USA cruise without passport?

[njhorseman]

But no ship can sail from U.S. port to U.S. port without stopping at foreign port before completing cruise in U.S. port due to PVSA (Passenger Vessel Services Act).

 

At that stage of the discussion they were talking about flying from the mainland to Puerto Rico or the USVI, not about cruising.

 

Even so, there are exceptions to the PVSA that apply to Puerto Rico and the USVI, so in fact foreign flagged ships are permitted to carry passengers from the mainland US to those destinations.

[PennyAgain]

Why should that surprise you? All they are asking for is a government-issued photo ID to match the person boarding to the name the ticket was booked under, just as is done to board an airplane. You have to show ID to board a cruise to nowhere too.

 

What shocked me was that this information is required 90 days before the cruise boards. It is a positive ID thing. I don't mind showing ID when boarding an airplane when I am about to fly, but 90 days ahead is certainly a long lead time for an entirely US routed river trip.

[njhorseman]

What shocked me was that this information is required 90 days before the cruise boards. It is a positive ID thing. I don't mind showing ID when boarding an airplane when I am about to fly, but 90 days ahead is certainly a long lead time for an entirely US routed river trip.

 

You also have to supply your ID information (passport or drivers license) in advance to the airlines now. If you don't you won't be allowed to print an advance boarding pass and you'll be subject to a lot more scrutiny when you get to the airport. Your identity is checked in advance against terrorist suspect databases.

[sail7seas]

At that stage of the discussion they were talking about flying from the mainland to Puerto Rico or the USVI, not about cruising.

 

Even so, there are exceptions to the PVSA that apply to Puerto Rico and the USVI, so in fact foreign flagged ships are permitted to carry passengers from the mainland US to those destinations.

 

 

.....with a stop in a foreign port (near or distant ?).

 

A foreign flagged cruise ship cannot go FLL, Key West, St. Thomas, San Juan, FLL but it can go

FLL, Key West, St. Thomas, Aruba, FLL.

Of course, that isn't a likely itinerary but it passes PVSA.

 

 

 

 

 

[smeyer418]

Children 16 and older can sign their own passport applications. Children who are not yet 16 will need to have both parents sign the passport application. If you have sole custody of the children under 16, then you can sign the application and submit a copy of the court order granting you sole custody.

actually this information is wrong. sole custody does not extinguish parental rights. Travel rights still need the acceptance of the non-custodial parent or a separate court order than dispenses with such approval by the non-custodian parent. If the parental rights have been terminated than you don't need the non-custodian parent but that is relatively rare(although not unheard of)

[njhorseman]

.....with a stop in a foreign port (near or distant ?).

 

A foreign flagged cruise ship cannot go FLL, Key West, St. Thomas, San Juan, FLL.

 

 

 

 

There are exceptions for USVI and Puerto Rico in the law that would allow a foreign flagged cruise to line transport passengers between US ports and those territories. As strange as it may seem, Although a ship could not legally do the itinerary you mention, it can legally go FLL to St. Thomas or FLL to San Juan to transport passengers between those points.

 

Here's link to CBP's document explaining the law:

 

http://www.cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov/trade/legal/informed_compliance_pubs/pvsa_icp.ctt/pvsa_icp.pdf

 

Here's the mention of the USVI's exclusion from the law:

 

Application of the PVSA

1. Where Does the PVSA Apply?

The PVSA applies to the United States, including th4) the Virgin Islands. See 46 U.S.C. § 55101(b).e island territories and possessions of the United States, e.g., Puerto Rico. See 46 U.S.C. § 55101(a). However, the coastwise laws generally do not apply to the following: 1) American Samoa; 2) the Northern Mariana Islands; 3) Canton Island; or

 

Here's the actual US law:

 

TITLE 46 > Subtitle V > Part D > CHAPTER 551 > § 55101

 

§ 55101. APPLICATION OF COASTWISE LAWS

 

(a) In General.— Except as provided in subsection (b), the coastwise laws apply to the United States, including the island territories and possessions of the United States.

(b) Exceptions.— The coastwise laws do not apply to—

(1) American Samoa;

(2) the Northern Mariana Islands, except as provided in section 502(b) of the Covenant To Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union With the United States of America (48 U.S.C. 1801 note ); or

(3) the Virgin Islands until the President declares by proclamation that the coastwise laws apply to the Virgin Islands.

