The PVSA is Anachronistic, Counterproductive, and Stupid, and Should be Repealed!

[zonk42]

On 2/14/2021 at 3:04 PM, chengkp75 said:

No, that cruise would not be any different, but the precedent of allowing a foreign flag ship to complete a "coastwise" (strictly domestic) cruise would open the floodgate for every other passenger vessel to reflag to foreign flag...

Impressive.

 

But all those concerns could be alleviated by allowing the ship to “call” at the foreign port by, say, coming within X miles of the dock or some such verbiage. The actual tying up at the dock isn’t the real issue.

[chengkp75]

42 minutes ago, zonk42 said:

 

Impressive.

 

But all those concerns could be alleviated by allowing the ship to “call” at the foreign port by, say, coming within X miles of the dock or some such verbiage. The actual tying up at the dock isn’t the real issue.

No, the CBP has ruled that "technical stops" where the port call is not an "intended part" of the cruise, and where no passengers get off, violates the "intent" of the PVSA, while perhaps following the "letter" of the law.

 

And, in this case, the  Canadian proscription on cruise ships is "entering Canadian waters", not on docking.  A ship must get clearance from any country before entering that country's waters, not merely when it docks.

[ontheweb]

2 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

No, the CBP has ruled that "technical stops" where the port call is not an "intended part" of the cruise, and where no passengers get off, violates the "intent" of the PVSA, while perhaps following the "letter" of the law.

 

And, in this case, the  Canadian proscription on cruise ships is "entering Canadian waters", not on docking.  A ship must get clearance from any country before entering that country's waters, not merely when it docks.

Once again you cite facts as opposed to the fantasies proposed by others.

[zonk42]

2 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

No, the CBP has ruled that "technical stops" where the port call is not an "intended part" of the cruise, and where no passengers get off, violates the "intent" of the PVSA, while perhaps following the "letter" of the law.

 

And, in this case, the  Canadian proscription on cruise ships is "entering Canadian waters", not on docking.  A ship must get clearance from any country before entering that country's waters, not merely when it docks.

How does any of that address my point? You’re begging the question; I understand the rules don’t allow such a cruise. The issue is that whatever purpose the rule advances could reasonably be achieved in other ways.

[CruiserBruce]

37 minutes ago, zonk42 said:

How does any of that address my point? You’re begging the question; I understand the rules don’t allow such a cruise. The issue is that whatever purpose the rule advances could reasonably be achieved in other ways.

Perhaps some reading around the boards would be a good idea. There are MANY threads here, that have many posts that discuss any number of proposals that are certainly wishful thinking about pausing, easing, altering or eliminating the PVSA. But absolutely none of them have any factual info on any actual possibility the PVSA will actually be somehow suspended or repealed. Just people who seem to think there is some quick and easy path to resuming, at least, Alaska cruises this year.

 

Not saying it wouldn't or can't happen.  Just saying some people don't understand the purposes of the PVSA, the fact the cruise lines are not seeking any change in the PVSA, and the CDC doesn't seem in any big hurry to ease the cruise restrictions.  Tons of hope, with little factual support, at least at this point in time.

[Shmoo here]

1 hour ago, zonk42 said:

How does any of that address my point? You’re begging the question; I understand the rules don’t allow such a cruise. The issue is that whatever purpose the rule advances could reasonably be achieved in other ways.

It's not a "rule", it's a law.

 

The answer addresses your point by clarifying that such cruises are not legal under the law.  Violating one provision of the law, just to theoretically "reasonably achieve" compliance with a different provision is still illegal.

[chengkp75]

9 hours ago, zonk42 said:

How does any of that address my point? You’re begging the question; I understand the rules don’t allow such a cruise. The issue is that whatever purpose the rule advances could reasonably be achieved in other ways.

The "purpose" of the law is to protect domestic US shipping by requiring that all ships that sail strictly between US ports, or that transport passengers between one US port and another US port, be US flag ships.  The letter of the law requires a foreign port call for the voyage to be considered a "foreign" voyage and not a "domestic" voyage.  CBP has ruled that a "technical" port stop does not meet the definition of a "foreign port call", so any voyage that includes only a technical port stop as its foreign port call will be considered to be a "domestic" voyage, since it is merely using the technical port stop to sidestep the law.  The technical port stop is seen for what it is, a loophole, rather than a way to "reasonably achieve" the purpose of the PVSA.

[ontheweb]

25 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

The "purpose" of the law is to protect domestic US shipping by requiring that all ships that sail strictly between US ports, or that transport passengers between one US port and another US port, be US flag ships.  The letter of the law requires a foreign port call for the voyage to be considered a "foreign" voyage and not a "domestic" voyage.  CBP has ruled that a "technical" port stop does not meet the definition of a "foreign port call", so any voyage that includes only a technical port stop as its foreign port call will be considered to be a "domestic" voyage, since it is merely using the technical port stop to sidestep the law.  The technical port stop is seen for what it is, a loophole, rather than a way to "reasonably achieve" the purpose of the PVSA.

I have a feeling that you can repeat these facts forever, but it is not going to have any effect on those who say "I want to cruise to Alaska, and I do not care about any laws or what their purpose is."

[mcrcruiser]

Feb 18 ,2021  interesting reading  vs this down stock market of today 

[chengkp75]

Both the Jones Act and the PVSA share many sections of the USC, including 46 USC 501 which covers waivers.  In the past, any request from the Secretary of Defense for a waiver had to be granted, if it used the term "national security" as the reason.  The new National Defense Authorization bill passed by Congress in January, changes that section of 46USC501 to require that the requested waiver also show that it is in "direct support of active military operations".  This further limits the ability of the Executive branch in granting Jones Act/PVSA waivers.