National Observer Program 

2016 Observer Provider 

Insurance Workshop Report 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-176 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 

National Observer Program 2016 Observer Provider Insurance 

Workshop Report 

James Patterson, Alex Perry, Alicia Miller, and Jane DiCosimo 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-176 

November 2017 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Wilbur L. Ross, Jr., Secretary 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

RDML Tim Gallaudet, Ph.D., USN Ret., Acting NOAA Administrator 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Chris Oliver, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries 
 

Recommended Citation: 

Patterson, J., Perry, A., Miller, A., DiCosimo, J. 2017. National Observer Program 2016 Observer Provider 

Insurance Workshop Report. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-176, 15 p. 

Copies of this report may be obtained from: 

National Observer Program 

Offce of Science & Technology 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

1315 East-West Highway 

Silver Spring, MD 20910 

Or online at: 

http://spo.nmfs.noaa.gov/tech-memos 

ii 2016 Observer Provider Insurance Workshop Report 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contents 

Acronyms iv 

Executive Summary 1 

Background 1 

The Workshop 3 

Session One: Introduction and Insurance Costs Summary 4 

The National Observer Program (NOP) Panel 4 

Session Two: Types and Amounts of Observer Provider Insurance 5 

Observer Provider Expert Panel 5 

Insurance Expert Panel 5 

Session Three: Claims Process 6 

Observer Panel 6 

Government Subject Matter Expert Panel 7 

Insurance Expert and Observer Provider Discussion 8 

Session Four: Wrap-Up 8 

Agency Follow-Up 9 

General Counsel 9 

Industry 9 

National Observer Program Advisory Team (NOPAT) 10 

Webinar 10 

Observer Safety Program Review 10 

NOP Recommendations and Future Goals 11 

Short-Term Goals 11 

Mid-Term Goals 11 

Long-Term Goals 11 

Conclusion 11 

Acknowledgments 12 

Appendix A: Timeline and Reference Materials 13 

Appendix B: Observer Provider Insurance Coverages Based on 2016 Workshop Discussions 15 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service iii 
Acronyms

Acronym Title 

AFSC Alaska Fisheries Science Center 

AKRO Alaska Regional Offce 

AOI Alaskan Observers, Incorporated 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CGL Commercial General Liability 

DOC Department of Commerce 

DOL Department of Labor 

FECA Federal Employees’ Compensation Act 

FOCA Fisheries Observers’ Compensation Act 

GL General Litigation 

GML General Maritime Law 

LHWCA Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act 

MEL Maritime Employers’ Liability 

MGL Marine General Liability 

MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act 

MRSA Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus 

MSA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

NCCI National Council on Compensation Insurance 

NEFSC Northeast Fisheries Science Center 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NOP National Observer Program 

NOPAT National Observer Program Advisory Team 

NPFMC North Pacifc Fishery Management Council 

NWFSC Northwest Fisheries Science Center 

OGC Offce of General Counsel 

OWCP Offce of Workers’ Compensation Programs 

PIRO Pacifc Islands Regional Offce 

P&I Protection and Indemnity insurance 

SEFSC Southeast Fisheries Science Center 

ST Offce of Science and Technology (National Marine Fisheries Service) 

USL&H U.S. Longshore & Harbor Workers’ insurance 

iv 2016 Observer Provider Insurance Workshop Report 
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 1 

Executive Summary 

Adequately insuring U.S. fshery observers authorized 

under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (MSA), Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA), and Endangered Species Act (ESA) for injury 

claims during deployment both on land and at sea—and 

addressing associated lost wages—has been a concern of 

NOAA Fisheries since the inception of observer programs 

in U.S. waters in the 1970s. Correspondence between an 

observer provider company, the North Pacifc Fishery 

Management Council (Council), and NOAA Fisheries 

during 2014-2015 identifed that certain regulatory 

requirements could be rescinded by the Council and NOAA 

Fisheries through an amendment to federal regulations, 

since the agency determined that some requirements 

were redundant, costly, or inapplicable. However, the 

correspondence did not identify insurance coverage(s) 

that could be added as requirements to replace insurance 

coverages that would be rescinded from regulations, nor 

did it identify minimum coverage amounts for applicable 

requirements. Terefore, NOAA Fisheries’ National 

Observer Program (NOP) hosted an Observer Provider 

Insurance Workshop1 in Washington, D.C., November 8–9, 

2016. Te purpose of the workshop was twofold: 

1. To review federal regulations that specify observer 

provider insurance requirements and receive comments 

on whether they are appropriate. 

2. To identify a) whether there are any gaps in observer 

provider insurance requirements to ensure that 

U.S. fshery observers2 are adequately covered for 

compensation due to injury and/or illness while 

performing all aspects of their jobs, whether on land or at 

sea; and b) minimum dollar amounts for those insurance 

requirements. 

Specifc objectives of the 2016 Observer Provider Insurance 

Workshop were to: 

• Discuss coverage for observers under State Workers’ 

Compensation and the Federal Employees’ Compensation 

Act (FECA). 

• Discuss gaps in coverage and examine options to cover 

those gaps. 

• Discuss actions to ensure that observer providers carry 

appropriate and sufcient insurance to cover claims by 

observers who are injured or fall ill while on duty. 

• Consider regional and/or national approaches regarding 

types of insurance coverage requirements, including 

minimum coverage amounts. 

Tis report summarizes the topics discussed during the 

workshop, comments submitted during a follow-up May 

2017 webinar that summarized the workshop discussions, 

and preliminary recommendations from an Observer Safety 

Program Review. 

Background 

Since the 1970s, when scientifc observers began deploying 

on commercial fshing vessels to monitor fsheries, it has 

been difcult to defne their role and function to ensure they 

receive proper care and wage compensation should they 

become ill or injured while performing the required duties 

of the job. Observers have many land- and sea-based duties, 

each of which presents unique challenges and dangers 

to observers in vastly diferent and changing working 

environments. At sea, observers monitor fsheries landings 

on a variety of vessel types and sizes deploying various gear 

types, targeting numerous species, and landing a multitude 

of non-targeted (bycatch) species. Observers also monitor 

fsheries in both at-sea and shoreside processing facilities. 

Observers carry sometimes heavy and burdensome 

equipment on and of vessels, and even across vessels tied 

together at the dock. 

In spite of the Department of Labor (DOL)’s specifc job 

classifcation that defnes the duties and responsibilities of 

an observer, which may serve as a single point of reference 

for data for developing adequate and comprehensive 

health insurance coverage for observers, this has yet to 

be undertaken. Te resultant national problem is a lack of 

uniform regulations and/or insurance coverage requirements 

in U.S. federal fsheries. Furthermore, in regions where 

insurance coverage requirements do exist in the regional 

regulations (regional Codes of Federal Regulations, or 

CFRs)3

, the regulations and requirements may be redundant, 

overly costly, or inapplicable for observers, as was 

documented in a 2016 letter from NOAA Fisheries to the 

Council. 

