Passenger Vessel Services Act summary to date

[Cruisin' Chick]

The problem is that, I'm guessing, not too many people will not know why there's no longer Hawaiian cruises round trip from the west coast if this goes through. We know about it because we are more up on cruise news. But even many members of Cruise Critic don't know about this issue or understand it. And there are many people who are fans of cruising, or thinking about talking their first cruise who have never heard about the PVSA.

 

I had looked on latimes.com the other day and searched for stories on "cruiselines" to see if they had an update. None.

[smeyer418]

As I was told, those ports are already specifically exempted by name from the coastwise transportation prohibition in the PVSA.

No actually they are exempt by regulation. The secretary has the power to exempt US ports when its in the public interest to do so(in the secretary's opinion) so he(or she) issued regs that exempted Puerto Rico and the insular islands because no US flagged vessel is available.

 

I don't understand what has got everyone is a new uproar. What this is the agencies plan for issuing a regulation not the "new" reg itself. No reg is effective until its published in the Federal register. This one is in the planning stage...as has been widely reported but that doesn't mean it will actually be issued. OMB is required to approve all regulations before they are issued. Its an internal chack and balance required by the executive branch(as opposed to the legislative branch)...It is designed to slow things down deliberately. OMB is part of the exectutive branch is Homeland Security where the CG and Customs now reside...(they were removed from the Scretary of the Treasury after 9-11- most of the regs concerning PSVA were issued when they were under the secretary of the Treasury)

[SherriZ366]

No actually they are exempt by regulation. The secretary has the power to exempt US ports when its in the public interest to do so(in the secretary's opinion) so he(or she) issued regs that exempted Puerto Rico and the insular islands because no US flagged vessel is available.

 

I don't understand what has got everyone is a new uproar. What this is the agencies plan for issuing a regulation not the "new" reg itself. No reg is effective until its published in the Federal register. This one is in the planning stage...as has been widely reported but that doesn't mean it will actually be issued. OMB is required to approve all regulations before they are issued. Its an internal chack and balance required by the executive branch(as opposed to the legislative branch)...It is designed to slow things down deliberately. OMB is part of the exectutive branch is Homeland Security where the CG and Customs now reside...(they were removed from the Scretary of the Treasury after 9-11- most of the regs concerning PSVA were issued when they were under the secretary of the Treasury)

As this was issue by CBP as a "reinterpretation of the PSVSA" rather an a regulation, does it get reviewed by OMB? Doing this as a reinterpretation rather than a regulatory rulemaking is illustrative of the sneakiness of the actions of the CBP and Inouye.

[smeyer418]

As this was issue by CBP as a "reinterpretation of the PSVSA" rather an a regulation, does it get reviewed by OMB? Doing this as a reinterpretation rather than a regulatory rulemaking is illustrative of the sneakiness of the actions of the CBP and Inouye.

 

As far as I can tell, its intended to be a new or changed regulation, which require OMB approval. A department can change its interpretation of an existing reg without OMB.

[SherriZ366]

As far as I can tell, its intended to be a new or changed regulation, which require OMB approval. A department can change its interpretation of an existing reg without OMB.

We have a lot of stuff written about CBP and Inouye's actions on the issue. I think the first post on this thread by DAGVBSB explains the whole regulatory background and states that it is regulatory reinterprretation rather than a rulemaking. There would probably have been a longer comment perioed for a rulemaking procedure. CBP only had one month for comments and would not extend. If OMB does not review reinterpretations like they review rulemakings for a new regulation, that may also be indicative of how CBP and Inouye are skirting regulatory protections.

[smeyer418]

We have a lot of stuff written about CBP and Inouye's actions on the issue. I think the first post on this thread by DAGVBSB explains the whole regulatory background and states that it is regulatory reinterprretation rather than a rulemaking. There would probably have been a longer comment perioed for a rulemaking procedure. CBP only had one month for comments and would not extend. If OMB does not review reinterpretations like they review rulemakings for a new regulation, that may also be indicative of how CBP and Inouye are skirting regulatory protections.

