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, and the safety and security of vessels, facilities, ports, and waterways. 

Newsletter Date

 January 2012

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 14

GREETINGS 

From Robert Bruce

Chief, Coast Guard Hearing Office 

 HEARING OFFICE NEWS 

Best Wishes for 2012. In this January Newsletter we 

have a couple of articles that are mainly directed to 

the boaters who receive notice of a civil penalty case, 

or their representatives. One article discusses the 

options for responding to a notice of a civil penalty 

case. One important take-away from this article is 

the fact that Hearing Officers do not have authority to 

negotiate plea bargains or settlements in civil penalty 

cases. Hearing Officers must decide cases based on 

the evidence before them and, upon proof of a violation, they must assess an appropriate civil penalty. 

That does not mean that Hearing Officers do not have 

a great deal of discretion in deciding cases. It just 

means that their decisions must be based on the merits of the case, as revealed by the evidence presented, 

rather than by agreement in advance of their decision. 

Another article discusses the factors that go into determining if a person charged with boating under the 

influence was the operator of a vessel. The take-away 

from that article is that when operation of the vessel 

is an issue, you can prepare a better case if you have 

become familiar with the regulations that explain the 

violation and what must be proved to establish that 

the violation occurred. Of course, that is a point that 

does not just apply to alleged boating under the influence cases. 

If you read this Newsletter, I hope that it and the 

other Newsletters posted with it at the Hearing Office 

web site will help you to understand our informal 

process better. You can find our web site at: http://

www.uscg.mil/Legal/CGHO/default.asp. 

The Coast Guard Hearing Office begins the new year 

with plenty of cases in progress. We ended 2011 with 

more than 700 cases on-hand, in various stages of adjudication. In each quarter of 2011 the Hearing Office 

received more new cases than in the corresponding 

quarter of 2010. As you can see on page 10, the Hearing Office opened 1769 new civil penalty cases in 

2011. That compares with 1420 new civil penalty 

cases opened in 2010. The Hearing Officers are working hard to ensure that every case receives fair consideration and a timely resolution. 

 * * * * * * * * 

Articles in this Issue:

RESPONDING TO CHARGES – (HEARINGS vs. WRITTEN 

RESPONSES)...p. 2 

CIVIL PENALTY CHARGE SHEETS...p. 4

I DRANK, BUT I DIDN’T DRIVE...p. 5

PREFERRED CITE FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE INTERNATIONAL “RULES OF THE ROAD”...p. 6 

ALONG FOR THE RIDE...p. 7

NIFTY NAMES FOR BOATS...p. 8

K.N.O.T...p. 9

WHAT’S IN A NUMBER...p.10

JUST FOR FUN...p. 11
Hearing Office is our Name, Maritime Safety and Security is our Aim

Coast Guard Hearing Office Vol: XIV Newsletter Date: JAN 2012 

2

also ask for a hearing if the Hearing Officer is not 

going to dismiss the case or meet some other demand regarding the outcome of the case. That kind 

of response does not conform to any of the three 

options allowed by 33 CFR § 1.07-25, and it will 

result in a hearing being scheduled unless the 

charged party unconditionally waives his/her right 

to a hearing. 

Hearing Officers are not authorized to engage in 

“plea bargaining” or negotiation of civil penalty 

cases. Hearing Officers must give the charged party 

an opportunity to comment by submitting evidence 

and arguments, and then the Hearing Officer must 

adjudicate the case based on the evidence submitted 

by the Coast Guard and the charged party. As a result, Hearing Officers are not in a position to accept 

an offer from the charged party to waive his/her 

right to a hearing in return for a guaranteed outcome 

of the case, such as a dismissal or a warning. If the 

charged party does not unconditionally waive his/

her right to a hearing, a hearing must be promptly 

scheduled once all preliminary matters have been 

completed. 

If the 

charged 

party wants 

to rely on 

written evidence and 

arguments 

in lieu of a 

hearing, 

then the 

right to a hearing must be waived without any preconditions as to how the Hearing Officer will decide 

the case. 

A party may demand a hearing prior to any final 

assessment of a penalty. It is important to note, 

however, that hearings are not conducted for the 

purpose of merely “discussing” matters, venting 

spleen, or resolving personal issues that a party has 

with the way the Coast Guard conducts its business. 

