Passenger Vessel Services Act summary to date

[cvanhorn]

From my Public Administration Law classes it seems that what was published in the NY Times was an Action: Request for Proposed Interpretation; Solicitation of Comments. As I read the NY Times article it would seem to me that what is being required is that any new Proposed Regulation be published by June 1, 2008 and no Final Regulation be issued after November 1, 2008.

 

What was published in the Federal Register on November 21, 2007 does not "in my opinion" rise to the level of a Proposed Regulation but rather a Request for Proposed Interpretation and Solicitation of Comments. CBP has apparently not yet made a determination of what they want as a Final Rule nor published the Proposed Regulation in the Federal Register but only issued an interpretation (opinion) as to the rule and its potential effect. I do not claim to be an expert and may be totally wrong but that is my interpretation.

 

The CBP opinion as written makes no sense and if you read the filed comments that were made, they were almost unanimous against the rule.

 

So we should expect the final "reinterpretation" to have to be published in the Federal Register before it can go into effect?. Or, as it is not a new regulation, amended regulation, etc but just a "reinterpretation" can it skip the Federal Register publication?

[SeattleCruiselover]

So we should expect the final "reinterpretation" to have to be published in the Federal Register before it can go into effect?. Or, as it is not a new regulation, amended regulation, etc but just a "reinterpretation" can it skip the Federal Register publication?

 

I believe that I read that it is required to be republished before it can be implemented. No more comment period, but just republished in its final form.

[weberman]

I believe that I read that it is required to be republished before it can be implemented. No more comment period, but just republished in its final form.

 

It was never published as a Proposed Rule just an opinion so theRuse as it is to be implemented would have to be published as such.

[smeyer418]

I agree that the cruise lines will make the changes to become legal, but what if those changes affect passengers. For example, let's say they switch the embarkation port from Las Angeles to Ensenada. Now those passengers have to pay for transportation to Ensenada. (whether it be additional transportation or a change in air plans, it will most likely cost them.)

It's a shame that anyone may end up having to pay more just because NCL is trying to create a monopoly.

 

Let's face it, NCL is the bad guy in this and you can try and sugar coat it any way you want, but it's NCL, NCL, NCL who is behind these PVSA changes. It's a shame that they think so little of the people they are affecting (both cruisers and workers in the ports) in order to save one ship......

 

 

I don't doubt that NCL was trying to get some advantage. As I think any cruise line would try if itcould. Its technically not an monopoly cause any one who plays with a US flagged vessel can do the same thing( I really could get esoteric and explain as long as planes fly the same route its technically not a monopoly as the relevant market is not dominated by one form of transport but I won't) although the cost of entry is fairly high(i.e. a relatively modern cruise ship). The Boston to Bermuda run is a Government granted monopoly to NCL too(although since its government granted it doesn't run afoul of monopoly laws-another long story think of government granted franchises for cable)...

 

In any case since I really don't expect it to impede the 2008 season we are only talking about a relative few people who will be effected by any such change who have booked for 2009.

 

I also think that it will be hard to gauge the exact cause and effect because the cost for a mainland return Hawaii trip is so fuel cost dependent you might have seen these changes any way and this will be a convenient excuse to make them one ways to and From Mexico or Canada......

 

Finally NCLA will always be at a disadvantage to foreign flagged vessels because of gambling and duty free-something most cruisers expect...

[DAGVBSB]

 

In any case since I really don't expect it to impede the 2008 season we are only talking about a relative few people who will be effected by any such change who have booked for 2009.

 

I also think that it will be hard to gauge the exact cause and effect because the cost for a mainland return Hawaii trip is so fuel cost dependent you might have seen these changes any way and this will be a convenient excuse to make them one ways to and From Mexico or Canada......

 

Finally NCLA will always be at a disadvantage to foreign flagged vessels because of gambling and duty free-something most cruisers expect...

