Passenger Vessel Services Act summary to date

[Cruisin' Chick]

I am now of the belief that no announcement is going to be made. I think they are just going to bury this.

 

After the number of public comments against this and the big time players like Schwartznegger, Feinstein, Snowe and the Hawaii and New England state governments coming out so heavily against this, I think the C&BP has rethought the whole change.

 

Since most lines are extending their stays in Ensenada to be more compliant with the orginal PVSA, that may satisfy the C&BP.

 

They have probably decided to do nothing and just leave things as they are.

 

I'm sure NCL is not happy about it, but in this case, the government doing nothing is probably the best thing for all.

 

Let's hope the decision is to make no decision. It'll be nice, though, if it would be announced so it wouldn't affect bookings.

[travel_lover]

I'm sorry if this has already been asked but I don't have much time to read through a few pages.

 

Now if I were to get on the NCL Pearl in LA repo in Vancouver. Sleep in Vancouver get on the Star Princess for a 1 nighter to Seattle the following day and then in Seattle get on the NCL Pearl to roundtrip Seattle doing Alaska is that getting around the Jones Act or am I still having a problem there?

 

Thank you for your help!

[DAGVBSB]

I'm sorry if this has already been asked but I don't have much time to read through a few pages.

 

Now if I were to get on the NCL Pearl in LA repo in Vancouver. Sleep in Vancouver get on the Star Princess for a 1 nighter to Seattle the following day and then in Seattle get on the NCL Pearl to roundtrip Seattle doing Alaska is that getting around the Jones Act or am I still having a problem there?

 

Thank you for your help!

 

Let's see if I have this rigtht:

NCL for LA to Vancouver

Overnight in Vancouver

Princess for Vancouver to Seattle

NCL for Seattle Roundtrip

 

I think you would be ok because you are not doing back to back cruises which would take you from LA to Seattle.

 

Besides...with two different cruise lines, it is doubtful that they would catch it.

 

Scenerios like this are the really stupid things that the C&BP need to look at instead of the time spent in ports!

[smeyer418]

Let's see if I have this rigtht:

NCL for LA to Vancouver

Overnight in Vancouver

Princess for Vancouver to Seattle

NCL for Seattle Roundtrip

 

I think you would be ok because you are not doing back to back cruises which would take you from LA to Seattle.

 

Besides...with two different cruise lines, it is doubtful that they would catch it.

 

Scenerios like this are the really stupid things that the C&BP need to look at instead of the time spent in ports!

 

 

I think its ok too as one cruise line isn't transporting you between two different US ports. They aren't required to share the manifest with another cruise line...in fact it may be illegal to.

[smeyer418]

remember when this was first discussed in January and I sort of accused some people of being chicken little about this. At the time I was willing to bet that those who said it was going to be issued momentarily were all wet(irrespective of what the head of homeland security said about it being 'ready' to be issued)...Well its now July my bet was that it would be issued, if at all closer to the end of the year than last January when it was a hot item. Even when and if it is ever issued I think the final form will be less onerous that the first draft. The main reasons- the fly by stops in Mexico where passengers didn't get off have all but stopped and NCL has taken away two of the US flagged ships. MARAD which was the driving force behind the change(with the encouragement to be sure of NCL) has not been pushing too hard. As any lobbyist will tell you its always easier to stop something than to get it through....and of course now that I say all this it will probably come down tomorrow...

[NelleS]

Let's see if I have this rigtht:

NCL for LA to Vancouver

Overnight in Vancouver

Princess for Vancouver to Seattle

NCL for Seattle Roundtrip

 

I think you would be ok because you are not doing back to back cruises which would take you from LA to Seattle.

 

Besides...with two different cruise lines, it is doubtful that they would catch it.

 

Scenerios like this are the really stupid things that the C&BP need to look at instead of the time spent in ports!

 

 

 

I, too, did not take the time to read through all the posts, but this one, and the one it is responding to needs some clarification.