Hearings are intended to provide a meaningful op-

(Continued on page 3)

RESPONDING TO CHARGES – (HEARINGS 

vs. WRITTEN RESPONSES) 

CDR Mark Hammond

When a violation case is received at the Hearing 

Office for action, the Hearing Officer assigned to 

the case makes a preliminary examination of the 

case file. If, after a preliminary examination of the 

case file, the Hearing Officer finds that the violation, as alleged, appears to have occurred, the Hearing Officer sends 

a Preliminary Assessment Letter 

(PAL) to the 

party. The PAL 

provides the 

charged party 

with notice of the 

violation(s) alleged to have occurred, the preliminarily assessed civil penalty for each 

charge, and a copy of the entire case file assembled 

by the charging unit. The PAL also explains the 

party’s options in responding to the charges. 

According to Title 33 Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR), section 1.07-25: “Within 30 days after receipt of a notice of the initiation of the action as described above, the party, or counsel for the party, 

may request a hearing, provide any written evidence 

and arguments in lieu of a hearing, or pay the 

amount specified in the notice as being appropriate.” 

This regulation gives the charged party three mutually exclusive choices of how to respond to the notice of an alleged violation (although a charged 

party who requests a hearing is not precluded from 

submitting written evidence and arguments). The 

middle option is to submit written evidence and arguments in lieu of a hearing. Some charged parties 

will submit written evidence and arguments, but 
Hearing Office is our Name, Maritime Safety and Security is our Aim

Coast Guard Hearing Office Vol: XIV Newsletter Date: JAN 2012 

3

Upon receipt of a PAL from the Hearing Office, the 

charged party should carefully read the PAL, the 

entire case file, and the enclosed informational trifold entitled “Your Alternatives in the Coast Guard 

Civil Penalty Process.” Understanding the process 

and the different options available will help parties 

make informed decisions on how best to respond in 

a timely and meaningful fashion. 

 

 * * * * * * * * 

portunity for the party to present evidence in defense, extenuation, and mitigation relative to the 

specific charges in the case. Unfortunately, however, and more often than not, the party will present 

nothing more at the hearing than the same evidence 

and argument that was initially submitted in writing. 

Nothing is really gained by having a hearing in 

those circumstances because the information presented has already been considered by the Hearing 

Officer. 

The Hearing Officer treats written evidence and argument submitted in lieu of a hearing in the same 

way as though it 

were presented inperson at a hearing. 

There is no “extra 

credit” given for 

attending a hearing. 

After considering 

the weight of all the 

evidence presented 

by the party 

(whether it was submitted in writing or presented 

during a hearing), along with the other evidence in 

the case file, the Hearing Officer makes a final determination as to whether the alleged violation(s) 

did or did not occur and, if there is a violation, assesses a civil penalty as appropriate under the circumstances. 

Parties are reminded that in order for a hearing to be 

scheduled, they must provide the issues in dispute 

that they desire to raise at the hearing. This is required by Title 33 Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR), section 1.07-25. Issues in dispute are statements identifying the facts and circumstances surrounding the alleged violations for which they have 

a dispute, explanation, or mitigating evidence. If a 

party does not specify the issues to be addressed at 

the hearing, in writing, the applicable regulations 

will generally preclude consideration of those issues. In effect, this may result in the party forfeiting his/her right to have a hearing at which his/her 

issues can be considered. 

(Continued from page 2)
Hearing Office is our Name, Maritime Safety and Security is our Aim

Coast Guard Hearing Office Vol: XIV Newsletter Date: JAN 2012 

4

where in the case file, the Hearing Officer will not 

give any weight to the statement. And without that 

necessary information, the charge will not be found 

proved. 

The Details of the Violation section of the Charge 

Sheet is an important tool for both the person preparing a civil penalty case and the Hearing Officer. 

It provides a checklist of elements that must be met 

to prove the alleged violation. It is important to recognize, however, that allegations are not evidence 

and they have no evidentiary value. The Details of 

the Violation should only contain allegations and 

references to the evidence in the case file supporting 

those allegations. Evidence to be weighed by the 

Hearing Officer, and referred to in the charge sheet, 

must be included elsewhere in the case file. 

 * * * * * * * * 

CIVIL PENALTY CHARGE SHEETS

Mr. Robert Bruce

The “Details of the Violation” section should contain allegations addressing each element of the 

charged violation(s) and an explanation of how the 

charged party 

allegedly committed the 

charged violation(s). In addressing each 

element, the 

person preparing the Charge 

Sheet should 

reference the 

evidence in the 

case file that 

establishes that 

the element 

has been met. 