1 Te workshop was conducted as a non-Federal Advisory Committee Act meeting for informational purposes only. Attendees and participants discussed issues but did not reach consensus on recommendations. 

2 For the purposes of this workshop, “observers” includes domestic at-sea monitors in U.S. waters, but excludes international at-sea monitors and observers, platform observers, and EM technicians. However, the results of the workshop may have relevant implications for 

those groups as well. 

3 Code of Federal Regulations https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collectionCfr.action?collectionCode=CFR 
2 2016 Observer Provider Insurance Workshop Report 

 

Observers work in two types of programs: 1) industryfunded programs (North Pacifc (Alaska) groundfsh and 

Pacifc halibut4, West Coast groundfsh trawl rationalization, 

Northeast groundfsh sector, and Atlantic sea scallops 

individual fshing quota fsheries) in which the fshing 

industry pays for the at-sea deployment of observers, and 2) 

NOAA Fisheries-contracted programs (all other domestic 

observer programs) wherein federal funds are utilized to 

deploy contracted observers. In all cases, NOAA Fisheries 

funds all infrastructure costs supporting observer programs. 

Te existence of two funding sources for at-sea deployment 

of observers has resulted in questions regarding the 

employment status of observers, further complicating the 

provision of insurance coverage. Te 1996 amendment 

to the MSA deemed that all fshery observers were to 

be considered federal employees for the purposes of 

compensation while at sea, and were thereafer eligible 

for benefts under the Federal Employees’ Compensation 

Act (FECA). Tis amendment has alleviated some of the 

difculties in properly insuring observers; however, FECA 

still leaves substantial gaps in the coverage provided. 

FECA provides for insurance coverage of observers only 

while at sea; it remains necessary for observer providers to 

purchase or pay into additional insurance policies (e.g., state 

workers’ compensation and Longshore and Harbor Workers 

Compensation Act (LHWCA)) for the land-based duties 

regularly performed by observers in support of their at-sea 

duties. However, the coverage properties and minimum 

thresholds of these added policies may vary from state to 

state and between fsheries, resulting in further ambiguities 

and gaps in coverage. Additionally, overtime pay, which is a 

substantial portion of an observer’s wages, is not considered 

for compensation under FECA. In short, although FECA 

in many ways improves protection for observers, there still 

remains substantial concern regarding adequacy of coverage. 

In 2001, the frst Observer Insurance Workshop (see 

Appendix A3) was conducted to address the inadequacies 

of existing observer insurance coverage. Te 2001 

workshop demonstrated gaps in coverage, highlighted 

multiple redundant and duplicative insurance policies 

observer providers were required to carry, and defned the 

inapplicable nature of some of the policies and acts in regard 

to scientifc observers. Te discussions and conclusions of 

that workshop also demonstrated that, at that time, there 

were no established minimums for the types of insurance 

that must be provided by law to protect observers, and many 

of the protections in place did not appear to have the health 

and wellbeing of the observer as the top priority. Additional 

steps were still necessary to ensure the health and safety of 

the observers. 

In 2003, a fnal report was prepared with four main objectives 

to address the shortcomings found as a result of the 2001 

Observer Insurance Workshop. Te objectives were to: 

1. Devise coverage options to insure observers regardless of 

their location (at sea, on land, traveling for work, etc.); 

2. Reduce the risk to vessel owners from liability due to an 

injury of an observer; 

3. Address government liability relating to the training, 

debriefng, and deployment of observers; and 

4. Develop methods to monitor and manage the potential 

future changes in the legal and fnancial risks associated 

with observer programs. 

In analyzing the above four aspects of observer programs, the 

report suggested that new legislation specifcally applicable 

to observers would achieve optimal benefts for protecting 

observers through insurance. Tis could be achieved by 

using the LHWCA as a model, with the modifcation of 

certain aspects of the language, to bring a bill to Congress 

for consideration. Tis drafed bill was termed the Marine 

Fisheries Observers’ Compensation Act or FOCA (see 

Appendices A4-A6). It would close the gaps and potentially 

eliminate redundancies and overlaps found in current 

coverages. FOCA was designed as a cost-efective all-inclusive 

plan for observer providers to carry full insurance coverage 

for observers while prohibiting negligence claims/liability 

suits by observers (with exception of cases of willful injury or 

death). Tis would concurrently provide protection for the 

government, observer providers, and vessel owners. However, 

because this legislation was not enacted, the insurance 

coverage gaps and coverage discrepancies for the protection 

of observers, observer providers, vessel owners, and vessels 

remain. 

On March 25, 2014, Alaskan Observers Incorporated (AOI) 

submitted a letter (Appendix A7) to the North Pacifc 

4 Te Alaska Observer Program has two types of industry-funded observer programs. Vessels and processing plants in the full coverage 

category pay permitted observer providers directly for observer coverage on their vessel or at processing plants. Observer coverage in 

the partial observer coverage category is funded by revenue generated from an ex-vessel value-based fee. NOAA Fisheries assesses a fee 

of 1.25% on the ex-vessel value of the landed groundfsh and halibut in the partial observer coverage category. NOAA Fisheries uses fee 

proceeds to contract with an observer provider company (AIS Inc.) which provides observers to vessels and processing plants that have 

been selected for observer coverage. 

5 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/laws_policies/msa/ 

6 United States Department of Labor https://www.dol.gov/owcp/regs/compliance/ca_feca.htm 

7 United States Department of Labor https://www.dol.gov/owcp/dlhwc/lhwca.htm 
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 3 

 

Council that recommended amendments to the observer 

provider coverage requirements in federal regulations in 

order to reduce the cost of insuring observers by eliminating 

these unnecessary and redundant coverage requirements, 

and providing either national insurance requirements or 

standards for regional adoption. Te AOI letter stipulated: 

1) uniform and/or national standards for observer insurance 

coverage are lacking; 2) only three of the eight regional 

fshery management councils (North Pacifc, Pacifc, and 

New England) have implemented any type of fsheries 

observer insurance regulatory requirements; and 3) of 

those three Councils, only the North Pacifc Council 

required the provision of the Merchant Marine Act (Jones 

Act)8, and both the North Pacifc Council and the Pacifc 

Council required the provision of LHWCA coverage and 

Commercial General Liability (CGL).9 Te New England 

Council did not require the provision of any of these 

coverages, but did mandate a minimum coverage dollar 

value of both of Maritime Employers’ Liability (MEL)10 and 

state workers’ compensation coverage in the amount of $5 

million. Te AOI letter opined that the Jones Act, CGL, 

and LHWCA were inapplicable regarding observers, and 

therefore coverage under these acts should not be required 

under federal regulations and proposed that MEL, state 

workers’ compensation, and Marine General Liability (MGL) 

coverages did apply to observers and should be required, 

with a minimum insurance coverage of $2 million. 

