UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

********************************** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA * 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD * Docket No. 00-0813 

vs. 

WILLIAM C. HAUCK 

* 

* 

* 

* 

Case Number PA00001529 

. ------------ ------·***·*******·*-*****·*·*-*-***·*·***********-~--- --- ----

DECISION AND ORDER 

PETER A. FITZPATRICK 

Administrative Law Judge 

APPEARANCES 

FOR THE COAST GUARD 

L T Steven R. Keel 

L T Mark Hammond 

United States Coast Guard 

Marine Safety Office Miami 

100 MacArthur Cauaseway 

Miami, Florida 33101-6940 

FOR THE RESPONDENT 

William C. Hauck, Pro Se 
I. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 

This case began on March 20, 2001 when the United States Coast Guard filed a 

Complaint against William C. Hauck which contained the following Jurisdictional and 

Factual Allegations: 

JURISDICITONAL ALLEGATIONS 

_'!'h_~_<:;_9ast _ Ggard _[ll_l_S)ges _that: __________________________________________________ _ 

1. Respondent's address is 10711 2nd Avenue, Marathon, FL 33050. 

2. Respondent holds the following Coast Guard-issued credential(s): License 

Number 811332. 

3. Respondent acted under the authority of that license, certificate or document on 

July 29, 2000, by serving as Master aboard the vessel ST. LUCIE, O.N. 

D 1036416, as required by law or regulation. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS- Negligence 

1. On July 29, 2000, Respondent was acting as Master ofthe M/V ST. LUCIE, 

when said vessel allided with Bethel Bank Daymarker Number 19 (LLNR 

12497), Marathon, FL. 

2. While transiting the channel, Respondent failed to properly navigate said 

vessel with due caution, contributing to an allision with above charted aid to 

navigation causing substantial damage. For example: The respondent failed to 

provide charts of the local area on board the vessel and he failed to exercise 

due caution with existing weather conditions. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS- Violation of Law or Regulation 

3. On July 29, 2000, Respondent failed to maintain a proper look-out for the 

prevailing circumstances and conditions, in accordance with 33 U.S.C. 2005, 

resulting in the allision with the charted aid to navigation, causing substantial 

damage. 

2 
. ' 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS- Violation of Law or Regulation 

1. On July 29, 2000, Respondent allided with Bethel Bank Daymarker Number 

19 (LLNR 12497), Marathon, FL, in violation of33 C.F.R. 70, causing 

substantial damage. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS- Violation of Law or Regulation 

1. On July 29, 2000, Respondent, as the Marine Employer and owner of Key 

West Steamboat Company, Inc., failed to ensure compliance with 46 C.F.R. 

16 by failing to enroll one ofhis crew members, Ms. Chatlada Ketkaew, in a 

__ _______________ chemicaLtesting_pro gram-in-accordance -W-ith-46-C.F .R-.---16. ----------· --- - - --- --

The relief sought by the Coast Guard is an "Order in accordance with 46 C.F.R. 

Table 5.569." The hearing was sought to be held in March at Key West, FL. 

On April 10, 2001, Mr. Hauck submitted his Answer (Response to Factual 

Allegations) and responded by denying the factual allegations. The jurisdictional 

allegations were not addressed. 

The case was assigned to the Chief Judge by Order dated April 10, 2001 and to 

this Judge on May 1, 2001. The matter was set for hearing on June 21, 2001 at Key West 

by Order dated May 10, 2001. On June 6, 2001, the Investigating Officer filed the 

Witness and Exhibits List. The witnesses identified included: Douglas R. Campbell, 

Steven J. Golden, William Hauck, Bryan C. McCloskey, Bradley W. Venendaal, Bruce 

Lord, Chatlada Ketkaew, Lisa Noverola, Kevin Koch, and Edward Crittenden. The 

Respondent did not file a list of witness and exhibits. 

The hearing was held as scheduled and the Investigating Officers and the 

Respondent (without counsel) appeared. The Coast Guard sponsored eight witnesses, 

including Mr. Hauck himself. During the hearing, the Coast Guard offered thirteen 

3 
exhibits which were admitted on the record (Exhibits IO 1-13). Mr. Hauck sponsored 

one witness and three exhibits were admitted (Exhibits Respondent A-C). During the 

hearing, an issue arose as to the exact location of the replaced Bethel Bank Daymarker 

No. 19. In order to settle the controversy, I ordered the Investigating Officer to have the 

Coast Guard pinpoint the coordinates of the marker and submit the result in evidence. On 

June 29, 2001 that data was submitted and served on the Respondent. No objection to 

that ten page document has been received. Accordingly, it is marked as Exhibit I0-14 

and admitted. 

In the Briefing Order issued July 19, 2001 initial briefs were due for filing on 

August 23 and replies on September 7, 2001. The Investigating Officer submitted an 

Initial Brief by facsimile on August 17, 2001. The Respondent did not submit an Initial 

Brief but he submitted a Reply Brief on September 6, 2001. 

II. 

STATUTES AND REGULATIONS INVOLVED 

1. This proceeding is governed by the Administrative Procedure Act pursuant to 46 

U.S.C. 7702, which reads: 

§ 7702. Administrative procedure 

(a) Sections 551-559 of title 5 apply to each hearing under this chapter about 

suspending or revoking a license, certificate of registry, or merchant mariner's 

document. 

2. 46 U.S.C.§§ 7701-7705 sets out the general procedures governing the suspension and 

revocation of merchant mariners' licenses and documents. 46 U.S.C. § 7703 provides in 

pertinent part: 

4 
§ 7703. Bases for suspension or revocation 

A license, certificate of registry, or merchant mariner's document issued by the 

Secretary may be suspended or revoked if the holder-

(1) when acting under the authority of that license, certificate, or document--

( A) has violated or fails to comply with this subtitle [ 46 uses §§ 2201 et 

seq.], a regulation prescribed under this subtitle [46 uses §§2101 et seq.], or 

any other law or regulation intended to promote marine safety or to protect 

navigable waters; or 

(B) has committed an act of incompetence, misconduct, or negligence; ... 

3. The term Negligence is defined at 46 C.F.R. § 5.29 as follows: 

: ________________ . _____ §_S.29 N eglig~u~e_._ _____________________ · ______________________________________ ---------

Negligence is the commission of an act which a reasonable and 

prudent person of the same station, under the same circumstances, 

would not commit, or the failure to perform an act which a reasonable 

and prudent person of the same station, under the same circumstances, 

would not fail to perform. 

4. Navigation equipment is discussed in pertinent part in the following relevant 

regulations of 46 C.F .R.: 

Subpart D-Navigation Equipment 

§ 184.402 Compasses. 

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section every vessel must be fitted 

with a suitable magnetic compass designed for marine use, to be mounted at the 

primary operating station. 

§ 184.420 Charts and nautical publications. 

(a) As appropriate for the intended voyage, a vessel must carry adequate and 

up-to-date: 

( 1) Charts of large enough scale to make safe navigation possible. 

5. The Inl~nd Navigational Rules, which were enacted on December 24, 1980 and 

became effective on December 24, 1981, provide in part at 33 USC§ 2005: 

5 
§ 2005. Look-out (Rule 5) 

Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and 

hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing 

circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the 

situation aild of the risk of collision. 

6. 33 C.P.R. § 70 (Interference with or Damage to Aids to Navigation) provides in part: 

Subpart 70.05-Collision With or Damage to Aids to Navigation 

§ 70.05-1 General provisions 

No person shall take possession of or make use of for any purpose, ___ _ ___ _ ___ _ -------------------o-r-build upon, clffer, deface, destfo-y--:-n1ove, injUre,-Obstruct_b_Y _______ _ 

fastening vessels thereto or otherwise, or in any manner whatever 

impair the usefulness of any aid to navigation established and 

maintained by the United States. 

7. Part 16 of Title 46 Code of Federal Regulations describes the minimum standards to 

be used to test for the use of dangerous drugs in the maritime industry. The following rules 

provide in part: 

§ 16.105 Definitions of terms used in this part. 

(b)(4)Marine employer means the owner, managing operator, 

charterer, agent, master, or person in charge of a vessel, other than a 

recreational vessel. 

§ 16.210 Pre-employment testing requirements 

(a) No marine employer shall engage or employ any individual to 

serve as a crewmember unless the individual passes a chemical test for 

dangerous drugs for that employer. 

§ 16.230 Random testing requirements. 

(a) Marine employers shall establish programs for the chemical 

testing for dangerous drugs on a random basis of crewmembers on 

inspected vessels who: 

(1) Occupy a position, or perfonn the duties and functions of a 

position, required by the vessel's Certificate oflnspection; 

(2) Perfonn the duties and functions of patrolmen or watchmen 

required by this chapter; or, 

6 
(3) Are specifically assigned the duties of warning, mustering, 

assembling, assisting, or controlling the movement of passengers 

during emergencies. 

§ 16.240 Serious marine incident .testing requirements. 

The marine employer shall ensure that all persons directly involved 

in a serious marine incident are chemically tested for evidence of 

dangerous drugs and alcohol in accordance with the requirements of 

46 C.F.R. 4.06. 

III. 

: ---~-~ ------~ ----- ~- -~--- --~- ~-- ---- --- ---F-IND IN G'S-OF-FA:CT- ------ - ---- - -------- -------

1. William C. Hauck is the holder of Merchant Mariner's License Number 811332 

issued by the United States Coast Guard on April23, 1997. It authorizes Mr. Hauck to serve as 

"MASTER NEAR COASTAL STEAM OR MOTOR VESSELS OF NOT MORE THAN-1 00-

GROSS TONS." 

2. The M/V ST. LUCIE (D1036416) is 64.5 feet in length which displaces 51 gross tons 

(Exhibit I0-11). The vessel is owned and operated by Key West Steamboat Co. Inc., Marathon, 

FL. A Certificate of Inspection was issued to the vessel on November 9, 1999. The manning 

requirements set out thereon include a Coast Guard licensed Master and two authorized 

deckhands. The vessel is configured as a paddle wheel steamboat and is restricted to operation 

in the " ... Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico between Melbourne, Key West and Cape Romano 

Florida, not more than three (3) miles from shore." (Id.) 

3. Mr. Hauck is the owner of Key West Steamboat Co. Inc. and the ST. LUCIE. 

(Exhibit I0-13 and Transcript (hereinafter TR.) at 176-77, 213). 

4. On July 29, 2000 the vessel departed the Buccaneer Resoti in Marathon, FL for a 

two-hour sunset cruise to Moser Channel at approximately 1905 hours. (Exhibit I0-12 and TR. 

150). The Master of the ST. LUCIE during the excursion was William C. Hauck. (TR. 150). 

7 
The other members of the crew were Bruce A. Lord and Chatlada Ketkaew. (Exhibit I0-1 and 

TR.104, 114). 

5. There were six other persons aboard the vessel including four "paying" passengers 

and two "free" riders. (TR 175). 

6. Captain Hauck was in the wheelhouse and in command of the vessel as the ST. 

LUCIE proceeded three to four miles toward Moser Channel where the passengers "watched the 

sunset." Then the vessel "turned around and came back." (TR. 62, 1 06). During the excursion a 

squall was encountered and the crew took shelter behind the wheelhouse. (Tr. 105-1 06). Neither 

of the crew members were called to assist the Master in the wheelhouse or ordered to act as a 

lookout prior to the allision. (TR. 106, 115). 

7. The weather became windy and rainy and the Master closed the pilothouse windows 

on the port side. (TR. 151 ). He proceeded to steer the vessel with his head out the starboard 

windows. There were no windshield wipers on the vessel. (TR. 152). At that point the vessel 

which was proceeding at approximately six knots, hit the Bethel Bank Daymarker No. 19 on the 

starboard quarter causing the vessel to list. (TR. 73). The Daymarker was bent over and impaled 

into the vessel at a 30-40 degree angle. (TR. 32-33). 

8. The Bethel Bank Daymarker is marked on NOAA Chart 11452 Florida Keys 

Alligator Reef to Sombrero Key, 19th Edition, November 22, 1997. (Exhibit I0-2). The marker 

had been on station since at least October 20, 1997 when Officer Stephen Golden, Florida Fish 

and Wildlife Conservation Commissioner entered its coordinates into his GPS. (TR 62). 

9. Immediately after the allision, the Respondent notified the Coast Guard Station at 

Marathon. BM2 Bryan McCloskey received the call at approximately 9:00PM. Five minutes 

later two response vessels got underway including a 21-foot rigid hull inflatable and a 41-foot 

8 
utility boat. (TR. 72). McCluskey arrived on the scene approximately 13 minutes after he 

received the call. (TR. 85). During this time, the weather was clear, it was dark and the seas 

were less than a foot. (TR. 73). 

10. At the scene, the Coast Guard took nine people off the vessel while one of the 

officers went aboard the ST. LUCIE to inspect the damage. (TR. 73). The passengers wore life 

jackets, were nervous, and seemed to be inebriated. (TR. 73-74). 

11. LT Douglas Campbell, Supervisor ofMarine Safety Detachment Marathon, was 

notified of the incident at approximately 22:00 and arrived on scene approximately 1-1.5 hours 

later. (TR. 38-39). At that time, the weather was clear with a light breeze and intennittent 

clouds. Evidence of passing thunderstonns could be seen in the distance. (TR. 33). LT 

Campbell did an inspection of the entire vessel and stated," ... I didn't notice any charts out, I 

didn't notice any spotlights, any additional equipment that night." (TR. 34). 

12. The ST. LUCIE did not have a compass on board at any time during the excursion 

prior to the allision. (TR. 157). 

13. Chatlada Ketkaew, a member of the crew, did not have a drug free certificate at the 

time ofthe excursion and had not taken a pre-employment drug test. (TR. 116). She took the 

drug test a few days later on August 2, 2000 after the incident here. (Exhibit I0-3). 

14. The vessel was ultimately towed to a shipyard at Ft. Lauderdale where the damage 

to the vessel from the allision amounted to $124,458.75. (TR. 96).· 

15. The cost of replacement of the Bethel Bank Daymarker No. 19 was $12,869.46. 

(Exhibit I0-1 0). 

16. No persons were injured in the allision and no oil was spilled into the water. 

9 
IV. 

OPINION 

A. General 

The Coast Guard has jurisdiction over Respondent and this matter pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 

§ 7703, which states that a Merchant mariner's document may be suspended or revoked for 

negligence and violation of law or regulation. The Coast Guard has the burden of proving the 

allegations of the Complaint. 33 C.P.R. § 20.702. The standard of proof applicable to this 

-proceeding is that the case must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence. 33 C.P.R. § 

20.701. See also Appeal Decision Nos. 2468 (LEWIN); 24 77 (TOMBARI); Dept. of Labor v. 

Greenwich Colleries, 512 U.S. 267 (1994); Steadman v. SEC, 450 U.S. 91, 101-103 (1981). The 

proceeding is conducted under the provisions in 33 C.P.R. Parts 20, 46 C.P.R Part 5, and the 

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 551 et. seq. 

B. Allegations of Negligence 

1. The first allegation is that the "Respondent was acting as Master of the M/V ST 

LUCIE, when said vessel allided with Bethel Ban1c Daymarker Number 19." There is no serious 

doubt on this record that William C. Hauck was the Master of the ST. LUCIE at all pertinent 

times. Indeed, Respondent candidly admitted that he was the Master of the vessel during the 

voyage. (TR. 149-150). Mr. Hauck holds a 100 ton Master's License issued by the Coast Guard. 

(TR. 149). The Certificate oflnspection (hereafter COI) of the vessel requires that it be manned 

by an appropriately licensed Master. Thus, Respondent was serving under the authority of his 

license aboard the ST LUCIE and in command and control of the vessel when the allision 

occurred. 

10 
2. It is now well established that where a moving vessel collides with a fixed object, 

such as a daymarker, a presumption arises to establish a prima facie case of negligence against 

the moving vessel. See Woods v. U.S., 681 F.2d 988 (5th Cir. 1982); Commandant v. Murphy, 

NTSB Order No. EM-139 (1987); Appeal Decisions 2594 (GOLDEN)(1997) p. 3; 2211 

(DUNCAN), 2418 (DOUGHERTY), 2455 (WARDELL), 2457 (YOUNG), 2524 (TAYLOR), 

aff'd, NTSB Order No. EM-174 (1993). As the Vice Commandant stated in GOLDEN, 

" ... allisions 'simply do not occur in the ordinary course ofthings unless the vessel has been 

mismanaged."' See also Patterson Oil Terminals v. The Port Covington, 109 F.Supp. 953, 954 

(E.D. Pa. 1952), aff'd, 208 F.2d 694 (3d Cir. 1953). Moreover, this presumption has been upheld 

in Coast Guard suspension and revocation proceedings against the navigation of a vessel 

involved in an allision. See (GOLDEN) supra. The Respondent can rebut this presumption by 

showing a "'credible, nonfault explanation' for the allision." 2588 (LASCORA) (1997). p. 3. 

See also Commandant v. Murphy, NTSB Order No. EM-139 (1987). 

On the record here, it is clear that the Respondent, while serving as Master of the ST. 

LUCIE on July 29, 2000 at approximately 21: 15 allided with Bethel Bank Daymarker No. 19 

causing severe damage to the vessel and destroying the marker. See "Florida Boating Accident 

Investigation" (Exhibit I0-1); "Report of Marine Accident, Injury or Death" (Exhibit I0-12); 

Testimony ofLT Douglas Campbell (TR. 32-33); Bryan McCluskey (TR. 73); and William 

Hauck (TR. 151 ). Thus, the Coast Guard has successfully raised the presumption of negligence 

adverse to the Respondent in this case. 

The Respondent has claimed that during the voyage the weather became stormy and he 

did not see the daymarker due to heavy rain and wind. He testified that the ST. LUCIE did not 

have windshield wipers and thus he had to position his head out the starboard window in the 

11 
wheelhouse in order to see forward. (TR. 151 ). Yet there were two other crew members on the 

vessel at the time and neither was ordered to render assistance by serving as a look-out. Indeed, 

both crew members were huddled behind the wheelhouse out of the rain with no opportunity to 

see ahead of the vessel. The Respondent's difficulty seeing out the wheelhouse windows made it 

imperative that a look-out be stationed to warn of obstacles or traffic ahead. Clearly the 

Respondent's failure to do so and to proceed blindly ahead constituted negligence under these 

circumstances. 

' 

•-------------------------------

The Respondent has not carrie forward with any reasonable, no fault explanation for his 

failure to abide by this most basic maritime requirement, i.e. to have the ability to see ahead in a 

storm while underway and in command of a passenger vessel. 

3. The Respondent has urged that he was operating a "promotional sunset cruise" and 

that there were no paying passengers. (TR. 152, 175). That position directly conflicts with his 

own written statement submitted to the Coast Guard immediately after the casualty that there 

were "4 passengers (paid)- 2 free- 3 crew." (Exhibit I0-12). In any event, the law is clear, 

that the ST. LUCIE is a certificated passenger vessel and when underway, must comply with 

requirements of its Certificate of Inspection. Indeed, as the Investigating Officer points out in 

his post-hearing pleading (p. 8), any departure from the vessel's cor involving excursions with 

six or less passengers must be specifically provided on the Certificate as a specific endorsement. 

See 46 C.F.R. § 176.114. There is no such endorsement on the ST. LUCIE's Certificate of 

Inspection.· See Exhibit I0-11. This vessel was operating under its Certificate of Inspection at 

the time the allision occurred. 

4. With regard to the question of whether Respondent had appropriate charts on the 

vessel at the time of the incident, I am not persuaded that the evidence in this regard meets the 

12 
standard of proof applicable to this proceeding: namely, that the allegations be proven by a 

preponderance of the evidence. The Coast Guard's evidence in this regard is founded on the 

testimony ofLT Campbell as follows (TR. 33~34): 

Q. When you did your walk around the vessel, what type of 

navigation equipment or navigation tools did you see or did you not 

see? 

A. We conducted a complete walk through the vessel, stmiing with 

the structural damage, inspecting all the compartments, doing a base 

_____ ~_'1:11_, an_d then_rg_ovi!!gJ.lp_t()}_),_ went insic:l_tUh~_bridge are(l. _ljust _______________ _ 

noticed the standard equipment that was available during normal 

inspection, which was a radio, you know, light switch. I think- I 

didn't notice any charts out, I didn't notice any spotlights, any 

additional equipment that night. 

On the other hand, Respondent testified that he did have a chart (TR. 157): 

Q. What were you navigating with? What were you using to guide 

you, to navigate, while you were making your voyage? 

A. Flat seat of the pants, as it said in my answer to you. 

Q. So did you have a chart in front of you? 

A. Yes, I had a chart in front of me. But I don't have any GPS or 

loran that's required to be on the boat, or a compass for that matter to 

aid me in utilizing the chart. 

LT Campbell's failure to notice any charts does not, of itself, prove that there were no charts 

aboard the vessel. He should have asked Respondent to produce the charts or received a denial 

in connection with that request. It should be noted however, that the vessel did not have a 

compass, GSP or loran and thus Hauck's use of the chati would have severely been limited. 

Also, the Respondent testified that he was not using a chart as follows: "I was terminating an 

unsafe voyage due to heavy weather, with absolutely no navigation aids whatsoever, flat seat of 

13 
the pants .... " (TR. 157). In view of the specific factual allegation asserted here however, 

regarding the absence of charts on the vessel, that assertion is not proved. 

C. Allegations of Violation of Laws or Regulations 

1. The first allegation under this charge is that Respondent "failed to maintain a proper 

look-out for the prevailing circumstances and conditions, in accordance with 33 U.S.C. 2005, 

resulting in the allision .... " The Vice Commandant has held that the adequacy of a look-out is 

a question of fact to be determined by the facts and circumstances of each case. See Appeal 

Decision 2581 (DRIGGERS) (1996) p. 5. And there are instances when a Master can serve as 

his own look-out. However, that was not the case under the circumstances here. The 

Respondent t~stified that (TR. 151): 

The weather got lousy, gusts to 40-plus knots. I slid the pilothouse 

windows closed on the port side because the rain was blowing in through 

the windows. I had my head out the starboard windows. Give or take, I 

felt it was time to terminate an unsafe voyage as it required I need to do. 

With that particular vessel and the trade she is in, she is a handful in the 

wind. And we stmck --I struck marker-- Bethel Bank Marker 19. 

Two crew members testified that they were stationed behind the wheelhouse and neither was 

asked to act as look-out. (TR. 105-06, 115). They could not see forward from where they were 

stationed. (TR. 1 05). 

In light of the allision with the fixed and charted daymarker, the presence of a look-out 

to aid the Master under these conditions was imperative and probably could have avoided the 

allision. The Respondent's actions violated Rule 5 of the Inland Navigation Rules. See Appeal 

Decisions 2576 (AILSWORTH) (1996) pp. 13-14 and 2587 (HUDSON) (1997) p. 3. 

2. The record in this case is clear that Captain Hauck, while in command of the ST. 

LUCIE, hit Bethel Bank Daymarker Number 19. Indeed the Respondent himself testified that he 

struck the marker as alleged by the Coast Guard. (TR. 151). Additionally, LT Douglas 

14 
Campbell testified that when he arrived on scene, the ST. LUCIE was impaled on the daymarker 

and "the vessel sustained damage to the port side on the forward railing." (TR. 32). The 

damage to the daymarker amounted to$ 12,869.46. (Exhibit I0-10). Indeed, the marker was so 

severely damaged that it had to be replaced. 

Moreoever, 33 C.F.R. § 70.05 provides that "No person shall ... destroy ... injure ... or 

in any manner whatever impair the usefulness of any aid to navigation established and 

maintained by the United States." Clearly, Respondent violated this provision too as described . -----------------------

above. 

------- ------- - --------------------- -- -------

3. The final allegation alleges that Respondent failed to ensure compliance with 46 

C.F .R. § 16 by failing to enroll Chatlada Ketkaew in a chemical testing program. That provision 

states that "No marine employer shall engage or employ any individual to serve as a 

crewmember unless the individual passes a chemical test for dangerous drugs .... " 46 C.F.R. § 

16.210. A marine employer is defined as the "owner, managing operator, charterer, agent, 

master, or person in charge of a vessel, other than a recreational vessel." 46 C.F.R. § 16.105. 

The vessel involved here is the ST. LUCIE and that vessel holds a Certificate of Inspection 

authorizing it to engage in passenger service. The manning requirements require a licensed 

master and two deckhands. (Exhibit I0-11). On July 29, 2000 and all pertinent times, Ms. 

Chatlada Ketkaew was serving as a deckhand aboard the vessel. She testified that she had been 

hired by Respondent who paid her to serve as a member of the crew. (TR. 114-118). She 

testified further that she had not taken a chemical test for dangerous drugs prior to the time of the 

allision. (TR. 116). She also testified that Respondent was the person operating the vessel at the 

time of the allision. (TR. 114). The Respondent therefore failed to enroll this crewmember in a 

15 
chemical testing program as required by 46 C.F.R. § 16.210 and thus, unlawfully employed Ms. 

Ketkaew on this excursion. 

Mr. Hauck asserts that Ms. Ketkaew is somehow an independent agent and he was not 

responsible for her enrollment in a drug program. Under the regulations cited above and the 

Certification of Inspection issued to the vessel, she was serving as a crew member and the 

chemical testing provisions imposed by the Coast Guard on the owner, master or operator of a 

vessel apply to him in these circumstances. 