The Civil Penalty Case Guide, available on the 

Hearing Office web page, further explains what 

should be included in the Details of Violation section. 

The allegations in the Details of the Violation section of the Charge sheet are assertions; they are not 

evidence. Every allegation should be supported by 

evidence elsewhere in the civil penalty case file. 

Statements or other material being offered as evidence do not belong in the Charge Sheet. Instead, 

such evidence should be made an exhibit in the case 

file. The Details of the Violation should provide a 

“roadmap” for the Hearing Officer to locate the specific exhibits related to each element. In a simple 

case, the signed “Narrative Overview” and the 

Boarding Report may contain all of the evidence 

needed to prove the case. 

Hearing Officers do not treat statements included in 

the Details of the Violation as evidence. If a statement in the Details of Violation contains necessary 

information that is not supported by evidence else-
Hearing Office is our Name, Maritime Safety and Security is our Aim

Coast Guard Hearing Office Vol: XIV Newsletter Date: JAN 2012 

5

tions, the Hearing Officer will next determine 

whether or not the boater was operating the vessel. 

According to 33 CFR § 95.015, “... an individual 

is considered to 

be operating a 

vessel when... 

The individual 

has an essential 

role in the operation of a recreational vessel 

underway, including but not 

limited to navigation of the 

vessel or control 

of the vessel’s 

propulsion system.” 

Although some examples are given, the term “an 

essential role” is not defined. Therefore evidence 

that describes the specific circumstances must be 

considered to determine operation of the vessel. 

Simply having a “designated driver” at the controls 

does not exclude another from also operating the 

vessel. If physical actions (handling the oars, sails, 

throttle, rudder, tiller, or helm) or verbal directions 

(where to go, or how to operate) are involved, then 

the charged boater can be considered to have had 

“an essential role” in the operation of the vessel. 

Other considerations (when provided) include the 

purported operator’s (and/or charged boater’s) age, 

experience level, and familiarity with the area.

So, before alleging a violation, or disputing a BUI 

charge, consider the applicable regulations discussed above, and ensure your evidence or arguments are focused on the matters that will really 

tend to prove or dispute the alleged violation.

 * * * * * * * * 

 

I DRANK, BUT I DIDN’T DRIVE

CDR Evan Hudspeth

Particularly during the holiday season, many have 

heard the warnings about not drinking alcohol and 

driving a vehicle. Hopefully it makes sense that this 

warning is also applicable to drinking alcohol and 

operating a vessel. In order to establish that a boating under the influence (BUI) violation has occurred, evidence should indicate that not only was 

the subject under the influence, but also that the 

subject was operating a vessel. Sometimes a recreational boater will respond to the BUI allegation 

admitting the first element (being under the influence), but disputing the second (operating a vessel). 

These arguments often fail to focus on the significant issues because the boater does not have a good 

understanding of Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 95 (33 CFR § 95.001 and following), 

which sets forth the regulatory framework by which 

a person is determined 

to be operating a vessel under the influence. 

First, a few definitions 

are necessary in order 

to fully understand the 

terms the Hearing Officer will consider 

when deciding if a 

violation has occurred. According to 

33 CFR § 95.010, a “Vessel includes every description of watercraft or other artificial contrivance 

used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on water.” So it is quite likely that, besides a motorboat, a sailboat, a rowboat, or a raft 

could also be considered a vessel. Additionally, 

“Underway means that a vessel is not at anchor, or 

made fast to the shore, or aground.” So even if a 

vessel is drifting, it is still considered underway. 

If the boater was on a vessel, and the vessel was underway, as those terms are defined by the regula-
Hearing Office is our Name, Maritime Safety and Security is our Aim

Coast Guard Hearing Office Vol: XIV Newsletter Date: JAN 2012 

6

PREFERRED CITE FOR VIOLATIONS OF 

THE INTERNATIONAL “RULES OF THE 

ROAD.” 

Mr. Robert Bruce

Navigation rules, or “Rules of the Road,” apply to 

all vessels of the United States or any vessels navigating on waters subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Depending on where the vessel is operating, either the 

inland or international navigation rules will apply. 

International rules apply seaward of the demarcation line for inland waters. The President of the 

United States was given authority by 33 U. S. Code 

Chapter 30 to 

proclaim the 

“International 

Regulations” 

in the Federal 

Register, and a 

civil penalty 

may be assessed against 

vessels violating the International Regulations. The International 

Regulations are commonly referred to as 

“COLREGs.” 