 

Finally, here's CBP's mention of the exemption for Puerto Rico:

 

EXCEPTIONS

Transportation of Passengers Between Puerto Rico and Other U.S. Ports—46 U.S.C. § 55104

An exception to the PVSA permits non-coastwise-qualified vessels (vessels not qualified to engage in the coastwise trade) to transport passengers on voyages between ports in Puerto Rico and other U.S. ports until qualified U.S. vessels are available.

 

And here's the actual law:

 

§55104. Transportation of passengers between Puerto Rico and other ports in the United States

 

(a) Definitions.—In this section:

 

(1) Certificate.—The term “certificate” means a certificate of financial responsibility for indemnification of passengers for nonperformance of transportation issued by the Federal Maritime Commission under section 44102 of this title.

 

(2) Passenger vessel.—The term “passenger vessel” means a vessel of similar size, or offering similar service, as any other vessel transporting passengers under subsection (b).

 

 

(b) Exemption.—Except as otherwise provided in this section, a vessel not qualified to engage in the coastwise trade may transport passengers between a port in Puerto Rico and another port in the United States.

 

© Expiration of Exemption.—

 

(1) When coastwise-qualified vessel offering service.—On a showing to the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating, by the vessel owner or charterer, that a United States passenger vessel qualified to engage in the coastwise trade is offering or advertising passenger service between a port in Puerto Rico and another port in the United States pursuant to a certificate, the Secretary shall notify the owner or operator of each vessel transporting passengers under subsection (b) to terminate that transportation within 270 days after the Secretary's notification. Except as provided in subsection (d), the authority to transport passengers under subsection (b) expires at the end of that 270-day period.

 

(2) When non-coastwise-qualified vessel offering service.—On a showing to the Secretary, by the vessel owner or charterer, that a United States passenger vessel not qualified to engage in the coastwise trade is offering or advertising passenger service between a port in Puerto Rico and another port in the United States pursuant to a certificate, the Secretary shall notify the owner or operator of each foreign vessel transporting passengers under subsection (b) to terminate that transportation within 270 days after the Secretary's notification. Except as provided in subsection (d), the authority of a foreign vessel to transport passengers under subsection (b) expires at the end of that 270-day period.

[cherylandtk]

.....with a stop in a foreign port (near or distant ?).

 

A foreign flagged cruise ship cannot go FLL, Key West, St. Thomas, San Juan, FLL but it can go

FLL, Key West, St. Thomas, Aruba, FLL.

Of course, that isn't a likely itinerary but it passes PVSA.

 

This highlighted statement is not quite correct, Puerto Rico is listed as an exemption to the PVSA and the USVI is specified as a nearby foreign port.

 

"Nearby foreign ports" include all foreign ports in North America,

Central America, Bermuda, the West Indies (except Aruba, Bonaire, and

Curacao) and the U.S. Virgin Islands. See 19 C.F.R. 4.80a(a)(2).

 

Furthermore, an exception to the PVSA was made in 1938 to allow for the transport of passengers by Canadian vessels between the New York ports of Rochester and Alexandria Bay.[Footnote 29] More recently, Congress passed the Puerto Rico Passenger Ship Act, which allows vessels not qualified to engage in the domestic trade to carry passengers between U.S. ports and Puerto Rico and between Puerto Rico ports.[Footnote 30][30] 46 U.S.C. App. 289c.

[sail7seas]

So....

 

You are saying a foreign flagged cruise ship is permitted to sail FLL, St. Thomas, San Juan, FLL?

 

If so, why aren't ships doing that....... or are they?

 

[njhorseman]

So....

 

You are saying a foreign flagged cruise ship is permitted to sail FLL, St. Thomas, San Juan, FLL?

 

 

For the purpose of transporting passengers between FLL and USVI or SJU, yes, but not for the purpose of a closed loop cruise from FLL. In other words it's legal as long as the passengers boarding in FLL disembark in Puerto Rico or St. Thomas. You have to keep in mind the historical origin of the law in the late 1800's...when ships were used as a mode of transportation (in other words essentially as a ferry) to get from one destination to another. Because there was no service on US flagged ships between the mainland and the USVI or Puerto Rico, the law included an exception allowing foreign-flagged vessels to provide this service.

