Substituting Puerto Limon for Cartagena

[IPB4IGO]

Here on the Zuiderdam, HAL just replaced our scheduled stop in Cartagena, Columbia, with Puerto Limon in Costa Rica.  That's fine with me, but I don't understand how that complies with the PSVA, which requires a stop at a "distant foreign port" for this cruise. Costa Rica does not meet the definition of a distant foreign port. Colombia does.

Ideas, anyone?

[CruiserBruce]

15 minutes ago, IPB4IGO said:

Here on the Zuiderdam, HAL just replaced our scheduled stop in Cartagena, Columbia, with Puerto Limon in Costa Rica.  That's fine with me, but I don't understand how that complies with the PSVA, which requires a stop at a "distant foreign port" for this cruise. Costa Rica does not meet the definition of a distant foreign port. Colombia does.

Ideas, anyone?

Are you going to any of the ABC islands? They also qualify as distant foreign ports.

 

There are some exceptions and mitigations in the PVSA, such as fines. Perhaps they are just going to pay the fine.

[Susanmaz]

Why would Costa Rica NOT qualify as a foreign port?

[Essiesmom]

Because Limon is in Central America so doesn’t qualify as a distant foreign port.  EM

[Turtles06]

1 hour ago, Susanmaz said:

Why would Costa Rica NOT qualify as a foreign port?

 

It does.  But when a foreign-flagged cruise ship is taking passengers from one U.S. port (San Diego) to another U.S. port (Fort Lauderdale), it must stop at a "distant foreign port" under the PVSA.  As noted in the comments above, Central American ports (as well as Mexican ports) are not considered to be "distant foreign ports" under the PVSA.  On full transits like this, a ship needs to stop at a port in South America (e.g., Cartagena) or at one of the ABC islands, all of which are "distant foreign ports." 

 

A stop at a "mere" foreign port is all that is needed for a RT cruise out of the U.S., that is, starting in and returning to the same U.S. port.

[cccole]

Turtles06 - I assume that is why Ensenada can be used for ships departing from and returning to San Diego.   I had no idea there were different categories of "foreign ports."  Thank you for the explanation, Cherie

[nocl]

2 hours ago, IPB4IGO said:

Here on the Zuiderdam, HAL just replaced our scheduled stop in Cartagena, Columbia, with Puerto Limon in Costa Rica.  That's fine with me, but I don't understand how that complies with the PSVA, which requires a stop at a "distant foreign port" for this cruise. Costa Rica does not meet the definition of a distant foreign port. Colombia does.

Ideas, anyone?

Probably a waiver since the cancellation was due to the port not the ship.

 

Since the other ports normally used also tend to be canceling stops by some ships.

Edited January 9, 2022 by nocl

[Turtles06]

8 hours ago, cccole said:

Turtles06 - I assume that is why Ensenada can be used for ships departing from and returning to San Diego.   I had no idea there were different categories of "foreign ports."  Thank you for the explanation, Cherie

 

You're very welcome.  And yes as to Ensenada (as long as it's a "real" port call allowing guests to get off the ship there.  Some cruise lines I believe used to just do a brief "technical" stop -- pulling in, no guests allowed off.  That's since been disallowed.)

 

Judith

[IPB4IGO]

8 hours ago, nocl said:

Probably a waiver since the cancellation was due to the port not the ship.

 

Since the other ports normally used also tend to be canceling stops by some ships.

That was my guess as well, but I was hoping somebody had an authoritative answer.

Thanks.

[NavArch64]

From CBP guidance re PVSA ...

 

PENALTY FOR PVSA VIOLATIONS
CBP issues monetary penalties to vessel owners and operators for each passenger transported in violation of the PVSA. Vessel owners and operators may submit a petition for relief from these penalties at the CBP port where the penalty was issued. The CBP port may cancel or mitigate the penalty.
 

Petition
• Only the vessel operator or carrier or their legal representative/agent may petition for relief from a penalty issued for a PVSA violation.
• Filed at the CBP Port from which the penalty was issued.
• Filed after the penalty has been issued to the vessel operator or carrier ... review the Informed Compliance Publication on Mitigation Guidelines for additional information.
IMPORTANT - MITIGATION IS NOT A WAIVER OF THE PVSA
• May contain a request that the penalty be cancelled or that the monetary amount of the penalty be mitigated to a lower amount.
 Mitigation Requests: CBP has the sole authority to mitigate penalties at its discretion. 
 

[NavArch64]

I can only guess that HAL might request that any PVSA violation penalty (if any) be mitigated upon arrival at Port Everglades at the completion of the Zuiderdam voyage. Perhaps this has already been negotiated as a part of the CDC CSO for Zuiderdam should this situation occur. But, I do not know if these guesses are correct or not.

[Sea42]

8 minutes ago, NavArch64 said:

From CBP guidance re PVSA ...

 

PENALTY FOR PVSA VIOLATIONS
CBP issues monetary penalties to vessel owners and operators for each passenger transported in violation of the PVSA. Vessel owners and operators may submit a petition for relief from these penalties at the CBP port where the penalty was issued. The CBP port may cancel or mitigate the penalty.
 