After the President proclaimed the COLREGs in the 

Federal Register, they were for a time reproduced in 

both the Code of Federal Regulations and in the 

U.S. Code. A note at the end of 33 USC § 1602 indicates, however, that the Coast Guard removed the 

text of the COLREGs from the Code of Federal 

Regulations in 1996, because the text was duplicated in the U.S. Code. The note states that subsequently the editors of the Code decided to no longer 

include the COLREGs text. As a result, the text of 

the COLREGs is now neither available in the U.S. 

Code nor the Code of Federal Regulations. 

The fact that the COLREGs themselves do not appear in either the U. S. Code or the Code of Federal 

Regulations presents a problem in terms of deciding 

how best to cite an alleged violation of the COLREGs. We have seen cases where units have cited 

33 USC § 1602 and the COLREGs rule that was 

allegedly violated. However, this cite is unacceptable because 33 USC § 1602 only authorizes the 

President to proclaim the COLREGs and publish 

them in the Federal Register. Section 1602 does not 

require compliance with the COLREGs or include 

any other requirement that a person could violate. 

A more appropriate cite for a violation of the COLREGs is 33 USC § 1608, which states that a civil 

penalty can be assessed for operation of a vessel in 

violation of 33 USC Chapter 30 (including 33 USC 

§§ 1601-1608). Within Chapter 30, 33 USC § 1603 

requires compliance with the COLREGs by vessels 

subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Section 1603 

would also be an acceptable cite for violations of 

the COLREGs. 

The case file should also specifically identify the 

COLREGs rule that was allegedly violated. The 

charged party should be able to determine from this 

information how s/he is alleged to have failed to 

comply with the Rules of the Road. If the violation 

is proved, Hearing Officers are authorized by 33 

USC § 1608 to assess a civil penalty. 

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

Coast Guard Hearing Office Vol: XIV Newsletter Date: JAN 2012 

7

which was originally built in 1905, and had kept it 

in pristine condition. The vessel belonged to Mr. 

Sweitzer’s father, also a waterman. Mr. Sweitzer 

used to work for his father, harvesting oysters on 

the vessel. For the past 11 years, Mr. Sweitzer has 

been master and owner of the HILDA M.

Mr. Sweitzer speaks a mile a minute and has a 

smile a mile wide. He pointed out with pride the 

30’ keel made of white oak, the 12’ x 12’ Douglas 

Fir bowsprit, the copper sheathing on the bow, and 

the original davits, which he refinished. The wood 

boom is flexible, thanks to applications of 60% linseed oil. The vessel is also equipped with two 

dredges (the only skipjack allowed two dredges) 

and a 210 horsepower pushboat. 

The vessel “sailed through” the inspection, though 

it never left the dock. All life-saving equipment 

was in good condition and “immediately available,” that is, it could be reached by a person on 

the vessel within five seconds. 

November 1 through March 31 is oystering season, 

and not usually a busy time for the Baltimore Police Department Marine Division, where 

Mr. Sweitzer has been a police officer for the past 

25 years.

Mr. Sweitzer smiled as he described how, during 

oystering season, he pays and feeds his crew well, 

(Continued on page 8)

ALONG FOR THE RIDE

Lieutenant Commander Michele Bouziane

On 24 October 2011 this Hearing Officer was afforded the opportunity to observe, for familiarization purposes, a commercial fishing industry vessel 

inspection performed by a couple of Vessel Inspectors from U.S. Coast Guard Sector Baltimore.

What might have been a dry, snore-worthy exercise ended up being an entertaining education. 

This is because the vessel was the National Historic Landmark, the HILDA M. WILLING, which, 

at the time, was owned and operated by Mr. Barry 

Sweitzer, a part-time waterman. 

Much has been written about the HILDA M. 

WILLING (HILDA M. in this article). For example, you can find the National Park Service’s 1993 

National Historic Landmark Study of the HILDA 

M., which describes the vessel in detail at: 

www.cr.nps.gov/maritime/nhl/willing.htm. 

Mr. Sweitzer has also been in the news recently. A 

6 November 2011 article in HometownAnnapolis.com stated that he had put the HILDA M. up for 

sale.

