WHO’S IN COMMAND? 

The “Paper Captain” and the elements of 46 U.S.C § 12131 violations

Written By CDR Mark Hammond

This article briefly discusses violations of section 12131 of title 46 of 

the United States Code, often referred to as “paper captain” 

violations. This law requires that a documented vessel be placed 

under the command of a U.S. citizen.

The Hearing Officer must find prima facie (Latin for “at first sight” 

or “on first appearance”) evidence that a violation occurred in order 

to proceed with a preliminary assessment and adjudication of a civil 

penalty case. In other words, the evidence in the case file is, on its 

face or at first appearance, sufficient to support each element of the 

charge/charges. As with any case, a clear understanding of the 

essential elements of the particular statutory or regulatory cite 

alleged to have been violated will help in determining what 

constitutes sufficient supporting evidence.

Consider this hypothetical scenario: A documented commercial 

fishing vessel is boarded at sea by the Coast Guard. During the 

boarding, the person observed at the helm operating the vessel is 

identified as a non-U.S. citizen/permanent resident. Another person 

on board (a U.S. citizen) identifies himself to the Coast Guard 

boarding team as the vessel’s “captain.” He also presents a crew list 

which lists him as the “captain.” Looks good on paper, right? 

During the course of the boarding, however, the vessel’s “captain” 

displays little knowledge of the operation of the vessel and the 

location of important documents and required safety equipment on 

board. Additionally, he appears to rely exclusively on the 

experienced “deckhand” (the person previously observed at the helm) 
to answer the boarding team’s questions as well as operate the 

vessel. In contrast to the clueless “captain,” the experienced 

“deckhand” demonstrates a thorough working knowledge of all 

aspects of the vessel’s operation, and other crewmen aboard the 

vessel tell the boarding team that he “gives all the orders.” The 

boarding team notes that the “deckhand” maintains his personal 

effects in the captain’s quarters while the “captain” shares a 

berthing space with the rest of the crew. The Boarding team 

concludes that the vessel is actually under the command of the nonU.S. citizen and, consequently, the vessel owner is charged under 46 

U.S.C. § 12131 for failing to comply with the U.S. citizen in 

command requirement. 

According to 46 U.S.C. § 12131(a), a documented vessel may be 

placed under the command only of a citizen of the United States 

(exceptions to this requirement are documented vessels with only a 

recreational endorsement, and unmanned barges operating outside 

of the territorial waters of the United States). Obviously, in order for 

a violation to occur under this cite, the vessel involved must be a 

documented vessel and the person in command of the vessel must 

not be a U.S. citizen. Evidence of vessel documentation and crew 

citizenship status is fairly straightforward. 

In the typical “paper captain” case described in the scenario above, 

however, presenting persuasive evidence of who was in command of 

the vessel can sometimes present a bit of a challenge. 

We often see cases where vessel owners, in an apparent attempt to 

circumvent the requirements of 46 U.S.C. § 12131, establish 

different positions on board their vessels in writing such as a “fish 

captain,” or they’ll have a “master” and a “captain” on board, each 

with separate and distinct duties.

For example, in some cases the U.S. citizen “master” will be 

designated in writing as having overall responsibility for the general 

care of vessel and cargo, but the non-U.S. citizen “captain” or “fish 

captain” will be the designated person having responsibility for the 

operation and safe navigation of the vessel, and the care/conduct of 

the crew. The documentation laws contained in 46 U.S.C. Chapter 

121 and 46 C.F.R. Part 67 generally require that U.S. documented 
vessels must be owned and under the control of U.S. citizens. Among 

other things, control refers to the right to direct the operation of the 

vessel. Actual control as a matter of fact is more important than a 

person’s title. Accordingly, the law refers to the person in command 

of the vessel and not to the “master” or “captain.” If command of a 

vessel is split between two or more persons and one of the persons in 

command is not a U.S. citizen, then the vessel is not only under the 

command of a U.S. citizen. 

Whether the evidence is submitted by the Coast Guard in support of 

a violation, or by a charged party to show that there was no 

violation, what will be most persuasive to a Hearing Officer is 

detailed documentation of crew responsibilities, knowledge and 

experience, as well as witness statements from other crewmembers 

regarding who controls the operation of the vessel. That kind of 

evidence is likely to carry more weight than a bare assertion that a 

U.S. citizen was the “master” or “captain.”