Adjudicate civil penalty cases in support of the Commandant’s maritime safety and security strategy to compel compliance with federal laws and 

regulations, and deter violations in the maritime domain. By balancing national interests, fairness, and the fundamental right to due process, we 

promote protection of the environment, vessel safety, and security at facilities, ports and waterways. 

Newsletter Date 

MAY 2008 

Volume 1 

Coast Guard Hearing Office

“Hearing Office is our Name, Maritime Safety and Security is our 

Aim” 

GREETINGS 

From CAPT R. Trabocchi, USCG 

Commanding Officer, Coast Guard Hearing Office

Welcome to our first edition of the Coast 

Guard Hearing Office newsletter. A little bit 

about this newsletter. This newsletter is about 

what we are doing at the Coast Guard Hearing 

Office and how we do business. Our intent is to 

be visible and allow both Coast Guard field units 

and mariners to understand our process and see 

it in action. 

I am excited to provide information as well as 

Hearing Office news to you. We hope that 

field units and mariners can come to know us 

and our process and as a result, have a better 

appreciation for what we do to gain compliance 

with maritime laws and regulations, and deter 

future violations.. 

These newsletters will be posted on our website 

www.uscg.mil/legal/cgho . 

 

HEARING OFFICE NEWS 

To date, we have received approximately 

1, 500 enforcement activities with violation dates in 2007 and 2008. Most of 

these are for recreational and commercial fishing vessel safety violations. 

All enforcement activities with violation dates in 

2006 and prior years have been initially adjudicated. 

The Hearing Officers are gearing up to travel and 

conduct hearings. Our last travel took us to Cleveland, Ohio. We are currently conducting hearings 

in Arlington, Virginia. 

SUMMER BOATING SEASON AND “UNDER 

THE INFLUENCE” Danielle Davis 

It is that time of the year when we begin to see a rise in the number of alcohol related boating violations. Boating 

“under the influence” is a violation of 

46 USC 2302(c). Coast Guard boarding teams may 

conduct Field Sobriety Tests (FSTs), obtain 

breathalyzer readings, and observe the overall behavior and appearance of a mariner to make a determination whether the mariner is under the influence of alcohol or a dangerous drug. Frequently, 

one or more of these tests are done by local authorities. Anyone operating a vessel while found to be 

“under the influence” may be charged with this violation and be subject to a civil penalty. 

Copies of the FSTs with all of the blocks completed 

in a readable manner and with signatures as required, breathalyzer readings obtained by Coast 

Guard and local authorities, documented observations of behavior and appearance, and a narrative 

of the events of the boarding help to determine and 

support that a violation occurred. Additionally, if 

the mariner refuses a breathalyzer test, the circumstances of the offer and refusal of the test should be 

documented. 33 CFR 95.040 provides that a refusal creates a presumption of intoxication. 33 

CFR 95.030 makes either personal observations or 

a chemical test sufficient to form a basis for a 

charge that the mariner is boating “under the influence.” 

Boating “under the influence” is a serious violation. 

Mariners have a responsibility to avoid boating 

“under the influence.” Boarding teams have a responsibility to properly and accurately record the 

events, FSTs, breathalyzer readings or refusal of 

breathalyzer testing when alleging that a mariner 

has been boating under the influence. 
Coast Guard Hearing Office Vol : 1 Newsletter Date: May 2008 

Hearing Office is our Name, Maritime Safety and Security is our Aim

LOOKIN’ THE WAY IT SHOULD 

YN3 C. Brown, YN3 V. Anderson 

The civil penalty process must afford due process to 

the mariner alleged to have violated a federal law 

or regulation enforced by the Coast Guard. Due 

process affords the mariner with this opportunity to 

make comment concerning the violation and present evidence in defense, and mitigation and extenuation. So that a mariner may exercise the opportunity to comment, the mariner is provided with 

a complete copy of the enforcement activity that is 

submitted to the Hearing Office. 

Frequently, the documentation is less than presentable. Party names and addresses should be entered 

into MISLE and reflected in the documentation 

with appropriate upper and lower case letters. 

Grammar and spelling should be reviewed for errors and corrected. Failure to do these simple 

tasks causes delay at the Hearing Office. Information in MISLE is automatically transferred to assessment letters. Inappropriate formatting, incorrect information, and other data entry deficiencies 

in MISLE cause the Hearing Office to have to 

manually correct the auto-inserted information. In 

terms of hundreds of assessment letters, this 

amounts to a significant amount of time and delay. 

Timely adjudication of violations is always a goal 

and the failure to properly enter information into 

MISLE works against that goal. 

KNOT 

The Hearing Office receives many enforcement activities (cases) that cannot be adjudicated. This is 

because one or more deficiencies relating to one or 

more violations are identified upon receipt. More 

often than not, these deficiencies can be avoided 

with a little knowledge and attention to detail. In each newsletter 

publication we will include a 

KNOT corner. No, not the kind 

you tie but rather a Knowledge 

Note Or Tip. Be sure to watch for this corner. 

You may see the same subject addressed more than 

once...it will be because our first KNOT on the subject failed! 

SENDING AN ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY 

TO THE HEARING OFFICE? 