The HILDA M. is one of the Chesapeake Bay’s six 

last working “skipjacks,” which are sloops used for 

oystering. Mr. Sweitzer had modified the vessel, 
Hearing Office is our Name, Maritime Safety and Security is our Aim

Coast Guard Hearing Office Vol: XIV Newsletter Date: JAN 2012 

8

but insists they work hard for it. “You get 15 minutes for lunch and you’re working non-stop. You 

stand up, dump the dredge, then you’re down on 

your knees sorting. You got three minutes to sort—

clean, sort, and measure for undersized oysters. I 

keep the crew on a rhythm—they can’t get sloppy.” 

According to Mr. Sweitzer, there are 200 oysters in 

a bushel, and each bushel weighs about 80 pounds. 

His Maryland bay dredging license allows him to 

dredge a maximum of 150 bushels per day, which 

he only achieved one year: 2008. In 2010 he 

dredged 98 bushels per day. Mr. Sweitzer noted 

that as the water in the Upper Bay has gotten more 

brackish, the oysters have been growing more 

slowly. He estimates approximately 1 1⁄2 years for 

an oyster to reach marketable size.

The HometownAnnapolis.com article states that on 

2 November 2011, Mr. Sweitzer only dredged 10 

bushels off the Western Shore of the Chesapeake 

Bay, when he expected to dredge 120 bushels. 

Many of the oysters he dredged were dead. That is 

why he put the HILDA M. up for sale.

Mr. Sweitzer thought his boat, still in mint condition after 106 years of service, would end up in a 

museum some day. He says he got calls from more 

than one museum. “You’re a couple of weeks too 

late,” he told them. He sold the vessel in midNovember to “a young guy from Deal’s Island.” 

The new owner is apparently using the HILDA M. 

WILLING to successfully oyster in Maryland’s 

Lower Bay. Mr. Sweitzer says that the oysters have 

survived in the Lower Bay because the influx of water from recent storms apparently did not dilute the 

salinity levels, as it did in the Upper Bay.

“I wanted it to [continue to] be a working boat,” 

said Mr. Sweitzer, who, recently upon request, updated this story. Looks like the museums will have 

to wait a little longer. (Photos courtesy of Mr. Sweitzer)

 * * * * * * * * 

(Continued from page 7)

NIFTY NAMES FOR BOATS 

Names on vessels sometimes inspire, amuse and/or 

confuse people. The following are listed because 

they are clever or fun:

DEVOCEAN

NAUTI BOYS

GET REEL

S-CAPE

HAPPY OURS

SEA WIFE

WEEKEND MONEY

AIN’T GOT TIME

TRIPLE RIPPLE

GIT-R-DONE

Here are a couple of websites that list popular and 

unusual boat names:

http://www.boatus.com/boatgraphics/

names_top10.asp

http://www.coolboatnames.com/unusual-boatnames.html

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

Coast Guard Hearing Office Vol: XIV Newsletter Date: JAN 2012 

9

on board; or 3) the party claims to have a COD or 

CON, but cannot locate it at the time the Boarding 

Officer asks to see it. 

The Hearing Office sees many cases alleging a violation of 33 CFR § 173.23 when the party claims to 

have the CON, but cannot locate it (the comparable 

regulation for a COD is 46 CFR § 67.315). This 

regulation states that persons operating vessels 

shall present the CON to “any federal, state or local 

law enforcement officer for inspection upon his or 

her request.” It is good practice, therefore, for 

Boarding Officers to document the Boarding Officer’s request for the CON in the narrative of the 

Activity Summary Report. Additionally, because 

Coast Guard enlisted members below the grade of 

E-4 are not law 

enforcement officers, the evidence 

should show that 

the request was 

made by a member in the grade 

of E-4 or above. 

Most narratives, 

however, skip 

over these necessary elements and state, “Party 

could not produce CON,” or words to that effect. 

Section 173.25 of title 33 is charged almost as often. That section essentially states that no person 

may operate a recreational vessel (or, to be more 

precise, a vessel described in 33 CFR § 173.11) 

unless the Certificate of Number is carried in a 

manner that it can be shown to a person authorized 

by 33 CFR § 173.23. That section is most pertinent 

when the CON is being carried on board the boat; 

then the focus of the regulation is on how the document is carried on the boat. 

The Boarding Officer is presented with two basic 

scenarios when it comes to state-issued numbers. 

Either there is no CON on board the vessel, or the 

CON is not readily presentable to a law enforcement official. In a case where the Coast Guard can 

(Continued on page 10)

K.N.O.T. 

