Let's Think About Suspending the Jones Act.

[chengkp75]

43 minutes ago, npcl said:

Actually if the ships stay totally inside the US the CDC may actually lose some ability since the power for the CDC to act is in dealing with limiting communicable disease from crossing the US borders.  They would still retain some control to block across state lines, but their authority would be more limited.

 

However, if the ship never leaves the US then the same immigration rules that stopped cruises to nowhere a few years ago.  That the employees on board ship would need a different Visa than those on board ship that cuise following PVSA rules that leave the US and return.

Actually, there you are thinking of USPH, whose mandate is to prevent the introduction of infectious disease into the country, not the CDC.

[npcl]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

Actually, there you are thinking of USPH, whose mandate is to prevent the introduction of infectious disease into the country, not the CDC.

The CDC's legal mandate to take action at US ports of entry is based upon  42 Code of Federal Regulations parts 70 and 71. Though 42 USC 264 and 268 also applies to the recent order.

 

Inside the states the CDC authority is limited to advisory action only. It can not direct inside a state that power is limited to the public health functions inside the state themselves.

 

This is from CDC's most recent order detailing where the appropriate authority comes from.

 

Order Under Sections 361 & 365 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 264, 268) and 42 Code of Federal Regulations Part 70 (Interstate) and Part 71 (Foreign):

 

So if cruise ships never leave the country than Part 71 would not apply.    The Interstate portion would still exists but has been used much in the past

 

From 42 USC 264

(c)Application of regulations to persons entering from foreign countries

Except as provided in subsection (d), regulations prescribed under this section, insofar as they provide for the apprehension, detention, examination, or conditional release of individuals, shall be applicable only to individuals coming into a State or possession from a foreign country or a possession.

 

42 USC 268  gives them the authority to use the Coast Guard to Assist

 

b)

It shall be the duty of the customs officers and of Coast Guard officers to aid in the enforcement of quarantine rules and regulations; but no additional compensation, except actual and necessary traveling expenses, shall be allowed any such officer by reason of such services.

 

 

So if a cruise ship never leaves the country the CDC authority for action is reduced.  If there were to exclusively cruise inside the confines on one state   hard to find anything that would give the CDC authority to act.  They can advise but inside a single state it would be up to the states health authority.

 

Thus if PVSA goes away and ships are allowed to sail solely inside the US it would be interesting to see how the CDC could continue to enforce its restrictions on cruise ships

Edited April 23, 2020 by npcl

[dag144]

Let's relate to the real world.  If, under a suspension of the Act, the US CDC or whatever USA authority allows foreign lines sell totally domestic cruises they will have to abide by US regs.  Here is why.  If they violate these regs NO MORE US port only cruising.   It's a financial cudgel.   If a cruise ship violates our rules UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES they will not be allowed to offer domestic port only US cruises.  Forget the fine points of whatever Act you wish to quote, in the situation that I suggested when initiating this thread there is not precedent.  There is not this precedent for the cruise lines.  Forget the minutiae or your experiences or knowledge of current laws.  THEY SIMPLY DO NOT APPLY IN THIS SCENARIO!

[Bgwest]

Chief, your always accurate, technically founded and non-judgemental observations continually rise above the noise that others insist on creating. 
Thank you for your contributions. 

[npcl]

1 hour ago, npcl said:

The CDC's legal mandate to take action at US ports of entry is based upon  42 Code of Federal Regulations parts 70 and 71. Though 42 USC 264 and 268 also applies to the recent order.

 

Inside the states the CDC authority is limited to advisory action only. It can not direct inside a state that power is limited to the public health functions inside the state themselves.

 

This is from CDC's most recent order detailing where the appropriate authority comes from.

 

Order Under Sections 361 & 365 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 264, 268) and 42 Code of Federal Regulations Part 70 (Interstate) and Part 71 (Foreign):

 

So if cruise ships never leave the country than Part 71 would not apply.    The Interstate portion would still exists but has been used much in the past

 

From 42 USC 264

(c)Application of regulations to persons entering from foreign countries

Except as provided in subsection (d), regulations prescribed under this section, insofar as they provide for the apprehension, detention, examination, or conditional release of individuals, shall be applicable only to individuals coming into a State or possession from a foreign country or a possession.

