Opinion ID: 420008
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: 42 U.S.C. Sec. 672(i)

Text: 35 The Coast Guard's enforcement of Sec. 672(i) against Western Pioneer raises the issue whether Western Pioneer's vessels were merchant vessels during the voyages on which they were cited. Our conclusion regarding Secs. 367 and 404 dictates the result here. Since the Marlin and Dolphin were not tenders on the voyages in question, they were necessarily merchant vessels. There is nothing unreasonable about the Coast Guard's interpretation of merchant vessel as encompassing Western Pioneer's cargo-carrying operations. In the interest of narrowly construing exceptions to safety legislation, this court has interpreted the term merchant vessels much more broadly than we do here. See United States v. Blue Water Marine Industries, Inc., 661 F.2d 793 (9th Cir.1981) (holding scientific research vessels to be merchant vessels). 36 Western Pioneer's argument against merchant vessel status derives from the Coast Guard's repeated certification of Western Pioneer's vessels as fishing vessels. But certification is based on the documentation prepared by a vessel owner, not an independent investigation as to the operation or condition of the vessels. Nothing in the statutes or regulations suggests that registration of a cargo-carrying vessel as a fishing vessel precludes treatment of it as a merchant vessel for purposes of Sec. 672(i).