 

Nonsense. The time for rule making is what they did. For changing an interpretation they don't have to give any notice at all but this in my view and the courts this really needs to be a new rule, if at all(IMO). They are reinterpretation through the formal rule making process. They published it in the Federal register as a proposed rule. The notice that is cited above is the agency rule making agenda with a prospective date of 5/00/2008.(sometime in May). We are in July they haven't issued anything final yet, just the originally issued proposed rule change. When and if they do it will be published as a final regulation. My guess in January 2008 was sometime at the end of the year but it could be earlier and could be later or not at all. they aren't skirting anything. people were worried it originally would affect 2008 cruises, so far nothing has happened no sky has fallen and no one has been effected although the cruise lines that did the technical(2 hour) stops in Mexico now at least stay long enough for people to get off and back on if they want to...

 

an example of an interpretation that doesn't need a full regulation

 

the number of hours in Mexico to be a stop(they can say at least x hours) which they can do without OMB approval(although they probably will get it anyway)

 

anything else will need a new regulation...If that is all the changes they make no one will care...

 

the reason that this may be taking so long is OMB may have sent the proposed one it received back as disapproved---and you would never know...

[DAGVBSB]

I have to agree with Smeyer. I begin to wonder if there ever will be any changes. They really can't make the changes without making someone very upset and without risking a court action. I don't think California and the other cruise lines will take a major change without a fight.

 

I think they are just going to ignore it, let things continue as they have been and just let it fade away. I have a feeling that all of the major players have seen what a hot potatoe that this is and that if they make any changes it would just be a mess.

 

You have a lame duck administration that needs all of the supporters that it can get. Upsetting two powerful Republican Governors in Lingle and Schwartzenegger is not what it needs right now.

[SherriZ366]

Nonsense. The time for rule making is what they did. For changing an interpretation they don't have to give any notice at all but this in my view and the courts this really needs to be a new rule, if at all(IMO). They are reinterpretation through the formal rule making process. They published it in the Federal register as a proposed rule. The notice that is cited above is the agency rule making agenda with a prospective date of 5/00/2008.(sometime in May). We are in July they haven't issued anything final yet, just the originally issued proposed rule change. When and if they do it will be published as a final regulation. My guess in January 2008 was sometime at the end of the year but it could be earlier and could be later or not at all. they aren't skirting anything. people were worried it originally would affect 2008 cruises, so far nothing has happened no sky has fallen and no one has been effected although the cruise lines that did the technical(2 hour) stops in Mexico now at least stay long enough for people to get off and back on if they want to...

 

an example of an interpretation that doesn't need a full regulation

 

the number of hours in Mexico to be a stop(they can say at least x hours) which they can do without OMB approval(although they probably will get it anyway)

 

anything else will need a new regulation...If that is all the changes they make no one will care...

 

the reason that this may be taking so long is OMB may have sent the proposed one it received back as disapproved---and you would never know...

I think you answered my question about whether OMB had to review a reinterpretation. From your answer, I gather than Agencies have to follow Administrative Procedure Act (APA). I've seen OMB stop many dumb regulations befores.

 

We're both on the same side here -- wanting this stupid reinterpretation to go away so that does not affect our beloved crusing itineraries leaving from the US but the NONSENSE putdown was not needed.

[smeyer418]

By the way rule and regulation are the same thing. A regulation is the rule...A regulation is a formal agency interpretation. Agency can do some things informally but not much. The number of hours that it considers a stop was something issued by the CG in a letter years ago by the CG counsel's office(I believe), what it said that technical stops will be considered in compliance with the regulation and not subject to enforcement. They can change this without a new formal rule as it is discretionary issue on what they choose to enforce. If they change it in the end a court determines whether the regulation/rule was authorized by the legislation but defers to the agencies expertise on the issue. Courts do occasionally determine that an agency has exceeded its power but not too often.

[SeattleCruiselover]

I have to agree with Smeyer. I begin to wonder if there ever will be any changes. They really can't make the changes without making someone very upset and without risking a court action. I don't think California and the other cruise lines will take a major change without a fight.

 

I think they are just going to ignore it, let things continue as they have been and just let it fade away. I have a feeling that all of the major players have seen what a hot potatoe that this is and that if they make any changes it would just be a mess.