In response to the AOI letter, the Council requested 

NOAA Fisheries guidance (Appendix A8) on AOI’s 

recommendations. In a May 2015 letter (Appendix A9), 

the NOAA Fisheries Assistant Administrator agreed that 

the Jones Act, CGL, and LHWCA coverages were indeed 

redundant and unnecessary requirements for observer 

providers, and noted that the Council could consider a 

regulatory amendment to remove some coverages from 

regulatory requirements and potentially implement more 

appropriate options. At that time NOAA Fisheries did not 

have a recommendation on the appropriate minimum 

coverage requirements for the MGL, MEL, and state workers’ 

compensation coverage, and stated that this element in the 

regulations could be reassessed in a Council analysis. Te 

ongoing discussion of the applicability and appropriate 

coverage amounts of the various observer insurance 

coverages led the NOP to coordinate the 2016 Observer 

Provider Insurance Workshop in order to identify a pathway 

to fnally resolve this issue.11 

The Workshop 

Te workshop, which was attended by NOAA Fisheries 

representatives of all U.S. regional observer programs, 

sought input from as many sources as possible, including 

union representatives, observer provider company 

representatives, and insurance experts (consultants, 

providers, brokers, agents, and underwriters). An additional 

panel of Department of Labor (DOL) staf with expertise 

in observer claims provided an opportunity to exchange 

information on how to expedite the claims process. Te 

workshop was attended by a total of 61 people for all or part 

of the workshop: 29 participants on site, 12 participants via 

webinar and phone, and approximately 20 participants via 

phone only. Webinar and phone participants were in listenonly mode, but could submit questions and/or comments via 

the webinar, which were addressed when possible during the 

workshop. 

Te workshop included four subject matter expert panels 

that are described below. Te frst day was organized 

into two parts. Te frst session included two NOP 

staf presentations: 1) background information and 2) 

discussions of types and coverage amounts of observer 

provider insurance. For the background session, NOP 

staf summarized the frst workshop in 2001, recent 

correspondence on this issue, and potential next steps. Te 

second presentation summarized aggregated, anonymous 

insurance cost data contributed by the observer provider 

companies. Two panel discussions comprised the second 

part: 1) observer provider company experts and 2) insurance 

provider experts. 

Te second day consisted of three sessions that addressed 

insurance claims processes. Te frst session consisted of 

prepared materials by an observer union representative 

(as no current observers were present at the workshop) 

and general discussion by those in attendance and on 

the phone. Te DOL stafed the second session, with 

presentations and discussions led by subject matter experts 

on observer insurance claims under FECA and state workers’ 

compensation. Te third session included a combined 

insurance expert and observer provider discussion, 

with contributions from all prior panels and workshop 

participants. Te meeting concluded with closing remarks 

and a workshop summary by NOP staf. 

8 Merchant Marine Act of 1920 http://huelladigital.univisionnoticias.com/cruceros-vacaciones-en-aguas-de-nadie/wp-content/uploads/ 

2016/06/Jones_Act_1920.pdf 

9 Te Hartford https://www.thehartford.com/general-liability-insurance 

10 International Special Risks http://www.isr-insurance.com 

11 Te information discussed above is intended to provide background to this document, and is not all inclusive. For a timeline of relevant 

actions on this topic, please refer to Appendix A1–A9. 
4 2016 Observer Provider Insurance Workshop Report 

Session One: Introduction and Insurance Costs 

Summary 

The National Observer Program (NOP) Panel 

Panelists: Jane DiCosimo, Alex Perry 

NOP staf opened the workshop by identifying the objectives 

of the workshop and presenting the relevant historical 

information for hosting the workshop (as substantially 

detailed in the background portion of this document). 

Staf next summarized the results of a questionnaire posed 

to observer provider companies prior to the workshop, 

conducted with the goal of providing cost information to 

insurance providers. Aggregated insurance costs estimates 

were intended to determine the feasibility of utilizing a 

single, national insurance contract. Te data were aggregated 

to protect sensitive and private business information. 

Despite this, many observer provider companies elected 

not to answer questions regarding their insurance costs. 

Additionally, there were varying interpretations regarding 

the data that was being requested, so true cost and rate 

comparisons were difcult to make. Te data ultimately 

yielded inconclusive results and the approach was 

abandoned. Afer these presentations, the foor was opened 

up for general discussion by the workshop participants. 

Participants were interested in the development of guidance 

or regulations on national minimum standards to alleviate 

some of the concerns regarding adequate insurance 

coverage of observers. Tis would also eliminate some 

of the redundancies and unnecessary costs associated 

with carrying coverages such as the Jones Act or GML, as 

observers are unlikely to recover under these authorities. 

However, workshop participants strongly supported 

fexibility, recognizing that requiring minimum dollar 

amounts for coverage levels could prove to be problematic 

due to regional variability. Te number of vessels, vessel 

sizes and various gear confgurations, types of fsheries and 

targeted species, diferent rates that observers are required to 

monitor the individual fsheries, and the size of the observer 

provider companies are only some of the variables that 

contribute to the determination of the type(s) of coverage 

and plan minimum coverage amounts that are necessary to 

provide adequate protection. Due to these and many other 

factors, workshop participants did not support establishing a 

single nationwide insurance provider. However, allowing for 

regional/localized insurance markets (which would adhere 

to a national set of guidelines or regulations to develop 

workable coverage schemes) were identifed to likely achieve 

the goal of adequate observer insurance coverage. 

By the end of the frst session, participants suggested that 

the NOP should gather more information related to the 

issues discussed at the workshop and how to improve 

access to the existing benefts available to injured observers. 

Participants suggested that the NOP could conduct two 

separate surveys to gather further information from both the 

insurance providers and observers regarding insurance costs 

and observers’ perspectives on the claims process. Tese 

surveys could be done using an anonymous online survey 

format such as Survey Monkey.12 Te survey directed to the 

insurance industry could focus on the costs associated with 

providing insurance coverage to observer providers based 

on the number of at-sea days that observers were deployed. 

Normalizing the data based on the total number of sea 

days across the observer provider companies could better 

facilitate comparative rate analyses. Te NOP could request 

that the insurance industry (brokers, underwriters, and 

providers) assist NOAA Fisheries to craf the language of the 

survey to compile useful information regarding cost and rate 

data. 

Te second survey could gather information from observers 

who have experience with the injury claims process to 

gain insight on the challenges or potential barriers in the 

claims process. Te observer survey could be useful to 

understand the diferences for wage compensation under the 

various coverages (e.g., FECA, USL&H, and state workers’ 

compensation), and the medical benefts and compensation 

process following an injury. Te information from this 

survey could be useful in developing guidance or training 

for how to improve access to and understanding of the claim 

fling process, timeliness of benefts, and the respective 

roles and responsibilities of the observer, observer provider 

and insurance claims ofce under each of the coverages. 

To improve access to benefts for injured observers and 

communication under the existing coverages, meeting 

participants suggested NOAA Fisheries facilitate a workshop 

involving the Department of Labor ofce in charge of 

handling observer claims and observer provider companies 

and observers. Te workshop would be an opportunity to 

improve communication between the claims processing 

ofce and those fling claims for benefts to expedite and 

promote smoother claims processes (for example, by 

identifying common claims errors that could be readily 

corrected). 