 

 

I am not just talking about cruisers who have booked a cruise. The estimates from the California ports is the multi-millions of dollars in lost revenue if NCL's proposed PVSA rules go into effect. If it is not modified and affects Alaska and New England as well, it's even more millions in lost revenue. Even the Hawaii Tourism officials have provided estimates of large losses to their businesses if the NCL proposals are enacted by the government.

 

The cruise lines will still sail to Hawaii and NCL will still be at the same disadvantage that they are in now with the Pride of America. The cruise lines will simply move embarkation points to Ensenada and Vancouver and the only people who lose is the California and US economy.

 

Everybody is so up in arms about us outsourcing jobs to foreign countries, the proposed changes to the PVSA will do even more of that.

 

 

Of course, it is not going to matter. I still am betting that the Pride of America will not be sailing after the end of this year.......

[smeyer418]

I am not just talking about cruisers who have booked a cruise. The estimates from the California ports is the multi-millions of dollars in lost revenue if NCL's proposed PVSA rules go into effect. If it is not modified and affects Alaska and New England as well, it's even more millions in lost revenue. Even the Hawaii Tourism officials have provided estimates of large losses to their businesses if the NCL proposals are enacted by the government.

 

The cruise lines will still sail to Hawaii and NCL will still be at the same disadvantage that they are in now with the Pride of America. The cruise lines will simply move embarkation points to Ensenada and Vancouver and the only people who lose is the California and US economy.

 

Everybody is so up in arms about us outsourcing jobs to foreign countries, the proposed changes to the PVSA will do even more of that.

 

 

Of course, it is not going to matter. I still am betting that the Pride of America will not be sailing after the end of this year.......

 

actually I think those numbers are only relevant if the final rule effects Mexican and Alaskan cruises and from what I have seen the final rule(if it ever comes out) will effect Hawaii only. So you can continue to be Cassandra about the sky is falling or wait until what the final rule actually says. Its still not a monopoly issue(see for example http://www.ftc.gov/os/2002/10/cruisestatement.htm which discusses the issue of relevant market) or a selective enforcement one. Its simply an issue whether American flagged will have any meaning on a cruise ship.

[SeattleCruiselover]

actually I think those numbers are only relevant if the final rule effects Mexican and Alaskan cruises and from what I have seen the final rule(if it ever comes out) will effect Hawaii only. So you can continue to be Cassandra about the sky is falling or wait until what the final rule actually says. Its still not a monopoly issue(see for example http://www.ftc.gov/os/2002/10/cruisestatement.htm which discusses the issue of relevant market) or a selective enforcement one. Its simply an issue whether American flagged will have any meaning on a cruise ship.

 

I think that the FTC might think a bit differently about it had this happened today rather than when it did, but hindsight is, of course, always 20/20.

 

And ask RCI, HAL, X and Princess if they think it would be selective enforcement or not if these kinds of restrictions are placed on them in Hawaii and not placed on NCL (and Princess, HAL, X, and RCI, of course) who all do exactly the same thing on the Alaska runs.

 

Of course, if Senator McCain should win the November election, it is entirely possible that he will "suggest" that his 1998 legislative efforts to ease the way for foreign flagged cruise lines to compete in US markets be either re-introduced, or just put this regulation to a death knell.

[Cruisin' Chick]

I am not just talking about cruisers who have booked a cruise. The estimates from the California ports is the multi-millions of dollars in lost revenue if NCL's proposed PVSA rules go into effect. If it is not modified and affects Alaska and New England as well, it's even more millions in lost revenue. Even the Hawaii Tourism officials have provided estimates of large losses to their businesses if the NCL proposals are enacted by the government.

 

The cruise lines will still sail to Hawaii and NCL will still be at the same disadvantage that they are in now with the Pride of America. The cruise lines will simply move embarkation points to Ensenada and Vancouver and the only people who lose is the California and US economy.

 

Everybody is so up in arms about us outsourcing jobs to foreign countries, the proposed changes to the PVSA will do even more of that.

 

 

Of course, it is not going to matter. I still am betting that the Pride of America will not be sailing after the end of this year.......

