Cruise Critic saved us.....thanks to all

[Two4Sea]

Two previous threads on this:

https://boards.cruisecritic.com/topic/1470668-seward-to-hawaii-can-it-be-done/

https://boards.cruisecritic.com/topic/2357601-pacific-coastal-1-day-back-to-seattle-pvsa-violation/page/2/

 

They get to whether the law applies to a "vessel' or "vessels". Wikipedia "Passenger Vessel Services Act of 1886" links to the current law at https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/46/55103 where "vessel" is singular. It also links to https://uslaw.link/citation/us-law/public/49/421 which leads to

https://govtrackus.s3.amazonaws.com/legislink/pdf/stat/24/STATUTE-24-Pg79.pdf

which is part of the 1886 law. There the PDF's pg. 3 sec 8 has the plural, "vessels".

 

Are we dealing with the legislation having had its wording modernized and unwittingly changing its meaning? Our situation would not have been thought about 60 years ago and so the change of word would not have been sensed as significant.

 

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-GAO-04-421/html/GAOREPORTS-GAO-04-421.htm is a report of some sort. If you search for "24" in it there are mentions of rulings affecting the foreign ship cruise business and maximum 24 hour stopovers. You are welcome to explore those citations for a little more understanding.

 

https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2019-Sep/PVSA-ICP.pdf is a guidance issued by the CBP and it uses "vessel". It also mentions that CBP provides interpretations and rulings that are accessible under its "CROSS" system. I tried it but got no meaningful hits. I was left with the info that the cruise line can apply for a new ruling but not the passengers.

 

I think we are looking at a gap between how the CBP officer might interpret the law and what the cruise line is willing to gamble on. If we can have this much divergence of opinion the purser and the CBP officer on the dock can too. They would each think they are very familiar with it and don't need to think further. HAL's legal department probably has bigger issues than trying settle this just to land the profit on another dozen cabin nights' business per year.

 

Like I said before, it's messy. Bill

 

 

 

[Shmoo here]

16 minutes ago, Two4Sea said:

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-GAO-04-421/html/GAOREPORTS-GAO-04-421.htm is a report of some sort. If you search for "24" in it there are mentions of rulings affecting the foreign ship cruise business and maximum 24 hour stopovers. You are welcome to explore those citations for a little more understanding.

I'll have to bow to @chengkp75 and his wisdom.

 

Maybe he can address the 24 hour layover thing.

 

It's my understanding that, as long as the two cruises are on different ships, there's no violation.

 

But there certainly could be too much of "an ounce of prevention" in this case.

[Shmoo here]

41 minutes ago, Two4Sea said:

You are welcome to explore those citations for a little more understanding.

 

The only thing I could find relating to "24 hours" was this:

T.D. 55147(19) of June 1960 Allowed passengers traveling on foreign
vessels to temporarily disembark at ports in the U.S. provided 3, 1960 (95
Treasury that the passengers and the vessel do not remain in port beyond
24 hours (the "24-hour rule"). Decisions 297)

 

But I don't see that relating to this discussion.

 

 

[Two4Sea]

"It's my understanding that, as long as the two cruises are on different ships, there's no violation.

 But there certainly could be too much of "an ounce of prevention" in this case"

Amen

 

24 hours "But I don't see that relating to this discussion"

Indeed but it could it could be a basis for someone's mistaken understanding.

 

Bill