Hearing Office Mission: Adjudicate civil penalty cases. The civil penalty process is remedial in nature. Its goals are to 

gain compliance with statutes and regulations the Coast Guard enforces and to deter future violations. A fair and informal 

administrative process promotes maritime safety, security and environmental protection. 

Newsletter Date 

 July 2013 

Coast Guard Hearing Office 

“Hearing Office is our Name, 

Maritime Safety and Security is our Aim” 

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

Volume 20 

GREETINGS 

From Robert Bruce 

Chief, Coast Guard Hearing Office HEARING OFFICE NEWS 

 If a charged party wants to respond to a Preliminary Assessment Letter (PAL), either to request a 

hearing or to submit evidence for the Hearing Officer to consider, the response should be sent to the 

Hearing Office address in Virginia. Recently, the 

Hearing Office has received many responses from 

charged parties that were mailed to the Collections 

Office in California or the address for paying penalties in Georgia. The reason for these misdirected 

responses may have been that charged parties were 

not carefully reading the PAL, which provides the 

Collections address for persons wanting to negotiate a payment plan and the payment address for 

persons that want to pay the preliminary penalty 

without disputing the preliminary penalty amount. 

As a result, the Hearing Office has revamped its 

PAL letter to more clearly explain that any response 

for the Hearing Officer’s consideration should be 

addressed to the Hearing Office in Virginia. I am 

hoping that this significantly reduces the number of 

responses that are mailed to the wrong address. 

If you have received a PAL, please read it carefully. 

The regulations that guide our process provide a 

reasonably short period for exercising the right to 

request a hearing, or to submit evidence disputing 

the alleged violation or to support a lessened penalty amount. Sending the response to the wrong 

address will delay its delivery to the Hearing Officer or could result in its not reaching the Hearing 

Officer at all. 

 

Within the Coast Guard, it is the season of hail and 

farewell. The Hearing Office recently bid farewell to 

Commander Mark Hammond, who is retiring after 

more than thirty-five years of active duty in the Coast 

Guard. Commander Hammond served as a Hearing 

Officer for four years and his superb performance was 

recognized with the award of a Meritorious Service 

Medal. Among other things, he participated in the 

disposition of more than 2,200 civil penalty cases, and 

presided over thirty-one in-person hearings. 

The Hearing Office hailed the arrival of Commander 

Scott Klinke, who comes to us from Coast Guard 

Headquarters. He will serve as a Hearing Officer. 

Commander Klinke has more than twenty years of 

active duty service, both as an enlisted man and a 

commissioned officer. Among other things, he has 

experience as a marine inspector, foreign vessel examiner, and marine casualty investigator. 

Articles in this issue: 

 

SUGGESTING A HISTORY OF SIMILAR VIOLATIONS 

WITHOUT EVIDENCE IS NOT HELPFUL...p.2 

TIMELY FILING OF CIVIL PENALTY CASES...p. 3 

K.N.O.T. ...p. 3 

WHAT’S IN A NUMBER...p. 5 

JUST FOR FUN...p. 4 
Hearing Office is our Name, Maritime Safety and Security is our Aim

Coast Guard Hearing Office Vol: XX Newsletter Date: July 2013 

2 

(MISLE) database. Typically, the Enforcement 

Summary section titled “Past Violation(s) History” 

is the only information provided in the case file concerning a charged party’s repeat offense(s). This 

section of the Enforcement Summary only provides: 

the law or regulation and its description, the violation date and activity number, the finding (proved or 

dismissed), and the penalty amount. This information tends to leave the Hearing Officer with more 

questions than answers about the details of previous 

offenses. In some cases, amplifying evidence that 

explains how the previous violation(s) relate to the 

current alleged violations may make for a more persuasive case. 

Timely submission of case files is important because a case that is still being adjudicated cannot be 

considered “history;” it hasn’t been finally “proved” 

yet. Giving a verbal warning to an alleged violator 

usually is not recorded as part of their violation history. Generally speaking, if there is no evidence of 

a past proved violation in the case file, then the 

Hearing Officer will assume that there is no violation history, and the alleged offense is the first for 

the charged party. 

 * * * * * * * *

Suggesting a History of Similar Violations Without Evidence Is Not Helpful

CDR Evan Hudspeth 

In the Preliminary Assessment Letter (PAL) sent to 

the charged party there is a sentence that is often 

overlooked which simply states that, “Whatever you 

want me to consider should be supported by evidence, or else it might not be very persuasive.” The 

same advice could be given to a Coast Guard unit 

that is initiating a case for an alleged offense. If 

you want the Hearing Officer to consider in aggravation a history of similar violations, then documentation should be provided showing that the charged 

party does in fact have a violation history. 

During the preliminary review of the case file, the 

Hearing Officer takes a serious look at any evidence 

of previous similar violations to assist in the assessment of an appropriate preliminary civil penalty 

amount. Most often, the larger the number of similar past violations, the greater the preliminary penalty amount will be, because the Hearing Office’s 

goal is to gain compliance and ensure deterrence. It 

follows that if a violation is repeated, then the previous penalty amount was not an effective deterrent, 

and a greater penalty amount is necessary to prevent 

future similar violations. 

It is important to understand that the only information and evidence that the Hearing Officer may consider is that which is in the case file, and has been 

shared with the charged party. The Hearing Officer 

and the charged party do not have access to the Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement 
Hearing Office is our Name, Maritime Safety and Security is our Aim

Coast Guard Hearing Office Vol: XX Newsletter Date: July 2013 

 3 

The Coast Guard, as a marine safety agency, can 

more effectively achieve its remedial goals and have 

a greater impact on a party’s behavior if civil penalty cases are submitted to the Hearing Office in a 

timely manner. 

