Once more, The Jones Act proves to be a lively subject of debate.

在一个文件作者约翰·弗里泰利（交通政策专家）在《国会研究服务》（Congressional Research Service）发表的文章中指出，这项法律在实现国家安全目标方面的有效性也一直是人们关注的话题，同时国会指示政府制定国家海洋战略。

这包括增加短途海运的使用和提高美国造船能力的战略。国防部官员表示，虽然琼斯法案有助于保持造船厂能力的基线，但船队规模的缩小表明有必要重新评估现行政策。

虽然该法案为美国造船厂、国内承运人和美国商船船员提供了相当程度的保护，但一些专家认为，该法案也限制了更多种类和数量船舶的可用性，导致国内海运成本高企，并导致造船成本增加，要求商船在美国造船厂建造，而不是在国外造船厂建造。

然而，美国海事管理局认为这项法律确保了大多数美国商船船员的就业。最终，该法寻求维持“一支装备最好、类型最合适的商船，足以承载其大部分商业活动，并在战争或国家紧急情况下作为海军或军事辅助力量”，支持：

• a U.S.-controlled commercial fleet to supplement the military sealift fleet;
• 有资格为军用海运船舶配备后备船员的美国商船工作人员；以及
• domestic shipbuilding and repair capacity.

根据一项长期协议，军方将先使用悬挂美国国旗的商船进行海上运输，然后再在其后备舰队中使用政府拥有的船只。根据《琼斯法案》，水手们需要的时候可以为海运船配备船员，因此，远洋的《琼斯法案》船队和水手队伍几十年来的萎缩已经引起了人们的关注。

国防部计划通过在国内造船厂建造新船舶、修理现有船队中的船舶以将其使用寿命延长至60年，以及购买二手的外国建造船舶等方式对储备船队进行资本重组。成本和时间因素可能会影响每种方法的相对权重。

许多商业船队相对陈旧，在某些情况下会引发安全问题。撇开国防和安全不谈，法案最重要的部分可能是监管解释。《琼斯法案》的这些解释对于界定什么是“美国制造”的船只、什么是两个美国点之间的“运输”以及什么是“美国点”具有重要意义

例如；

• The Coast Guard has determined that a U.S.-built vessel can be assembled with major foreign components such as engines, propellers, and stern and bow sections.
• 海关和边境保护局（CBP）认定，除了国内港口外，还涉及到外国港口的游轮航行不属于国内运输，因此不受琼斯法案的约束。
• 美国海关与边境保护局对什么构成国内运输和美国点的解释对海洋石油行业具有重要意义，因为支持该行业的一些船舶必须符合《琼斯法案》，而其他船舶则不必符合。

必须指出的是，国会已经颁布了许多琼斯法案的豁免或例外。1951年，国会免除了波多黎各和任何其他美国港口之间的旅客旅行，如果没有琼斯法案的合格运营商可以提供类似的服务-更可能是由于没有琼斯法案的合格承运人有兴趣服务于特定市场。

国会还允许出于国防原因放弃琼斯法案。例如，2005年，一艘悬挂外国国旗的重型起重船被要求将雷达系统从德克萨斯州运送到夏威夷。琼斯法案合格船队中缺少一些商业上有用的船舶类型，在某种程度上，商业船舶的设计需求与海运船舶的设计需求有所不同。

Both situations may appear inconsistent with policy goals established by Congress, which include having a merchant marine “sufficient to carry the waterborne domestic commerce” and “capable of serving as a naval and military auxiliary in time of war or national emergency.”

查理·帕帕维扎斯，在最近的一次articlethat; “The Jones Act is a key driver in how offshore structures are constructed and dismantled and so its interpretation is critical to both operational planning and cost analyses.”

根据National Ocean Industries Association（NOIA），2001-2018年，美国离岸产业为联邦政府贡献了1150亿美元的收入。目前约有315000名美国人直接或间接受雇于该行业。

据估计，美国每年从不到3%的外大陆架生产6亿桶石油和4.5万亿立方英尺天然气。

NOIA认为，“监管的不确定性仍然会影响招聘，减缓投资。明智和一致的近海能源法规将……加速美国明天的经济增长。”正确的改革，或琼斯法案的废除，将如何影响美国的近海产业？

2019年末，我们与Lyons&Flood合伙人柯克·莱昂斯（Kirk Lyons）会面，与他讨论琼斯法案。我们问了他关于改革、废除和CBP的问题。

请继续往下读。

Iain Gomersall: In 1920 the U.S. needed a thriving maritime sector for both economic and military reasons. Enter the Jones Act. Today, there is a growing divide between the Jones Act and modern realities - particularly the increasing specialization within the commercial shipping and military requirements. Do you believe there is a happy, legal medium to be found?

Kirk Lyons:With the U.S.-flag fleet continuing to dwindle, the domestic shipping industry will fight for support of the Jones Act. I do not see an agreement being reached that would reform the Jones Act on any grand scale. Specific waivers, as the House bill mentioned below, would seem to be the more likely way forward, at the least for the immediate future.

Q: Proponents defend the Jones Act, saying it is vital for national, economic and homeland security. Others argue the act is a hinderance on the U.S. economy. In your opinion, are there reforms that would help lift the burden of the Jones Act on the U.S. economy, and still satisfy concerns on national and homeland security?