 

The "Jones Act" does not apply to individuals. It applies to foreign-flag carriers, such as airlines and cruise lines. The Act prohibits these foreign carriers from carrying passengers domestically - that is, within the United States. As an example, you cannot fly Air Canada between Orlando and New York, even if Air Canada stops in NY on it's way from Orlando to Toronto.

 

CBP is a political animal, like every other Federal agency, and is looking at the PVSA because pressure has been brought to bear by some politician, who, no doubt, is working on behalf of some domestic business group.

[SherriZ366]

I, too, did not take the time to read through all the posts, but this one, and the one it is responding to needs some clarification.

 

The "Jones Act" does not apply to individuals. It applies to foreign-flag carriers, such as airlines and cruise lines. The Act prohibits these foreign carriers from carrying passengers domestically - that is, within the United States. As an example, you cannot fly Air Canada between Orlando and New York, even if Air Canada stops in NY on it's way from Orlando to Toronto.

 

CBP is a political animal, like every other Federal agency, and is looking at the PVSA because pressure has been brought to bear by some politician, who, no doubt, is working on behalf of some domestic business group.

if you read the first post, you will get an excellent synopsis of the entire issue including who brought the pressure on the CBP, the fact that it is a reinterpretation of the Passenger Vehicle Services Act (PVSA) etc.

[DAGVBSB]

and of course now that I say all this it will probably come down tomorrow...

 

Geez, Smeyer.... I finally get on board with you about them not taking any action and not releasing anything and you go and jinx us......lol :D

[DAGVBSB]

I, too, did not take the time to read through all the posts, but this one, and the one it is responding to needs some clarification.

 

The "Jones Act" does not apply to individuals. It applies to foreign-flag carriers, such as airlines and cruise lines. The Act prohibits these foreign carriers from carrying passengers domestically - that is, within the United States. As an example, you cannot fly Air Canada between Orlando and New York, even if Air Canada stops in NY on it's way from Orlando to Toronto.

 

CBP is a political animal, like every other Federal agency, and is looking at the PVSA because pressure has been brought to bear by some politician, who, no doubt, is working on behalf of some domestic business group.

 

 

Actually it is not the Jones Act that is being questioned or brought up for a change. Many people confuse the Jones Act and the Passenger Vessel Services Act (PVSA). Many times the PVSA is erroneously called the Jones Act.

 

The PVSA makes it illegal for a cruise ship that is not American flagged to transport people between US ports WITHOUT making a stop in a foreign port. So, a cruise from Boston to Miami with stops only in US ports, would be illegal. That is why Alaska Cruises either start or end in Vancouver or (if they are roundtrip out of Seattle) make a stop in a Canadian port.

 

Currently the only large US flagged Cruise ship is the Pride of America, which does interisland cruises in Hawaii. Since it is American flagged it can do Hawaii without an non US port. All other Hawaii cruises must either make the 3 day detour to Fanning Island (Republic of Kiritbit), come from the South Pacific Countries OR make a stop in Mexico.

 

That is where this all started. Cruise lines doing Hawaii runs were leaving LA or San Diego and making a token stop in Ensenada, Mexico. (sometimes a little as an hour in the middle of the night.)

 

NCL, owner of the Pride of America (and also 2 other US flagged ships, now removed from Hawaii), complained, through Senator Daniel Innoye of Hawaii, to MARAD and ultimately to CBP (Customs and Border Patrol, a division of the Department of Homeland Security) about the other ships.

 

NCL, Innoye and MARAD went too far in their request. In an attempt to create a monopoly for NCL in Hawaii, they tried to strengthen the PVSA to make it impossible for the other cruise lines to do the west coast to Hawaii cruises.

 

What they wanted was 48 hour stays in foreign ports and at least 50% of all port time to be foreign port time on cruises. This would have made it impossible for cruise lines to meet for Hawaii cruises. The funny thing is that NCL only wanted these rules for Hawaii... probably because they are just as guilty in Alaska.

