UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD,

Complainant,

SCOTT FERGASON,

Respondent.

Docket Number 2023-0002

Enforcement Activity No. 7 542637

DEFAULT ORDER

Issued: Mav 1. 2023

Bv Administrative Law Judse: Honorable Timothv G.Stueve

Appearances:

Eric Bauer

USCG S&R National Center of Expertise

For the Coast Guard

Scott Fergason, pro se

For Respondent

VS
Background

On January 5, 2023, the Coast Guard filed a Complaint against Scott Fergason

(Respondent). The Amended Retum of Service for Complaint filed by the Coast Guardr indicates

the Complaint was delivered to Respondent's residence by Express Courier Service and signed

for by a person of suitable age and discretion residing at the residence on Janu ary 27,2023

(Attachment A).

On February 23,2023, the Coast Guard filed a Motion for Default Order (Motion),

explaining Respondent failed to file an Answer, and the response time has passed. See 33 C.F.R.

$ 20.308. The Retum of Service for Motion for Default states the Motion was delivered to

Respondent's residence by Federal Express and signed for by a person of suitable age and

discretion residing at the residence on March 16,2023 (Attachment B). The Chief

Administrative Law Judge assigned the matter to me on April 17 ,2023 .

Discussion

The applicable regulations require a respondent to "file a written answer to the complaint

20 days or less after service ofthe complaint." 33 C.F.R. $ 20.308(a). An administrative law

judge (ALJ) may find a respondent in default "upon failure to file a timely answer to the

complaint or, after motion, upon failure to appear at a conference or hearing without good cause

shown." 33 C.F.R. $ 20.310(a). Default constitutes an admission of all facts alleged in a

complaint and a waiver ofrespondent's right to a hearing on those facts. 33 C.F.R. g 20.310(c).

The Complaint filed by the Coast Guard and properly served on Respondent contained

instructions that clearly stated "YOU MUST RESPOND TO THIS COMPLAINT WITHIN 20

I I note that in their filings the Coast Cuard repeatedly indicates that Respondent's address is on Flower Street.

However, it appears that this is a typographical error and that it should read as Fowler Street, matching the delivery

locations listed on the Federal Express receipts.
DAYS" and provided the applicable regulatory provision, 33 C.F.R. $ 20.308. The instructions

also informed Respondent an extension of time could be requested "within 20 days" of receipt.

Respondent failed to respond to the Complaint or the Motion for Default Order.

Accordingly, I find Respondent in default pursuant to 33 C.F.R. g 20.310(a). Default

constitutes an admission of all facts alleged in the Complaint and a waiver ofthe right to a

hearing. 33 C.F.R. $ 20.310(c). See Appeal Decision 2682 (REEVES) (2008).

Tuming to the allegations in the Complaint, the Coast Guard alleges on June 20, 2022,

the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) determined Respondent does not meet the

security threat assessment standards described in 49 C.F.R. $ 1572.5, poses an imminent security

threat in accordance with 49 C.F.R. $ 1572.21(d)(3), and revoked Respondent's TWIC in

accordance with 49 C.F.R. $ 1572.5(b). As a result of TSA's actions, the Coast Guard asserts

Respondent is a security risk as described by 46 U.S.C. $ 7703(5).

Having concluded Respondent admitted TSA revoked his TWIC, and all other facts in the

Complaint, I agree TSA's determination that Respondent is not eligible to hold a TWIC is proof

that a mariner is not eligible to hold an MMC. See 46 C.F.R. $$ 10.235(h) and 10.235(i). Based

on these admissions, I find these facts as admitted are legally sufficient to find the single charge

that Respondent is a security risk as described in 46 U.S.C. $ 7703(5) PROVED. Id.

I find the facts alleged in the Complaint suflicient to warrant the suggested sanction of

REVOCATION. See 46 C.F.R. $$ 10.235(h) and 10.235(i).

WHEREFORE,

ORDER

Upon consideration ofthe record, I find Respondent in DEFAULT.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, in accordance with 33 C.F.R. $ 20.3 10, I find the

allegations set forth in the Complaint PROVED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, all of Respondent's Coast Guard issued credentials,

including Respondent's Merchant Mariner Credential (MMC), are REVOKED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, Respondent shall immediately deliver all Coast Guard

issued credentials, licenses, certificates, or documents, including the MMC, by mail, courier

service, or in person to: USCG Suspension & Revocation National Center ofExpertise, 100

Forbes Drive, Martinsburg, WV 25404. In accordance with l8 U.S.C. $ 2197, if Respondent

knowingly continues to use the Coast Guard issued MMC, Respondent may be subject to

criminal prosecution.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, Dursuant to 33 C.F.R. Q 20.3 l0(e). for sood cause

shown. an ALJ may set aside a finding of defaull. A motion to set aside a finding of default may

be filed with the ALJ Docketing Center in Baltimore. The motion may be sent to the U.S. Coast

Guard Administrative Law Judge Docketing Center; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk; Room

412; 40 S. Gay Street; Baltimore, MD 21201-4022.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, service of this Default Order on the parties serves as notice

ofappeal rights set forth in 33 C.F.R. $ 20.1001-20.1004 (Attachment C).

SO ORDERED.

Timothy G. Srueve

Administrative Law Judge

U.S. Coast Guard

Done and dated M ay 1 , 2023 , at

Alameda, California

ffi:'"