KL:这是一个有点沉重的问题，因为有许多关于琼斯法案是否阻碍美国经济的辩论。从事琼斯法案行业的人士认为，美国经济没有任何障碍，事实上，这对许多美国工人和公司都有利。如果有必要的话，为了帮助和促进离岸工业，具体的豁免是更有可能出现的“改革”。

Q: There is evidence suggesting a repeal of The Jones Act would be beneficial to the U.S. economy. If the evidence supporting repeal of the Jones Act is so compelling, can it simply be repealed?

KL:废除像琼斯法案这样的联邦法规需要国会的批准和总统的签字。尽管有报道称琼斯法案对美国经济产生了影响，但由于历史和当前国内对该法案的支持程度如此之高，近期内废除该法案的可能性不大。（《琼斯法案》的某些方面与船务无关（例如，允许海员因人身伤害/过失死亡而起诉其雇主），因此不太可能完全废除该法案。）

《琼斯法案》的任何改革都需要得到国会的批准和总统的签字，并且在正式通过任何修改之前都需要一段公开评论期。

Q： 琼斯法案今天的地位如何？你认为会有改革，还是废除？

KL:一个完整的废除《琼斯法案》不太可能的reasons mentioned above. Piece meal reforms are more likely such as a waiver process in a House bill (Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2019) that, if passed into law, would permit use of heavy lift vessels if the Transportation Department determines that there are no qualified U.S.-flag vessels available.

Q： 总统可以在特殊情况下放弃琼斯法案。你是否知道有任何情况下有人放弃琼斯法案？是否曾有过有人游说放弃，但没有成功的情况？

KL:There have been a number of waivers and exemptions from the Jones Act over the years; one recent example is the response to hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria, for moving oil and for any products in the case of Puerto Rico in 2017. No doubt applications for waivers have been denied from time to time, but this would require additional research.

Q: Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has primary responsibility for enforcement and administration of the Jones Act. Are there other agencies or committees with The Jones Act enforcement and oversight authority?

KL:CBP and the USCG both have responsibility for enforcement and administration of the Jones Act. Generally speaking, the USCG is in charge of enforcing the U.S.-build requirements for vessels, U.S. ownership of the carriers, and U.S. crewing. CBP is primarily responsible for determining what maritime activity falls under the Jones Act, e.g., what constitutes “transportation,” what is “vessel equipment,” and whether the origin and destination for a voyage are “U.S. points.”

Q： 据我所知，现行美国海关法包括两个关键概念：知情合规和共同责任。这些关键概念之间是否存在复杂性？

KL:海关与边境保护局认为“知情合规”为“obligation on CBP to provide the public with information concerning the trade community’s responsibilities and rights under the customs and related laws.” The concept of “shared responsibility” is seen by the CBP as an obligation on “both the public and CBP” to share responsibility “in carrying out import requirements.” (See CBP’s October 23, 2019, notice of提议的修改以及撤销处理某些琼斯法案问题的裁决书。）

鉴于受美国海关与边境保护局法律法规影响的各种各样的实际情况，解释这些法律法规时必然会出现复杂性。

因此，存在一个程序，供公众通过解决特定事实情况与海关法律法规之间相互作用的信函裁决，从美国海关与边境保护局获得指导。

Q: How important is the Jones Act in the development of the maritime offshore industry?

KL:The Jones Act is here to stay in my view, at least in the near term, and therefore, will continue to be of paramount importance in the development of the maritime offshore wind industry, as it has been for the offshore oil and gas industry in the U.S. Compliance with the Jones Act has been and is critical.

Q： 美国海关与边境保护局最近提议修改琼斯法案，你有什么想法？

KL:查理·帕帕维萨斯写了一篇很好的文章articleon CBP’s October, 23, 2019, notice of proposed modifications and revocations of ruling letters dealing with certain Jones Act issues. I defer to Charlie’s comments on them. However, the CBP has been through this exercise before in 2009 and 2017, both of which ended without any modifications or revocations to my knowledge. Thus, whether the 2019 notice will result in any such modifications or revocations is an open question. I note that public comments to this notice were due by November 22, 2019.

2019年12月19日，美国海关与边境保护局宣布改变对《琼斯法案》第27条的解释，这将影响美国海上设施。

在美国海关与边境保护局的新解释中，“船舶设备”被定义为包括“用于装备船舶的所有物品或实物资源，包括船舶操作或活动中使用的工具。”

Additionally, “[t]hese items may include those items that aid in the installation, inspection, repair, maintenance, surveying, positioning, modification, construction, decommissioning, drilling, completion, work-over, abandonment or other similar activities or operations of wells, seafloor or subsea infrastructure, flow lines, and surface production facilities.”

美国海关与边境保护局还指出，“一个项目在作业完成后随船只返回和离开，并且没有留在海底，这是一个有利于将项目归类为船只设备的因素，但不是唯一的决定因素。”

这一解释意味着，无美国国旗的船舶有可能向美国海上设施交付更多种类的物品，甚至永久安装在海底的物品也可能是“船舶设备”。

Hence, non-Jones Act vessels from a US port could transport items to offshore installations ranging from drilling platforms to wind farms.

新解释中没有具体的例子，对2020年2月17日当天或之后运输的商品有效。非《琼斯法案》船舶经营人如果不想违反《琼斯法案》，可以申请裁决。

Kirk M. Lyons and Charlie Papavizas join the speaker faculty at the第35届CMA发货活动in Stamford, Connecticut.

柯克和查理都将参加一个关于琼斯法案的辩论，该法案定于2020年4月1日在一个名为“琼斯法案-海上风电合资企业？”

了解更多关于CMA Shipping 2020的议程在这里.