 

MARAD and CBP tried to sneak the PVSA changes in over Christmas time. They allowed 30 days for Public Comment in December and refused to extend it. They got an earful however! While NCL, Innoye and the rest of the Hawaii Congressional Delegation in Washington and the Seafarers union came out in favor of the proposal, many more came out against the proposal. Governor Schwartzenegger of California, Governor Lingle of Hawaii, the Hawaii State Legislature, Mayors and Congressmen from LA, San Diego and San Francisco all came out against this. They were soon joined by the port workers in Calfornia and every major tourism organization in Hawaii. As word spread that these new rules would have to be enforced throughout the country, other areas which rely on Cruise traffic became worried on how it would affect them and added their voices to the complaints... this included Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine and the Governments of Maine, Connecticut, Florida and Alaska as well as the major tourism groups in those areas.

 

CBP said that their decision was imininent and enforcement would begin "sooner rather than later" (their words.) That was in January and we are still waiting. The issue has become such a political hot potatoe that Secretary of Homeland Security Chartoff is now involved as well.

 

There are really two theories out there right now on what is going to happen:

1.) They are simply going to sweep it under the rug and forget it and not make any changes.

 

2.) They will issue some minor changes to the rule. Perhaps mandating that foreign port stays be at least 6-8 hours. (which would be workable for the cruise lines and what many people on this thread believe would be fair.)

 

So, we are now just waiting to see what happens.... and we may still be waiting here for a long time......

[smeyer418]

....

 

The PVSA makes it illegal for a cruise ship that is not American flagged to transport people between US ports WITHOUT making a stop in a foreign port. So, a cruise from Boston to Miami with stops only in US ports, would be illegal.

 

..

 

It order to begin and end in a different US port the ship must stop at a distant foreign port. The closest of these in the Western Hemisphere is either South America or Islands of Aruba, Bonaire and Curacao. A cruise that starts or ends in any Foreign Port doesn't transport people between two different US ports(because it doesn't start or end in a US port) Puerto Rico is not considered a US port for these purposes. Most foreign flagged ships start and end at the same US port and stop at least one nearby foreign port(Canada, Mexico, Bermuda and most of the Carribean are nearby foeign ports). Most repositioning cruising stop at the distant foreign ports mnmetioned above or come from Europe of a nearby foreign port. I think this covers most of the rules but the rules are complicated and I might have missed one or two or more(for example a cruise to no where is ok because it stops no where and doesn't transport anyone between anything)...

[smeyer418]

I, too, did not take the time to read through all the posts, but this one, and the one it is responding to needs some clarification.

 

The "Jones Act" does not apply to individuals. It applies to foreign-flag carriers, such as airlines and cruise lines. The Act prohibits these foreign carriers from carrying passengers domestically - that is, within the United States. As an example, you cannot fly Air Canada between Orlando and New York, even if Air Canada stops in NY on it's way from Orlando to Toronto.

 

CBP is a political animal, like every other Federal agency, and is looking at the PVSA because pressure has been brought to bear by some politician, who, no doubt, is working on behalf of some domestic business group.

 

You are of course correct that the law prohibits the cruise line not individuals although the fine structure is per person so illegally transported. The potential penalty for violating the PSVA is also the ability to BAR the cruise ship and the entire cruise line from ANY US port for a period of time or permanently. No cruise line that caters to Americans can potentially face such a penalty.

[vjmatty]

for example a cruise to no where is ok because it stops no where and doesn't transport anyone between anything

 

I wondered about that.

[Cruisin' Chick]

Actually it is not the Jones Act that is being questioned or brought up for a change. Many people confuse the Jones Act and the Passenger Vessel Services Act (PVSA). Many times the PVSA is erroneously called the Jones Act.

 

The PVSA makes it illegal for a cruise ship that is not American flagged to transport people between US ports WITHOUT making a stop in a foreign port. So, a cruise from Boston to Miami with stops only in US ports, would be illegal. That is why Alaska Cruises either start or end in Vancouver or (if they are roundtrip out of Seattle) make a stop in a Canadian port.