Petition
• Only the vessel operator or carrier or their legal representative/agent may petition for relief from a penalty issued for a PVSA violation.
• Filed at the CBP Port from which the penalty was issued.
• Filed after the penalty has been issued to the vessel operator or carrier ... review the Informed Compliance Publication on Mitigation Guidelines for additional information.
IMPORTANT - MITIGATION IS NOT A WAIVER OF THE PVSA
• May contain a request that the penalty be cancelled or that the monetary amount of the penalty be mitigated to a lower amount.
 Mitigation Requests: CBP has the sole authority to mitigate penalties at its discretion. 
 

It seems like HAL would have a case that the violation was beyond their control. Do you have any knowledge of previous instances of mitigation of the penalty?

[chengkp75]

9 hours ago, Sea42 said:

It seems like HAL would have a case that the violation was beyond their control. Do you have any knowledge of previous instances of mitigation of the penalty?

The PVSA fine has been rescinded many times in the past.  As noted, it is for reasons beyond the cruise line's control:  weather not allowing a foreign port call, mechanical issues.  It has also been rescinded for passengers disembarked due to illness or death (yes, the ship gets fined for landing a deceased passenger in the wrong port, and the cruise line will pass that fine on to the deceased's account, leaving it up to the family to appeal the fine).  This may fall into this category, or not, depending on how CBP feels today.  HAL will have to show that there is no alternative "distant" foreign port that could fit the ship's itinerary (and just needs to be reachable within the length of the original itinerary, not that it wouldn't disrupt the remainder of port calls), such as the ABC islands.

Edited January 10, 2022 by chengkp75

[gowilk]

12 hours ago, Sea42 said:

It seems like HAL would have a case that the violation was beyond their control. Do you have any knowledge of previous instances of mitigation of the penalty?

it is 100% untrue that it is beyond their control…they don’t want to run another round of covid tests on zuiderdam as they fear the result and cartagena “asked” for current results.  i hope they fine the hell out of them.

[chengkp75]

9 minutes ago, gowilk said:

it is 100% untrue that it is beyond their control…they don’t want to run another round of covid tests on zuiderdam as they fear the result and cartagena “asked” for current results.  i hope they fine the hell out of them.

And you know this how?

[gowilk]

2 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

And you know this how?

They announce it onboard

[chengkp75]

9 minutes ago, gowilk said:

They announce it onboard

They announced that they didn't want to do a round of testing?

[chengkp75]

2 hours ago, gowilk said:

i hope they fine the hell out of them.

If you are onboard, you do know that you've given the cruise line the right to pass the fine to you?

[Turtles06]

3 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

They announced that they didn't want to do a round of testing?

 

Chief,  @Btimmer is posting live from this cruise in another thread here in the HAL forum, and he posted a copy of the letter that all pax received in their cabins from the Captain announcing the cancellation of Cartagena.  Here it is.  It doesn't say that HAL didn't want to do a new round of testing, it says that Colombia's new testing requirement is inconsistent with HAL's "established port agreements."  And it explains that the testing on board could not be completed and "still allow for adequate time in port."   Might be a grey area for the PVSA in terms of what was "beyond HAL's control."  What do you think? 

 

[chengkp75]

2 minutes ago, Turtles06 said:

Might be a grey area for the PVSA in terms of what was "beyond HAL's control."  What do you think?

I wasn't aware that non-US ports required "port agreements", but if they changed the scenario and changes are not specifically allowed in the agreement, then they could have grounds.  They would need to submit the port agreement, the new requirements, and the timing of same as grounds for an appeal.

[gowilk]

On 1/8/2022 at 9:05 PM, CruiserBruce said:

Are you going to any of the ABC islands? They also qualify as distant foreign ports.

 

There are some exceptions and mitigations in the PVSA, such as fines. Perhaps they are just going to pay the fine.

technical port call to cartagena and cancellation of latest costa rica call to the island for profit half moon cay….they have essentially given up on most of the passengers onboard EVER using their product again…..i repeat NEVER again

[CruiserBruce]

26 minutes ago, gowilk said:

technical port call to cartagena and cancellation of latest costa rica call to the island for profit half moon cay….they have essentially given up on most of the passengers onboard EVER using their product again…..i repeat NEVER again

Huh? 

[Turtles06]

3 hours ago, CruiserBruce said:

Huh? 

 

Per @Btimmer's live from the Zuiderdam thread (see post number 173), all pax got a  letter yesterday (pictured in Tim's post) from the Captain stating that HAL "had hoped to be granted an exception" to the requirement that they visit "a country outside of North and Central America. . . but that has not been approved."  Accordingly, the Zuiderdam today anchored off of Cartagena; no guests or crew were permitted to go ashore.   (And they cancelled the substitute call to Puerto Limon, and added Half Moon Cay.)

 

So this raises the question of whether the CBP will be okay with (or perhaps has already approved?) this "technical" stop at Cartagena.   

 

 

[CruiserBruce]

@Turtles06yes, I saw that  an hour or so ago. Thanks for the readable and understandable version of the information. 

 

From our past visits to Cartagena, refueling is also frequently done there. Perhaps they definitely needed to make that stop for that reason.