Update on new interpretation of the PVSA aka "The Jones Act"

[bishop84]

Further to the various threads concerning the new interpretation of the Passenger Vessel Services Act by the CBP. They have advised that they intend to apply the new interpretation of the rule to all areas and not just Hawaii if it gets approved.

 

Broad brush intended in cabotage proposals

07/01/2008

A U.S. official told Seatrade Insider that good points emerged in public comments on new criteria proposed for foreign-flag operators to comply with the Passenger Vessel Services Act.

He also said the rule-making was intended to apply to all U.S.-originating itineraries, not just Hawaii -- a point that particularly alarms foreign-flag lines, U.S. ports and others.

‘The people who’ve written have raised good issues on both sides,’ said Glen Vereb of the Border Security Regulations Branch, Office of International Trade, Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

Vereb could not pinpoint when final rule-making or an effective date are expected. After his department analyzes the hundreds of comments filed, the matter will move to a higher level in CBP and then to the Department of Homeland Security. Only then will the final rule-making be published.

After publication in the Federal Register, the effective date will follow some period later, typically 30 days or 60 days, Vereb said. He could not be more specific on a timeline but told Seatrade Insider: ‘It’s not going to be 18 months from now.’ CBP was asked to look at foreign-flag Hawaii operations after NCL America announced it will withdraw a ship from the U.S. registry due to competition from foreign lines. CBP responded by proposing to require minimum 48-hour stays in foreign ports and at least 50% of the destination content to be international in order for foreign-flag ships to comply with U.S. cabotage. The proposed rule-making was intended in response to the Hawaii issue but, as drafted, ‘it would apply across the board,’ Vereb confirmed, when asked if his agency meant to use language with broad implications.

[gizmo]

I saw this earlier this morning.

 

Alaska is going to be thrilled. :rolleyes: It is going to be interesting to see where this goes.

[sail7seas]

Hopefully our Canada/New England itineraries should be okay as we are in Canadian ports at least 50% of the cruise.

 

This could have a dramatic effect on many cruises.

 

[Aandark]

I'm not sure that I "get it" What are the implications of this?

[bishop84]

Hopefully our Canada/New England itineraries should be okay as we are in Canadian ports at least 50% of the cruise.

 

This could have a dramatic effect on many cruises.

 

 

I believe they want 50% of the cruise in non-US ports AND a call of 48 hours in one port. Which Canadian port would you like to stay 48 hours?

Personally I doubt this rule interpretation will survive in its existing form.

[Atomica]

I'm not sure that I "get it" What are the implications of this?

 

If passed, all foreign-flagged cruise ships (which is pretty well everything except for NCLA) departing from and returning to a US port would be required to spend at least 48 hours in a foreign port, and at least half of the itinerary would have to be foreign ports.

 

This would severely cripple or even end Hawaii cruises that start from San Diego or Los Angeles, as well as Alaska cruises (only Seattle roundtrips would be affected). A likely alternative would be having them depart/return from Ensenada, or Vancouver as HAL does once a year in the spring. Potential implications for Canada/New England cruises are also there as well, if the cruise contains more US ports than 'foreign' ones.

 

IMHO, this has to be one of the most insane pieces of legislature ever proposed. It boggles my mind why the US would even consider doing this to their own tourism industry :( All we can do is cross our fingers that this doesn't happen. While I'd love to see more ships sail roundtrip from here in Vancouver, we're pretty full as-is!

[bishop84]

I'm not sure that I "get it" What are the implications of this?

 

Basically US Customs want to interpret an existing rule differently. They want any foreign flag cruise ship sailing round trip from a US Port to spend at least 50% of the cruise outside the US and have at least one port call of 48 hours. If passed this would have major implications on the cruise industry and American ports whilst at the same time limit where Americans can go on vacation.

 

It is supposed to help 2 US flag cruise ships (50% owned by a Malaysian company) stay in business.

[Cruzman]

Just an example:

The Westerdam sails from Seattle June 1, 2008. The itinerary is Glacier Bay, Sitka, Juneau, Ketchikan; all U.S. ports, therefore in order to satisfy the PVSA, the ship has a 6 hour stop in Victoria, Canada before returning to Seattle. If the new proposals are implemented, that itinerary would not be possible. As a matter of fact, the 50% foreign port requirement would mean that there would no longer be any Alaskan cruises departing from U.S. ports.

