APPLYING COMMON SENSE TO AVOID MULTIPLICIOUS CHARGES 

Written By CDR Mark Hammond

Hearing Officers routinely receive cases where the party is charged 

under multiple cites for a single action or incident. Black’s Law 

Dictionary, 9th edition defines “multiplicity” as “The improper 

charging of the same offense in more than one count of a single 

indictment or information.” It’s important to know that in the Coast 

Guard’s civil penalty process, the Hearing Officer has wide discretion 

in deciding what is a fair penalty amount when the same action is 

charged in two (or more) different ways. In cases where it appears 

the party has been charged under different regulatory cites for the 

same violation, the Hearing Officer will typically dismiss one of the 

charges as being multiplicious. 

Here are a few common examples of the types of cases for which we 

might see charges dismissed for being improper or multiplicious:

* During the boarding of a 25 net ton Commercial fishing vessel 

engaged in fishing, the boarding team discovers that the vessel is not 

documented as required by 46 CFR 67.7. The evidence in this case 

indicates the vessel owner/operator never documented his vessel. 

The vessel owner is subsequently charged under 46 CFR 67.323 –

Operation without documentation. However, the owner is also 

charged under 46 CFR 67.325 for operating without a fisheries 

endorsement, and under 46 CFR 67.313 and 315 for failing to have 

the original Certificate of Documentation (COD), on board and for 

failing to produce the original COD on demand. Clearly the violation 

in this example is the vessel was not properly documented as 

required. Common sense tells us that since the vessel has no COD, 

there would be no endorsement, a COD would not be on the vessel 

and the person in command would not be able to produce a COD on 

demand. 
* During an oil transfer from a mobile transfer facility, it is 

discovered that there is no operations manual on site. The party is 

then charged under 33 CFR 154.300 for the operations manual not 

being readily available to the person in charge, and 33 CFR 156.120 

for failure to comply with the requirements for oil transfer –

specifically (t)(2) which requires that the person in charge have in 

their possession a copy of the facility’s operations manual. As you 

can see in this case, the party is being charged twice for the same act 

of failing to have an operations manual readily available to the 

person in charge.

* During an inspection of a HAZMAT container, it is discovered that 

the container is not properly placarded. Upon further inspection, it is 

also discovered that several individual packages containing 

HAZMAT within the container are not properly labeled. The party in 

this case is subsequently charged under 49 CFR 172.504 for failing 

to comply with the general placarding requirements, and 49 CFR 

172.400 for failing to comply with general labeling requirements. 

Additionally, because there were labeling and placarding violations 

discovered on a container being offered for shipment, the charging 

unit also charged the party under 49 CFR 172.2 for failing to comply 

with the general requirements for HAZMAT shipments contained in 

subchapter C. For the alleged violations in this example, the 

additional charge under 49 CFR 172.2 charge would appear 

multiplicitous since the party is already charged with specific 

placarding and labeling violations detailed in charges 1 and 2. 

When choosing a regulatory cite, applicability to the vessel, party, 

etc should be verified. The cite used for a particular charge should be 

supported by the factual elements of the case. If there are multiple 

charges, each charge should be based on independent evidence that 

supports the particular violation alleged. There may be cases where 

exigencies of proof or other factors make it prudent to charge a single 

act or incident in more than one way. Still, attention should be given 

to ensure you’re not needlessly “piling on” and charging the party 

under different cites for the same activity. Applying common sense 

when determining how to charge a single act or incident can save all 

of the participants in the civil penalty process from having to spend 

time on multiple charges that really add nothing in terms of 
establishing the charged party’s culpability or that the alleged act 

violated more than one distinct standard of conduct.