 

You have a lame duck administration that needs all of the supporters that it can get. Upsetting two powerful Republican Governors in Lingle and Schwartzenegger is not what it needs right now.

 

Honestly, I've taken the attitude that it's too late for it to happen for this year, so I'm not worried, I'm packed and ready to go in five weeks. As for next year, circumstances have forced me to cancel my cruise from Red Hook/Brooklyn and to book from Vancouver, so I'm not going to worry about that either. However, if/when it comes out, if it's going to mess me up, or my clients, then I will get vocal about it again.

[lel5344]

What's the speculation re: impact on PVSA?

[smeyer418]

What's the speculation re: impact on PVSA?

 

none whatsoever.....He didn't get a free cruise on NCL....

 

here is the indictment

 

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/washington/20080729stevensindictment.pdf

[Ethel5]

Sen Stevens is in trouble for accepting gifts and not reporting them plus other charges. He may face jail time.

[SherriZ366]

none whatsoever.....He didn't get a free cruise on NCL....

 

here is the indictment

 

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/washington/20080729stevensindictment.pdf

The cruise industry looses a senior Senator who has been helpful in the PVSA and many other issues over the years. However, I think as the factors that led to the indictment have been brewing over the past year, the industry would have known they were loosing Stevens anyway.

[DAGVBSB]

The indictment will do nothing to the PVSA.

 

Stevens only role was to work with his friend Innoye to get the change about Hawaii only in the proposed changes. All Stevens was doing, in the case of the PVSA, was attempting to protect his constiuents in Alaska who were nervous about the changes affecting them as well.

 

Stevens listened to what his constiutents wanted and acted to take care of them. (now he was willing to sell the ports of California and those jobs out but he doesn't represent them, he protected Alaksa.)

 

Innoye could take a lesson from Stevens... put the will of your state and constituents ahead of a major corporation which gives you money for you campaign and names you a Godfather of a ship.....

[Cuizer2]

The cruise industry looses a senior Senator who has been helpful in the PVSA and many other issues over the years. However, I think as the factors that led to the indictment have been brewing over the past year, the industry would have known they were loosing Stevens anyway.

 

Are you saying that Senator Stevens was a friend of the cruise industry?

[SherriZ366]

Are you saying that Senator Stevens was a friend of the cruise industry?

Yep -- he has been very helpful over the years and he also was the one to try to work out a compromise with Inouye. Cruises represent very big bucks in Alaska where tourism is a major industry and Stevens is VERY protective of any Alaska interest.

[Cuizer2]

Yep -- he has been very helpful over the years and he also was the one to try to work out a compromise with Inouye. Cruises represent very big bucks in Alaska where tourism is a major industry and Stevens is VERY protective of any Alaska interest.

 

His compromise only helped Alaska, and would hurt California. He was not trying to help the cruise industry, he was just trying to protect his own turf. Further more, Alaska recently passed a $50 per person tax on cruise passengers. I don't see him as a friend of the cruise industry, just a friend of Alaskans and possibly his own pockets.

[DAGVBSB]

His compromise only helped Alaska, and would hurt California. He was not trying to help the cruise industry, he was just trying to protect his own turf. Further more, Alaska recently passed a $50 per person tax on cruise passengers. I don't see him as a friend of the cruise industry, just a friend of Alaskans and possibly his own pockets.

 

You are exactly right... Stevens put Alaska FIRST, which is what he should do. (in fact, any US Senator should put his state first... unlike Innoye)

 

In the PVSA debacle, Stevens worked on the compromise to protect Alaska, nothing more. He probably could care less about the Pride of America, NCL or even Innoye. The issue was the fact that if the rule had passed as initially proposed, it would also affect Alaska and the Northeast and that would have deystroyed the cruising industry in those areas. (which for Alaska is VITAL to their financial well being.) That little glitch was a help to those people opposed to these changes because of the long reaching effects.

 

But Stevens came up with a compromise to save Alaska (and also the Northeast, but he didn't care about that). The compromise was to add "where a large US flagged vessel operates." Since no other large US flagged vessels are planned, it made the changes specific to the Hawaii market and saved Alaska.

 

Stevens, like Innoye, could care less about the negative impact that the PVSA will have on California and Hawaii, Alaska is safe and that is all that matters. Stevens didn't do that to help NCL like Innoye does, he did it for his constituents.