[Cruzman]

Basically US Customs want to interpret an existing rule differently. They want any foreign flag cruise ship sailing round trip from a US Port to spend at least 50% of the cruise outside the US and have at least one port call of 48 hours. If passed this would have major implications on the cruise industry and American ports whilst at the same time limit where Americans can go on vacation.

 

It is supposed to help 2 US flag cruise ships (50% owned by a Malaysian company) stay in business.

 

The irony here is that NCL will also take a major hit along with the rest of cruise lines operating from US ports.

[Jade13]

I think this will affect other cruise lines more than HAL, whose Carribean itinerary's are mostly 7 nights.

 

Look at the Celebrity Century for example. It's entire winter schedule rotates 4 and 5 nights roundtrip from Miami. 95% of those stop in Key West and Grand Cayman (5 night) or Key West and Cancun (4 night). Once in a while the 5 night will do Grand Cayman and Jamaica. They would have to revise their entire 2009 schedule.

[Aandark]

OK, so I did read the original posting properly, I just didn't think about the implications of this for Hawaii and Alaska....Thanks

[manbehindthecurtain]

Trust your government to screw you over every chance they get!

[ClipperMiami]

Another perfect example of the Law of Unintended Consequences. Someone wants to protect NCLA's Hawaii business so they write regulations that put a nail in the coffin of virtually the entire US cruise industry. Why people think that the government is their friend is beyond me, but then that's why I'm not a liberal.

[NapTown Jim]

Trust your government to screw you over every chance they get!

 

No doubt! In trying to protect the foreign owned, US Flagged ships of NCLAmerica, they will end up trashing the Alaskan tourist buisness as well as putting who knows how many people out of work in Seattle that service the cruise ships there. They probably have the false idea that the other cruise lines will simply re-flag their ships to comply with the law so they may continue buisness as usual. WRONG!! :mad:

[RuthC]

Hopefully our Canada/New England itineraries should be okay as we are in Canadian ports at least 50% of the cruise.

Disclaimer: the closest I come to being a legal scholar is having done jury duty. But here's my take on the NE/Canada itinerary.

When it's done as a one-way Boston/Montreal (or reverse) the rule doesn't come into play. If anyone (sail?) is doing a back-to-back starting/ending in Boston, then there would have to be better than 50% ports in Canada AND there would have to be a 48 port stop in at least one of the foreign ports.

Does the one-week itinerary have an overnight in Quebec City? I don't believe so. But I'll bet that can be adjusted fairly easily.

There's also the round-trip NE/Canada itineraries that begin and end in Boston. I don't know if 50% of the ports on that itinerary are in Canada. I'm certain there's no overnight on it.

[RevNeal]

It looks like the Government is about to ruin my very favorite Cruise itinerary (Hawaii, round trip out of San Diego).

 

Time to write another letter to my Senators and congressman.

[Snook]

I really can’t believe this will fly. The decision makers will go whichever way the most pressure is. If this interpretation will adversely affect certain aspects of the cruise industry in the U. S. (the biggest in the world) then our elected officials, after a certain amount of pressure, will see to it that it does not happen. This is the way our system works. If 85% of the pressure is aimed at not implementing this and 15% is aimed at implementing, who do you think will win?:confused:

[kryos]

Another perfect example of the Law of Unintended Consequences. Someone wants to protect NCLA's Hawaii business so they write regulations that put a nail in the coffin of virtually the entire US cruise industry. Why people think that the government is their friend is beyond me, but then that's why I'm not a liberal.

This is definitely gonna have major implications for the entire cruise industry. As far as I can see, you will no longer be able to do a seven-day itinerary in Alaska. It's gonna have to be lengthened to allow for the 48 hour period in a foreign port ... which I guess would have to be Van Couver. Hawaii will be the same thing. Any itinerary going out of LA or Seattle will have to be expanded to add foreign ports, including one with a stay of 48 hours.

 

And all to protect one struggling cruise line. I can't help but wonder who NCLA is paying off.

 

Blue skies ...

 

--rita

[kryos]

It looks like the Government is about to ruin my very favorite Cruise itinerary (Hawaii, round trip out of San Diego).