 

42 USC 268  gives them the authority to use the Coast Guard to Assist

 

b)

It shall be the duty of the customs officers and of Coast Guard officers to aid in the enforcement of quarantine rules and regulations; but no additional compensation, except actual and necessary traveling expenses, shall be allowed any such officer by reason of such services.

 

 

So if a cruise ship never leaves the country the CDC authority for action is reduced.  If there were to exclusively cruise inside the confines on one state   hard to find anything that would give the CDC authority to act.  They can advise but inside a single state it would be up to the states health authority.

 

Thus if PVSA goes away and ships are allowed to sail solely inside the US it would be interesting to see how the CDC could continue to enforce its restrictions on cruise ships

Left out the CDC role

 

CDC’s Role

Under 42 Code of Federal Regulations parts 70 and 71, CDC is authorized to detain, medically examine, and release persons arriving into the United States and traveling between states who are suspected of carrying these communicable diseases.

As part of its federal authority, CDC routinely monitors persons arriving at U.S. land border crossings and passengers and crew arriving at U.S. ports of entry for signs or symptoms of communicable diseases.

When alerted about an ill passenger or crew  member by the pilot of a plane or captain of a ship, CDC may detain passengers and crew as necessary to investigate whether the cause of the illness on board is a communicable disease.

[npcl]

25 minutes ago, dag144 said:

Let's relate to the real world.  If, under a suspension of the Act, the US CDC or whatever USA authority allows foreign lines sell totally domestic cruises they will have to abide by US regs.  Here is why.  If they violate these regs NO MORE US port only cruising.   It's a financial cudgel.   If a cruise ship violates our rules UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES they will not be allowed to offer domestic port only US cruises.  Forget the fine points of whatever Act you wish to quote, in the situation that I suggested when initiating this thread there is not precedent.  There is not this precedent for the cruise lines.  Forget the minutiae or your experiences or knowledge of current laws.  THEY SIMPLY DO NOT APPLY IN THIS SCENARIO!

Well that is exactly the issue.  If a cruise line stayed strictly within a US state there are no federal infectious disease health regulations that could be applied.  The rules would be state health department.  By leaving PVSA in place the foreign owned cruise lines cannot operate strictly within a state and federal authority remains when it comes to infectious disease.

 

Keep in mind that government agencies can only operate to the degree of regulations granted under the laws. So whose rules are you talking about.  Or do you expect that with the waiver of PVSA an entire new set of regulations and laws would be passed to account for the gap in existing rules and regulations.

 

Basically you are saying get rid of PVSA but ignore the realities of doing so under existing law.  It is far more complex than just granting a waiver.

 

Of course if it were to go away then the little immigration issue that I mentioned earlier, the need for a different type visa would still remain for crew members.

[dag144]

If  the Federal Government could pass the Jones Act and PSVA then they have broad jurisdiction over international and interstate commerce.  Seems to me that this is simple.  If ships under a waver or suspension of these acts cruise among the various states, federal rules will prevail.  If an operator violates them on a cruise permitted under a waver or suspension rule, no more interstate sailings.  The punishment is no more profitable interstate cruises without a foreign stop.  Guys (and ladies) this is easy.

[caribill]

23 hours ago, ldubs said:

 

You know, I don't even know if wage/hour laws for land based employees apply to the maritime industry.  But I'm pretty comfortable that the wages paid to an American crew would be higher than those currently paid on cruise ships.  

 

NCL had three ships that met (after Congressional approval) the provisions and sailed around Hawaii without needing a foreign port stop.

a) They had a hard time finding Americans willing to work the long hours, even at American level wages.

b) Higher pricing meant people would not book the cruise. When pricing was lowered to get more passengers onto the ship, NCL could not make money.

 

The result is that they are down to just one cruise ship in Hawaii now.  Looking at some upcoming cruises, ten day cruises start at $340/night per person for an inside cabin. Seven day cruises go for $271/night per person for an inside cabin. Plus taxes/fees.

 

I do not know how many takers there are at these prices.