[cherylandtk]

Hmm, I think as long as USVI is listed as a foreign port, they could do a loop cruise. It is just that nobody does one. From a PVSA perspective, it is no different than a RT Alaska cruise that has 3 stops in the US and one foreign port in Canada.

 

As for San Juan, I agree with NJHorseman's debarkation/embarkation limit; that exception does apply to transport of pax. But the USVI is not an exception, it is a definition as a nearby foreign port.

[sail7seas]

For the purpose of transporting passengers between FLL and USVI or SJU, yes, but not for the purpose of a closed loop cruise from FLL. In other words it's legal as long as the passengers boarding in FLL disembark in Puerto Rico or St. Thomas. You have to keep in mind the historical origin of the law in the late 1800's...when ships were used as a mode of transportation (in other words essentially as a ferry) to get from one destination to another. Because there was no service on US flagged ships between the mainland and the USVI or Puerto Rico, the law included an exception allowing foreign-flagged vessels to provide this service.

 

So, we aren't talking cruise ship at all.

We're talking ferry.

 

[njhorseman]

This highlighted statement is not quite correct, Puerto Rico is listed as an exemption to the PVSA and the USVI is specified as a nearby foreign port.

 

You're right, so now you can do a cruise from FLL to St. Thomas and return, but am I not correct that the PVSA's exemption of the USVI predates the inclusion of the USVI as a nearby foreign port?

[njhorseman]

So, we aren't talking cruise ship at all.

We're talking ferry.

 

 

Right...but as was noted you actual can do the USVI itinerary since the USVI is also specifically defined as "nearby foreign port".

 

If I go from FLL to SJU on a cruise ship it's still a cruise even if I'm using it as a ferry.

[sail7seas]

Then we'd be talking transportation.......

 

not a vacation.

 

Obviously, this it's hypothetical as no cruise ship is going to simply be a transporter in customary use.

 

IF cruise ships COULD go FLL, San Juan, St. Thomas, FLL.... I cannot imagine any number would not be doing just that. Low fuel, popular ports, five day cruise or seven days with sea days added. It would sell well and for good price. But they cannot do that.

 

 

 

 

[cherylandtk]

You're right, so now you can do a cruise from FLL to St. Thomas and return, but am I not correct that the PVSA's exemption of the USVI predates the inclusion of the USVI as a nearby foreign port?

Well, you've got me there. I don't know if there was an exemption issued to the USVI prior to it being listed as a nearby foreign port. Maybe. But even if it were originally listed as an exemption - that for the purpose of direct ferry type transport - I am thinking the newer/current definition as a nearby foreign port trumps that for purposes of RT cruising.

 

I am pretty sure that the designation makes the USVI no different (in the PVSA view) than Ensenada for the CA coastal or Hawaii cruises, or Victoria for the Alaska cruises. Now, why do cruise companies not do FL loop cruises? Maybe for the same reason they did not schedule CA coastals until this year (and then only because the H1N1 flu forced them to try it and people LOVED the new itinerary). My guess would be that cruising to an 'exotic' true foreign port sounds better to the Marketing Dept. than a cruise on the east coast of FL. But that is just a guess.

[cherylandtk]

Then we'd be talking transportation.......

 

not a vacation.

 

Obviously, this it's hypothetical as no cruise ship is going to simply be a transporter in customary use.

 

IF cruise ships COULD go FLL, San Juan, St. Thomas, FLL.... I cannot imagine any number would not be doing just that. Low fuel, popular ports, five day cruise or seven days with sea days added. It would sell well and for good price. But they cannot do that.

 

Add Cuba and it would be over the top wonderful!!! :D

 

 

LOL, yes, but Cuba is a whole 'nother regulation. The exemption for San Juan is irrelevant if St. Thomas is ALSO on the cruise itinerary. STT foreign port status trumps the San Juan exemption status. So it is still a vacation, not a ferry. As to why they don't do this, one can only guess. See my post above for my best guess...I am sure there are others just as likely.

[sail7seas]

How about Bermuda...... Distant foreign port, but why? Because it is British?

 

But so is Barbados and that is not a distant foreign?

 

[sail7seas]

LOL, yes, but Cuba is a whole 'nother regulation. The exemption for San Juan is irrelevant if St. Thomas is ALSO on the cruise itinerary. STT foreign port status trumps the San Juan exemption status. So it is still a vacation, not a ferry. As to why they don't do this, one can only guess. See my post above for my best guess...I am sure there are others just as likely.