12 Survey Monkey “How it Works” https://www.surveymonkey.com/mp/take-a-tour/ 
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 5 

 

 

Session Two: Types and Amounts of Observer Provider 

Insurance 

Observer Provider Expert Panel 

Panelists: Bryan Belay, Michael Lake, Troy Quinlan, Ward 

McIntyre, Stacey Hansen, Sonja Valle 

Observer provider companies carry insurance for their 

observers, even if the observers are considered contractors 

rather than employees. Contract employees could be 

required to self-insure, but since this could make the 

observer providers non-competitive, this strategy has not 

been employed. Trough insurance, observer providers 

are covering their companies from liability claims from 

the employees (or contractors) and covering the care and 

compensation of observers in the event of an injury and/or 

death. Te panelists highly recommended that the observer 

providers voluntarily educate and train their observers and 

ofce staf on the processes of claims fling, and that the 

providers are directly involved in the claims process from 

inception to conclusion to ensure the proper procedures 

are followed, forms are completed correctly, and that all 

requested claims information is submitted in a timely 

fashion. Due to the nature of the observers’ deployments, 

a deadline could be missed as the observer may be 

ofshore, out of state, or in a remote location and lacking 

communication capability. Terefore, it would be benefcial 

for observer providers to take the lead throughout the entire 

claims process to ensure that observers receive the care 

and compensation they need in the most efcient manner 

possible. 

Workshop participants suggested that the Jones Act does 

not apply to observers, as they do not qualify as “seamen”13 

while aboard the vessel, and that federal regulations 

would need to be amended to remove requirements for 

carrying that specifc policy. However, participants had 

a variety of diferent experiences with claims under the 

U.S. Longshore & Harbor Workers’ (USL&H)14 insurance 

(implemented under the LHWCA), implying this coverage 

may be applicable in some specifc circumstances. Due to 

the language in the MSA that defnes observers as carrying 

out their duties “on a vessel,” the MSA appears to exclude 

land-based duties observers are required to perform. Some 

workshop participants reported that observers who have 

been injured while performing shoreside duties (e.g., catch 

monitors/processing plant observers) have successfully 

recovered under the USL&H. Terefore, given that USL&H 

insurance has been successfully applied to observers who 

perform shoreside duties, regulations that require observer 

providers to purchase this insurance could be clarifed rather 

than removed. 

Te panel also revisited the previously discussed topic 

of minimum insurance coverage dollar amounts. Te 

discussion emphasized that the application of minimum 

dollar amounts with any carried insurance was potentially 

problematic due to the diferences in regard to several 

variables, including rate of coverage, the number of 

employed observers in the provider companies, and costs to 

billable rate ratio. 

Workshop participants noted that state workers’ 

compensation insurance may apply to the land-based 

component of the observer’s duties that were not covered 

under LHWCA, and in some cases followed the observers 

ofshore depending on the state in which the policy was 

held and where the incident occurred. Some state workers’ 

compensation insurance(s) continued to cover the observer 

as long as the vessel remained within state waters. Tis was 

thought to be duplicative, however, as FECA coverage of the 

observer commences once on board the vessel, and FECA 

is mutually exclusive from state workers’ compensation and 

other insurance coverages. To reiterate, many participants 

believed it possible to utilize state workers’ compensation 

and/or MEL insurance as a supplement to FECA to 

compensate for the overtime pay of the observer, since 

FECA does not recognize overtime when calculating for 

compensation (which typically constitutes a substantial 

component of observer wages); this possibility warranted 

further investigation and discussion. 

Insurance Expert Panel 

Panelists: Ian Greenway, Ivan Kolva, Paul McGreenery, 

Kevin Rocha 

Although observing is deemed a potentially hazardous 

occupation, some maritime professions may incur greater 

risks in the performance of duties than that of an observer, 

which would require greater cost for coverage. It is 

important therefore to distinguish observing from other 

risky maritime occupations in order to properly calculate 

the cost of adequate coverage. Tis could be achieved by 

using the unique job code created specifcally for observers 

by NOP and DOL. Te National Council on Compensation 

Insurance (NCCI)15 has utilized a marine scientist code for 

observers, which has produced better insurance rates for 

providers by combining observers with a lower risk pool. 

13 To qualify as a seaman per the Jones Act an individual must 1) have been permanently assigned to a vessel or perform a substantial 

amount of his or her work onboard said vessel, 2) perform duties that contribute to the function of the vessel including navigation, 

operation, and maintenance, and 3) perform duties that are essential for the completion of the mission of the vessel. 

14 Accessible Marine Insurance http://ami-ins.com/uslh/ 

15 National Council on Compensation Insurance https://www.ncci.com/pages/default.aspx 
6 2016 Observer Provider Insurance Workshop Report 

In most cases, the participants agreed on the importance of 

identifying observers as a separate and distinct profession 

given the dynamic nature of the job, duties performed, and 

changing locations of those duties. Discussion on this matter 

indicated that it would be best if NCCI utilized existing 

observer job classifcation codes to develop a risk pool 

specifcally for observers on a national scale. Tis would 

provide entities such as NCCI a source from which to gather 

data regarding observers as a singular group, which may 

ultimately result in driving the coverage rates down. With 

an observer profession clearly defned and categorized for 

insurance purposes, participants agreed that regardless of an 

observer’s job status with the provider (either an employee 

of the provider company or an independent contractor/1099 

employee), the liability coverage for the provider would be 

essentially the same. However, it was stated that it may also 

be possible that the use of 1099 employees could limit the 

insurance provider pool, as insurance companies may be 

reluctant to ofer coverage to independent contractors. 

Te insurance panel expressed that there appeared to be a 

misunderstanding within the observer provider industry 

that there are minimum dollar limits and/or maximum 

dollar limits on state workers’ compensation and USL&H 

coverages. Although there are no limits on the dollar 

amounts of coverage at either extreme, there is state-tostate variability in both of these insurances (in some states 

USL&H and state workers’ compensation policies are 

mutually exclusive; in other states they may be used in 

conjunction to supplement one another). Panelists identifed 

a need for more clarifcation concerning the application 

of LHWCA coverage, as it does not specifcally exclude 

observers in the statutory language, and therefore has been 

used with high levels of success nationwide to cover claims, 

particularly claims regarding shoreside injuries. Although 

LHWCA appears to be the gold standard of coverage 

regarding wage compensation and health coverage, it does 

not apply to injuries that occur at sea (mutually exclusive 

from FECA), and it contains an exemption for workers at 

aquaculture facilities. Terefore, LHWCA may not apply to 

observers working in processing facilities. Tis last issue may 

warrant further examination. 