 

Currently the only large US flagged Cruise ship is the Pride of America, which does interisland cruises in Hawaii. Since it is American flagged it can do Hawaii without an non US port. All other Hawaii cruises must either make the 3 day detour to Fanning Island (Republic of Kiritbit), come from the South Pacific Countries OR make a stop in Mexico.

 

That is where this all started. Cruise lines doing Hawaii runs were leaving LA or San Diego and making a token stop in Ensenada, Mexico. (sometimes a little as an hour in the middle of the night.)

 

NCL, owner of the Pride of America (and also 2 other US flagged ships, now removed from Hawaii), complained, through Senator Daniel Innoye of Hawaii, to MARAD and ultimately to CBP (Customs and Border Patrol, a division of the Department of Homeland Security) about the other ships.

 

NCL, Innoye and MARAD went too far in their request. In an attempt to create a monopoly for NCL in Hawaii, they tried to strengthen the PVSA to make it impossible for the other cruise lines to do the west coast to Hawaii cruises.

 

What they wanted was 48 hour stays in foreign ports and at least 50% of all port time to be foreign port time on cruises. This would have made it impossible for cruise lines to meet for Hawaii cruises. The funny thing is that NCL only wanted these rules for Hawaii... probably because they are just as guilty in Alaska.

 

MARAD and CBP tried to sneak the PVSA changes in over Christmas time. They allowed 30 days for Public Comment in December and refused to extend it. They got an earful however! While NCL, Innoye and the rest of the Hawaii Congressional Delegation in Washington and the Seafarers union came out in favor of the proposal, many more came out against the proposal. Governor Schwartzenegger of California, Governor Lingle of Hawaii, the Hawaii State Legislature, Mayors and Congressmen from LA, San Diego and San Francisco all came out against this. They were soon joined by the port workers in Calfornia and every major tourism organization in Hawaii. As word spread that these new rules would have to be enforced throughout the country, other areas which rely on Cruise traffic became worried on how it would affect them and added their voices to the complaints... this included Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine and the Governments of Maine, Connecticut, Florida and Alaska as well as the major tourism groups in those areas.

 

CBP said that their decision was imininent and enforcement would begin "sooner rather than later" (their words.) That was in January and we are still waiting. The issue has become such a political hot potatoe that Secretary of Homeland Security Chartoff is now involved as well.

 

There are really two theories out there right now on what is going to happen:

1.) They are simply going to sweep it under the rug and forget it and not make any changes.

 

2.) They will issue some minor changes to the rule. Perhaps mandating that foreign port stays be at least 6-8 hours. (which would be workable for the cruise lines and what many people on this thread believe would be fair.)

 

So, we are now just waiting to see what happens.... and we may still be waiting here for a long time......

 

Just want to bring this forward as this is a good description for those now joining us for the first time. As you can see, we aren't discussing the Jones Act, but the PVSA. And having fun with the color function, but hopefully you get the point:

NCLA was flopping, NCL head got Inouye onboard with trying to make it difficult for other cruiseships to go to Hawaii, Inouye got the CPB onboard with making impossible changes, politicians as well as citizens in the affected port cities (raising my hand right now...and I did get my comment in to that website on time because I found out about it on cruise critic) protested as we stand to lose millions in tourism dollars, fans of cruising also were upset because the proposed change will probably eliminate many popular itineraries. We're still waiting to hear.

[Mizzoocruizer]

Hi, this is my first post.

 

I have a cousin in Hawaii in the travel industry and she's following this issue real close. So I've kind of tried to keep track of it too, especially as my wife and I were considering taking a cruise out there next year.

 

Anyway, I don't know what this means, but I was looking at websites trying to find more information and came across this:

 

http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?ruleID=286751

 

Don't ask me what the Office of Managemend and Budget has to do with this, I have no idea!

