SB 2535 amends 46 U.S.C. §12112(a)(2)(B) to add a new clause recognizing vessels that transport passengers between U.S. ports—either directly or via a foreign port—as qualifying for coastwise endorsement, and it repeals 46 U.S.C. §12121. The bill also includes a rule of construction clarifying that no other U.S. law is broadly displaced except as explicitly changed.
Why it matters: the coastwise endorsement determines which vessels may engage in domestic (cabotage) passenger trade. By changing statutory eligibility and removing §12121, the bill creates a pathway for passenger vessels that were not built in the United States to obtain coastwise permission to operate between U.S. ports, with likely effects on operators, domestic shipyards, labor, and regulators.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill inserts clause (iv) into 46 U.S.C. §12112(a)(2)(B) to treat passenger vessels that carry passengers between U.S. ports (including routes that call in a foreign port en route) as eligible for coastwise endorsement and repeals 46 U.S.C. §12121. It leaves other statutory and regulatory requirements intact unless expressly changed.
Who It Affects
Primary targets are owners and operators of passenger vessels built outside the United States (cruise lines, ferry operators, charters) seeking to serve U.S. domestic routes. Secondary stakeholders include U.S. shipbuilders and maritime labor, federal regulators (Coast Guard, Maritime Administration), and port communities that host passenger service.
Why It Matters
This is a targeted statutory change to cabotage eligibility—not a wholesale rewrite of maritime law—but it removes a key barrier that has kept foreign-built passenger vessels off many U.S. domestic routes. That shift could recalibrate procurement choices, competition on domestic routes, and regulatory workstreams.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill changes the statutory language that sets who can receive a coastwise endorsement under title 46. Practically, it adds an explicit category for vessels that move passengers between U.S. ports—whether they make that transit directly or by stopping in a foreign port—so those vessels can qualify for the endorsement even if they were not built in the United States.
The text is surgical: it amends one subsection to add a new clause and repeals an adjacent section that, in current law, constrains that kind of eligibility.
The immediate administrative effect is that the statutory barrier to issuing coastwise endorsements for certain passenger vessels will be removed; execution of that change will fall to agencies and certification processes that implement the coastwise trade rules. The bill’s rule of construction makes clear it does not create a blanket exemption from other U.S. laws—safety, crewing, documentation, sanctions, and customs obligations remain in force unless the bill explicitly alters them—so vessel owners will still need to meet those requirements to operate.Operationally, the bill’s explicit reference to voyages that call in a foreign port invites particular attention: routes that routinely touch a foreign port but mainly serve U.S. passengers may now be treated as eligible for coastwise activity.
That raises practical questions about documentation, customary routing, and whether regulators will impose conditions or additional criteria (ownership, beneficial ownership, or control tests) before issuing endorsements. The repeal of the separate statutory provision removes a layer of restriction but does not itself supply implementing rules or standards; agencies will likely need to interpret how the change interacts with related statutes and regulations.For the industry, the change lowers a statutory barrier to deploying foreign-built passenger tonnage on U.S. domestic routes, which could shorten procurement timelines and lower capital costs for some operators.
For domestic shipbuilders and labor, the amendment removes a built-in preference that has historically supported demand for U.S.-constructed passenger vessels, creating a source of competitive pressure. Regulators and ports will need to update guidance and compliance checklists to reflect the new statutory baseline.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends 46 U.S.C. §12112(a)(2)(B) by adding clause (iv) explicitly covering vessels that transport passengers between U.S. ports, including voyages that go via a foreign port.
SB 2535 repeals 46 U.S.C. §12121, removing a statutory provision that constrained issuance of coastwise endorsements for certain passenger vessels.
The statute’s new language targets passenger-carrying service between U.S. ports; it does not by its text repeal or change unrelated safety, crewing, customs, or sanctions laws.
The bill leaves implementation details to regulators and does not specify ownership, registration, or beneficial-ownership tests that agencies may apply when issuing endorsements.
The measure could be used to legalize operations of foreign-built ferries or cruise segments on domestic routes so long as operators satisfy remaining statutory and regulatory conditions.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Gives the bill the name 'Protecting Jobs in American Ports Act.' The short title itself has no legal effect, but the name frames legislative intent and may guide interpretation in later materials or floor statements.
Amendment to 46 U.S.C. §12112(a)(2)(B)
This is the operative change: the bill adjusts punctuation in the statutory clause structure and adds a new clause (iv) that treats vessels transporting passengers between U.S. ports—or between U.S. ports via a foreign port—as falling within the clause’s scope. Mechanically, that alters the list of qualifying conditions for coastwise endorsement; functionally, it removes a categorical bar that has been interpreted to exclude certain foreign-built passenger vessels from coastwise trade. Practitioners should expect questions about how this interacts with existing documentation and endorsement procedures and whether agencies will require additional proofs of eligibility.
Repeal of 46 U.S.C. §12121
The bill removes §12121 from title 46. Repealing a statute that previously limited or specified coastwise eligibility removes a statutory obstacle but creates a legal gap: the reasons for §12121’s original restrictions (for example, to protect domestic shipbuilding or define exceptions) are no longer codified. That repeal transfers the burden to agencies to interpret the new statutory landscape and may prompt litigation or requests for administrative rulemaking to clarify application.
Rule of construction preserving other laws
The bill adds an explicit rule of construction stating that the amendments do not exempt vessels from any other applicable U.S. laws unless the bill expressly does so. This limits the bill’s scope: it is not a blanket repeal of cabotage or safety regimes. For operators, the practical takeaway is that obtaining a coastwise endorsement under the revised statute will not relieve them of compliance with U.S. safety standards, crewing rules, customs, or sanctions obligations enforced by Coast Guard, CBP, or other agencies.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Transportation across all five countries.
Explore Transportation in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Owners/operators of foreign-built passenger vessels: The statutory change creates a potential route to coastwise endorsement, enabling them to serve U.S. domestic routes without new-build delays or costs tied to U.S. shipyards.
- Ferry and cruise operators seeking faster fleet expansion: Operators facing long domestic shipyard lead times can more readily deploy existing foreign-built tonnage to add capacity or new itineraries.
- Port economies and tourist destinations: Increased access by a wider pool of vessels could expand service frequency and bring more passengers to ports that capture tourism and local spending.
- Charter and vessel-leasing companies: The change improves the market for leasing foreign-built passenger tonnage into U.S. domestic operations.
Who Bears the Cost
- U.S. shipbuilders and associated maritime labor: Reduced statutory protection for domestically built passenger vessels may lower new-build demand and pressure pricing and employment in U.S. shipbuilding.
- Domestic vessel owners who complied with U.S. build requirements: These owners face increased competition from lower-cost foreign-built alternatives that can now access domestic routes.
- Federal regulators (Coast Guard, MARAD, CBP): Agencies must revise guidance, issue interpretive guidance or rulemaking, and process applications under a changed statutory rubric, imposing administrative burdens.
- Local labor markets tied to ship construction and refit: Communities that relied on new-build or repowering work for local employment may see fewer contracts as operators opt for foreign-built tonnage.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is straightforward: the bill expands market access and operational flexibility for passenger vessel operators—potentially lowering costs and improving service—while simultaneously eroding a statutory preference for U.S.-built ships that has supported domestic shipbuilding and maritime labor; policymakers must weigh short-term operational gains against longer-term impacts on domestic industrial capacity and employment.
The bill is narrowly drafted yet consequential: it changes eligibility language and repeals a related statutory restriction without setting out implementing criteria. That creates an immediate implementation problem—agencies will need to determine how to apply existing documentation, ownership, and control tests to foreign-built passenger vessels seeking coastwise endorsements.
Will regulators insist on U.S.-flag ownership, majority U.S. ownership, or specific crewing rules before issuing endorsements? The bill is silent, so administrative interpretation will drive outcomes.
Another tension is the bill’s explicit coverage of voyages that proceed ‘via a foreign port.’ That phrase opens a channel for operators to route services with a technical foreign call to preserve eligibility while effectively serving U.S. markets—a practice that could be challenged as circumvention. Repealing §12121 removes statutory guardrails but also eliminates clear legislative guidance about acceptable limits, increasing the likelihood of litigation over intent and permissible routing.
Finally, the bill does not address transition issues: whether existing endorsements are affected, whether retroactive relief applies, or how contractual obligations tied to build requirements will be handled. The net effect will depend heavily on regulatory follow-up and potential court decisions.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.