YN3 C. Brown, YN3 V. Anderson 

Sending an enforcement activity to the Hearing Office requires more than putting it in the mail. It 

requires the processing official to transfer control of 

the enforcement activity in MISLE to the Hearing 

Office. Failure to do so, prevents the Hearing Office from accepting the activity for civil penalty action. And routinely our efforts to gain control of the 

activity are met with considerable delay. 

We have instituted what we hope will be an expedited procedure to eliminate delay due to failure to 

transfer control to the Hearing Office. Upon discovery of the receipt of an enforcement activity for 

which control was not transferred to the Hearing 

Office, we will send an email requesting that control be transferred to us. Failure to transfer control 

within 4 business days from the date of the email 

will cause the enforcement activity to be returned 

to the sending unit without action. 

Similarly but not quite as often, we find that ownership of an enforcement activity has been transferred to us. Ownership of an enforcement activity 

should NEVER be transferred to the Hearing Office. In this situation, the Hearing Office will 

transfer ownership of the enforcement activity in 

MISLE back to the originating unit. 

And don’t forget when sending an enforcement activity to the Hearing Office for civil penalty action 

that two (2) copies are required of everything that 

is in the file; one copy for the Hearing Officer and 

one copy for the party. Failure to do so will cause 

the enforcement activity to be returned without action. Beware of CDs and DVDs - the party may not 

be able to read them. More to come on this later! 

Finally, we need to be able to find the activity when 

you call to make an inquiry concerning it. This is 

akin to finding a needle in a haystack due to the 

number of files moving at any given time in the 

Hearing Office. Help us help you! Each file folder 

should be labeled with the enforcement activity 

number, not the investigation number. And the 

numbers should read in a vertical row on the right 

hand edge of the folder: 

Thanks from the Administrative 

 1 Support Staff !! 

2 
Coast Guard Hearing Office Vol : 1 Newsletter Date: May 2008 

Hearing Office is our Name, Maritime Safety and Security is our Aim

SO WHAT ABOUT THOSE ACTIVITIES RETURNED TO THE PROGRAM MANGER OTHERWISE KNOWN AS “RPM” FILES 

Vernon Slape 

On the first page under Hearing Office Notes you 

see that the total number of files with violation 

dates in 2007 and 2008 so far received are approximately 1,500. Since we began processing these enforcement activities, we have already returned 89 

of them to the field processing officials. This is a 

significant number especially in view of the reasons 

we returned the activities. 

A review of the 89 activities reveal that 

the number one deficiency remains insufficient evidence in the case file to support 

a determination that the violation occurred. Often the deficiency starts with 

the Boarding Report, CG4100 or PDA. Location, 

sunrise / sunset times, vessel particulars, etc are 

missing. If missing here, they are missing from the 

Activity Summary Report and Enforcement Summary. 

Violations of the personal flotation device, visual 

distress signal and fire extinguisher requirements 

are often not supported with evidence. For these 

requirements and other requirements that are 

based on number, serviceability, and location, the 

evidence needs to be specific. How many visual distress signals were on board and how many were 

expired, what was the size of the rip in fabric and 

what was the adverse impact on the buoyancy of 

the personal flotation device, and similar details 

surrounding equipment need to be documented. 

Of course there are the more mundane reasons for 

the return of an enforcement activity such as the 

violations on the Activity Summary Report and the 

Enforcement Summary do not match, inconsistent 

violation dates are reflected in the file, missing exhibits, and no mailing address for the party on the 

Enforcement Summary. 

Stand by.....more to come on this “return” subject! 

THE REFLECTION OF PROFESSIONALISM 

You have heard it before and should hear it often. 

Be professional, exhibit professionalism and the 

like. But what does that mean? A walk through 

the dictionary is not much help. And isn’t it true - 

there is a great difference between being a professional and behaving in a professional manner? Perhaps like some other things, it is easier to define 

what is not “professional” as opposed to defining 

what is “professional.” 

What does this have to do with the assessment of 

civil penalties? At least two very distinct and identifiable things. 

A boarding team’s lack of professional behavior is 

often the subject of lengthy letters from parties asserting that the boarding team’s behavior should be 

a mitigating factor when assessing a civil penalty. 

This means the party is asking the Hearing Officer 

to take into consideration that the boarding team 

was unprofessional during the boarding in some 

aspect and that should reduce the civil penalty that 

the Hearing Officer might have otherwise assessed. 

Depending on the effect that any unprofessional 

conduct may have had directly relative to a violation, unprofessional conduct by a boarding team 

may be a factor affecting the Hearing Officer’s final 

civil penalty decision. 

Too often we receive an Enforcement Summary 

that is unprofessional in content. In this situation, 

the Hearing Officer will not send a copy of the enforcement activity to the party, and that prevents 

the adjudication process from going forward. Similar to the reasons stated to the left, this is a reason 

for which we return an activity without action. 

Specifically, we find that internal unit or agency 

comments and clerical notations as to the tracking 

and processing of the activity are included in the 

Narrative Overview block on the Enforcement 

Summary. This is not the appropriate place for 

such comments and such comments should not be 

in the file. Any and all comments should relate to 

the alleged violations, aggravating, mitigating, and 

extenuating circumstances, and violation history. 

While this might not capture everything that can 

be included, this is the information that is properly 

included in the file’s documentation. 

.