 

On another subject, what's the best bang for the buck cruise from the West Coast to Hawaii? That is if there even is a cruise to Hawaii by then....

 

Edit: Maybe the OMB hs nothing to do with this. I just see its logo on the top right, and when I looked at what they do on their site it says "OMB ensures that agency reports, rules, testimony, and proposed legislation are consistent with the President's Budget and with Administration policies. " So maybe all rules like this have to go through OMB?

[Sea Fan]

Hmmmm, well you know how to get my attention. I know that's what they want but I don't think a final decision has been made yet. I'm thinking it's being put on the back burner for a while.

I see your a new poster have you checked out the ports of call section yet? Click on Hawaii. Also and my personal favorite is the Roll Calls section. The Golden princess people always share great information. One thing, we really aren't supposed to post on someone else's roll call but we can read all we want.

Roll calls for Golden Princess below, go back a couple of pages, lots of current info.

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/forumdisplay.php?f=302

Thanks for the heads up.

Dianne

[Mizzoocruizer]

Hello Dianne. I'm having fun checking out this site. It's a really good resource, looks like. I'll be sure to take a gander at those sections you mentioned.

 

Thank you.

[Sea Fan]

Oh you are in such trouble Cruise Critic becomes a real addiction. Most people are wonderful and really want to help. It's a good idea to read the rules for posting, but it's so nice to come to a site where everyone has so much in common.

 

I am going on the Golden Princess to Hawaii next March so I read everything I can.

 

Have fun.

 

Dianne

[Mizzoocruizer]

Ha ha. I have enough addictions as it is - I don't need another! Hopefully I haven't broken any rules posting. Have fun in Hawaii in march. I'll be asking you how your trip was to help decide our own cruise out there later.

[Sea Fan]

Sounds good to me, I'm sure you haven't broken any rules.

I am rereading that rule you posted and getting a little nervous here:

 

 

DHS/USCBP RIN: 1651-AA76 Publication ID: Spring 2008 Title: ¤Coastwise Transportation of Passengers Abstract: This interim rule amends the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS’) current regulations relating to the transportation of passengers by non-coastwise-qualified vessels on voyages that begin and end at a U.S. port and stop at intervening U.S. and foreign port(s). Under this interim final rule, voyages that begin and end at a U.S. port and stop at a foreign port(s) and at intervening U.S. port(s) where a large U.S.-flag coastwise-qualified passenger vessel engages in regular service are in violation of the Passenger Vessel Services Act (PVSA) unless the cumulative length of stay(s) at intervening foreign port(s) is more than 50 percent of the total amount of time spent at the intervening U.S. port(s) and passengers are permitted to go ashore at the foreign port(s). The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the Congressional purpose in enacting the PVSA, which is to preserve the economic benefits of U.S. coastwise trade to U.S.-flag coastwise-qualified vessels, is properly implemented. Agency: Department of Homeland Security(DHS) Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant RIN Status: First time published in the Unified Agenda Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule Stage Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No CFR Citation: 19 CFR 4.80a(b)(4) Legal Authority: 5 USC 301; 19 USC 66; 19 USC 1431; 19 USC 1433; 19 USC 1434; 19 USC 1624; 19 USC 2071 note; 46 USC 501; 46 USC 60105 Legal Deadline: None

Timetable: ActionDateFR CiteInterim Final Action 05/00/2008 Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: None Federalism: No Included in the Regulatory Plan: No RIN Data Printed in the FR: No Agency Contact:

Glen E. Vereb

Chief, Entry Procedures and Carriers Branch

Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Office of Regulations and Rulings, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.,

Washington, DC 20229

Phone:202 572-8730

[Mizzoocruizer]

Well maybe you shouldn't be so nervous b/c it is the fed gov and we all know how slow they are! And who knows where it has to go from here, and how many days thre have to be to comment on it, you know?

[Sea Fan]

LOL, I'm so lost now as to what they are going to do I'm really not going to worry about it. I'll go where ever I have to to get on that ship.