Te panel suggested that umbrella policies can be purchased 

by observer providers to close some of the gaps in coverage 

that exist if a provider only complies with the insurance 

coverages required in regulation, while meeting any 

established requirements of minimum coverage for the 

observers. Te insurance experts suggested that wording 

regulatory language in a specifc manner could allow for 

some fexibility in meeting the requirements among the 

diferent regions, which could allay some of the concerns 

that result from the disparate laws and regulations from state 

to state. For example, the use of language such as “adequate 

insurance coverage” could be benefcial in that it would 

allow regional fexibility to meet the required minimums, 

while empowering NOAA Fisheries to defne the minimum 

standards. Utilizing this type of language in insurance 

coverage regulations could standardize observer provider 

insurance requirements. 

Session Three: Claims Process 

Observer Panel16 

Tis panel opened the discussion by stating that the FECA 

claims process is not only time-consuming, but also 

cumbersome and complicated. Workshop participants 

reported that many observers have reported delays due to 

fling errors and lost faxes or other communications, and 

most felt disconnected from the process in general. Te 

inability of the observer to participate in the claims process 

may result in observers feeling a loss of control over the 

claims process and its resolution. Additionally, workshop 

participants aired a concern that FECA customer service 

can be difcult to work with during the claims process. 

Te need for repeated calls, long hold times, “lost or not 

received” claims information via fax, and the inability 

to get through to an agent on the phone have all been 

reported by observers. It was reiterated that the observer 

providers should properly train observers specifcally on 

the procedures for dealing with injuries that may occur 

at work or, better yet, provide that service themselves. 

When seeking medical attention for a work-related injury, 

it is very important for observers to inform the medical 

facility that the injury occurred at work and should be 

treated as a worker’s compensation claim. If an observer 

presents his or her own personal medical insurance for a 

work-related injury, the claims process can become greatly 

complicated. Once claims have been fled, it is very difcult 

for a provider to facilitate a reversal of payments from one 

insurance company to another. Additionally, participants 

conveyed that the gaps in coverage concerning illness need 

to be addressed. Observers that fall ill while at work are 

required to prove that the illness was “proximately caused by 

employment”, which has been shown to be very difcult. For 

example, if the observer contracts and requires treatment for 

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)17, but 

not everyone on the vessel is showing symptoms, the claim 

may be denied. 

16 No observers were present at this workshop. Tey were represented by written material from their union representative, Tracey Mayhew 

with United Industrial Workers Seafarer’s Union, who attended via webinar, and general discussion by workshop participants. 

17 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention https://www.cdc.gov/mrsa/ 
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 7 

Several observer providers have developed internal processes 

for handling the various types of workplace injury claims. 

Some providers generate an in-house claim identifer for 

observers immediately following the injury report to track 

the claim throughout the entire process. Te Alaska Region 

requires that all injuries and illnesses that prevent the 

completion of duties be reported to NOAA Fisheries. Such 

reporting may assist in following the claim through the 

claims process regardless of region, and was suggested to be 

considered for adoption at a national level. 

Several other providers have employed a much more 

proactive method for dealing with claims, and more 

importantly, for getting the observers healthy and back 

to work as soon as possible. Tese providers pay for the 

medical services and lost wages (if applicable) of the 

injured observer out of pocket and/or through liability 

insurance such as MEL. Following the initial treatment of 

the injured observer, they help to guide the observer through 

the claims process, and the providers are subsequently 

reimbursed through FECA, USL&H, and/or state workers’ 

compensation. However, there is no guarantee of payment 

by the insurance company, which puts the observer provider 

company at signifcant fnancial responsibility and potential 

fnancial burden and risk while waiting for the claim to 

be paid. Tis method of dealing with claims, though quite 

efcient in procuring treatment and compensation for the 

observer, simply may not be possible for smaller observer 

provider companies due to the required initial cost, and 

would not be made part of national NOAA Fisheries policy 

guidance. 

Government Subject Matter Expert Panel 

Panelists: Tara Jones, Derek Tukenmez, Mohammad Sheikh, 

Keith Hagg, Megan Heller 

Two representatives from the FECA Ofce of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs (OWCP) gave a presentation 

to explain FECA claims, requirements, timelines, and 

processes. To fle a FECA claim, the claimant must meet 

fve requirements: 1) fle the claim within three years of the 

incident; 2) be a civilian (non-military) employee; 3) provide 

Fact of Injury information (injury must have occurred as 

stated with provision of medical evidence of said injury); 

4) sustain the injury during the performance of duty; and 

5) demonstrate a causal relationship between the injury, 

the condition of the injured, and the treatment required 

to alleviate the injury. FECA also stipulates exclusions for 

claims reimbursements, which include willful misconduct, 

intoxication (drugs and/or alcohol), intentional injury, and 

injury while not in the performance of duty. Once a claim 

is fled, FECA generally waits 30 days to decide whether to 

process or reject a claim. Te 30-day period was established 

to allow FECA to receive any and all claims information and 

materials from the claimant in an attempt to avoid delays 

due to missing documents. However, this process can and 

will be expedited if the injury is catastrophic, and/or the 

observer or observer provider contacts the claims processor 

to inform them that all claims information has been 

submitted, and requests that the process proceed without 

further delay. FECA ofers online training for supervisors, 

which could potentially be utilized by the observer providers 

to ensure that all forms are completed correctly to minimize 

delays. 

Typically, when claims are accepted and paid by FECA, the 

Department of Labor will pay the claim up front and will 

then seek reimbursement from NOAA Fisheries. To pay the 

claims of compensation for lost work time, FECA calculates 

the pay rate based on one year of employment of the 

observer. Tis calculation can be problematic for observers, 

as their work is ofen difcult to justify as full-time or may 

be considered seasonal depending upon the fshery, and 

because there is no compensation for the overtime pay that 

is integral to observer wages. As a remedy to some of these 

issues, FECA can expand the calculation for compensation, 

comparing it to other employees with more hours worked 

within the same period of time the claimant was injured and 

unable to work. Furthermore, FECA will reimburse out-ofpocket expenses paid to medical facilities by the claimant 

on the condition that the medical facility is registered with 

FECA as an approved provider, with registration possible on 

a per-case basis. 

At the conclusion of this panel discussion, OWCP 

representatives ofered to express the concerns addressed 

in this workshop regarding the speed of claims processing 

to their leadership and General Counsel. Additionally, 

they expressed a willingness to reach out to the Division of 

Longshore and Harbor Workers to answer questions posed 

by observer providers both during the panel discussion 

and in follow-up discussions. Also, OWCP staf ofered to 

provide outreach and education regarding FECA and the 

FECA claims process through a meeting at the Cleveland 

Special Program ofce, which handles all FECA claims, as 

well as to provide specifc instructions on fling claims to 

observers and observer providers on their website. 

