Passenger Vessel Services Act summary to date

[Cuizer2]

What is the current status of this PVSA thread from 2008? It is now February 2012 and I am wondering what has transpired? Any info available?

 

The PVSA hasn't changed much in four years. What sort of information are you looking for?

[paul929207]

I have not heard of any change

[smeyer418]

no change is being considered. The Trade organization is happy with the situation as it exists now. The last time a change was proposed(by regulation not but law) there was a great hue and cry and it was withdrawn.

[Pierlesscruisers]

Perhaps you can explain the following to me as regards the PVSA. As I read it the ships "must visit a distant foreign port outside of North America" to be in compliance with the law and since neither Mexico nor Canada are outside of North America and are thus not a "distant foreign port", how does making a stop at Ensenada or Vancouver meet the requirements of the law? I've read through a number of sites and asked around but have been unable to figure that out.

 

Thanks.

Tom

[njhorseman]

Perhaps you can explain the following to me as regards the PVSA. As I read it the ships "must visit a distant foreign port outside of North America" to be in compliance with the law and since neither Mexico nor Canada are outside of North America and are thus not a "distant foreign port", how does making a stop at Ensenada or Vancouver meet the requirements of the law? I've read through a number of sites and asked around but have been unable to figure that out.

 

Thanks.

Tom

 

Closed loop cruises...those itineraries that start and end in the same US port... do not require a port call in a distant foreign port. They can make a port call in any foreign port, which of course includes anywhere in Canada and Mexico.

 

Open jaw cruises...those that start in one US port and end in a different US port... require a call at a distant foreign port.

[paul929207]

Under the PVSA. ther are three possibilities.

 

First, the cruise starts or end in a non-US port. In this case PVSA does not apply.

 

Second, the cruise starts and ends in the same US port. In this case the cruise must stop at any non-US port.

 

Third, the cruise starts and end in different US ports. Then the cruise must call on a "distant" foreign port.

 

So ta ansewr your question, the stop in Ensenada or Vancouver would make legal a cruise that starts and ends in the same US port. Ensenada is a frequent stop on cruise from the West coast to Mexico or Hawaii that start and end in the same port.

[njhorseman]

Now that the question has been answered, let's hope everyone pays attention to the dates of the posts on this thread (which started in 2008 and was last active in 2012) before replying to/arguing with posts made up to six years ago.

[Pierlesscruisers]

Now that the question has been answered, let's hope everyone pays attention to the dates of the posts on this thread (which started in 2008 and was last active in 2012) before replying to/arguing with posts made up to six years ago.

 

I'm sorry if my asking a question on the subject of the thread bothered you. I assumed that since the thread was not closed that it was okay to ask for clarification on the subject. I wasn't aware that posting to an old thread was not proper and just thought it was better than starting a new one on a subject already covered.

 

And, just to clarify matters, my question was not arguing anything at all. I was simply trying to clarify matters.

 

My apologies if my question to an old thread bothered you enough to cause you to confront me on the matter.

 

Tom

[SherriZ366]

I'm sorry if my asking a question on the subject of the thread bothered you. I assumed that since the thread was not closed that it was okay to ask for clarification on the subject. I wasn't aware that posting to an old thread was not proper and just thought it was better than starting a new one on a subject already covered.

 

And, just to clarify matters, my question was not arguing anything at all. I was simply trying to clarify matters.

 

My apologies if my question to an old thread bothered you enough to cause you to confront me on the matter.

 

Tom

I think njhorseman posted the age of the thread is because this was a heavily discussed thread. The Customs Bureau in 2008 was considering a regulation that would have required many cruises to make a 48 hour stop in a foreign port. The regulation was proposed at the request of the late Senator from Hawaii to protect NCL America's Hawaii cruises who were competing with RCI, Princess and other lines that were using a short stop in Ensenada, Mexico for their foreign port. The stop may have been as short as 2 hours with no disembarkation. The regulation could have possibly been applied to other routes thus adversely affecting the cruise industry especially on itineraries that departed and returned to US ports. There were many negotiations and I think the late Sen. Stevens from Alaska got the regulation drastically modified. I think Ensenada now has to be a longer stop with disembarkation.