 

(Note that the above pricing is current pricing,. not brochure pricing)

[npcl]

1 hour ago, dag144 said:

If  the Federal Government could pass the Jones Act and PSVA then they have broad jurisdiction over international and interstate commerce.  Seems to me that this is simple.  If ships under a waver or suspension of these acts cruise among the various states, federal rules will prevail.  If an operator violates them on a cruise permitted under a waver or suspension rule, no more interstate sailings.  The punishment is no more profitable interstate cruises without a foreign stop.  Guys (and ladies) this is easy.

Only if the are rules set up as part of the waiver, supported by congressional action.  Other than rules that don't exist at this time what rules are your referring to?

 

Lets face reality with the PVSA the last real attempt to modify it was in 1999 with bill s-1510. and S-127 in 2000. The United States Cruise Ship Act. It cleared committee in 1999 and in 2000. But failed.  Many of the original sponsors are gone.  There is not anywhere near the support now that existed then.

 

The congressional report on the bill can be found here 

 

https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/106th-congress/senate-report/396/1

 

It had 13 co-sponsors and was sponsored by Sen McCain.

 

Sen. Hutchison, Kay Bailey [R-TX]*
Sen. Feinstein, Dianne [D-CA]*
Sen. Murkowski, Frank H. [R-AK]*
Sen. Burns, Conrad R. [R-MT]
Sen. Thurmond, Strom [R-SC]
Sen. Coverdell, Paul [R-GA]
Sen. Boxer, Barbara [D-CA]
Sen. Sarbanes, Paul S. [D-MD]
Sen. Mikulski, Barbara A. [D-MD]
Sen. Hollings, Ernest F. [D-SC]
Sen. Cleland, Max [D-GA]
Sen. Inouye, Daniel K. [D-HI]
Sen. Miller, Zell [D-GA]

Edited April 23, 2020 by npcl

[caribill]

23 hours ago, getting older slowly said:

 

It is an interesting situation......   past in 1886  ... it is still relative in 2020  ??  

 

 

 

The PVSA was enacted before modern cruise ships were even a gleam in anybody's eye. They were written to protect American passenger vessels and ferries on USA waterways and passenger ocean voyages that started in one USA city and ended in another. These same protections exist today although there is virtually no passenger traffic on ocean voyages between USA cities other than cruise ships.

 

So the question becomes one of carving out an exemption for cruise ships or leaving the act alone.

[npcl]

1 minute ago, caribill said:

 

The PVSA was enacted before modern cruise ships were even a gleam in anybody's eye. They were written to protect American passenger vessels and ferries on USA waterways and passenger ocean voyages that started in one USA city and ended in another. These same protections exist today although there is virtually no passenger traffic on ocean voyages between USA cities other than cruise ships.

 

So the question becomes one of carving out an exemption for cruise ships or leaving the act alone.

Just posted references to the last attempt in 1999 and 2000, which failed.  The United States Cruise Ship Act.  which was done as a carve out.

[npcl]

This is a congressional hearing on the Effect of the Passenger Services Act on the Domestic Cruise Industry back in 1998.

 

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/Trans/hpw105-65.000/hpw105-65_1.HTM

 

The discussion was fairly interesting.  I especially like this comment

 

  Mr. Chairman, before I begin my prepared remarks, I'd like to remind members of the subcommittee that I've had a long-time interest in this subject. Back when we had a Merchant Marine Committee, a number of us worked to try to reform our laws, to be fairer toward Americans, to close the loopholes that are unfair to Americans.

    I would like to remind you of an incident that as I was walking across the street to manage the bill that the former Merchant Marine Committee passed to close some of the loopholes that give such incredible advantages to the foreigners, that a representative of the foreign cruise ship industry stops me. He says, boy, you sure tore them up in committee yesterday. I said, thank you.

    He said, we'd sure like to get to know you better. Really? He said, yes, we'd like to give you a free cruise, you and your family, so that you can get to know our industry better. And I said, oh, really? Well, I'm going across the street right now to try to pass legislation that will get Americans back into that business. He said, well, I'm aware of that.

    And he said, but we'd like to get you to know us better, just like, and he named several very influential members of the House and Senate.

    Folks, we passed that bill through the House by a very large margin. The Senate never acted on it. I don't believe it was a coincidence. And that's what we're up against. And I think you ought to be aware of that. And I'll testify in court to what I've just said.

Edited April 23, 2020 by npcl

[HappyCruiserettu]

19 hours ago, HUNKY said:

Seems very simple to me,

 

US flagged ships must follow US wage/labor/tax laws if visiting/embarking/disembarking at US ports.