 

Time to write another letter to my Senators and congressman.

You could always do the Hawaii/South Pacific, though. :) That involves plenty of foreign ports, and I think either the Papette or Bora Bora overnight stay could be expanded to comprise 48 hours.

 

Blue skies ...

 

--rita

[peaches from georgia]

It's hard to imagine them ruining the entire tourist season for Alaska. The cruise season there is way too lucrative for the state. I imagine the Alaska Senators will be very vocal getting this stopped.

[RevNeal]

You could always do the Hawaii/South Pacific, though. :) That involves plenty of foreign ports, and I think either the Papette or Bora Bora overnight stay could be expanded to comprise 48 hours.

 

Ah, Rita ... yes ... indeed. And I shall, someday. But one of the nice things about that 15-day cruise is that it's just 15 days. It's easier to plan for and afford, both in terms of dollars and time off. :)

[RevNeal]

It's hard to imagine them ruining the entire tourist season for Alaska. The cruise season there is way too lucrative for the state. I imagine the Alaska Senators will be very vocal getting this stopped.

 

The Alaska Senators, House members, Governor, State Legislative officials, municipal leaders ... they have all written in opposition (you can read their letters on the website where opinion and responses were being collected. Sadly, I don't expect the bureaucrats to listen to the elected representatives of the sheeple. They haven't yet, so why should they start now? <and, yes, I'm being very pessimistic on this issue ... I'm expecting the worst, so that I won't be as disappointed if it actually happens. Think that will really work? Naaaa.>

[daveco58]

Further to the various threads concerning the new interpretation of the Passenger Vessel Services Act by the CBP. They have advised that they intend to apply the new interpretation of the rule to all areas and not just Hawaii if it gets approved.

 

Broad brush intended in cabotage proposals

07/01/2008

A U.S. official told Seatrade Insider that good points emerged in public comments on new criteria proposed for foreign-flag operators to comply with the Passenger Vessel Services Act.

He also said the rule-making was intended to apply to all U.S.-originating itineraries, not just Hawaii -- a point that particularly alarms foreign-flag lines, U.S. ports and others.

‘The people who’ve written have raised good issues on both sides,’ said Glen Vereb of the Border Security Regulations Branch, Office of International Trade, Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

Vereb could not pinpoint when final rule-making or an effective date are expected. After his department analyzes the hundreds of comments filed, the matter will move to a higher level in CBP and then to the Department of Homeland Security. Only then will the final rule-making be published.

After publication in the Federal Register, the effective date will follow some period later, typically 30 days or 60 days, Vereb said. He could not be more specific on a timeline but told Seatrade Insider: ‘It’s not going to be 18 months from now.’ CBP was asked to look at foreign-flag Hawaii operations after NCL America announced it will withdraw a ship from the U.S. registry due to competition from foreign lines. CBP responded by proposing to require minimum 48-hour stays in foreign ports and at least 50% of the destination content to be international in order for foreign-flag ships to comply with U.S. cabotage. The proposed rule-making was intended in response to the Hawaii issue but, as drafted, ‘it would apply across the board,’ Vereb confirmed, when asked if his agency meant to use language with broad implications.

 

Before this thread goes to far, The Passenger Services Act, and the Jones Act are two totally different pieces of legislation. The PSA pertains to foreign vessels transporting people and goods within the United States. The Jones Act pertains to American flag vessels, created the Merchant Marine and sets standards for their work conditions and training, as well as standards for what ships can be flagged in the United States.

[daveco58]

And, again folks, the PSA only comes into play when a ship travels from one US port to another US port, i.e. Seattle to Alaska one way, or LA to Hawaii, one way, without calling in a "distant foreign" port, or when a ship travels round trip to one US port, without calling in a "foreign" port.

All they are trying to do is refine the definition of "call".

As you know, these foreign flag vessels are making what are referred to as "technical calls", i.e. drop in long enough to get your papers stamped, in foreign ports, to skirt the intent of the PSA.

[dakrewser]

As you know, these foreign flag vessels are making what are referred to as "technical calls", i.e. drop in long enough to get your papers stamped, in foreign ports, to skirt the intent of the PSA.

 

And that intent is???????