[crzndeb]

Perhaps you can explain the following to me as regards the PVSA. As I read it the ships "must visit a distant foreign port outside of North America" to be in compliance with the law and since neither Mexico nor Canada are outside of North America and are thus not a "distant foreign port", how does making a stop at Ensenada or Vancouver meet the requirements of the law? I've read through a number of sites and asked around but have been unable to figure that out.

 

Thanks.

Tom

 

Personally, I wish threads would be closed or deleted after a certain amount of time. It's to easy to google subjects and find old threads. No harm, no foul.

 

Here is a recent thread (poster also posted on Celebrity board)...it might answer some questions.

 

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=2119733

[njhorseman]

I'm sorry if my asking a question on the subject of the thread bothered you. I assumed that since the thread was not closed that it was okay to ask for clarification on the subject. I wasn't aware that posting to an old thread was not proper and just thought it was better than starting a new one on a subject already covered.

 

And, just to clarify matters, my question was not arguing anything at all. I was simply trying to clarify matters.

 

My apologies if my question to an old thread bothered you enough to cause you to confront me on the matter.

 

Tom

 

My comment wasn't addressed to you. I actually had no problem with your post. My comment was directed at those who start arguing about posts made years ago because they pay no attention to the age of the thread. Unfortunately it happens time and time again when someone reopens a long-inactive thread. In my opinion Cruise Critic should lock threads after they've been inactive for a specified time...perhaps six months.

 

Not only was I not confronting you, I gave you a simple and direct answer to your question...and was the first person to do so. If I wanted to tar and feather you I wouldn't have bothered to answer your question.

Edited October 31, 2014 by njhorseman

[smeyer418]

I think njhorseman posted the age of the thread is because this was a heavily discussed thread. The Customs Bureau in 2008 was considering a regulation that would have required many cruises to make a 48 hour stop in a foreign port. The regulation was proposed at the request of the late Senator from Hawaii to protect NCL America's Hawaii cruises who were competing with RCI, Princess and other lines that were using a short stop in Ensenada, Mexico for their foreign port. The stop may have been as short as 2 hours with no disembarkation. The regulation could have possibly been applied to other routes thus adversely affecting the cruise industry especially on itineraries that departed and returned to US ports. There were many negotiations and I think the late Sen. Stevens from Alaska got the regulation drastically modified. I think Ensenada now has to be a longer stop with disembarkation.

LOL not to stir things up but it didn't come about at all as result of the Senator from Hawaii. Its my understanding that the Federal Maritime Commission that guarantees loans for American flagged ships(and Shipyards), asked US Customs to review the regs because certain cruise lines were using a technical stop(fueling stop passengers didn't have time to get off) in Mexico to circumvent the required nearby foreign port requirements on round trips from the West Coast to Hawaii-which in the FMC's view should have been made by US built and flagged vessels. The result of that review a proposed reg which would required that the non US flagged cruise lines would have to spend as much time in any foreign port as they stayed in US ports. Hour for Hour. Not only would have that impacted on the Hawaiian runs it would have effected all the east coast ones, the Alaska ones as well. the only US departures that would have been uneffected would have been the ones directly to the Caribbean from Florida or Mexico or the Caribbean from Texas and New Orleans. the classic be careful what you ask for as you never know what they have in mind. It was roundly panned and gratefully withdrawn- but it wasn't the senator from Hawaii that started it.

[Calgon1]

Now that the question has been answered, let's hope everyone pays attention to the dates of the posts on this thread (which started in 2008 and was last active in 2012) before replying to/arguing with posts made up to six years ago.

 

 

Well, thanks a lot, Norseman! That certainly takes the fun out of being insane . . . ! :D

Seriously, that's a problem on so many posts - attention to detail appears to have become a lost art.

Edited October 31, 2014 by Calgon1

[dadroy]

I agree with the problem of old posts. In some cases, starting a new thread can be a good thing. In cases where original posts are so old, you may get wrong info by reading through the post. By posting a new question you can get a fresher answer.

 

I can imagine 10 years from now people looking for prices of excursions, restaurants, etc and getting totally wrong information from ancient posts.

[vjmatty]

I agree with the problem of old posts. In some cases, starting a new thread can be a good thing. In cases where original posts are so old, you may get wrong info by reading through the post. By posting a new question you can get a fresher answer.

 

I can imagine 10 years from now people looking for prices of excursions, restaurants, etc and getting totally wrong information from ancient posts.