 

Non US flagged ships do NOT have to follow US wage/labor/tax laws if visiting/embarking/disembarking at US ports.

 

Will travel on US flagged ships cost more?   Yes, but it will give consumers more choices.

Not more choices. ATM there is only one ocean-going cruise ship to choose. The NCL Pride of America, operating in Hawaii.

 

[chengkp75]

7 hours ago, npcl said:

The CDC's legal mandate to take action at US ports of entry is based upon  42 Code of Federal Regulations parts 70 and 71. Though 42 USC 264 and 268 also applies to the recent order.

 

Inside the states the CDC authority is limited to advisory action only. It can not direct inside a state that power is limited to the public health functions inside the state themselves.

 

This is from CDC's most recent order detailing where the appropriate authority comes from.

 

Order Under Sections 361 & 365 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 264, 268) and 42 Code of Federal Regulations Part 70 (Interstate) and Part 71 (Foreign):

 

So if cruise ships never leave the country than Part 71 would not apply.    The Interstate portion would still exists but has been used much in the past

 

From 42 USC 264

(c)Application of regulations to persons entering from foreign countries

Except as provided in subsection (d), regulations prescribed under this section, insofar as they provide for the apprehension, detention, examination, or conditional release of individuals, shall be applicable only to individuals coming into a State or possession from a foreign country or a possession.

 

42 USC 268  gives them the authority to use the Coast Guard to Assist

 

b)

It shall be the duty of the customs officers and of Coast Guard officers to aid in the enforcement of quarantine rules and regulations; but no additional compensation, except actual and necessary traveling expenses, shall be allowed any such officer by reason of such services.

 

 

So if a cruise ship never leaves the country the CDC authority for action is reduced.  If there were to exclusively cruise inside the confines on one state   hard to find anything that would give the CDC authority to act.  They can advise but inside a single state it would be up to the states health authority.

 

Thus if PVSA goes away and ships are allowed to sail solely inside the US it would be interesting to see how the CDC could continue to enforce its restrictions on cruise ships

Well, it is the USPH working with the CDC that controls ships entering the US.  And for US flag cruise ships that function is taken over by the FDA.

[chengkp75]

5 hours ago, dag144 said:

If  the Federal Government could pass the Jones Act and PSVA then they have broad jurisdiction over international and interstate commerce.  Seems to me that this is simple.  If ships under a waver or suspension of these acts cruise among the various states, federal rules will prevail.  If an operator violates them on a cruise permitted under a waver or suspension rule, no more interstate sailings.  The punishment is no more profitable interstate cruises without a foreign stop.  Guys (and ladies) this is easy.

As another poster stated, unless this is made as a prerequisite to a PVSA waiver, and that would require an act of Congress, as also noted, then your point is moot.  And, since there would be questions of maritime law that would be brought into question regarding the applicability of your rules to a foreign flag ship, the cruise lines would have to voluntarily agree to these conditions, and there is no proof that "interstate" cruises are "more profitable", since no major cruise line has pushed for them.

 

And, both the Jones Act and the PVSA are not laws about international commerce.  They are "cabotage" laws, or laws that protect commerce within a country.  They only deal with commerce that is strictly domestic (coastwise and inland).

Edited April 23, 2020 by chengkp75

[chengkp75]

4 hours ago, caribill said:

 

The PVSA was enacted before modern cruise ships were even a gleam in anybody's eye. They were written to protect American passenger vessels and ferries on USA waterways and passenger ocean voyages that started in one USA city and ended in another. These same protections exist today although there is virtually no passenger traffic on ocean voyages between USA cities other than cruise ships.

 

So the question becomes one of carving out an exemption for cruise ships or leaving the act alone.

And there comes the conundrum of how do you separate one "passenger" vessel from another "passenger" vessel and require that all of the small vessels that are "passenger" vessels under maritime law (ferries, dinner cruises, etc) that would be required to remain US flag at an economic disadvantage, while larger "passenger" vessels (defined as the same thing under maritime law) are allowed significant economic advantages.