The sad thing is really the loss of jobs if this does eventually make it through.

Hey You are up to 4 posts:D

Dianne

[WaStateBG]

Actually it is not the Jones Act that is being questioned or brought up for a change. Many people confuse the Jones Act and the Passenger Vessel Services Act (PVSA). Many times the PVSA is erroneously called the Jones Act.

 

The PVSA makes it illegal for a cruise ship that is not American flagged to transport people between US ports WITHOUT making a stop in a foreign port. So, a cruise from Boston to Miami with stops only in US ports, would be illegal. That is why Alaska Cruises either start or end in Vancouver or (if they are roundtrip out of Seattle) make a stop in a Canadian port.

 

Currently the only large US flagged Cruise ship is the Pride of America, which does interisland cruises in Hawaii. Since it is American flagged it can do Hawaii without an non US port. All other Hawaii cruises must either make the 3 day detour to Fanning Island (Republic of Kiritbit), come from the South Pacific Countries OR make a stop in Mexico.

 

That is where this all started. Cruise lines doing Hawaii runs were leaving LA or San Diego and making a token stop in Ensenada, Mexico. (sometimes a little as an hour in the middle of the night.)

 

NCL, owner of the Pride of America (and also 2 other US flagged ships, now removed from Hawaii), complained, through Senator Daniel Innoye of Hawaii, to MARAD and ultimately to CBP (Customs and Border Patrol, a division of the Department of Homeland Security) about the other ships.

 

NCL, Innoye and MARAD went too far in their request. In an attempt to create a monopoly for NCL in Hawaii, they tried to strengthen the PVSA to make it impossible for the other cruise lines to do the west coast to Hawaii cruises.

 

What they wanted was 48 hour stays in foreign ports and at least 50% of all port time to be foreign port time on cruises. This would have made it impossible for cruise lines to meet for Hawaii cruises. The funny thing is that NCL only wanted these rules for Hawaii... probably because they are just as guilty in Alaska.

 

MARAD and CBP tried to sneak the PVSA changes in over Christmas time. They allowed 30 days for Public Comment in December and refused to extend it. They got an earful however! While NCL, Innoye and the rest of the Hawaii Congressional Delegation in Washington and the Seafarers union came out in favor of the proposal, many more came out against the proposal. Governor Schwartzenegger of California, Governor Lingle of Hawaii, the Hawaii State Legislature, Mayors and Congressmen from LA, San Diego and San Francisco all came out against this. They were soon joined by the port workers in Calfornia and every major tourism organization in Hawaii. As word spread that these new rules would have to be enforced throughout the country, other areas which rely on Cruise traffic became worried on how it would affect them and added their voices to the complaints... this included Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine and the Governments of Maine, Connecticut, Florida and Alaska as well as the major tourism groups in those areas.

 

CBP said that their decision was imininent and enforcement would begin "sooner rather than later" (their words.) That was in January and we are still waiting. The issue has become such a political hot potatoe that Secretary of Homeland Security Chartoff is now involved as well.

 

There are really two theories out there right now on what is going to happen:

1.) They are simply going to sweep it under the rug and forget it and not make any changes.

 

2.) They will issue some minor changes to the rule. Perhaps mandating that foreign port stays be at least 6-8 hours. (which would be workable for the cruise lines and what many people on this thread believe would be fair.)

 

So, we are now just waiting to see what happens.... and we may still be waiting here for a long time......

 

I smell politics too, it is an election year after all. I suspect the combined power of the northeast and west coast senators, governors and business interests had much more of an impact than some lowly Hawaiian politician and that the agencies involved were ordered to let go of this (NOW), possibly by the White House itself. I think any changes will be a combo of points 1 and 2 and carried out in typical American government fashion; there will be some minor tweaking to the rules, quietly implemented at a time when the public is distracted and allowing 5 to 10 years for compliance which is plenty of time for the big business controlled government to either find other loopholes and/or quietly make further changes to the policies, all of which will favor the economies of California, Alaska, the Northeast and Pacific Northwest.....with far bigger GNPs than Hawaii.

