# [Overkill?] New rules for visiting the U.S. now enforced



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

From today's Noonsite.com posting:

http://www.noonsite.com/Members/doina/R2008-02-07-1

Noonsite received a report this week of new regulations applying to foreign-flagged vessels visiting the USA. According to the report, after initial entry into the country, yachts must report to CBP (Customs and Border Protection, part of the Department of Homeland Security) each time they move from one port to another, or _*even from one berth/marina to another within one port. It appears a yacht was recently fined $5,000 in Jacksonville, Florida for failing to report a move from one berth to another.*_

What follows in this link is the official regs. An effective sleeping aid, I might add.

I am totally supportive of the idea that as a foreign-flagged vessel I should I.D. myself, fly a Q flag, allow boardings, etc. once I pull into a U.S. port. Your country, your rules.

I suppose I can persuade myself that going from one port to another once I've been cleared into the U.S. is somehow necessary, because it's like filing an obligatory sail plan. Other countries only require the single entry notification, but as the U.S. is large and there's such a welter of local, state and federal officials, fine. Stamp away.

But needing to alert Homeland Security if I go from a mooring to a dock, or from a yacht club to a marina (easy to see if I exhaust my reciprocal privileges and still wish to visit a particular town or require work done)?

This seems like overkill.

My impression is that other countries handle this sort of thing with a _zarpe _or other visa-type document you can flash at port officials...if they bother to ask. The onus isn't on the boat owner to report his/her every bubbling of the rudder.

That seems like bureaucracy gone nuts. Oh, and while I've typed this post, 50 Mexicans crossed the Rio Grande.


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

Valiente,

I just quickly perused those regs and saw nothing in them stipulating this requirement.

As I read it, the requirement to report only kicks in under the following conditions:



> When Reporting Is Required:
> Masters must report their arrival to U.S. Customs and Border Protection if having been engaged in any of the below activities:
> 
> After having been at any foreign port or place
> After having had contact with any hovering vessel


Can you please be more specific about where you think this requirement comes from?

---


----------



## Stillraining (Jan 11, 2008)

*Wow!!*

Could not agree more ..what a bunch of hog wash..

Are they going to fine us for pulling up to the fuel dock without notifying the Pentagon?

I hope Boat US jumps all over this and some how gets a movement going to reverse this.


----------



## hphoen (Apr 3, 2003)

Here's a link to an article with additional information on the subject: http://www.cruisersnet.net/index.php?categoryid=44&p2013_articleid=198


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

Sounds like the same rules have been in affect for awhile, just better enforcement now. Besides, really not that hard to make a phone call.


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

While this sounds like a beauracratic misunderstanding, I concede that the language of the law as written could be read to support the stated interpretation. On the other hand, reading it in this way seems to conflict with the plain language at 19CFR4.94(c) which states in part:



> Upon approval of the [cruising permit] application, the port director will issue a cruising license in the form prescribed by paragraph (d) of this section permitting the yacht, for a stated period not to exceed one year, to arrive and depart from the United States and to cruise in specified waters of the United States without entering and clearing, without filing manifests and obtaining or delivering permits to proceed, and without the payment of entrance and clearance fees, or fees for receiving manifests and granting permits to proceed, duty on tonnage, tonnage tax, or light money.


Here are some of the relevant portions of the applicable laws/regs.



> [Code of Federal Regulations]
> [Title 19, Volume 1]
> [Revised as of April 1, 2005]
> From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
> ...


19 USC 1433 states:



> TITLE 19 - CUSTOMS DUTIES
> 
> CHAPTER 4 - TARIFF ACT OF 1930
> 
> ...