 

I've come pretty close to making that mistake..... I will often do a search and not realize how old the results are, almost posting to a thread then noticing that it's from 2005 before I even started on CC! :o

[SherriZ366]

LOL not to stir things up but it didn't come about at all as result of the Senator from Hawaii. Its my understanding that the Federal Maritime Commission that guarantees loans for American flagged ships(and Shipyards), asked US Customs to review the regs because certain cruise lines were using a technical stop(fueling stop passengers didn't have time to get off) in Mexico to circumvent the required nearby foreign port requirements on round trips from the West Coast to Hawaii-which in the FMC's view should have been made by US built and flagged vessels. The result of that review a proposed reg which would required that the non US flagged cruise lines would have to spend as much time in any foreign port as they stayed in US ports. Hour for Hour. Not only would have that impacted on the Hawaiian runs it would have effected all the east coast ones, the Alaska ones as well. the only US departures that would have been uneffected would have been the ones directly to the Caribbean from Florida or Mexico or the Caribbean from Texas and New Orleans. the classic be careful what you ask for as you never know what they have in mind. It was roundly panned and gratefully withdrawn- but it wasn't the senator from Hawaii that started it.

Your memory may be better than mine -- I'm just glad that the proposed reg. was withdrawn. Agree -- if it had been enacted, it would have really hurt all US departure ports, which is why I followed it and posted it on.

[BruceMuzz]

Some people are surprised that the major cruise lines as a group have never really lobbied to change the PVSA.

There is a good reason for that.

We don't want it to change.

If US Coastal land Domestic itineraries were allowed for foreign flag ships, many negative aspects could /would pop up.

 

We would have to put up with the TSA far more often.

We would have to put up with USPH far more often.

We would have to pay higher US port fees and pilot fees far more often.

We would have to pay local sales taxes in US ports far more often.

We would have to put up with corrupt and expensive US Stevedores far more often.

In US Ports our non-US staff is not alowed to do any work ashore. We would be forced to hire more American Pursers, Front Desk Staff, and Photographers.

More American ports means far higher fees for offloading garbage, sludge, waste oil, etc.

More American ports means being forced to burn far more low sulphur fuel (VERY expensive).

 

PVSA gives us a wonderful excuse to avoid all the issues listed above - and many more.

You may notice that all those issues involve money.

[hawkeyetlse]

We would have to put up with the TSA far more often.

We would have to put up with USPH far more often.

We would have to pay higher US port fees and pilot fees far more often.

We would have to pay local sales taxes in US ports far more often.

We would have to put up with corrupt and expensive US Stevedores far more often.

In US Ports our non-US staff is not alowed to do any work ashore. We would be forced to hire more American Pursers, Front Desk Staff, and Photographers.

More American ports means far higher fees for offloading garbage, sludge, waste oil, etc.

More American ports means being forced to burn far more low sulphur fuel (VERY expensive).

All of the reasons you list should motivate cruise lines to avoid US ports altogether, or minimize the number of US ports in their itineraries. I see no evidence to believe this is the case. Given a choice between a cruise from Vancouver to Anchorage, or from Seattle to Anchorage, I believe that cruise operators and passengers would largely prefer the latter, if it were legal.

 

Relaxing the PVSA would in no way require the cruise lines to increase the number of US ports (although they may choose to do so). Relaxing the PVSA would remove restrictions and give the cruise lines more flexibility, specifically to do one-way itineraries between US ports if they want to, and to drop foreign port stops if they want to.

[chengkp75]

All of the reasons you list should motivate cruise lines to avoid US ports altogether, or minimize the number of US ports in their itineraries. I see no evidence to believe this is the case. Given a choice between a cruise from Vancouver to Anchorage, or from Seattle to Anchorage, I believe that cruise operators and passengers would largely prefer the latter, if it were legal.

 

Relaxing the PVSA would in no way require the cruise lines to increase the number of US ports (although they may choose to do so). Relaxing the PVSA would remove restrictions and give the cruise lines more flexibility, specifically to do one-way itineraries between US ports if they want to, and to drop foreign port stops if they want to.

