Current Turnaround times for USCG License Renewals


#381

I filed a new application (using a good license consultant) with the USCG for several new license endorsements, and an increase in scope on one existing endorsement, in October 2016. One of those new endorsements, and the increase in scope, were finally approved in May 2017, the other endorsements are still pending at NMC.

The staff at NMC are too stupid to walk and chew gum at the same time. Its obvious that its a mistake to apply for more than one thing on the same application. The NMC staff gets confused too easily.

I don’t dare to complain to the USCG, nor do I think it would do any good. The staff at NMC would just retaliate by delaying and denying my applications even further.

I have asked my Senator and Congressman to hold congressional hearings on the failure of the NMC, and to order the return licensing to the RECs.


#382

Ask your Senator and Congressman to liaise with Congressman Dunn of Florida about the USCG Licensing and GAP Training Closure issues. I also have another Congressional Inquiry pending in the USCG / Maritime Infrastructure Sub-Committee. I need examples though so keep in touch. Maybe you can testify with a bag over your head, two since you are a tug guy. :grin:


#383

Just so you know, the contract is written at NMC so everytime they touch a package, the company gets $50.

For example, if there are 4 errors, they stop at that error, report and get the info from you, and then go through your package again until they find another error and do the same thing instead of getting all the errors at one time. This way they get $200 for your package instead of $50.

If you don’t give them failing grades on Customer Feedback, then they will never change or show up on the radar at headquarters and nothing will get fixed.\ and we will continue getting effed in the “A”.

Just another friendly service by the NMC to make your life miserable…


#384

NMC evaluators have been GS employees, not contractors, for well over 5 years.


#385

I would like to see those things go back to REC control. The NMC experiment is a colossal failure. One can’t even talk to an evaluator any more.


#386

I must have a string of good luck here. I had a discrepancy with my packet. Called customer service at the NMC who connected me with my evaluator. Spoke with him and had it cleared up in five minutes.


#387

The more customer service oriented Evaluators who give out their names, direct emails, and phone, tend to get things done. Problems can be cleared up quickly. However, most of the time It’s hard to find out the Evaluator’s name, and they will not give out their direct email, or phone. These Evaluators get nothing done.

There is a dire need for NMC Express Service for a substantial additional fee. The additional fee would put the mariner (or license consultant) in direct contact with a senior Evaluator that would be required to make a decision to approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application within 5 days.

There is nothing difficult or time consuming about most applications. The difficult applications (e.g. with combined tug and barge seatime and tonnage limitations) may be difficult to calculate, but they do not get easier or more accurate with months of delay. A decision should still be made promptly. It is understood that the difficult decisions may have a higher error rate, but dragging the decision out for months does not change that.

Given how incompetent that many of the Evaluators are, there are a lot of Requests for Reconsideration. There should be Express Service available for these decisions too. There is no excuse for a Request for Reconsideration to take several months.


#388

JD, that’s terrific.

Maybe you can answer a question because HQ has been less than forthcoming. Why do I have emails from G-MMC-2 then from 7 months ago saying they were “38 evaluators” short and we were 6 months behind in evaluations and MMC issuing?

Also, how can a program be “successful” according to a Congressional Inquiry, use a federal law to cover them being 6 months behind to help them, but then claim legalities when asked to use the same law to help Mariners?

I can send you a copies of the emails and letters so you can see what your office and Congressional Affairs are saying. Two separate stories in hard copy.

That being said, you are the only person up there that regularly liaises with us and gives us a straight answer in English. I personally thank you for your hardwork.

I wish it was you running the show instead of Mayte Medina. How much seatime does she have?


#389

Latest Update for turnaround time at NMC:

66 days

Upper level Unlimited ticket, Pilotage, STCW gap closure, MOT, designated examiner

Clean physical, well constructed package (cover letter with numbered contents).

Seems Pro Quals took most of the time…


#390

How have everyone’s turn around times been looking ? Submitted my app via email 12/15 and today 12/20 Baltimore rec has sent it over to the nmc, hopping for a quick turn around since it’s a simple upgrade mate of towing to master


#391

I submitted a straightforward renewal on Nov 22 and got the document back in hand on Dec 5. Not too shabby. Then again, this is the time of year when things are really slow there. And I already had a valid medical so that sped things up a bit.


#392

Yea, valid medical here , all they need to evaluate is the Sea service


#393

Sent to Baltimore 12/15 , nmc received 12/20 , being evaluated professional qualifications 12/27 , not bad so far


#394

Are checklist stated in 12 hour days or 8 hour days ?


#395

Neither, checklists are simply in “days” (there’s a whole list in the CFR of what constitutes a ‘day’). On a vessel authorized to work 12 hour watches, 12 hour watches are equivalent to 1.5 “days”.


#396

What cfr does it reference that ?


#397

Do you know what cfr reference that is


#398

Found it never mind thanks !!


#399

REQUIREMENTS FOR DECK AND ENGINEERING OFFICERS FOR PANAMA REGISTRY BY Ismael Gerli

I. Every application form for Officer Title Endorsement or Revalidation must have the following administrative requirements:

  1. Application form
  2. 6 color pictures 3 x 3 centimeters
  3. Copy of passport*
  4. Medical Fitness Certificate (Regulation 1/9)

II. Applications for Officer Title Endorsement (Regulation 1/10), must present the following documents:

  1. Title endorsement in accordance with the STCW 95 convention (Regulation 1/2)*

III. Applications for Officer Title Revalidation for:

a. Titled officers and officers with Panamanian licenses obtained by exam, under STCW 78 regulations, must present the following documents:

Personal Survival Techniques Course (IMO 1.19)*
Fire Prevention and Basic Fire Fighting (IMO1.20)*
Elementary First Aid (IMO 1.13)* (IMO 1.23)*
Personal Safety and Social Responsibilities (IMO 1.21)*
Proficiency in Survival Craft and Rescue Boats Course (IMO 123)*
Course for:
a. STCW 95 Update (Regulation 1/11), for licenses endorsed under STCW 78 regulations; or b. STCW 95 License Refresher; c. or License Upgrade, accordingly

b. All Deck Officer Applications must present copies of the following certificates:

Radar Observer Course (IMO 1.07, 1.09, Regulation 11/1-3)*
ARPA Course (Required if the equipment is available on the ship. IMO 1.08, Regulation 11/1-3)*
GMDSS Course (IMO 1.25 or 1.26, Regulation IV/2)*

c. Master and First Deck Officer Applications must present copies of the following certificates:

Medical Care Course (IMO 1.15, Regulation V1/4)*
Advanced Fire-Fighting Course (IMO 2.03, Regulation VI/3)*

d. All Engineering Officer Applications are required to fulfill point I, and points II or III accordingly.

Hope this helps at least what is concerned to Panama


#400

Original MMC received at REC on Feb 2nd. Med cert issued Feb 22nd – not bad. Now “pending assignment to a Professional Qualifications Evaluator.” This seems to be the long pole, but hoping for a reasonably quick turn.

Interesting stats that the NMC reports: “94% of credentials produced within 30 days NPT” as of December 2017.

http://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/NMC/pdfs/reports/performance/2017/performance_2017.pdf