(Knowledge Note or Tip)

Most vessels owned by United States citizens and 

operating on the navigable waters of the United 

States must have either a Certificate of Documentation (COD) or a Certificate of Number (CON) on 

board when operating. A vessel, equipped with propulsion machinery and operating on U.S. waters, must have 

on board a valid (current/not 

expired) Certificate of Number (CON), or temporary certificate, unless the vessel 

qualifies under an exception 

listed in 33 CFR § 173.11. 

Most vessel owners obtain the 

CON from the state in which 

they spend the most time operating (the state “in 

which the vessel is principally used,” per 33 CFR § 

173.21(a)(1)). Vessels under 26’ and leased for recreational purposes for less than 7 days must have 

the lease agreement on board when operating, according to 33 CFR § 173.21(a)(2). 

Alternatively, qualifying vessels may operate under 

a U.S. Coast Guard-issued COD. The minimum 

requirements for a COD are that the vessel must be: 

1) at least five net tons and 2) wholly owned by a 

U.S. citizen (or an entity which qualifies as a U.S. 

documentation citizen). See 46 CFR § 67.5. 

A party operating a vessel must keep the original 

document on board. A party whose vessel has a 

COD or CON, but does not have the respective 

document on board, would be appropriately charged 

with a violation of either 46 CFR § 67.313(a) for 

lack of COD, or 33 CFR § 173.21(a)(1) for lack of a 

state CON. When Coast Guard Boarding Officers 

conduct law enforcement boardings on U.S. documented or state numbered vessels, they will almost 

certainly ask to see the COD or CON. Boarding 

Officers usually confront one of three situations: 1) 

the valid COD or CON is on board, and is presented 

to the Boarding Officer; 2) the COD or CON is not 
Hearing Office is our Name, Maritime Safety and Security is our Aim

Coast Guard Hearing Office Vol: XIV Newsletter Date: JAN 2012 

10

prove that the CON was not onboard the vessel, or 

that the vessel’s CON is expired or otherwise invalid, the appropriate cite for the alleged violation is 

section 173.21(a)(1). In a case where the party 

credibly states that the CON is on board but cannot 

be located/is not accessible, then the charging unit 

can choose between sections 173.23 and 173.25.

Boarding Officers should document the facts of the 

boarding that correspond to the elements of the 

charge, for example, a statement by the party that 

the vessel: a) had a Certificate of Number from 

state X; b) had a temporary CON from state X; c) 

did not have a valid CON; d) was under 26’ and 

leased for recreational purposes for less than 7 days; 

or e) had a COD. The following should also be 

documented: There was no COD or CON onboard 

or, 1) the Boarding Officer asked to see the respective document; and 2) the document was: a) not on 

board; or b) on board but inaccessible (for example, 

the vessel owner or operator credibly states that the 

CON is onboard but that it is in an inaccessible 

compartment or box, or under a pile of gear that is 

too heavy to move).

To recap: When operating a vessel in U.S. waters, 

the party must have the original document on board, 

must show it to the Boarding Officer when the 

Boarding Officer requests it, and must carry it on 

board in such a way that it can be shown to the 

Boarding Officer. In cases where the document is 

not presented, but there is some doubt about 

whether the document is on board the vessel, it is 

appropriate to allege the failure to present the document or carry it in a manner so it can be shown. If 

the document is clearly not on board, it is more 

straightforward to allege operation of the boat without a document on board. 

For more on this subject, see “CON vs. COD,” CG 

Hearing Office Newsletter Vol. 8.

 * * * * * * * * 

(Continued from page 9) 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 December 31, 2011) that provide a 

“how goes it” glimpse into our work:

Number of case files received by the Hearing Office with violation dates in 2008: 946 

Number of case files received by the Hearing Office with violation dates in 2009: 1443 

Number of case files received by the Hearing Office with violation dates in 2010: 1494 

Number of case files received by the Hearing Office with violation dates in 2011: 1264 

Number of case files received by the Hearing Office in 2011 regardless of violation date: 1769

Number of preliminary assessments issued in 

2011: 1560 

Number of final assessments (FLAP, FLAN, 

FLW, and FLD) issued in 2011: 976 

Number of violation case files returned to the 

program manager for deficiencies in 2011: 208 

Number of hearings held in 2011: 17

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

Coast Guard Hearing Office Vol: XIV Newsletter Date: JAN 2012 

11

JUST FOR FUN

Match the International Alphabet Flags to the Picture.

 

To figure it out, see: 

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/navy_legacy_hr.asp?id=273