 

I believe what Bruce is saying is that with a cruise that uses exclusively US ports, the costs would be higher. To take one example, I know that RCI meets it's environmental goals of recycling most garbage by discharging on one of the Caribbean islands (to a recycling facility to be sure, but one that does not have the EPA, OSHA, and all the other US agencies involved) at a significantly lower cost (otherwise, why not do it at turn-around in the US).

 

Another "unintended consequence" of allowing foreign flag ships into the domestic passenger trade is this. USPH has the mandate to board foreign flag ships and inspect to prevent the introduction of infectious diseases to the US, not to enforce food safety on a foreign flag ship, or to protect the health of cruisers. Since enforcement of food safety and monitoring the health of passengers helps to meet their mandate to prevent disease from entering the US, this is how they meet their mandate, not what they are mandated to do.

 

Now, the FDA is granted jurisdiction to inspect and enforce health codes on US flag ships, both domestic and foreign.

 

Now, you take a foreign flag vessel, that does not leave the US (no foreign ports), who has jurisdiction there? It is not US flag, so FDA is out. It has not left the US, nor is it returning to the US, so USPH is out.

[thinfool]

All of the reasons you list should motivate cruise lines to avoid US ports altogether, or minimize the number of US ports in their itineraries. I see no evidence to believe this is the case. Given a choice between a cruise from Vancouver to Anchorage, or from Seattle to Anchorage, I believe that cruise operators and passengers would largely prefer the latter, if it were legal.

 

Relaxing the PVSA would in no way require the cruise lines to increase the number of US ports (although they may choose to do so). Relaxing the PVSA would remove restrictions and give the cruise lines more flexibility, specifically to do one-way itineraries between US ports if they want to, and to drop foreign port stops if they want to.

 

Whatever pro or con opinions we may have about the PVSA can be put in a bucket with a hole in it and tossed into the ocean.

 

The post by BruceMuzz says it all. Money, money, money.

 

If a serious proposal to modify or repeal the PVSA came up again, as it did re: the NCL matter, all of the considerable lobbying horsepower of the cruiselines and other vested interests would make sure that it died, quickly.

 

IMO, US citizens will be able to visit Cuba long before any PVSA modification takes place.

Edited November 1, 2014 by thinfool

[smeyer418]

....

 

IMO, US citizens will be able to visit Cuba long before any PVSA modification takes place.

US citizens can visit Cuba legally on an organized tour. They are being held almost everyday.

[smeyer418]

I believe what Bruce is saying is that with a cruise that uses exclusively US ports, the costs would be higher. To take one example, I know that RCI meets it's environmental goals of recycling most garbage by discharging on one of the Caribbean islands (to a recycling facility to be sure, but one that does not have the EPA, OSHA, and all the other US agencies involved) at a significantly lower cost (otherwise, why not do it at turn-around in the US).

 

Another "unintended consequence" of allowing foreign flag ships into the domestic passenger trade is this. USPH has the mandate to board foreign flag ships and inspect to prevent the introduction of infectious diseases to the US, not to enforce food safety on a foreign flag ship, or to protect the health of cruisers. Since enforcement of food safety and monitoring the health of passengers helps to meet their mandate to prevent disease from entering the US, this is how they meet their mandate, not what they are mandated to do.

 

Now, the FDA is granted jurisdiction to inspect and enforce health codes on US flag ships, both domestic and foreign.

 

Now, you take a foreign flag vessel, that does not leave the US (no foreign ports), who has jurisdiction there? It is not US flag, so FDA is out. It has not left the US, nor is it returning to the US, so USPH is out.

 

You are of course aware the the CDC runs an extensive non US flagged shipboard sanitiation and inspection program. Its if anything more intensive that the USPHS. with inspections twice a year(about ) for any ship entering a US port.

 

see http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/vsp/default.htm

 

given that still about 70% of all cruisers are American the cruise lines are not about to forgo US ports completely. Even the ships that they have sent to Europe continue to obey the CDC because if they don't and once again come back to the US, they will need to document every food item on board the ship to the US standard or throw literally everything out.

Edited November 2, 2014 by smeyer418

[smeyer418]

All of the reasons you list should motivate cruise lines to avoid US ports altogether, or minimize the number of US ports in their itineraries. I see no evidence to believe this is the case. Given a choice between a cruise from Vancouver to Anchorage, or from Seattle to Anchorage, I believe that cruise operators and passengers would largely prefer the latter, if it were legal.