----------



## CaptKermie (Nov 24, 2006)

I wonder how long these regs have been in effect? 
I got a similar e-mail from CruisingCompass that made reference to the noonsite article but I could not find anything specific at the CBP site.
I moor for 3-6 months of the year in the USA as I live right at the 49th paralell so it is only a few minutes drive to cross the border and go to the marina. Since I have driven across by land I am not in my boat until I arrive at the marina, but I do leave from a US marina port and cruise US waters while there. I sail the San Juans in the PNW with a Canadian flag at the stern and a courtesy US flag on the shroud. I wonder if I could just remove the Canadian Flag and fly an American flag while cruising since I moor in a US port. I have sailed a fair bit throughout the San Juans from harbour to harbour and never been questioned about it. Even after crossing into Canada then back into USA I only stopped at cutoms for clearance once and never reported further movements, this was both last summer 2007 and the previous 2006 summer. Customs asked us where we were going and we told them our tentative sail plan but it does not always hold true as sometimes we fail to get a slip and either anchor or cruise up to the next marina. There is a lot of boat traffic between the US San Juans and Canadian Gulf Islands, it seems to be a very onerous expectation to report every move one makes and it may have an impact on how many and how often Canadians will cruise the San Juans. So far the only extra requirement I have had to fulfill was to get a permit for display on the port window for long term moorage in a US port. Having to report every move could negatively impact moorage at the Point Roberts Marina as they depend heavily on Canadian slip business, in fact the entire peninsula depends on cross border business because by land it is only accessible through Canada and Canadian tourism is the main industry. Next time I cross for gas I will go in and ask about this.


----------



## kiprichard (Aug 1, 2007)

Cleared into U.S. at Friday Harbour, San Juan Islands, last week from Canada. We were charged $25 for a permit that is good for 1 year from date of purchase and told we must clear customs each time we re-enter. No mention was made of notifying anyone about our movements within the U.S. once we had cleared. We were given a 16 digit number that we were to present if questioned or boarded by U.S. customs.


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

kiprichard said:


> Cleared into U.S. at Friday Harbour, San Juan Islands, last week from Canada. We were charged $25 for a permit that is good for 1 year from date of purchase and told we must clear customs each time we re-enter. No mention was made of notifying anyone about our movements within the U.S. once we had cleared. We were given a 16 digit number that we were to present if questioned or boarded by U.S. customs.


That sounds more like it, although there do seem to be special programs for Canadian vessels. Did you enter with an I-68 permit?



> Canadian Border Boat Landing Permit (I-68)
> Canadian Border Boat Landing Permit (I-68) applicants for admission into the United States by small pleasure boats are inspected and issued an I-68 permit for the entire boating season. The I-68 permit allows boaters to enter the United States from Canada for recreational purposes with only the need to report to CBP by telephoning in their arrival.


http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/pleasure_boats/boats/pleasure_boat_overview.xml

----


----------



## xort (Aug 4, 2006)

This has been a subject on a list i participate in. The idea of every time you dock somewhere is a gross exageration. But it seems that every time you enter another district you need to check in. This is where some confusion can set in as it isn't so easy to determine district boundries.

Here is the comment from one foreign flagged captain:

Just got off the phone with homeland security here in Ft. Lauderdale and they confirmed what I thought I knew to be true. A foreign flagged vessel, with a valid cruising permit, only has to report their movements/check in when they leave one district and move into another. Just as it has always been. Not when they move around in the same district. It becomes a bit of a PITA in some areas because the districts are close together and the rule is more enforced now than it was in the passed. 

It is a $5000 fine for EVERY district you do not check in with. This happen to a captain a year or so ago, where he cleared customs in Miami and moved up to Boston (as I recall) while stopping at a few places in between without checking in. His fine was something like $15,000. 

Seems a quite a bit more logical. For those of you foreign flagged vessels, you should definately check with homeland security to verify the rule. And get the name of the person giving you the info. Better yet ask them to put it in writing! If they get flooded with calls, they'll make some changes to at least clarify, if not alter the rule.


----------



## kiprichard (Aug 1, 2007)

JohnRPollard
Nope - just passports. They didn't even come down to the boat. It was all done by phone from their booth on the dock. We all stayed aboard except the captain. We were asked to stand facing the camera so he could compare faces to passport photos. We were given our number, told we all looked pretty ugly, and one guy had to go up and pay the $25. Said we'd receive the permit by mail sometime in the next 6 weeks but in the interm we could just use the 16 digit number.


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

JohnRPollard said:


> Valiente,
> 
> I just quickly perused those regs and saw nothing in them stipulating this requirement.
> 
> ...