 

Let's not forget about this (speaking as someone who lives in one of these port cities).

[DAGVBSB]

actually I think those numbers are only relevant if the final rule effects Mexican and Alaskan cruises and from what I have seen the final rule(if it ever comes out) will effect Hawaii only. So you can continue to be Cassandra about the sky is falling or wait until what the final rule actually says. Its still not a monopoly issue(see for example http://www.ftc.gov/os/2002/10/cruisestatement.htm which discusses the issue of relevant market) or a selective enforcement one. Its simply an issue whether American flagged will have any meaning on a cruise ship.

 

You are right about the final rule not affecting Alaska (and New England for that matter) if the rumors that we are hearing are true about it only affecting Hawaii. BUT if it is still affecting Hawaii, then it will also affect California. Those West Coast/Hawaii cruises on the other line are still going to continue. The cruise lines will simply move to Ensenada (and maybe a few to Vancouver). WHO loses in that situation?? Not the cruise lines... they are still sailing the cruises. The losers will be the Califronia ports, transportation and tourism industries. NCL is a loser either way....these new rules WILL not solve NCL's problems with the Pride of America.

 

But in the end, the Apollo/NCL decision on the future of the Pride of America is going to come by the end of 2008 (per Apollo's agreement with NCL). The way it looks, the PVSA rule change will not be in place by then. (and even then it may not have yet had any effect). So my bet is Apollo will pull the plug on the POAm and this whole mess will be for naught. In my opinion, anyone who books a cruise on the Pride of America after 2008 is taking a big risk......

[DAGVBSB]

 

And ask RCI, HAL, X and Princess if they think it would be selective enforcement or not if these kinds of restrictions are placed on them in Hawaii and not placed on NCL (and Princess, HAL, X, and RCI, of course) who all do exactly the same thing on the Alaska runs.

 

Of course, if Senator McCain should win the November election, it is entirely possible that he will "suggest" that his 1998 legislative efforts to ease the way for foreign flagged cruise lines to compete in US markets be either re-introduced, or just put this regulation to a death knell.

 

 

As I have always said, it won't be the cruise lines who will bring litigation against these new rules if they involve selective enforcement, it will be the travel, port and tourism industries of California & Hawaii. (and possibly the State Governments of those two states as well.) The cruise lines will simply move to Ensenada, offer better deals and still force NCLA out of business. The NCL proposed changes to the PVSA DOES NOTHING to solve the problems facing the POAm and cabatoge violations. It is just outsourcing of jobs.

 

There is also a chance that Secretary Chartoff is simply waiting to make a final decision on this. Waiting for 2009 for two simple reasons... 1.) to see if NCLA is still sailing and 2.) waiting for a new administration to come in and let them make the decision.

 

 

The sad part is that there is a very "easy" out for the Department of Homeland Security.... simply change the PVSA regulation to state that all stops in foreign ports to meet the PVSA rules must be at least 6-8 hours and passengers must be able to go ashore. Make it true for all U.S. embarkation port cruises. That solves all the problems... it avoids selective enforcement, it makes the cruise lines make the foreign port stops an actual part of itinerary, it allows the foreign flagged ships to still sail from US ports, and it saves jobs. The only thing it doesn't do is to give NCL & Senator Innoye, the monopoly that they want in Hawaii..... but that is not going to happen even if the NCL proposed rules are put in place.

[DAGVBSB]

. So you can continue to be Cassandra about the sky is falling or wait until what the final rule actually says. .

 

 

Why should we wait until the rules are in place and the damage is done before we make it known that these changes are a bad idea? Should we just ignore potential rules and laws until they are enacted and then complain about them?

 

It is quite evident that that is what NCL, Senator Innoye and the C&BP wanted originally. Just slip the new changes in. Have the discussion/comment period for one month at Christmas time in hopes no one would see it and then don't allow the period to be extened. Then within a month, by February 1, have the new rules in place and give NCL all year to try and save NCLA before Apollo's deadline hit.