 

Relaxing the PVSA would in no way require the cruise lines to increase the number of US ports (although they may choose to do so). Relaxing the PVSA would remove restrictions and give the cruise lines more flexibility, specifically to do one-way itineraries between US ports if they want to, and to drop foreign port stops if they want to.

 

The US flagged ship that sails in Hawaii can't have Casinos because of State Law. Do you really think if they relax the PVSA our Congress would not make the Ship obey both other Federal laws or State laws as well? The Cruise lines are well aware that this so called "relaxation" would have other results including making the ship much more amenable to other US laws including lawsuits. US laws on cruise ship crew(the Jones Act) alone would add millions to the cost of the cruise sip lines. That in my view is not necessarily a bad thing but the cruise lines as Bruce says are just not willing to find out. They are happy with Filipino and other developing country crew for labor and conditions. They do not want to chance US laws and individual states telling them what to do...

Edited November 2, 2014 by smeyer418

[njhorseman]

You are of course aware the the CDC runs an extensive non US flagged shipboard sanitiation and inspection program. Its if anything more intensive that the USPHS. with inspections twice a year(about ) for any ship entering a US port.

 

see http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/vsp/default.htm

 

given that still about 70% of all cruisers are American the cruise lines are not about to forgo US ports completely. Even the ships that they have sent to Europe continue to obey the CDC because if they don't and once again come back to the US, they will need to document every food item on board the ship to the US standard or throw literally everything out.

 

CDC is part of USPHS. I'm sure the inspections mentioned by chengkp75 are what you are calling the CDC inspections. (The Vessel Sanitation Program.) Right on the page to which you've provided the link is the following citation of the authority under which the VSP inspections are carried out: "VSP operates under the authority of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. Section 264 Quarantine and Inspection Regulations to Control Communicable Diseases)," which is the authority chengkp75 referenced.

Edited November 2, 2014 by njhorseman

[BruceMuzz]

All of the reasons you list should motivate cruise lines to avoid US ports altogether, or minimize the number of US ports in their itineraries. I see no evidence to believe this is the case. Given a choice between a cruise from Vancouver to Anchorage, or from Seattle to Anchorage, I believe that cruise operators and passengers would largely prefer the latter, if it were legal.

 

Relaxing the PVSA would in no way require the cruise lines to increase the number of US ports (although they may choose to do so). Relaxing the PVSA would remove restrictions and give the cruise lines more flexibility, specifically to do one-way itineraries between US ports if they want to, and to drop foreign port stops if they want to.

 

Your example is excellent:

Many American cruise pax would prefer to save a few bucks and stay in their comfort zone by sailing from Seattle to Anchorage.

 

Most of the rest of the world would prefer to fly into Vancouver, avoid the TSA and US Immigration at the airport, and have a much nicer cruise through the inside passage to Anchorage.

 

The cruise lines prefer to sail from Vancouver, avoiding the TSA, US Customs, and USPH.

Avoiding the overpaid American stevedores and pilots in Seattle.

Avoiding sailing the typically rough seas on the outside of Vancouver Island.

Our arriving and departing Asian crewmembers get a friendly welcome in Vancouver, as opposed to the "third degree" treatment they get from US Immigration in Seattle.

Being allowed to have our Purser's Department, Security Staff, and Photographers working in the Vancouver terminal without being hassled by US Immigration.

Paying lower docking and berthing fees in Vancouver.

Avoiding burning the extremely expensive low-sulphur fuel required in Seattle.

Using the very user-friendly downtown Vancouver Terminal instead of the "Warehouse" on the outskirts of Seattle.

Burning less fuel to get from Vancouver to Anchorage.

Being able to open the casino and duty free shops earlier out of Vancouver.

Getting a more international mix of passengers, as many Aussies and Brits don't want to fly into the USA to board a cruise. Aussies are the #1 onboard spenders on Alaska itineraries. Aussies are usually 30% - 50% of the passengers from Vancouver to Alaska; they are 10% of the passengers from Seattle to Alaska.

 

In order to be politically correct, we cannot advertise that we do not want to sail out of Seattle. But we can blame the PVSA and claim that it is forcing us to base more and more ships from a non-US port.

 

You might notice that most of the issues listed above are - once again - money related.

Edited November 2, 2014 by BruceMuzz