[ontheweb]

9 hours ago, dag144 said:

If  the Federal Government could pass the Jones Act and PSVA then they have broad jurisdiction over international and interstate commerce.  Seems to me that this is simple.  If ships under a waver or suspension of these acts cruise among the various states, federal rules will prevail.  If an operator violates them on a cruise permitted under a waver or suspension rule, no more interstate sailings.  The punishment is no more profitable interstate cruises without a foreign stop.  Guys (and ladies) this is easy.

How can you still say this is easy after reading many of the comments in this thread?

[ontheweb]

8 hours ago, npcl said:

Only if the are rules set up as part of the waiver, supported by congressional action.  Other than rules that don't exist at this time what rules are your referring to?

 

Lets face reality with the PVSA the last real attempt to modify it was in 1999 with bill s-1510. and S-127 in 2000. The United States Cruise Ship Act. It cleared committee in 1999 and in 2000. But failed.  Many of the original sponsors are gone.  There is not anywhere near the support now that existed then.

 

The congressional report on the bill can be found here 

 

https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/106th-congress/senate-report/396/1

 

It had 13 co-sponsors and was sponsored by Sen McCain.

 

Sen. Hutchison, Kay Bailey [R-TX]*
Sen. Feinstein, Dianne [D-CA]*
Sen. Murkowski, Frank H. [R-AK]*
Sen. Burns, Conrad R. [R-MT]
Sen. Thurmond, Strom [R-SC]
Sen. Coverdell, Paul [R-GA]
Sen. Boxer, Barbara [D-CA]
Sen. Sarbanes, Paul S. [D-MD]
Sen. Mikulski, Barbara A. [D-MD]
Sen. Hollings, Ernest F. [D-SC]
Sen. Cleland, Max [D-GA]
Sen. Inouye, Daniel K. [D-HI]
Sen. Miller, Zell [D-GA]

That is an interesting mix of cosponsors ranging from Strom Thurmond on the right to the 2 Senators from California on the left.

[cruising deacon]

If all of this discussion is happening because Canada has closed its ports for the near future, then I don't understand why we don't just skip the Alaska and New England cruises for this year?  I have loved sailing on those voyages in the past, and I am sure others would like to, but why not wait until next year (cruising this year anywhere isn't in my near future).

[dag144]

Canada is not the only nation to close its ports.  Other countries may not welcome cruises in the future under current circumstances.  Regarding suspension of the act or acts impeding domestic cruising, any suspension to be a real suspension would have to be passed in a legal fashion.  Otherwise it would not be a suspension!  If the foreign cruise ships would desire to avail themselves of this suspension, the clout of this temporary being revoked would assure adherence to whatever rules the U S would impose.  It is the power of the buck.

[Charles4515]

 

 
So the question becomes one of carving out an exemption for cruise ships or leaving the act alone.

No point in an exemption for cruise ships. That won’t solve the general problem. Both the PVSA and Jones Act should be repealed. They are protectionist laws that protect special interests and cost Americans billions.



Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[weedpindle]

On 4/22/2020 at 1:13 AM, dag144 said:

Sort of the same thing.  Most viewers will know what I am talking about.  But thanks for the correction.

 

23 hours ago, frugaltravel said:

The cruise lines built their bed. Now let them sleep in it. They wanted to avoid US tax and labor laws. Now they suffer the consequences.

 

If you cruise, perhaps you should quit cruising since you obviously hate the cruise lines.

[Charles4515]

If you cruise, perhaps you should quit cruising since you obviously hate the cruise lines.

People can like cruising and hate the current cruise lines. If the current companies go under that won’t end cruising.

While I oppose the PVSA I don’t think repealing the law is relevant to solving their current problems. The law something to fix in the future after the crisis is over. If people are advocating that because they think it will help the cruise lines or save cruising they are wrong. The environment onboard ships leads to transmission. Only the end of the virus will solve the cruise lines problem. Look at the US Navy. Outbreaks on many ships.


Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[frugaltravel]

17 minutes ago, weedpindle said:

 

If you cruise, perhaps you should quit cruising since you obviously hate the cruise lines.

Don't hate the cruise lines. Shows how little you know 😀. I don't like corporations avoiding (not evading) taxes then crying when they lose tons of money. It is the business model they set up. But obviously you don't know much about business.

 

[HUNKY]

Whether a cruise line pays US taxes or not, in the end the individual CONSUMER is the one who pays.