I worked on a 85GRT purse seiner. We would be underway working 12+ hours a day. Does this qualify as time-and-a-half sea service?
● As a standard, vessels under 100 GRT do not have a Certificate of Inspection (COI) and service on board these vessels will not be credited at time-and-a-half. However, some vessels under 100 GRT do have a COI and are authorized for a two-man watch system. If a two-man watch is indicated in the employer letter, and can be verified, service will be credited at time-and-a-half.
Good luck, if it isn’t time on tugs then it probably won’t count. Shame, I’d have a big license by now
As always, I’m an old guy and there may be some recent changes that I don’t have experience with, but . . .
Fishing vessels up to 5000 GRT are uninspected vessels and do not have a COI.
Fishing vessels over 200 GRT are not inspected and do not have a COI, but require USCG licensed officers: Master of Uninspected Fishing Vessels; Mate of Uninspected Fishing Vessels; and Chief Engineer of Uninspected Vessels. There is also a license as Assistant Engineer of Uninspected Fishing Vessels, but I’ve never seen one.
All of my fishing seatime from small skiffs (state boat numbers, no USCG documentation, no COI, no gross tonnage) to factory trawlers (5000 GRT, no COI) counted as time and a half with no problem at all. I used factory trawler seatime for an upgrade about five years ago, it counted 1.5 for a 12 hour day.
Up until very recently, US tugboats did not have COIs (some do now as Subchapter M is being implemented). Tugboat seatime counts 1.5 for a 12 hour day.
Yachts and private recreational vessels do not have COIs. Again, I’m out of date, but the last I knew yachts over 300 gross tons required licensed officers. Yacht Seatime counts 1.5 for a 12 hour day.
Would I put it past the some non-mariner bureaucrats at the USCG to think up some sort of nonsense to screw fishermen? No I wouldn’t.
Is your time on a small vessel sea service form or on company letterhead? It will depend on how it’s written.
It will most likely be on a company letterhead. Im not sure if you claim time and a half on CG719S.
You can get time and a half on a small vessel sea service form, there’s a section for how many hours etc on it.
If it’s going to be on company letterhead, it needs to have language like Minimum of 12 hours per day, worked 12 hours per day, on watch 12 hours per day etc. If your vessel has been sponsoned or repowered ensure that the tonnage or horsepower was updated by the owners, it’s a bitch to get them to accept it if it hasn’t been updated.
You used to be able to do this. But the CG NVIC clarified around 2016 that On vessels of less than 100 gross registered tons (GRT), a day is considered as eight hours unless the Coast Guard determines the vessel’s operating schedule makes this criteria inappropriate. Time and a half is no longer granted for recreational vessels at all. As a standard, vessels under 100 GRT do not have a Certificate of Inspection (COI) and service on board these vessels will not be credited at time-and-a-half. However, some vessels under 100 GRT do have a COI and are authorized for a two-man watch system. If a two-man watch is indicated in the employer letter, and can be verified, service will be
credited at time-and-a-half.
But an 85GRT purse seiner doesn’t have a COI, does it?
Neither does a 1600 ton purse seiner. No COI at all.
This “paper,” it does not appear to be a NAVIC, from the NMC makes no sense as it applies to fishing vessels. They are not inspected vessels and do not have a COI regardless of size. Yet, fishing vessels over 200 tons must have licensed officers.
A purse seiner over 200 tons must have licensed officers. No doubt there is a CFR that requires one master and one mate.
There is a pecking order for which laws control when there is a conflict: Constitution, Statutes, CFRs.
NAVICs are not even laws. They are just policies. In this case a policy that interprets the CFR.
This “paper” doesn’t appear to be a NAVIC. It has no legal status.
Courts give deference to agency interpretations of the regulations they Administer. This is difficult to overcome, but it can be done.
I suggest starting with a good license consultant. Gather the facts. If the facts support 12 hour days, present the facts in a way that favors granting 1.5. Also, get your Senator involved.
It appears to me that this “paper” is an incorrect interpretation of the CFR because its based on a false assumption: Fishing vessels under 100 tons don’t have COIs and therefore seatime on them is less than 12 hours a day, but Fishing vessels over 100 tons do have COIs, and therefore have 12 hour days
In fact, no fishing vessel has a COI. There is no process for inspecting fishing vessels to issue a COI. I’m not sure, but I seem to recall that Congress exempted fishing vessels from inspection by statute. If so, the USCG has no authority to inspect fishing vessels or issue them a COI, or issue a CFR that changes the rule requiring fishing vessels to be inspected.
This ‘paper” is so plainly wrong that I think a good license consultant might convince the USCG to allow 1.5 seatime credit on an 85 ton vessel.
It never ceases to amaze me how the USCG NMC manages to create one unnecessary artificial problem after another, to screw limited tonnage Mariners for no good reason.
Please cite the NVIC. I wrote a ton of 'em and have never heard of this one.
Some of what you had is from 46 CFR 10.232(h)(3) and the definition of “Day” in 46 CFR 10.107. But it isn’t new, it was there before the 2013 rule change. I’m not aware of any NVIC that gets into what the CFRR says for crediting sea service.
You’re right. It was the internal NMC guidance they put up under FAQs I was looking at. The guidance didn’t even make it into the MSM.
Can you write one to cover this?
Just another example of NMC as a failed agency that needs to be shutdown.