 

But people found out about it... they did research on the financial aspects. The governments of California and Hawaii got involved and the whole issue blew up in a hailstorm. The C&BP and DHS (Department of Homeland Security) found themselves in a bind on this. So.... they drug their feet on making a decision on the PVSA. It got kicked up to the Secretary of DHS because it became such a powder keg. NCL, seeing that a decision may not go in their favor, announced in early February that they were pulling the POA (Pride of Aloha) from Hawaii claiming that they had to do that due to the foreign flag competition (in an effort to prove their poin and force their side of the issue). Even more pressure on the DHS & C&BP..... The Alaska people put pressure on the government for fear that any changes will deystroy their 2008 summer season. More delay (probably to safely get the Alaska season finished.). Still no decision.

 

So here we are.... June 1, still waiting for a decision that was said to be "imininent," "sooner, rather than later," "by February 1." by the people at C&BP.

 

In my opinion, it was the actions of those people who were "cassandras" and who let their opinions be known that has held up this decision. And I also feel that the final decision is going to be affected by all of the stories and articles. It is not going to be the railroaded regulation that NCL and Innoye had hoped for... in fact, it is going to be far less........

[glgolfer]

Apply before June 30, 2008

 

http://www.portoflosangeles.org/DOC/DirLegAffairs.pdf

[SeattleCruiselover]

Apply before June 30, 2008

 

http://www.portoflosangeles.org/DOC/DirLegAffairs.pdf

 

I am going to forward that on to my sister. The school district might not be able to afford her services too much longer, and this is right up her alley (and she only lives about 75 miles away).

[Cruisin' Chick]

Hopefully the person who gets this job has a good legal background.

[SeattleCruiselover]

Hopefully the person who gets this job has a good legal background.

 

She has a JD degree and graduated magna cum laude from Pepperdine Law School. Think she has the quals :)

[Sea Fan]

Personally I think we should have a thread titled "PVSA and Our Concerns till Decision is Made! Then maybe we could really voice our concerns over this.

Our threads really never go away if you Google Passenger Service Acts, you will see old CC threads I found one from Dec 6th to Jan. 22.

[wanderingjew]

What is the Apollo deadline?

[DAGVBSB]

What is the Apollo deadline?

 

When Apollo made their 1 billion dollar investment of NCL, the wording in the agreement said that a decision on the future of NCLA (NCL-America) would be made within "16 months." That was in August or September of 2007. Therefore 16 months would bring us to the end of Calander year 2008.

 

The agreement with Apollo even says what will happen at the end of that period. If NCL-A was profitable by the end of that period, Apollo/NCL would continue to operate it. But the agreement also said that if NCL-A did not show the potential to be profitable by the end of the period, then her assets would be "liquidated" (exact word used in the agreement.) It went on to say that the Pride of America would be re-flagged and transfered into NCL's International fleet and the Pride of Aloha would be reflagged and transfered to Star Cruises for their Asia fleet.

 

At the time of the agreement, there was plan to pull the POA so early. The speculation is that NCL pulled the POA in a last ditch effort to make the Pride of America profitable and hence save NCLA. (of course, Star didn't want the POA and no one wanted to buy her, so she stayed with NCL and is now the Norweigan Sky.)

 

So, that is why December of this year is so important.... the decision on the future of NCL-A and the POAm will be made then. Will the POAm still be sailing in 2009?? In my opinion, probably not.

 

(there was a link to the actual Apollo/NCL deal in writing on the old thread, but unfortunately we cannot access that....)

[Sea Fan]

Here you go.