From the experiences of foreign-flagged cruisers as posted here:

http://www.cruisersnet.net/index.php?categoryid=44&p2013_articleid=198

The bug up my nose is the inconsistency with which these rules seem to be enforced (or fully understood). My impression from reading the above link is that you annoy one set of officials in one area by reporting at every port of entry after the initial "country" entry, but that others are total hard-cases about this stipulation...which is reminiscent of the way U.S. Customs react to non-U.S. boats that have visited Cuba.

http://www.the-triton.com/megayachtnews/index.php?news=1978

The whole notion of visiting the U.S. by yacht is becoming unappealing (which may be of little concern to many here). Having been "foreign crew" on Alex's boat in Portugal, I can attest that while we here in North America tend to think of the EU as excessively bureacratic, the "sign-ins" at the ports of Sines and Vilamoura was uncomplicated for both TommyT and myself, an American and a Canadian carrying just passports. I think Alex had to show insurance and ownership and the Portuguese equivalent of "boating competency" that he has mentioned before. Whatever it was, it was quick and it didn't affect us, the two foreigners, one bit.

Maybe this is the way it's going to be from now on, but the added complexity on inland waters like Lake Ontario for Canadians to sail to "the south side" is having a real effect on travel plans. I don't own a car, for instance, but in order to get the right document for my boat to enter U.S. waters, I would have to travel to the airport on the edge of the city. Why I couldn't do this at the American consulate (a 20 minute walk from both my house and my boat), I have no idea. But it's another example of the arbitrary nature of government agencies: "because we said so".


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

Some other examples of confusion regarding these regulations. They aren't all, it seems, coming out of Homeland Security, which is probably why they seem at cross-purposes:

http://workingwaterfront.com/article.asp?storyID=20040905

http://www.synfo.com/news/allnews.asp?id=11557

Visa problems for U.S. crew on foreign-flagged yachts visiting Cuba:

http://havanajournal.com/politics/entry/travel-to-cuba-and-the-possible-ofac-fines/

Discussion of the first link I posted in my previous post:

http://www.cruiserlog.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=6443

Anyway, all stuff to contemplate.


----------



## theartfuldodger (Sep 4, 2006)

The procedures you speak of which are now in place can be read about in a book call "Sailing away from Winter" by Siver Donald Cameron where in his book he accounts to how he was to report into customs in every port he arrived while sailing the ICW in 2004.


----------



## CaptKermie (Nov 24, 2006)

One of the things I forgot to mention in my previous post is that, not only do I have a valid Canadian passport to show the officials when I cross but I also have a NeXus pass for expediant marine travel (and land) and a CanPass for marine crossing into Canada. These two passes allow me to cross the border on water both ways without checking into customs physically, I just phone them on the cell and get a clearance number. Sometimes the customs dock is right out there in plain view so I just pull up and show them my documents. Perhaps the San Juans, Puget Sound area are one district.


----------



## killarney_sailor (May 4, 2006)

*Inconsistency*

One of the big problems is that you cannot assume anything about the response you will get in a particular area. I have tried to reporting to different districts while going up the Hudson and through the Erie Canal (there are several - NYC, Albany, Syracuse, Rochester) and in some cases, it was why are you calling us while in others it was fax in a copy of the cruising license - not always easy when there may not be a copier and fax.

I have a phone number I use now that works 24/7 and through which you can connect to the office in any particular state or district 1 800 973-2867. In typical bureaucratic fashion you cannot call this number with a Canadian cell phone.


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

That was in part my point: Discussing whether or not the procedure itself is overkill is futile when the enforcement pattern is so variable. It reminds me a bit of bicycling across the border between Northern Ireland and Eire in the early '90s, during a "flare up". On the British side, it was barbed wire, visible guns and a fully staffed pillbox complete with .50 cal machine guns aimed at the gate. One hundred metres down the road was what looked like a parking lot cashier's booth, with an Irish harp plaque stuck to the front. As we approached it, a slot opened and a finger, evidently occupied with lunch, gestured that we could proceed...no inspection, questions, _vos papiers, s'il vous plait?_ Nothing.

Another hundred yards and we saw a young woman with child-bearing hips and two under-fives walking along the road. All were barefoot. I said "Is this the Republic?" and she said, in an accent radically different from the Ulster bray 200 metres north, "Oh, sure, yer worries are over now. There's a bar just ahead!"

Cliched as that was, it was also true. After Ulster's hard faces and black helicopters, it was a real unknotting of the neck muscles to tip back a pint in Ireland, where the cops (generally unarmed) pull you over to ask nicely if they can have a ride on your "boike", because it's usually nicer than what they're issued. That's probably changed in the last 15 years now that's there's a lot of new money in Ireland.