18 United States Department of Labor https://www.dol.gov/owcp/ 
8 2016 Observer Provider Insurance Workshop Report 

Insurance Expert and Observer Provider Discussion 

Panelists: Ian Greenway, Ivan Kolva, Paul McGreenery, 

Kevin Rocha, Bryan Belay, Michael Lake, Troy Quinlan, Ward 

McIntyre, Stacey Hansen, Sonja Valle 

Te insurance expert panel discussion began with a focus 

on the potential for economic loss on the part of the vessel 

owners and observer providers in the event of an injured 

observer. Vessel owners and observer providers alike are 

not protected from an observer bringing civil action against 

them while utilizing the current insurance coverages, and 

are therefore highly encouraged (but cannot be required) by 

the insurance providers to carry Protection and Indemnity 

(P&I)19 insurance to protect themselves and their assets in 

the event of a civil liability suit. One point of discussion 

was the MMPA20, which expressly bars observers that are 

injured or killed on the job from bringing civil action against 

the vessel or vessel owner. Te MSA does not include a 

comparable provision that bars civil suits by observers that 

are injured on the job. NOAA General Counsel explained 

that the MMPA bar against observer civil suits would 

generally not apply because observer coverage is generally 

required under the MSA, rather than the MMPA. If vessels 

carry an observer to comply with an MSA requirement, 

that authority would control whether an observer can 

bring a civil suit, even if the observer collected information 

for MMPA purposes. Te panels also discussed potential 

economic loss of a vessel owner that needed to bring an 

observer back to port for reasons not extreme enough to 

merit a call for an evacuation, such as sea sickness or minor 

injury. It was generally agreed that there is no available 

insurance coverage in which to fle a claim to make up for 

fnancial losses that occur due to an unscheduled return to 

shore. Tese costs can be substantial due to the additional 

fuel consumption and lost fshing time, especially if the 

incident occurs at the opening of the season in an Olympicstyle fshery. 

Both the insurance experts and the observer providers 

stressed the importance of not fling a FECA claim if the 

injury did not occur on a vessel, and the importance of 

informing and training the observers on procedures for 

properly fling claims. If a claim was improperly fled and 

paid through FECA when it should have been covered 

by a diferent insurance vehicle, FECA has the right to 

retroactively reclaim those funds from the vessel and/ 

or vessel owner. FECA also has the right to reclaim sums 

for paid services if it is provided proof of negligence that 

resulted in the injury. It was suggested that the OWCP, which 

handles all FECA claims, should compile a list of common 

problems from past claims and develop both educational 

and outreach tools to assist in avoiding these same issues in 

the future. Another possible method to avoid claim-fling 

difculties would be to amend FECA and/or the MSA to 

include the shoreside duties of the observers. On the whole, 

it was agreed that this may be a viable option for the future. 

However, such amendments would be time-consuming 

endeavor, and more immediate remedies would be necessary 

to ensure the protection of the observers. 

Workshop participants noted that several variables would 

need to be addressed to pursue the possibility of establishing 

a national standard or nationwide regulations. Primarily, the 

regional disparity between the payroll costs to billable rate 

ratio among the various observer providers is problematic 

for setting a single (i.e., national) minimum value coverage 

level. For example, the payroll cost to billable rate is 95 

percent for one provider, while it is 60 percent in a diferent 

region. Tis diference in employee overhead afects the 

daily rates charged for the observers’ services on vessels in 

various fsheries, which in turn determines the rates for the 

insurance coverage costs. Attempting to set a minimum 

national standard could then result in one region having less 

than adequate coverage for observers, while simultaneously 

being overly burdensome and cost-prohibitive to observer 

providers in another region. To set the national minimum 

coverage requirements, it was generally agreed that the 

providers would need to compile documentation comparing 

the regional diferences and the variability in observer 

duties, and then share this information with the relevant 

federal agencies. 

Session Four: Wrap-Up 

Troughout the workshop, participants provided 

information about their various experiences with the 

observer insurance coverage requirements and claims 

processes. Te main points are summarized below. For a 

detailed visual representation of the insurance policies that 

were discussed, please see Appendix B. 

• Participants highlighted some signifcant gaps in the 

coverage provided by FECA, including that observers are 

only covered while at sea and there is no compensation for 

overtime pay. 

• FECA is supplemented with other coverage(s) as available or applicable to make up for its wage compensation 

shortfall and other limitations. 

• Observers could beneft if NOAA Fisheries established 

a cooperative relationship between the Special Claims 

Program that handles FECA claims and the Division of 

Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation ofce of 

19 Te American Club P&I Insurance http://www.american-club.com/page/protection-indemnity-insurance 

20 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/laws/mmpa/text.htm 
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 9 

DOL. NOAA Fisheries could assist to distribute information and maintain working knowledge of the claims 

process and specifc contacts. 

• Participants had diferent experiences and variable success 

with claims fled under the LHWCA. Tis information 

could be viewed as inconsistent with NOAA Fisheries’ 

conclusion that LHWCA is not applicable to observers, 

and with conclusions reached during the 2001 workshop. 

NOAA Fisheries may wish to clarify its May 2015 letter to 

the North Pacifc Council, which reported that LHWCA 

does not apply to observers while at sea. Te letter did not 

address whether LHWCA applies to observers when they 

are shoreside. 

• A national insurance contract for observers would likely 

be prohibitively challenging, but national standards and 

requirements agreed upon by NOAA Fisheries could be 

provided as policy guidance. 

• If national guidance is developed regarding types of 

insurance coverages and minimum coverage amounts, 

NOAA Fisheries should allow fexibility for each regional 

observer program to develop requirements as applicable 

for the observer deployments in their respective regions. 

• Information discussed during the workshop supported 

NOAA Fisheries’ conclusion in the May 2015 letter to the 

North Pacifc Counsel that General Maritime Law and the 

Jones Act are inapplicable to observers. 

• To reduce costs for observer providers, NOAA Fisheries 

should revise regulations to remove inapplicable insurance 

requirements as soon as possible. 

To facilitate the development of national guidance or 

regulations for observer provider insurance requirements 

or minimum coverage amounts, collecting additional 

information will be necessary to better understand the 

unique challenges in each region. 

Follow-Up 

General Counsel 

Following the meeting, the NOP conferred with the 

NOAA Ofce of General Counsel to discuss three possible 

approaches to establish national minimum observer provider 

insurance standards. Each has advantages and disadvantages 

that need to be considered by the NOP, NOAA Fisheries 

leadership, the Councils21, and each of the regional observer 

programs, as identifed below. 

1. Te frst and most easily attainable option is for NOAA 

Fisheries to develop national policy guidance on observer 

provider insurance issues. Tis course of action would 

be the simplest of the three because it would not require 

notice and comment rulemaking. A disadvantage is 

that guidance is advisory and not mandatory. Regions 

therefore could adopt varying approaches. 

2. Te second option would be to draf standardized 

language for inclusion in observer provider contracts to 

capture specifc minimum coverage standards. However, 

this arrangement would only apply to NOAA Fisheries 

contracts and could not be applied to the industryfunded programs that contract directly between the 

vessel owners and observer provider companies. Tis 

would therefore not result in a national standard unless 

contractual specifcations could legally be applied to 

all NOAA Fisheries direct service provider contracts. 

Further research is needed on that question. 

3. Te third option would implement national regulatory 

requirements which would be mandatory for all regions 

in U.S. fsheries, applicable to both the governmentfunded and industry-funded service models that employ 

fsheries observers. Tis would be the most substantial 

action to create and regulate a national standard in 

the observer programs, and would require notice and 

comment rulemaking. 