 

 

20.8.2007: NCL America's future to to be decided within 16 months

 

The future of NCL America, the loss-making US flag operation of NCL Corporation, will be decided within 16 months, Fairplay Daily News reports on its website. Apollo Management’s $1Bn equity offer for 50% of NCL Corporation includes a specific plan to either revive the US-flag NCL America operation or liquidate it within 16 months. “Obviously up until now, it [NCL America] has lost a lot of money,” said NCL president Colin Veitch during last Friday’s conference call. “So the partners have agreed to a period of time in which NCL’s new shareholding structure is not absorbing continuing losses from this operation, during which Star is underwriting the losses.” Consideration for the intra-Hawaii, US-flag assets is not included in Apollo's initial $1Bn equity infusion, but is being deferred until "the decision is made on whether we stay in the [uS flag] business,” said Veitch. “Both partners wish to continue – that’s what we’re aiming for," he maintained. NCL Corporation has decided earlier to reflag the 93,000 gross ton Pride of Hawaii from the US to the Bahamas and switch it to Norwegian Cruise Line (NCL) from NCL America. The ship will offer cruises from Europe next summer, including NCL's first programme targeting the UK market, with base in Southampton.

[DAGVBSB]

Here you go.

 

 

20.8.2007: NCL America's future to to be decided within 16 months

Apollo Management’s $1Bn equity offer for 50% of NCL Corporation includes a specific plan to either revive the US-flag NCL America operation or liquidate it within 16 months.

 

You know, I never noticed that the Apollo agreement used the word "within" 16 months. That kinda sheds a new light on stuff for me. Within tells me that instead of just a decision being made within 16 months, the whole operation will be shut down and liquidated within 16 months. Therefore, if they do pull the plug on NCL-A and the "Pride of America," then the decision should be forthcoming in the next few months to allow time for the liquidation by the end of the year.

 

Now, if we tie that to the PVSA decision, it makes more sense why they are waiting.... to see if NCL/Apollo does pull the plug on the POAm and as a result make the changes to the PVSA pointless and not necessary.

[Cruisin' Chick]

I don't know...it seems there's been many articles that said there's a decision coming soon. Then nothing. We keep hearing different dates. June 1st has passed.

[Sundagger]

You know, I never noticed that the Apollo agreement used the word "within" 16 months. That kinda sheds a new light on stuff for me. Within tells me that instead of just a decision being made within 16 months, the whole operation will be shut down and liquidated within 16 months. Therefore, if they do pull the plug on NCL-A and the "Pride of America," then the decision should be forthcoming in the next few months to allow time for the liquidation by the end of the year.

 

Now, if we tie that to the PVSA decision, it makes more sense why they are waiting.... to see if NCL/Apollo does pull the plug on the POAm and as a result make the changes to the PVSA pointless and not necessary.

 

I wouldn't take the wording as gospel - it was in an article from last August based on "Fairplay Daily News reports on its website". Parsing news articles can be very misleading. Of course, we've had months of entertainment in the PVSA threads:D

[DAGVBSB]

I wouldn't take the wording as gospel - it was in an article from last August based on "Fairplay Daily News reports on its website". Parsing news articles can be very misleading. Of course, we've had months of entertainment in the PVSA threads:D

 

Although that is an article from a newspaper, I did read the actual agreement between NCL, Star and Apollo and that pretty much sounds word for word. There was a link to the actual Apollo agreement on our previous PVSA thread, but we can't access those links anymore because the thread was deleted.

 

 

Yeah, and what are we going to do for fun once the PVSA decision is made...lol

[Annieeee]

Although that is an article from a newspaper, I did read the actual agreement between NCL, Star and Apollo and that pretty much sounds word for word. There was a link to the actual Apollo agreement on our previous PVSA thread, but we can't access those links anymore because the thread was deleted.

 

 

Yeah, and what are we going to do for fun once the PVSA decision is made...lol

Well how about a group cruise for the posters and the lurkers? Preferably and hopefully one from LA to Hawaii WITHOUT having to stop somewhere for 48 hours and not on NCL! It has been an informative thread, certainly one I have enjoyed reading.

 

Annieeee

[vjmatty]

[/b][/color]

 

 

Well how about a group cruise for the posters and the lurkers? Preferably and hopefully one from LA to Hawaii WITHOUT having to stop somewhere for 48 hours and not on NCL! It has been an informative thread, certainly one I have enjoyed reading.

 

Annieeee

 

I believe the Golden Princess April 1 '09 still has cabins available ;)