Irish police were, and I hope remain, the most relaxed law enforcers I've ever encountered.


----------



## ebs001 (May 8, 2006)

Valiente asked if was overkill. It's a definite yes. If I have a motorhome I just drive across the border and clear in ONCE. I'll probably be asked a couple of questions have to show ID where I'm going although I don't have to go there. I do not need a cruising permit and I do not have to check in again. What is it with boats? The Coast Guard and the whole Department of Homeland Security surely has more pressing matters than hastling foreign flagged cruisers. If I register my boat in a particular state I am not subject to these regulations. Tell me how that makes sense.


----------



## chris_gee (May 31, 2006)

Apparently this requirement is printed on the back of the cruising permit. The concession is apparently that one does not have to physically get cleared in at each new port but simply notify them of your presence.
However if one runs into a bureaucrat as someone pointed out you could be asked to fax the permit in, for all the good that would do as opposed to giving the number.
There is also the question of what is a new port? Obviously it is not a new berth in the same marina, but is it each anchorage on the ICW? I doubt it but but could imagine someone claiming it did. As is so often the case this seems poorly thought out regulations where some allowance is made for foreign pleasure vessels but the term port remains. There is also the apparent issue of needing a particular type of visa as crew, where none is required if not arriving by sea. So if I flew in legitimately without a visa and bought a boat in say Maryland and sailed down to Florida at any point it seems I could be required to have this visa or be deported or not allowed to leave the boat. Nor could I clear out and return from say the Bahamas without it possibly even if I returned because of problems. 
After three months I could not reenter from a nearby country but would have to fly to say Europe then return if say finding, outfitting, and removing a boat took more than 3 months.
If I crewed on another boat even if unpaid that would require a special visa, unless presumably I was a guest.
If I did a delivery on a US flagged vessel from say Hawaii to NZ I need a special visa, but not on a non US flagged yacht.
That is my understanding of the rules though they are complex. The catch is get them wrong and you are liable to be deported which probably entails a ban.


----------



## theartfuldodger (Sep 4, 2006)

There are a lot of Canadians who sail ICW each year for the sunny south, but there seems to be a gathering to opt for sailing out the St Lawrence, Nova Scotia and then to Bermuda. They all comment that they don't need the hassel. Yet I understand the security issue, but might there not be a better way. Last week when I talked to a Canadian coast guard and ask him about the security in St John's Harour and entering Canada, I explained how I sailed into the harbor at 0230 tied up to a paddle boat for the night, sailed out in the morning and into the Gut of Quidi Vidi. And even yet to this day have never been approached. In talking to many passing sail boats last year and their checking in they too experienced many such situations. When speaking to one couple from Europe they sailed for the Carb to Bermuda then right on to Nova Scotia, these people had been living aboard for sixteen years.


----------



## chucklesR (Sep 17, 2007)

I like giving threads like this a chance to 'ferment'. 
It appears to me that once again someone with an agenda has grossly exaggerated the facts. 

I don't know about most folks, but when I go to a different country I follow the laws as stipulated no matter how onerous they are.


----------



## theartfuldodger (Sep 4, 2006)

If your comments are made in reflect of my questions, is there possibly a better way, I would like to tell you that our government has been running adds on radio regularly explaining the new measures for entery into the States, with respect to land and sea. They are trying to inform us as we at times are a little more relaxed about security. My though is there not a better way maybe having Canadian boats some how registered with the US home land security, as these new laws are more ment for us then US boaters I think, just the way I read it. I might add that soon will be heading that way and really wish to have this well understood in my mind


----------



## chris_gee (May 31, 2006)

"It appears to me that once again someone with an agenda has grossly exaggerated the facts. 

I don't know about most folks, but when I go to a different country I follow the laws as stipulated no matter how onerous they are."

Perhaps you might say who specifically has what agenda and what precisely is a gross exaggeration of the "facts". 

I actually raised most of these points about 9 months ago when there was an uproar about Australia enforcing notice of arrival requirements, and many were saying in consequence they would not visit.

I agree that a country the right to determine its own laws and that one should comply. No less because officials can become officious, no less so when there is a lack of clarity about the law or regulations.