Industry 

Following the 2016 Observer Provider Insurance Workshop, 

the NOP received four suggestions on minimum observer 

provider insurance standards from Ian Greenway (LIG 

Marine Managers) that could be considered by NOAA 

Fisheries and the Councils, as follows: 

1. Marine General Liability with a minimum limit of $2 

million for any one occurrence. 

2. Maritime Employers’ Liability with a minimum limit of 

$2 million for any one occurrence ONLY IF required by 

statute or regulation. 

3. State workers’ compensation as required by the state 

of hire containing statutory limits22 and including 

employers’ liability with a minimum limit of $1 million. 

4. U.S. Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation 

Act containing statutory limits either included by 

endorsement in state workers’ compensation or provided 

through a separate policy. 

21 Regional Fishery Management Councils http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/management/councils/ 

22 Policy Limits for Workers’ Compensation Insurance http://smallbusiness.chron.com/policy-limits-workers-comp-insurance-63181.html 
10 2016 Observer Provider Insurance Workshop Report 

Higher minimum insurance amounts (than those proposed 

above) may be necessary or desired for companies with 

larger vessels, or other such special circumstances that may 

be present in the diferent regions. Prior to rulemaking, 

an analysis of proposed minimum insurance standards 

should attempt to demonstrate the benefts of how proposed 

minimum observer provider insurance standards would 

work with one another and FECA to ensure the best possible 

coverage for observers. 

National Observer Program Advisory Team (NOPAT) 

In March 2017 the NOPAT reviewed a draf of this technical 

memo. Te NOPAT recommended that the NOP take the 

following actions as next steps regarding the publication of 

this tech memo and providing guidance to the regions on 

this topic: 

• Organize a webinar to present the NOP’s conclusions and 

recommendations based on the information gathered 

at the November 2016 workshop and solicit additional 

feedback and clarifcation from workshop participants 

prior to fnalizing these recommendations. 

• Provide a fnal report from the workshop with recommended actions and next steps as soon as possible. 

• Clarify the following points in this technical memo: 

• While the process of amending/removing some of 

the insurance requirements is taking place, observer 

providers should utilize the current observer provider 

insurance coverage practices to the best of their abilities 

to ensure the best possible coverage for observers in the 

event of a workplace injury. 

• Specifc guidance to each region. 

• Due to regional variability, it seems unlikely that private 

sector insurance would be translated into federal regulations or contract mandates. 

Webinar 

In April 2017, the NOP conducted a webinar to summarize 

the 2016 Observer Provider Insurance Workshop and to 

collect feedback from NOAA Fisheries, observer provider 

companies, observers, and the general public, as per the 

recommendation of NOPAT. Te following comments were 

received from webinar stakeholders identifed at the end of 

this document, who ofered clarifcations and concerns on 

the outstanding issues of adequate insurance coverage for 

observers: 

• Because some observers are considered independent 

contractors23 and not employees of an observer provider 

company, they may not be covered under state workers’ 

compensation. 

• Te use of MEL insurance to supplement FECA requires 

the addition of “Voluntary Compensation Insurance 

Coverage” into the basic MEL policy, which pays benefts outside of legal liability. Voluntary Compensation 

Insurance Coverage can be applicable to both on-land and 

at-sea duties of the observer, depending on the composition of the individual policy. Te basic policy form of MEL 

insurance only insures legal liability. 

• To qualify for USL&H insurance coverage, an employee 

must be engaged in both maritime employment and 

perform work on or in an area adjoining navigable waters, 

with an exception in LHWCA for aquaculture workers. 

Because commercial fshing is considered aquaculture 

under LHWCA, the majority of observers (including 

aquaculture and clerical workers) may not meet the 

qualifcations for USL&H coverage, and therefore this 

coverage should not be relied upon as a single solution for 

compensation of observers in the event of an injury. 

• Although the Workshop discussions indicated that the 

Jones Act and GML do not apply to observers, it has 

been suggested that GML does apply to observers when 

considering the relationship between the vessel operator 

and the observer. Te observer is a guest aboard the 

vessel and is owed a duty of care from the vessel operator; 

therefore, the vessel operator can be found legally liable 

for the compensation of an injury to an observer in the 

case of negligence. 

Observer Safety Program Review 

In 2016, NOAA Fisheries launched an Observer Safety 

Program Review as part of ongoing eforts to assess and 

evaluate procedures for keeping U.S. fsheries observers 

and at-sea monitors safe. Te review focused on seven 

areas related to safety and health, including: safety 

reporting, communications, practices and policies, training, 

regulations, equipment, and international observer 

programs. NOAA anticipates receiving a fnal report in 

late 2017, and then will work with national and regional 

observer programs, as well as observer provider companies, 

to implement recommendations from the report. Draf 

recommendations pertaining to observer provider insurance 

for observers deployed in domestic fsheries include the 

following: 

• Develop specifc proposals for suitable harmonized 

national observer insurance standards that could 

apply within state, federal, and international waters to 

 Is an Independent Contractor Covered by Workers’ Comp? http://www.disabilitysecrets.com/workmans-comp-question-22.html 23
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 11 

compensate observers in the event of work-related illness, 

injury, disability from a work-related injury, or death. 

• Develop suitable policy or regulation (frst seeking statutory authority, if deemed necessary) which would require 

observer providers to provide injury, illness, liability, 

and accidental death insurance for observers, no matter 

whether they are classifed as employees, or as independent contractors or subcontractors. 

• Specify minimum insurance requirements for workrelated illness/injury in the contract and add a requirement to provide the Contracting Ofcer’s Representative 

with a certifcate of insurance on an annual basis. 

NOP Recommendations and Future Goals 

Based on comments provided during the workshop, the 

NOP has generated a set of future goals divided into three 

categories: short-term, mid-term, and long-term. Observer 

providers must ensure they have adequate coverage to 

protect themselves and their observers in the event of a 

work-related injury regardless of the location of the incident, 

while these solutions are pursued. 

Short-Term Goals 

Te NOP recommends that it publish: 1) a Request for 

Information (RFI) to collect additional comments on 

observer provider insurance coverages and minimum 

amounts as detailed in this document; 2) an Advanced 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to announce that it will 

consider, and is seeking public comment on, minimum 

requirements for observer provider insurance coverage(s) 

and amounts for fshery observers, as identifed in the RFI; 

and 3) proposed and fnal rulemaking to defne applicable 

insurance requirements for observers deployed at sea and on 

land, and defne minimum coverage amounts. 

Mid-Term Goals 

Te NOP recommends continued efort at the national 

and regional level to identify the specifc gaps and 

defciencies in current insurance coverages and to further 

investigate currently existing policies that could cover the 

gaps in coverages and compensation currently required 

in regulation. A number of ideas were discussed at the 

workshop for improvements in communication between 

observers, observer providers, NOAA Fisheries, and 

insurance claims specialists that could improve access to 

compensation under existing coverages. 