[vjmatty]

The compromise was to add "where a large US flagged vessel operates." Since no other large US flagged vessels are planned, it made the changes specific to the Hawaii market and saved Alaska.

 

So if the Pride fails and is reflagged, sent to Europe or elsewhere, the whole PVSA re-interpretation will be meaningless?

[Cuizer2]

So if the Pride fails and is reflagged, sent to Europe or elsewhere, the whole PVSA re-interpretation will be meaningless?

 

Since no one knows what the final wording of the PVSA reinterpretation will be, I don't think anyone can comment on its value.

 

Also, I have not seen a definition of "large" ship yet. There are American flagged ships that sail from Seattle to Alaska and back. These ships are small when compared to a panamax ship, but are large when compared to any boat you see being towed around on the highways.

 

So, if the definition of a large ship is not large enough, it could still impact several states, including Alaska, Washington, California, New York, Hawaii and Maine. Of course, if it is too large, it might not impact any of the states.

 

Nonetheless, I don't foresee anyone using my definition of "a large ship." My definition is, if you drop it on your foot and it hurts - it's large.

[Cruisin' Chick]

His compromise only helped Alaska, and would hurt California. He was not trying to help the cruise industry, he was just trying to protect his own turf. Further more, Alaska recently passed a $50 per person tax on cruise passengers. I don't see him as a friend of the cruise industry, just a friend of Alaskans and possibly his own pockets.

 

Since no one knows what the final wording of the PVSA reinterpretation will be, I don't think anyone can comment on its value.

 

Also, I have not seen a definition of "large" ship yet. There are American flagged ships that sail from Seattle to Alaska and back. These ships are small when compared to a panamax ship, but are large when compared to any boat you see being towed around on the highways.

 

So, if the definition of a large ship is not large enough, it could still impact several states, including Alaska, Washington, California, New York, Hawaii and Maine. Of course, if it is too large, it might not impact any of the states.

 

Nonetheless, I don't foresee anyone using my definition of "a large ship." My definition is, if you drop it on your foot and it hurts - it's large.

 

And if the definition of a large ship is determined to be bigger than a bread box...it can bite Alaska in its toe. It could backfire just as Colin's plan to protect his precious Pride ships.

 

And wasn't it some Alaskan pols who wanted federal tax money to build a bridge between a couple of Alaskan cities????

[Cuizer2]

And wasn't it some Alaskan pols who wanted federal tax money to build a bridge between a couple of Alaskan cities????

 

Me thinks you are referring to the "bridge to nowhere" ...

 

Dubbed the “Bridge to Nowhere' date='” the bridge in Alaska would connect the town of Ketchikan (population 8,900) with its airport on the Island of Gravina (population 50) at a cost to federal taxpayers of $320 million, by way of three separate earmarks in the recent highway bill. At present, a ferry service runs to the island, but some in the town complain about its wait (15 to 30 minutes) and fee ($6 per car). The Gravina Island bridge project is an embarrassment to the people of Alaska and the U.S. Congress. Fiscally responsible Members of Congress should be eager to zero out its funding.[/color']

 

Here is the link ...

 

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm889.cfm

[Cruisin' Chick]

Me thinks you are referring to the "bridge to nowhere" ...

 

Dubbed the “Bridge to Nowhere,” the bridge in Alaska would connect the town of Ketchikan (population 8,900) with its airport on the Island of Gravina (population 50) at a cost to federal taxpayers of $320 million, by way of three separate earmarks in the recent highway bill. At present, a ferry service runs to the island, but some in the town complain about its wait (15 to 30 minutes) and fee ($6 per car). The Gravina Island bridge project is an embarrassment to the people of Alaska and the U.S. Congress. Fiscally responsible Members of Congress should be eager to zero out its funding.

 

Here is the link ...

 

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm889.cfm

 

Yep, that's it. I remember it mentioned during a news story about how members of Congress try to pass bills that help just their area. I guess, like pork barrel spending?

[wanderingjew]

! can book a 15 day hawaiian cruise on hal zaandam for 345 less than a 7 day p o am single inside on 2-20-10