Does anyone know the answer to this? Has anybody won any licensing battles with the NMC by quoting them the Marine Safety Manual? It clearly contradicts the CFR in many places, and my current upgrade favors the wording from the MSM. Thanks in advance
I just contested the CFR’s and lost. All of our companies COI’s say one thing, and the CFR’s saying the opposite. It took 6 weeks and went to someone high up. The previous high up person said yes, the new person said no and reversed the NMC’s policy. So you might have luck, you just have to try.
somewhere I read that the USCG uses this order of precedence:
- international treaty (STCW)
- statutes (US Code)
- regulations (CFR)
- active NVICs and/or policy letters
- MSM
As far as there being a legal instrument that states any of this, I wouldn’t have a clue where to find it since I know it isn’t in the US Code but there might be a public policy statement somewhere. Who the fuck knows? I would imagine Jim Cavo would have some learned insight and hope he’ll weigh in on this tomorrow.
You appealed the decision of the evaluator?
Thanks guys, I will give an appeal a try I guess.
[QUOTE=SLUGWRENCH;78197]You appealed the decision of the evaluator?[/QUOTE]
No, this is something that I have just heard or read somewhere. I think it might have been chatting with a marine inspector at some point.
“contested the CFR’s” Does that mean you appealed your evaluators decision?
[QUOTE=liftedlimo;78185]I just contested the CFR’s and lost. All of our companies COI’s say one thing, and the CFR’s saying the opposite. It took 6 weeks and went to someone high up. The previous high up person said yes, the new person said no and reversed the NMC’s policy. So you might have luck, you just have to try.[/QUOTE]
Here goes another try (with the quotation) “contested the CFR’s” Does that mean you appealed your evaluators decision?
[QUOTE=SLUGWRENCH;78184]Does anyone know the answer to this? Has anybody won any licensing battles with the NMC by quoting them the Marine Safety Manual? It clearly contradicts the CFR in many places, and my current upgrade favors the wording from the MSM. Thanks in advance[/QUOTE]
Policy such as the MSM is not enforceable when it conflicts with the CFR or U.S. Code.
[QUOTE=c.captain;78187]somewhere I read that the USCG uses this order of precedence:
- international treaty (STCW)
- statutes (US Code)
- regulations (CFR)
- active NVICs and/or policy letters
- MSM
…[/QUOTE]
Close. But if #1 were right, we’d already be implementing the 20010 STCW. Also, NVIC, policy letters and the MSM are all policy and regraded similarly. Whether or not one policy is accepted over another usually depends on which is consistent with the CFR or U.S. Code. When on ep p[olicy controls over another, it’s usually because one is in conflict with the CFR/U.S. Code.
[QUOTE=jdcavo;78210]Close. But if #1 were right, we’d already be implementing the 2010 STCW.[/QUOTE]
So why aren’t they? Industry pressure? Inability of the bureaucracy of the USCG to figure out how to do it? Both A & B?
[QUOTE=SLUGWRENCH;78202]Here goes another try (with the quotation) “contested the CFR’s” Does that mean you appealed your evaluators decision?[/QUOTE]
I believe I did. My saga is over in the maritime licensing forum. My evaluator told me that I didnt qualify for anything I applied for because my sea time was lacking. As stated in the CFR’s, I can only work an 8 hour day yet I stand watch 12. I said our COI, due to the automation level etc etc says we only need 2 oilers, so how am I supposed to be on watch only 8 hours if our COI says I have to work 12? All of our company ships are like this, and every other ship in the Gulf. I then provided her, thanks to our company training department, with names of people from our company in the same situation that had recently been issued 12 hour days, against what the CFRs said. She told me it was going to some officer in charge for evaluation along with the files of those people. 6 weeks and a dozen phone calls later I was told that the person in charge reversed his predecessors ruling and will not issue 12 hour days to me. Now I’m getting a lower level license and in 6 more months I will reapply for the other ones.