 * * * * * * * *

K.N.O.T. 

(Knowledge Note or Tip) 

When choosing a cite to 

charge in a case involving required safety equipment, remember that there is a difference between 

the proper cite for cases where the equipment is not 

onboard or the quantity onboard is insufficient, and 

the proper cite for cases where the equipment is unserviceable or improperly maintained. By necessity, if there is no applicable serviceability requirement, the cite for not having the equipment on 

board may be used. For instance, in the case of fire 

extinguishers, the Coast Guard considers an unserviceable or improperly maintained fire extinguisher 

to be unacceptable to meet the requirement for having the proper number of approved fire extinguishers on board. 

 * * * * * * * *

Timely Filing of Civil Penalty Cases 

LCDR Michele Bouziane 

We’ve said it before, and we’ll say it again: the 

purpose of the civil penalty process is to seek: 

1) compliance with regulatory requirements, and 

2) deterrence of violations of the regulations. In 

other words, the process is remedial, not punitive. 

It stands to reason, then, that the sooner the charging unit submits a civil penalty case, the sooner the 

charged party will be prompted to achieve compliance with the regulation(s) s/he is alleged to have 

violated. 

In some cases, such as oil pollution cases, compliance may not be an option. For example, the vessel 

or facility may already have leaked oil which has 

discharged into navigable U.S. waters. Deterrence 

of future discharges may 

be the only 

achievable 

outcome. 

Suppose your 

unit delays 

forwarding oil 

pollution cases 

against a 

party, and then 

sends the Hearing Office five oil pollution cases 

against the same party with alleged violation dates 

spanning a period of months or years. The Coast 

Guard has lost the possibility of deterring the party 

from committing the latter four violations by taking 

timely and effective civil penalty action in the first 

case. 

Remember, however, that it’s not “officially” a violation until it has been completely adjudicated. In 

other words, when the Coast Guard’s final agency 

action on a civil penalty case results in a finding 

that the party has committed a violation, the violation then properly can be considered part of the 

charged party’s violation history. 
Hearing Office is our Name, Maritime Safety and Security is our Aim

Coast Guard Hearing Office Vol: XX Newsletter Date: July 2013 

4 

JUST FOR FUN: SLACK IN THE LINE! 

Ensure your cases are complete and your MISLE entries are accurate—help prevent delays or foul ups by holding up your 

end of the slack. 

In this special feature of Just for Fun help prevent the slack in the line by answering the questions below. Answers can be found 

throughout past newsletters and the Civil Penalty Case Guide.* 

Let’s get your vessel home safe to the pier. The letters with stars underneath are used to figure out the docking sentence. You must 

unscramble them to figure out what it says. The sentence gives you a clue, but be warned if you answer incorrectly; you could get fouled 

up and not be able to uncover the docking sentence. 

QUESTIONS: 

1. What should be exactly the same in the case file as it is in MISLE? 

 __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 

 * * * 

2. During a boarding, the Boarding Officer should ensure the mailing address is... 

 __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 

 

 

3. To prove a violation, each element of the violation must be established by a preponderance of the ... 

 __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 

 * * 

4. When mailing the case file to the Hearing Office how many copies should be inside the file? 

 __ __ __ 

 * * * 

5. Four things that should be redacted from a case file in addition to any unnecessary PII? 

 1. __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 

 * 

2. __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 

 * 

 3. __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 

 * * * 

4. __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 

Docking Sentence: 

At the end of a rescue or a long day’s work there is nothing like .... 

___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 

___ ___ ___ ___ ! 

(*For you “slackers,” however, answers are on next page.) 
Hearing Office is our Name, Maritime Safety and Security is our Aim

Coast Guard Hearing Office Vol: XX Newsletter Date: July 2013 

 5 

WHAT’S IN A NUMBER?

A number is nothing in and of itself. A number is 

a creation used in counting and measuring. Numbers can convey “magnitude “ or “degree.” Numbers are relative and can be expressed as a ratio 

or percentage. Sometimes numbers are used simply as convenience for certain functions such as 

telephone numbers, lock combinations, etc. Today we hear much about business measures or 

business metrics. Often these “metrics” are used 

to measure the success or failure of a desired outcome. 

Here are some Coast Guard Hearing Office metrics (as of June 30, 2013) that provide a “how 

goes it” glimpse into our work: 

Number of case files received by the Hearing Office with violation dates in 2009: 1444 

Number of case files received by the Hearing Office with violation dates in 2010: 1500 

Number of case files received by the Hearing Office with violation dates in 2011: 1627 

Number of case files received by the Hearing Office with violation dates in 2012: 1495 

 Number of case files received by the Hearing Office with violation dates in 2013: 188 

Number of case files received by the Hearing Office in 2013 regardless of violation date: 670 

Number of preliminary assessments issued in 

2013: 729 

Number of final assessments (FLAP, FLAN, 

FLW, and FLD) issued in 2013: 532 

Number of violation case files returned to the 

program manager for deficiencies in 2013: 62 

 

Number of hearings held in 2013: 3 

 

Answers

1. Everything 

2. Current 

3. Evidence 

4 Two 

5. Witness Address 

 Social Security Number 

 Phone Numbers 

 Date of Birth 

Docking Sentence: 

Home Sweet Home!