Long-Term Goals 

In the long term, the NOP recommends reinitiating eforts 

to develop legislation for an amendment to the MSA to 

implement the Fisheries Observer Compensation Act 

(FOCA). Within that efort, the Department of Labor jobspecifc codes assigned as wage descriptions for observers 

could be utilized to identify their classifcation on FOCA 

claims. FOCA could be specifcally tailored to the tasks 

and environments that observers are exposed to daily, and 

provide health and compensation coverage regardless of the 

location of the incident. Enactment of FOCA would provide 

the observers, the observer providers, the government, 

and vessel owners with a single approach that ofers 

comprehensive coverage and compensation. 

Tere continue to be challenges with observer insurance 

requirements because existing insurance policies and plans 

were designed with other professions in mind and adapted 

to cover observers, a unique class of workers who do not 

squarely ft under any of the existing coverages. Amending 

the MSA to implement FOCA would create a defnition 

of the observing profession and provide a comprehensive 

insurance approach that implements the intended coverages 

for all parties involved. 

Amendments to FECA could also be investigated (as an 

alternate solution to enacting FOCA) to include shoreside 

injuries and to address the overtime wage compensation 

shortcoming. However, enacting FOCA could ultimately 

provide observers with similar levels of comprehensive 

insurance protection and coverage that are provided to 

shoreside maritime workers under the LHWCA. 

Conclusion 

Regardless of which avenue is selected, NOAA Fisheries 

must frst establish a rationale for the types of insurance 

that must be utilized, the minimum standards and/or dollar 

amounts for these policies, and why they are required and/ 

or recommended. It will be necessary to explain the purpose 

of each and every type of insurance policy that is to be 

purchased and how they will beneft the observers and the 

observer providers. Prior to taking action of any sort, NOAA 

Fisheries must be willing and able to show why such steps 

are necessary, and how these actions will ultimately ensure 

the best possible coverage and compensation for observers 

in the event of a work-related injury. 
12 2016 Observer Provider Insurance Workshop Report 

Acknowledgments 

Te National Observer Program wishes to thank NOAA Fisheries Staf Camille Jones, Kelvin James, Peter Cooper, Craig 

Cockrell, and Yuntao Wang for their technical support, and the following participants for contributions to this workshop. 

On-Site Participants 

NOAA Fisheries 

Jane DiCosimo, ST 

Keith Hagg, NOAA General Counsel 

Dale Jones, ST 

Amy Martins, NEFSC 

Katherine McArdle, NEFSC 

Jon McVeigh, NWFSC 

Alicia Miller, AKRO 

Alex Perry, ST (detail) 

Chris Rilling, AFSC 

Nichole Rossi, NEFSC 

Gwynne Schnaittacher, AFSC 

Yuntao Wang, ST 

Department of Labor 

Tara Jones, DOL/OWCP 

Mohammad Sheikh, DOL/OWCP 

Derek Tukenmez, DOL/OWCP 

Others 

Brian Belay, MRAG Americas 

Jim Benante, Pacifc States Marine Fisheries Commission 

Roy Goldberg, Steptoe and Johnson 

Ian Greenway, LIG Marine Managers 

Stacey Hansen, Saltwater, Inc. 

Kurt Heinz, Observer Safety Program Review 

Megan Heller, DOC/OGC/GL 

Ivan Kolva, Gallagher & Co. 

Michael Lake, Alaskan Observers, Inc. 

Paul McGreenery, Aasgard Summit 

Ward McIntyre, Fathom Research 

Troy Quinlan, Tech Sea International 

Kevin Rocha, Smithwick Mariners 

Sonja Valle, AIS 

Webinar Participants (as identifed) 

NOAA Fisheries 

Briana Dema, NOAA General Counsel 

Jane DiCosimo, ST 

Rich Kupfer, PIRO 

James Patterson, ST 

Elizabeth Scott-Denton, SEFSC 

Others 

Kim Dietrich, Observer Safety Program Review 

Chad Leferson, Riverside Technology, Inc. 

Brenda Lewis, IAP World Services 

Robert Markle, Observer Safety Program Review 

Tracey Mayhew, United Industrial Workers 

Elizabeth Mitchell, Association for Professional Observers 

Jenna Rockwell, Fathom Research 

Shawn Sutherland, Riverside Technology, Inc. 

Christine Tally, Saltwater Inc. 
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 13 

Appendix A: Timeline and Reference Materials 

1 1994 Association for Professional Observers Insurance Technical Committee Recommendations 

http://www.apo-observers.org/docs/5._1994_Observer_Insurance_Technical_Committee_Recommendations.pdf 

2 1995 Lost at Sea - Sea Time Overdue for Observers 

http://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/sulr/vol18/iss3/11/ 

3 2001 Fisheries Observers Insurance, Liability and Labor Workshop Technical Memorandum 

https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/Assets/Observer-Program/pdf/Insurance_Workshop_Final_%20Report.pdf 

4 2002 The Fisheries Observer Compensation Act (Annotated with Footnotes) 

http://apo-observers.org/letter/FOCA_APO_9-4-02.pdf 

5 2003 Plan to Manage Risks and Minimize Liabilities Associated With the Deployment of Contracted Fisheries Observers 

https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/Assets/Observer-Program/pdf/ObserverLiabilities_Mar03.pdf 

6 2005 Applying the Longshore and Harbor Workers Act to Fisheries Observers (FOCA) 

https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/Assets/Observer-Program/pdf/FOCA_Cost_%20Analysis_FINAL_Report_05Oct14.pdf 

7 2014 AOI (North Pacifc Observer Provider) Proposal to Amend Insurance Requirements 

https://www.npfmc.org/wp-content/PDFdocuments/CM/071114/ObserverInsuranceLtr070114.pdf 

8 2014 North Pacifc Fishery Management Council Letter to NOAA Fisheries Regarding Insurance Amendment 

https://www.npfmc.org/wp-content/PDFdocuments/CM/071114/ObserverInsuranceLtr070114.pdf 

9 2015 NOAA Fisheries Response to North Pacifc Fishery Management Council Amendment Proposal 

http://npfmc.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=F&ID=50eba36c-acc3-482c-85eb-1641bcb09146.pdf 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 15 

 

Appendix B: Observer Provider Insurance Coverages 

Based on 2016 Workshop Discussions 

Acts and Laws Federal and State Coverage Observer Provider Coverage 

Jones Act GML LHWCA FECA State Workers’ 

Compensation CGL MGL MEL 

Observers 

Located 

On Land* 

Not 

Applicable 

Not 

Applicable 

Applicable 

Needs further 

investigation 

Not 

Applicable 

Applicable Needs 

further investigation 

Not 

Applicable Applicable Not Applicable 

Observers 

Located 

At Sea* 

Not 

Applicable 

Not 

Applicable 

Not 

Applicable 

Applicable 

No overtime 

compensation 

Applicable Needs 

further investigation 

Not 

Applicable Applicable 

Applicable 

May 

supplement 

FECA 

*Represents both industry- funded and NOAA Fisheries- contracted observers