Sethi, Arjun, The Merchant Marine Act of 1920: The Impact on American Labor (2005).Online Version

      Ogletree, Bill, Jones Act-Maritime Law for the Injured Worker (2007).Online Version


      1. ^ "Cabotage laws put the Act in frame: Push to tighten legislation may spark WTO review," Lloyd's List International. September 13, 2006.Lloyd's List (subscription required for news content)
      2. ^ a b "Maritime law tough to navigate," Portland Press Herald/Maine Sunday Telegram. October 3, 2006.
      3. ^ a b c "Reform has spurred debate," The Virginian-Pilot. November 19, 1995.
      4. ^ a b "Coast wise: the U.S. marine Jeff Ownz is keeping a close watch on Maritime Act assaults," Workboat. January 1, 2007.
       External links
      Laws relating to the United States Merchant Marine
      1870sShipping Commissioners Act of 1872
      1880sDingley Act
      1890sMaguire Act of 1895 • White Act of 1898
      1910sSeamen's Act
      1920sJones Act
      1930sMerchant Marine Act of 1936
      CurrentTitle 33 CFR • Title 46 CFR
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.