Like I said in the other thread, this is a classic example of why mariners should hire a former USCG licensing expert to represent them with these sorts of peculiar licensing situations. If he had hired a licensing expert to properly present his case and advocate for his position, he might have gotten the answer that he was hoping for. He certainly would have gotten an answer a lot sooner.
However, when one chooses to “go naked” in front of the NMC without representation (because one is too cheap, or supposedly too principled, to pay for representation, or simply too much of a know-it-all who thinks he understands the CFRs in the same way that the USCG does) — then one chooses take his chances and has to live with the consequences.
What is that expression we all know: "A lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client?
[QUOTE=c.captain;78213]So why aren’t they? Industry pressure? Inability of the bureaucracy of the USCG to figure out how to do it? Both A & B?[/QUOTE]
A federal agency cannot act without enabling regulations. So while the 2010 STCW is law, the Coast Guard cannot act on it until we implement regs (in progress)
[QUOTE=tugsailor;78239]Like I said in the other thread, this is a classic example of why mariners should hire a former USCG licensing expert to represent them with these sorts of peculiar licensing situations. If he had hired a licensing expert to properly present his case and advocate for his position, he might have gotten the answer that he was hoping for. He certainly would have gotten an answer a lot sooner.
However, when one chooses to “go naked” in front of the NMC without representation (because one is too cheap, or supposedly too principled, to pay for representation, or simply too much of a know-it-all who thinks he understands the CFRs in the same way that the USCG does) — then one chooses take his chances and has to live with the consequences.
What is that expression we all know: "A lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client?[/QUOTE]
I cannot speak to matters handled at NMC, but on appeals to USCG HQ, there is not a significant difference in the success of mariners who are represented by a license consultant, and those who are not.
Are you fucking joking? You think an evaluator is going to interpret seatime differently if you have a licensing expert submit the paperwork? I don’t need to hire a licensing expert to tell me what I already know. And after several renewals, and a multitude of upgrades, I am starting to become a bit of an expert myself. If you are suggesting that the NMC is a sort of “good old boy network”, and would rather give an approval to someone who once worked there, well just come out and say it, cause I’ll hire that sumbitch right now!! (I dont believe that is the case, as Mr. Cavo has confirmed above)
[QUOTE=tugsailor;78239]Like I said in the other thread, this is a classic example of why mariners should hire a former USCG licensing expert to represent them with these sorts of peculiar licensing situations. If he had hired a licensing expert to properly present his case and advocate for his position, he might have gotten the answer that he was hoping for. He certainly would have gotten an answer a lot sooner.
However, when one chooses to “go naked” in front of the NMC without representation (because one is too cheap, or supposedly too principled, to pay for representation, or simply too much of a know-it-all who thinks he understands the CFRs in the same way that the USCG does) — then one chooses take his chances and has to live with the consequences.
What is that expression we all know: "A lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client?[/QUOTE]
I fought the USCG and I won though it was a long fight but I knew I was right…when I upgraded to 3rd Mate AGT…
When I applied for my upgrade the evaluator told me I didn’t qualify. I said that according to the msm I did, then have her the chapter, section, and paragraph and she looked it up and called me back 15 minutes later to say I was good to go.
What was the issue with your upgrade?
[QUOTE=Capt. Phoenix;78522]When I applied for my upgrade the evaluator told me I didn’t qualify. I said that according to the msm I did, then have her the chapter, section, and paragraph and she looked it up and called me back 15 minutes later to say I was good to go.[/QUOTE]The biggest problem I have with the NMC is the training of the evaluators. They apparently lack of significant maritime knowledge and definitely don’t understand the hierarchy of guidance mentioned by Mr. Cavo and C.Captain.
I had the same experience when it came to qualifying for an upgrade. I was initially told I didn’t have enough time. When I pointed to the MSM, chapter and verse they conceded the point and qualified me to test. However … when I again quoted the MSM chapter and verse that I should only have to take 5 tests and not the 15 in their letter, my evaluator told me the MSM is obsolete. It would have taken longer to fight than to take the extra tests, so I just took the tests.