[DAGVBSB]

I smell politics too, it is an election year after all. I suspect the combined power of the northeast and west coast senators, governors and business interests had much more of an impact than some lowly Hawaiian politician and that the agencies involved were ordered to let go of this (NOW), possibly by the White House itself. I think any changes will be a combo of points 1 and 2 and carried out in typical American government fashion; there will be some minor tweaking to the rules, quietly implemented at a time when the public is distracted and allowing 5 to 10 years for compliance which is plenty of time for the big business controlled government to either find other loopholes and/or quietly make further changes to the policies, all of which will favor the economies of California, Alaska, the Northeast and Pacific Northwest.....with far bigger GNPs than Hawaii.

 

We had the thought earlier in the year that the Bush Administration would simply postpone the decision on this until next year and let the new administration figure it out.

 

One thing to note... Sen. Daniel Innoye is no lowly Hawaiian politician. He is the third or fourth longest serving Senator still serving. (behind Byrd of West Virginia, Kennedy of Massachusettes and I believe Ted Stevens of Alaska.) He is actually a very powerful Senator. He is also being supported in his quest by Hawaii's other Senator, Akaka and their Representative, Neil Abercrombie.

 

Now, here is the most interesting part... the Hawaii Governor, Hawaii State Legislature and the Hawaii Commerce Department (and almost every major tourism organization in the State) have come out adamently against the proposed changes to the PVSA. The Hawaii State Legislature even passed a resolution in opposition to the changes. It is the belief of the Hawaiian Government that the changes will have a greater negative impact on Hawaii's economy and tourism by eliminating the other ships than the positive impact of saving the Pride of America. So the Hawaiian Congressional delegation is operating in direct opposition to the will of the Hawaii State Government, and what would appear to be their majority of constituents.

 

Now let's add some clarification notes in order to be fair:

Innoye, Abercrombie and Akaka are all Democrats

Governor Lingle is a Republican (so the Department of Commerce would be under a Republican as well.)

The Hawaii State Legislature (both Houses) are controlled by Republicans.

 

Senator Innoye's late wife was named the Godmother of the Pride of America and Senator Innoye himself was named the Godfather of the Pride of Hawaii.

Senator Innoye helped NCL secure the changes to the PVSA that allowed NCL-America and therefore, the "Pride" ships to be launched.

[SherriZ366]

I smell politics too, it is an election year after all. I suspect the combined power of the northeast and west coast senators, governors and business interests had much more of an impact than some lowly Hawaiian politician and that the agencies involved were ordered to let go of this (NOW), possibly by the White House itself. I think any changes will be a combo of points 1 and 2 and carried out in typical American government fashion; there will be some minor tweaking to the rules, quietly implemented at a time when the public is distracted and allowing 5 to 10 years for compliance which is plenty of time for the big business controlled government to either find other loopholes and/or quietly make further changes to the policies, all of which will favor the economies of California, Alaska, the Northeast and Pacific Northwest.....with far bigger GNPs than Hawaii.

Unfortunately Sen. Inouye who got the CBP to issue his PVSA reinterpretation proposal is not a lowly Hawaiin politician. He chairs the Commerce Committee that has jurisdiction over the cruise lines and is second in seniority on Appropriations that funds the whole govt. If there is a positive outcome it will be because an array of entities, who would suffer great economic harm, have weighed in and caused a firestorm.

[SeattleCruiselover]

Oh, dear. If you look at the date on that interim rule, it is May 08. This version has dropped the 48 hour part, but everything else remains intact. If they published this in May, the final interpretation is likely coming within the next 30 days or so. Yes, it saves the AK season for this year, because it would likely be another 60 days before implementation is required, but think of all the other itineraries that they would have to scramble to redo.

 

Thank the good Lord our cruise next year is out of YVR. I just cancelled the one from Red-Hook/Brooklyn.....:eek: