UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

Complainant 

vs. 

MONROE L. WIGHTMAN, III, 

Respondent 

Docket Number: CG S&R 02-0063 

CG Case No. 1482374 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Issued by: Honorable Archie R. Boggs, Administrative Law Judge 

APPEARANCES: 

FOR THE U.S. COAST GUARD 

BM1 Tony Leiato, Esq., 

United States Coast Guard 

Marine Safety Office 

433 Ala Moana Boulevard 

Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 

FOR THE RESPONDENT 

P. Michael Watson, 

President of Dream Cruises 

306 Kamani Street 

Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 
I. PRELIMINARYSTATEMENT 

This administrative action was brought pursuant to the legal authority contained 

in 46 U.S.C. § 7703 and its underlying regulations codified at 46 C.P.R. Part 5. The 

Coast Guard issued a complaint on January 28, 2002, charging Respondent Monroe L. 

Wightman, III with one count of Violation of Law or Regulation resulting from a failure 

to secure the overboard sewage discharge valve on board the M/V AMERICAN 

DREAM, while operating within the limits of the U.S. territorial seas. 

The violation oflaw or regulation charge against Respondent Wightman is 

supported by one{l) factual allegation, which reads as follows: 

1. The Coast Guard alleges that the Respondent, did, on or about January 23, 

2002, while operating the vessel inside the limits of the waters of U.S. 

territorial seas, fail to secure the vessel's Type III device in a manner which 

prevented discharge of sewage, to wit: the vessel's overboard sewage 

discharge valve was left in the open position, a violation of 33 CPR 159. 7( c). 

The Respondent filed an answer to the complaint and requested a hearing. More 

specifically, Respondent Wightman admitted all jurisdictional allegations contained in 

the complaint but pled insufficient information to answer the factual allegations 

supporting-the charge. 

The hearing in this matter was initially set for April 16, 2002 at the Marine Safety 

Office in Honolulu, Hawaii. However, the proceeding was rescheduled for hearing on 

June 4, 2002 at the Prince Jonah Kuhio Kalanianaole Federal Building. 

2 
The hearing convened as scheduled. The hearing was conducted in accordance 

with the Administrative Procedure Act as amended and codified in 5 U.S.C. §§ 551-559, 

and the Coast Guard procedural regulations in 33 C.P.R. Part 20. Boatswain Mate First 

Class Tony Leiato represented the Coast Guard. Respondent Wightman was 

accompanied by his employer and president of Dream Cruises, P. Michael Watson, who 

served as a non-attorney authorized representative. 

A total of six (6) witnesses, including Respondent Wightman, testified. The 

Coast Guard introduced five (5) exhibits, and the Respondent introduced four (4) exhibits 

into evidence. The exhibits are listed in Appendix I. 

It is concluded that the Coast Guard has established by a preponderance of 

reliable and credible evidence that Respondent Wightman committed an act of violation 

oflaw or regulation on January 23, 2002 when he failed to secure or have secured the 

vessel's overboard discharge valve while operating within three nautical miles from 

shore. 

II. FINDINGS OF FACT 

1. On January 7, 2002, an anonymous report was filed with the Coast Guard stating 

that the AMERICAN DREAM had been routinely pumping sewage overboard, 

approximately one mile from shore as it traversed from its berth to a mooring 

station. (Transcript ("Tr. ") 25-26, 30). 

2. Wayne Amedy, an agent with the Coast Guard Criminal Investigation Office in 

Honolulu, received the telephone call. (Tr. 11). Mr. Amedy did not inquire how 

the anonymous caller determined whether the substance being discharged was in 

3 
fact sewage. (Tr. 28). Instead, he promptly sent a field intelligence report to the 

Marine Safety Office and the Coast Guard Investigation Department initiated a 

watch to monitor the AMERICAN DREAM. (Tr. 24-26, 30-31). 

3. On January 23, 2002, while Respondent was serving as master aboard the MN 

AMERICAN DREAM, the overboard sewage discharge valve on the vessel was 

left in the open position, allowing for the potential discharge of sewage inside the 

limits of the U.S. territorial seas. (Entire Transcript). 

4. Respondent Wightman is the holder of U.S. Coast Guard License No. 926905. 

He is licensed to operate steam or motor vessels up to one hundred tons on coastal 

waters and to engage in domestic commercial towing. (Tr. 8-9). 

5. The AMERICAN DREAM is a 1 00-foot long vessel owned by the Dream Cruise 

Company. The company offers daily snorkeling and whale watching cruises off 

the shore of Waikiki Beach, Honolulu. (Tr. 6, 17, 115). 

6. The AMERICAN DREAM has three lavatories on board, all of which drain into a 

single gravity discharge holding tank. (Tr. 56). When the sewage discharge valve 

is open, anything contained within the holding tank, including sewage, feeds 

through a discharge pipe on the bottom of the vessel. (Tr. 56). If the lavatory is 

used when the valve is open and the vessel is moving, sewage could potentially be 

discharged into the ocean. (Tr. 56- 57). 

7. Company policy implemented by Dream Cruise requires that the captain of the 

vessel maintain and possess the key to unlock the sewage valve. (Tr. 45). 

Company policy further requires that the holding tank discharge valve remain 

chained and padlocked during all operations, except as directed by the captain. 

4 
(Tr. 84). Under company policy, the captain may delegate the responsibility of 

ensuring the discharge valve is secure to the first officer. The first officer cannot 

open the discharge valve without first obtaining the key from the captain and the 

first officer must return the key to the captain after the holding tank is emptied 

and the valve has been relocked and secured. (Tr. 50-51, 72-73). 

8. On the morning of January 23, 2002, Captain Wightman conducted the second of 

two whale watching cruises. (Tr. 70). 

9. When the AMERICAN DREAM was more than three nautical miles offshore, 

Captain Wightman called the first officer, Gino Dayton, to the bridge to give him 

the key to the sewage-dumping valve. (Tr. 70-71, 84). As the first officer on 

board the vessel, Mr. Dayton was responsible for taking the key to unlock the 

valve and empty the holding tank. (Tr. 71, 84). 

10. When Gino Dayton failed to respond, another crewmember, Warren Asp appeared 

in his place. (Tr. 71-72). Warren Asp was also qualified as a first officer and was 

familiar with company policy and procedure regarding the sewage discharge 

valve. (Tr. 83-84). As such, Captain Wightman gave the key to Mr. Asp and 

directed him to have Mr. Dayton open the valve and complete the discharge 

process. (Tr. 72, 83-84, 88) . 

.. 

11. When Warren Asp returned the key five minutes later, Captain Wightman 

believed that the valve had been opened and emptied while the vessel was more 

than three miles offshore and securely relocked in compliance with normal 

required procedure. (Tr. 72-73, 84). 

5 
12. Captain Wightman did not inquire whether the valve had actually been closed and 

secured, nor did he leave the bridge to personally inspect the tank. (Tr. 87). 

13. Captains employed by Dream Cruises are the only licensed crewmembers 

onboard the vessels. They are charged primarily with the safety and comfort of 

their guests. As such, the primary duty of the captain is to control the vessel's 

motion and limit the potential for passenger injury. (Tr. 115) Although the 

company does not have a policy forbidding the captains to leave the bridge, they 

may do so only under conditions that are safe for the guests onboard. (Tr. 115-

116). 

14. If a captain were to leave the bridge to ensure that the valve was locked, it would 

take an average of four minutes to examine the valve and return to the bridge. 

(Tr. 116-117). 

15. On the morning of January 23, 2002, the Coast Guard Investigation Department 

was directed to inspect the AMERICAN DREAM and determine the accuracy of 

the anonymous report of illegal sewage dumping. (Tr. 32). In connection with 

the investigation, BMI Tony Leiato and Petty Officer Clayton Statler from the 

Marine Safety Office waited for the American Dream to return to port. (Tr. 11, 

34). 

16. After the Coast Guard explained the purpose of their visit, Petty Officer Statler 

and Captain Wightman went down to the aft lazarette to check the overboard 

discharge valve. (Tr. 11, 35). 

6 
17. Once down below, Petty Officer Statler noticed a padlock and chain lying on the 

deck. At this time, Captain Wightman picked up the chain and lock and secured 

the valve. (Tr. 11, 35). 

18. Captain Wightman informed the Coast Guard that the discharge occurred three 

miles off of Diamond Head but was unable to produce an exact position, as he did 

not record the data in the logbook at the time. (Tr. 12). 

19. Company policy requires the captain to log the discharge of sewage in the 

vessel's logbook but does not state whether the captain must log the distance 

entry in port or immediately after the discharge. (Tr. 80, 82-83). On the morning 

of the incident, Captain Wightman waited until after the cruise to log the 

discharge. (Tr. 79-81, 83). 

III. ULTIMATE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

1. Respondent Monroe L. Wightman, III and the subject matter ofthis hearing are 

properly within the jurisdiction ofthe United States Coast Guard in accordance with 

46 U.S.C. §§ 6301 and 7703(1)(B) (West Supp. 2002); 46 C.P.R. Part 5 (2001); and 

33 C.P.R. Part 20 (2001). 

2. At all relevant times, Respondent Wightman was the holder of and acted under the 

authority ofhis U.S. Coast Card issued License No. 926905, while serving as captain 

aboard the vessel M/V AMERICAN DREAM on January 23, 2002. 

3. As master of the vessel, Captain Wightman was responsible for supervising the crew 

and ensuring that all Coast Guard rules and company policy regarding the proper 

discharge of sewage are complied with in full. 

7 
4. The evidence in the record as a whole demonstrates that Respondent Wightman, as 

captain of the AMERICAN DREAM on January 23,2002, failed to secure or have 

secured the vessel's overboar? discharge valve in a manner that would prevent the 

release of untreated sewage while operating within the limits of the U.S. territorial 

seas. As a result, Respondent Wightman failed to comply with a U.S law or 

regulation. 

5. The charge of"VIOLATION OF LAW OR REGULATION" against the 

Respondent is found PROVED by a preponderance of the reliable and credible 

evidence. 

IV. OPINION 

The purpose of Coast Guard suspension and revocation proceedings is to promote 

safety at sea. 46 U.S.C. § 7701 (West Supp. 2002). If it is shown that a holder has 

committed a violation of law or regulation in performing his duties relating to the vessel, 

his license may be suspended or revoked. 46 U.S.C. § 7703 and 46 C.P.R. § 5.569. 

In suspension and revocation proceedings, the burden of proof is on the Coast 

Guard to establish a prima facie case of a violation of law or regulation by a 

preponderance ofthe evidence. 46 C.P.R.§ 7703; 33 C.P.R.§§ 20.701-02 (2000); 

Appeal Decision 2485 (YATES). A violation of law or regulation includes a failure to 

comply with any law or regulation intended to promote marine safety or to proteCt 

navigable waters. 46 C.P.R. § 5.33. The federal regulations governing marine sanitation 

devices and the requirements for vessel operators provided in 33 C.P.R. § 159.7(c) fall 

within the scope of 46 C.P.R. § 5.33. More specifically, the governing regulations 

maintain that when operating a vessel on a body of water where the discharge of 

8 
untreated sewage is prohibited, the operator must secure each Type III device in a manner 

that prevents such discharge of sewage. See 33 CFR § 159.7(c). 

Here, the Coast Guard ha~ established that Respondent Wightman violated a law 

or regulation on January 23, 2002 by failing to secure the overboard discharge valve 

onboard his vessel, thereby allowing for the potential discharge of sewage within the 

limits of the U.S. territorial seas. 

Although the Respondent conceded that the discharge valve was left in an 

unsecured position, he contended that as master onboard the AMERICAN DREAM, he 

followed all requisite procedures to ensure that the valve was properly secured according 

to federal regulations. He claimed that failure to comply with the regulations governing 

discharge of sewage resulted when an inadequately trained crewmember with a personal 

bias against him deliberately neglected his duties. He said that once the vessel was more 

than three nautical miles offshore, he delegated the task of emptying the holding tank to 

Mr. Gino Dayton, who was the acting first officer onboard the vessel on the day of the 

incident. As such, Mr. Dayton was directly responsible for properly securing the valve 

once the discharge process was complete. Captain Wightman further stated that when the 

key that unlock the valve was returned several minutes later, he believed that the valve 

had been opened and emptied while the vessel was more than three miles offshore and 

securely relocked in compliance with the required procedure. 

Despite Respondent's contentions that all necessary procedures were followed, at 

least on his part, he cannot escape responsibility. The law is well established that the 

master of a vessel is in command and, therefore, is responsible for the care and safety of 

the vessel and crew. Appeal Decision 2293 (RUBY & SMITH); also Appeal Decision 

9 

~. 

-
2321 (HARRIS). As such, the master is on duty at all times and is responsible for the 

proper management and safety of the vessel. Appeal Decision 360 (CARLSEN). While 

the captain may delegate duties to others, he may not rely on such delegations to escape 

responsibility for the results. Appeal Decision 2321 (HARRIS). Rather, because the 

captain of a vessel bears such heavy responsibility, he must take all reasonable 

precautions to nullify the effects caused by the mistakes of others. Appeal Decision 360 

(CARLSEN). 

In this case, Captain Wightman relied on a company policy that delegated the 

duty to empty the holding tank and secure the discharge valve to the crewmember who 

acts as first officer onboard the AMERICAN DREAM. However, the fact that the first 

officer should have complied with this order does not relieve the Respondent of the 

responsibility for ensuring that it was conducted according to proper procedure. At the 

very least, Captain Wightman must have assured that the discharge valve was secured by 

those to whom he assigned the task. 

The Respondent unsuccessfully contended that it would have been a greater 

danger to have left an unlicensed mate or deck hand at the wheel while he personally 

checked to see whether the first officer had properly secured the valve. It is well 

recognized that a requirement necessitating a vessel to maintain a licensed operator 

aboard does not mean that the individual holding such a license be physically at the 

wheel whenever the vessel is underway. See Commandant v. Oldow, NTSB Order No. 

EM-121 (1986). Rather, it means that there must be someone aboard at all times who is 

responsible for the vessel's navigation, by virtue of his or her licensed status, without 

regard to who is actually steering the vessel at any given point in time. Thus, the captain 

10 
of a vessel may momentarily leave the wheelhouse if the circumstances are such that an 

unlicensed crewmember can temporarily steer the vessel without any appreciable increase 

in risk to its safe navigation. Appeal Decision 2058 (SEARS). 

In the case at hand, although it may not be practical to spot-check the valve in 

every situation, under normal conditions, it would take an average of four minutes to 

quickly examine the valve and return to the bridge. (Tr. 116-117). In situations that do 

not permit the captain to leave the bridge, nothing prevents the captain from delegating 

the duty of spot-checking the valve to a second crewmember. Either ofthese scenarios 

would afford the captain additional assurance that the discharge valve was closed and 

secured, whereby he does not have to rely solely on the word ofthe first officer. 

Here, Captain Wightman did not implement any additional assurances. In fact, he 

did not even receive word from the first officer that the discharge valve was relocked and 

secured. Rather, Captain Wightman merely assumed that the discharge process was 

completed according to procedure because the valve key had been returned. In actuality, 

the padlock remained unlocked, leaving the valve unsecured in a manner that would 

allow untreated sewage to be discharged into the U.S. territorial seas. As such, the 

Respondent failed to comply with federal regulation 33 C.F.R. 159.7(c). 

V. CONCLUSION 

The preponderance of evidence supports a finding that the Respondent violated a 

law or regulation when he failed to comply with the 33 C.F.R. § 159.7(c) requiring him, 

as operator of a vessel, to secure the overboard discharge valve in a manner that prevents 

the release of untreated sewage into a protected body of water. 

11 
It is well within the power of the undersigned to order any of a variety of 

sanctions, including suspension. 46 C.P.R. § 5.569; also Appeal Decision 2569 

(TAYLOR). The Table of Suggested Range of an Appropriate Order codified in 46 

C.P.R. § 5.569(d) recommends an order of 1 to 3 months suspension for failure to comply 

with U.S. law or regulations. In this case, the Coast Guard has proposed that the 

Respondent receive a three (3) month outright suspension ofhis license. The 

undersigned, however, is not bound by the Table of an Appropriate Order. (TAYLOR). 

The Table of an Appropriate Order merely serves as guidance to an ALJ, and 

consideration of mitigating or aggravating factors may justify a lower or higher order 

than the range suggested in the table. 46 C.P.R.§ 5.569(d). 

In light of all the circumstances a one ( 1) month outright suspension is deemed 

appropriate. This case does not involve a Respondent who has a prior record of 

violations. Rather, Captain Wightman is held in high regard among his peers in terms of 

reputation, background, and experience. He appears to be a highly responsible person 

who was overseeing the operation of a whale watching tour at sea, which at times can be 

demanding. Since this incident, Captain Wightman has implemented additional 

procedures to ensure compliance with both government regulations and company policy 

pertaining to the vessel's sewage discharge valve. Moreover, there is no evidence in the 

·-

record that this incident resulted in the discharge of untreated sewage or other pollutants. 

Consequently, the minimal suspension period set forth in the Table of Orders is the 

appropriate sanction. 

12 
VI ORDER 

It is hereby ordered that U.S. Coast Guard License No, 926905, issued to Monroe L. 

Wightman, III is hereby suspended for one (1) month. Respondent ~s ordered to 

immediately surrender his License to the U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office 

Honolulu. 

The procedure for appeal is set forth in 33 C.P.R. §§ 20.1001-20.1003. 

(Attachment A) 

Dated i..J: October 2002 

New Orleans, Louisiana 

13 

Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Coast Guard 

.. 

-