Guest wrote: ↑June 14, 2023, 8:51 am
I have often seen the process of redocumenting a US-built vessel that was later sold for operation under a foreign as requiring an "act of Congress" to be brought back into US documentation. Is that truly the case or is this just another way of expressing a difficult process in slang? It seems that the importance of the redocumentation of a US-built vessel is disproportionate to other issues to truly require the subject to be put through the legislative process. It would seem that there are more appropriate bureaucratic channels that could address such an issue more efficiently.
It is generally used to mean a literal act of Congress. Agencies can interpret laws, but only Congress has the power to change them (of course courts can strike down laws as well.) However the US Congress has few requirements to keep legislation "on topic", so riders are often attached to unrelated bills. So for instance, a bill legislating reimbursements be paid to airline passengers for cancelled flights, could easily have a rider attached stating that a particular vessel can be re-flagged American if it is rebuilt for x dollars or more in a US shipyard. If the main bill is passed, so is the rider. Some legislation has so many unrelated riders attached to it that they are known as "Christmas Tree bills". A little bit of everything for everyone.
It seems like an inefficient way of governing, and it probably is. But I suspect most of the effort taken to draft and negotiate riders is done by congressional staffers, and not Congress members themselves.
Mr Link wrote: ↑June 12, 2023, 7:10 pm
The vessel was built in the US for Norwegian owners. It spent the first part of its life sailing under Norwegian and Italian flags. Then it suffered a major fire which pretty much gutted the vessel. McKeil bought it and I'm pretty certain placed it in Canadian registry. But before they could work it it, it was sold American and rebuilt in a shipyard in Norfolk VA.
Normally once a vessel is sold foreign, it generally cannot be brought back into compliance with the Jones Act. However exceptions can be made if the vessel was initially built in the US and then later substantially rebuilt in the US using domestic components. I believe those cases either require an act of Congress or for the US Coast Guard National Vessel Documentation Center to issue a letter of determination to clarify if the vessel can be flagged American or even made compliant with the Jones Act. Many of their compliance letters can be found online, but they don't go back into the 1990's. I think the rule requires the rebuilding cost to be three or more times the salvage value of the vessel.
After viewing those images of the tug after the fire I'm surprised it was rebuilt. Was that due to the high cost of replacement of a Jones-compliant tugboat?
I have often seen the process of redocumenting a US-built vessel that was later sold for operation under a foreign as requiring an "act of Congress" to be brought back into US documentation. Is that truly the case or is this just another way of expressing a difficult process in slang? It seems that the importance of the redocumentation of a US-built vessel is disproportionate to other issues to truly require the subject to be put through the legislative process. It would seem that there are more appropriate bureaucratic channels that could address such an issue more efficiently.
in the 70s the state of alaska bought a used ferry from stena line in sweden. it was flagged panama. it was not allowed to load between 2 us ports.thecrew were american. to get around the jones act she loaded passengers and cars in vancouver {cpr ferry slip} and took them to alaska. the vessel was the stena danica renamed wickersham. in 1974 when the AMHS built the columbia the wickersham was sold to another operator.
thank you mr link. you answered my question. she was built in the us for norwegian owners and sailed under the norwegian flag. thats all i wanted to know.
The vessel was built in the US for Norwegian owners. It spent the first part of its life sailing under Norwegian and Italian flags. Then it suffered a major fire which pretty much gutted the vessel. McKeil bought it and I'm pretty certain placed it in Canadian registry. But before they could work it it, it was sold American and rebuilt in a shipyard in Norfolk VA.
Normally once a vessel is sold foreign, it generally cannot be brought back into compliance with the Jones Act. However exceptions can be made if the vessel was initially built in the US and then later substantially rebuilt in the US using domestic components. I believe those cases either require an act of Congress or for the US Coast Guard National Vessel Documentation Center to issue a letter of determination to clarify if the vessel can be flagged American or even made compliant with the Jones Act. Many of their compliance letters can be found online, but they don't go back into the 1990's. I think the rule requires the rebuilding cost to be three or more times the salvage value of the vessel.
badger wrote: ↑June 12, 2023, 12:18 am
was the tug samuel champlain {lafarge/holcim} built in the usa? if noy how is she jones act compliant? t think she was even owned by mckeil. one more question "holcim} is this company formed from the merger of lafarge and st. lawrence cement? kind of hard to keep track who owns what.
The Samuel de Champlain was built in the US in Texas. If she was owned by McKeil but not reflagged Canadian, then resold to an American company then she would be Jones Act compliant. Holcim is another international cement company that purchased Lafarge a few years ago.
was the tug samuel champlain {lafarge/holcim} built in the usa? if noy how is she jones act compliant? t think she was even owned by mckeil. one more question "holcim} is this company formed from the merger of lafarge and st. lawrence cement? kind of hard to keep track who owns what.