D. Other Matters 

1. In his reply brief filed on September 6, 2001, Mr. Hauck objects to the testimony of 

Officer Steven Golden and LT Douglas Campbell for the alleged reason they were not identified 

on the witness list served prior to hearing. That assertion is incorrect since both individuals were 

identified on that list. Additionally, Mr. Hauck himself did not submit a witness or exhibit list 

yet he was allowed to sponsor witnesses and did in fact call LT Steven Keel. Additionally, I 

entered into evidence three exhibits which Mr. Hauck offered. 

2. With regard to NOAA Chart 11452, Alligator Reef to Sombrero Key, 19th edition, 

printed 1997, the Investigating Officer submitted a motion at the hearing to add this chart to his 

exhibits. (TR. 13). Mr. Hauck did not object to that request at the time and it was granted. In 

fact, when the chart was admitted, Mr. Hauck was asked whether he had any questions about the 

chart and he replied "None whatsoever." (TR. 184). His objection on reply brief is untimely. 

3. Mr. Hauck also asserts in his reply brief that there may have been a mechanical 

failure which caused the allision. See Reply Brief at page 2. There is no evidence on this record 

of any mechanical failure. Mr. Hauck never made that assertion at the hearing or in the report 

filed at the time of the incident. 

16 
4. Mr. Hauck claims that the location of Bethel Bank Daymarker No. 19 was uncertain 

since various charts and reports indicate different locations. However, Mr. Hauck stated to 

Officer Golden at the scene of the incident immediately after the allision that he "didn't know 

marker #19 was there and was not even looking for it when he struck it." (Exhibit I0-1 and TR. 

62). Moreover, immediately before the allision Mr. Hauck was navigating "Flat seat of the 

pants .... " (TR. 157). He also admits that the vessel did not have a compass or other 

navigation aids so that his use of the chart would have been severely limited. (Id). Finally, there 

------ --------

---------wasrio in-dicationpriorfo tlie -aUisiori tl1iftliemarfir wasoff station. Nor is there any reliable 

evidence submitted at the hearing that the location of the marker on NOAA Chart 11452 was 

incorrect. See Government's Proposed Findings ofFact and Conclusions of Law, p. 2. 

v. 

ULTIMATE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

1. The allegation ofNegligence against the Respondent for failure to properly navigate 

the ST. LUCIE with due caution contributing to the allision ofthe vessel with the charted 

Daymarker #19 and resulting in substantial damage is PROVED by a Preponderance of the 

Evidence. 

2. The allegation that the Respondent failed to maintain a proper lookout for the 

prevailing circumstances and conditions in violation of 33 USC 2005 is Proved by a 

Preponderance of the Evidence. 

3. The allegation that the Respndent allided with the Bethel Bank Daymarker #19 in 

violation of33 CFR 70 is Proved by a Preponderance of the Evidence. 

4. The allegation that the Respondent as Marine Employer and owner of Key West 

Steamboat Company Inc. failed to ensure compliance with 46 CFR 16 by failing to enroll one of 

17 
his crew members, Ms. Chatlada Ketkaew, in a chemical testing program in accordance with 46 

CFR 16 is Proved by a Preponderance of the Evidence. 

VI. 

ORDER 

1. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Respondent's Coast Guard License No. 811332 

and all other licenses, documents, and authorizations whatsoever used to him by the Coast Guard 

------------- ------------- --------------- - ---------- --------- ------------- ---

are hereby Suspended OUTRIGHT for twelve (12) months. 

2. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Respondent is to surrender his Coast Guard 

License and all Coast Guard authorizations to the Coast Guard at Marathon or Key West 

immediately. He is no longer authorized to operate any vessel under the authority of that license. 

Failure to comply with this. order immediately will subject the Respondent to civil and criminal 

penalties. 

Done and dated October (:Z , 2001 at 

Norfolk, Virginia ' 

/J ,.,-;,.---::;t .. /·0- '}t ·"") ::!1--~~~ ' ...... ;·''-:&/ , ·' ;·;r . / 

~l ,... ~ ' /i •' ~l[.. .. · / /-~·L/ {A_,. 4 L/ ·-'-·" (/17 -t1. 2 

PETER A. FITZP ATRIC .. / 

Administrative Law Judge 

United States Coast Guard 

18