 

 

I edited out Cuba as I knew that would start a whole difference conversation. :D

 

 

[njhorseman]

How about Bermuda...... Distant foreign port, but why? Because it is British?

 

But so is Barbados and that is not a distant foreign?

 

 

Bermuda is not a distant foreign port. It is a nearby foreign port, as is Barbados.

[sail7seas]

But New York, Bermuda, New York is PVSA okay. (HAL - Veendam)

 

Boston, Bermuda, Boston.... (NCL )

 

Ships do this annually.

 

 

 

[njhorseman]

But New York, Bermuda, New York is PVSA okay. (HAL - Veendam)

 

Boston, Bermuda, Boston.... (NCL )

 

Ships do this annually.

 

 

 

 

They are closed loop cruises. Closed loop cruises only have to call on a nearby foreign port. Open jaw cruises have the distant foreign port requirement.

[njhorseman]

Well, you've got me there. I don't know if there was an exemption issued to the USVI prior to it being listed as a nearby foreign port. Maybe. But even if it were originally listed as an exemption - that for the purpose of direct ferry type transport - I am thinking the newer/current definition as a nearby foreign port trumps that for purposes of RT cruising.

 

I am pretty sure that the designation makes the USVI no different (in the PVSA view) than Ensenada for the CA coastal or Hawaii cruises, or Victoria for the Alaska cruises. Now, why do cruise companies not do FL loop cruises? Maybe for the same reason they did not schedule CA coastals until this year (and then only because the H1N1 flu forced them to try it and people LOVED the new itinerary). My guess would be that cruising to an 'exotic' true foreign port sounds better to the Marketing Dept. than a cruise on the east coast of FL. But that is just a guess.

 

I don't disagree that the "nearby foreign port" designation trumps the PVSA exemption, I was just trying to straighten out the historical perspective in my own mind. Again, the PVSA dates from a time when passenger ships were used for transportation, not for cruise vacations, so it makes logical sense that the PVSA exception came first.

 

I'm sure the absence of such an itinerary is just a marketplace demand issue.

[fourk9mom]

actually this information is wrong. sole custody does not extinguish parental rights. Travel rights still need the acceptance of the non-custodial parent or a separate court order than dispenses with such approval by the non-custodian parent. If the parental rights have been terminated than you don't need the non-custodian parent but that is relatively rare(although not unheard of)

 

As long as the sole custody order does not specifically restrict the child's travel--then the court order is all that would be needed for the custodial parent to obtain a passport for the child.

 

From travel.state.gov:

One Parent

(with sole legal custody)

MUST:

 

• Appear in person with the minor
  
• Sign Form DS-11 in front of an Acceptance Agent
  
• Submit primary evidence of sole authority to apply for the child with one of the following:
  
• 
  
  • Minor's certified U.S. or foreign birth certificate listing only the applying parent
    
  • Consular Report of Birth Abroad (Form FS-240) or Certification of Birth Abroad (Form DS-1350) listing only the applying parent
    
  • Court order granting sole custody to the applying parent (unless child's travel is restricted by that order)
    
  • Adoption decree (if applying parents is sole adopting parent)
    
  • Court order specifically permitting applying parent's or guardian's travel with the child
    
  • Judicial declaration of incompetence of non-applying parent
    
  • Death certificate of non-applying parent
    

NOTE:

If

none

of the above documentation is available, the applying parent

must

submit Form

DS-3053

stating why the non-applying parent/guardian's consent cannot be obtained

[cherylandtk]

.. I was just trying to straighten out the historical perspective in my own mind....

I figured this was the case... I find just keeping track of current regulation to be taxing my limits. :D

[cherylandtk]

As long as the sole custody order does not specifically restrict the child's travel--then the court order is all that would be needed for the custodial parent to obtain a passport for the child.

 

From travel.state.gov:

One Parent

(with sole legal custody)MUST:

 

..

Keeping mind, of course that a sole LEGAL custody order is not the same as a sole PHYSICAL custody order. (As Smeyer was saying) Most parents who say they have sole custody have a sole PHYSICAL custody order; the child(ren) live with them full time but the other parent still has decision making rights and is granted visitation. In this day and age it is very rare for a court to terminate parental rights.