I make no criticism rather drew the attention of those who might be caught unaware. On the other hand it is not disloyal for a citizen to question whether a law fulfils its intent.


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

From what I gathered in reading the links Valiente posted, the most onerous portions of these new regs primarily affect large foreign-flagged magayachts and their crew. 

Even if the new regs are read to require a foreign-flagged cruising boat to check in at each new Coast Guard District it enters (and I think that requirement is possibly debatable), then between the Canadian border with Maine and Tallahasse Florida, the typical cruiser would have to make at most two additional check-ins. That is because the entire U.S. East Coat and better than a third of the U.S. Gulf Coast fall within only three C.G. Districts (Districts 1, 5, and 7). 

For comparison's sake, an American or Canadian cruiser in Europe travelling a lesser distance, say hugging the Atlantic coast from Norway to Portugal with a stopover in England, could be required to clear in and out of -- not simply check-in by telephone -- with as many as 10 or 11 countries along the way (at least that is how it was done when I sailed European waters).

Personally I do not like that our Canadian neighbors are subjected to this requirement, and I would support a reasonable accommodation for them. But the requirement does not seem as bad as some would make it out to be. I certainly hope our Canadian neighbors will continue to pass along our coast and enjoy their stopovers here in the States. 

Valiente, if you pass through Chesapeake Bay on your voyage, there's at least one American sailor -- probably many more -- that will go out of his way to make sure you feel welcome in our country if you give us a chance.


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

theartfuldodger said:


> When speaking to one couple from Europe they sailed for the Carb to Bermuda then right on to Nova Scotia, these people had been living aboard for sixteen years.


It wasn't "Sentinel", a red-painted, steel Bruce Roberts 38, by chance?


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

chucklesR said:


> I like giving threads like this a chance to 'ferment'.
> It appears to me that once again someone with an agenda has grossly exaggerated the facts.
> 
> I don't know about most folks, but when I go to a different country I follow the laws as stipulated no matter how onerous they are.


Two points:

I posted mainly American links, not foreigners bitching about this. A lot of Americans understand on what side their bread is buttered regarding foreign-flagged vessel.

Secondly, I am happy to follow the laws as stipulated, but isn't the onus on law enforcement to understand those laws and to enforce them uniformly? Uniform enforcement means I cross the U.S. off my list, just like Columbia, Venezuela and a few other places where bureaucracy's gone nuts in service of a figment. That, and that alone, would be my agenda as the owner of a non-U.S. cruising yacht (hey, and an ally, apparently!) with money to burn...elsewhere.


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

JohnRPollard said:


> Valiente, if you pass through Chesapeake Bay on your voyage, there's at least one American sailor -- probably many more -- that will go out of his way to make sure you feel welcome in our country if you give us a chance.


John, Americans have consistently proved themselves among the most hospitable people on Earth, and I count many as my friends (there's hordes of U.S. ex-pats in Toronto, usually fleeing perceived grievances with either the Clinton or the Bush regimes...). Your offer is generous, and your explanation of three zones (and therefore three "check-ins") makes sense and given the length of the coast, isn't onerous...hell, you are going to fuel up six times from Maine to Florida even if you sail outside much of the time...

Unfortunately, _your_ explanation and "reasonable accommodation" is not that of the numerous government agencies that seem to have a say in this matter. As a foreigner, I can't depend on (or gamble my liberty) on opinions or hearsay...I have to have a straight answer as to my obligations when visiting a foreign country, even one as superficially similar as the U.S.

Strangely, as the holder of dual Canadian/E.U. citizenship, doing that hypothetical half-dozen countries down the European Atlantic coast would be far less problematic than the "worst case" scenario posited here, and while the necessity to "phone in" may apply only to mega-yachts, that's not how the law reads, and if some disgruntled customs guy decides to swing the lead one day out of boredom or unresolved rectal piles, I don't want to be caught in some legal net. It just isn't worth it to me...I'd rather drive the East Coast than encounter a range of "never mind...on your way" in one place, and "spread your cheeks, sir" in another. We would just wait, in the traditional American fashion, for the market to decide via the absence of yacht traffic that clearer and more consistently enforced entry regulations were created.

(But if I can get into your cruising ground, I'll try and hail you on 16, OK? My understanding is that it's a really nice and varied place to sail).


----------

