UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

Complainant 

vs. 

JOHNNY L. KNOTT 

Respondent. 

Docket Number CG S&R 02-0105 

CG Case No. 1486575 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Issued: November 2, 2002 

Issued by: Archie R. Boggs, Administrative Law Judge 

APPEARANCE: 

L T Chris Dougherty 

United States Coast Guard 

Marine Safety Office New Orleans 

1615 Poydras Street 

New Orleans, LA 70112 

And 

Mr. Robert W. Foster, Senior Investigating Officer 

United States Coast Guard 

Marine Safety Office Mobile 

150 N. Royal Street 

Mobile, AL 36602 

For the Coast Guard 

Mr. & Mrs. Johnny L. Knott 

For the Respondent 
KNOTT 2 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 

The United States Coast Guard ("Coast Guard" or "USCG") initiated this administrative 

action seeking revocation of Merchant Mariner License Number 847354 ("license") issued to 

Respondent Johnny L. Knott by filing a complaint dated February 14, 2002. The complaint 

alleges that the Respondent committed two counts of violation of law or regulation under 46 

USC 7703 and 46 CFR 5.53. Both allegations stem from the Respondent's operation of the M/V 

MS PAULA (an uninspected towing vessel) on September 12,2001 while the Respondent's 

license was on deposit with the Coast Guard pending completion of a drug rehabilitation 

program (commonly referred to as "cure") in accordance with a December 1999 Consent Order 

and Settlement Agreement entered into between the parties to resolve another case captioned 

USCG v. Johnny L. Knott, 99-0250 (USCG ALJ Consent Order Dec. 27, 1999), involving the 

Respondent's alleged refusal to submit to random drug testing. 

The factual allegations in the complaint read as follows: 

Violation of Law or Regulation Specification 1 

The Coast Guard alleges that the Respondent: 

1. On September 22, 1999, wrongfully refused to submit a urine specimen for a random 

drug test ordered by Mike Hooks Inc., a marine employer. 

2. On December 16, 1999, executed a settlement agreement and good faith deposit of 

his license (847345). The good faith deposit expressly stated that: 

"In accordance with the attached Consent Order, I am depositing my Coast Guard 

issued license with the Coast Guard. I understand that by depositing this 

document with the Coast Guard I am demonstrating that I will not be employed in 

any position requiring said document. This is a temporary agreement that may be 

terminated at any time by either the Coast Guard or myself. By entering into this 

agreement I do not waive my rights." 

3. On December 27, 1999, Administrative Law Judge Archie R. Boggs issued a consent 

order approving the settlement agreement executed on December 16, 1999. The 

consent order revoked the Respondent's license, but stayed revocation while he was 

pursuing cure. 
KNOTT 3 

4. At approximately 3:00A.M. on September 12, 2001, was serving as operator onboard 

the M/V MS. PAULA (293720) when it struck a submerged pipeline and 

subsequently sank. 

5. This constitutes a violation of Title 46 United States Code 8904 and Title 46 Code of 

Federal Regulations Section 15.610 since the Respondent had direction and control of 

a vessel which is required to be operated by a person licensed by the United States 

Coast Guard. 

Violation of Law or Regulation Specification 2 

The Coast Guard alleges that the Respondent: 

1. At approximately 3:00A.M. on September 12, 2001, was serving as operator onboard 

the M/V MS. PAULA (293720) when it struck a submerged pipeline and 

subsequently sank. 

2. The Respondent did not display his Coast Guard license (847354), within 48 hours 

after employment, on said vessel for which it was required. 

3. This constitutes a violation ofTitle 46 United States Code 7110. 

On March 8, 2002, the Respondent filed an answer denying all jurisdictional and factual 

allegations and raised the following arguments as a defense: 

1. According to the contract specifications of contract DACW01-01-D0004 

administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a non-licensed operator may 

operate a vessel26 feet or longer used at the job site only within 1 mile of the dredge 

operations. 

2. His supervisor instructed him to operate the dredge tender at the work site in the 

Apalachicola River from nautical mile 36.0 to nautical mile 39.0. 

3. The employer assumed that the Corps of Engineers had been granted a specific job 

site variation from the Coast Guard since all contracts contain a clause authorizing 

non-licensed operators to operate vessels within 1 mile of the job site. 

4. He has complied with consent order and settlement agreement issued in December 

1999. 

This case was subsequently assigned to this judge for adjudication. A hearing was held 

in this matter on 20 September 2002 in Mobile, Alabama. The hearing was conducted in 

accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, as amended and codified at 5 U.S.C. §§ 551-

559, and Coast Guard procedural regulations located at 33 C.P.R. Part 20. 
KNOTT 4 

After opening statements by both sides, the Coast Guard introduced the telephonic 

testimony of three witnesses: 

1) ChiefPetty Officer Jim Fayard of the USCG Marine Safety Security Team in 

Galveston, TX, who investigated the casualty on September 12, 2001 when 

the M/V MS. PAULA struck the submerged pipeline; 

2) LTUg) Charles C. Culotta of the USCG Marine Safety Office in New 

Orleans, who served as the Investigating Officer in the prior case involving 

the consent order and settlement agreement between the Coast Guard and 

Respondent Knott in USCG v. Johnny L. Knott, 99~0250 (USCG ALJ 

Consent Order Dec. 27, 1999); 

3) Wolfgang R. Muller, Supervisory Construction Representative for the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers; and 

4) Thomas J. Beckham, Civil Engineer for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

Six (6) Coast Guard exhibits were also introduced and admitted into evidence as follows: 

Agency Exhibit 1 ~Statement by CPO Jim Fayard dated November 5, 2001 

Agency Exhibit 2 ~Statement of Timothy J. Dykes dated September 13, 2001 

Agency Exhibit 3 ~Statement of Timothy J. Dykes (undated) 

Agency Exhibit 4 ~U.S. Certificate of Documentation for the M/V MS. PAULA 

Agency Exhibit 5 ~ Excerpts from the M/V MS. PAULA logbook between the 

dates of July 24, 2001 and September 9, 2001 

Agency Exhibit 6 ~USCG Memorandum dated July 12,2002 regarding Licensing 

Requirements for Towing Vessels Employed as Dredge 

Tenders 

At the hearing, the Respondent testified on his own behalf and five (5) Respondent's 

exhibits were introduced and admitted into evidence: 

Respondent Exhibit A~ Pay Record and schedules for Inland Dredging Co., LLC 

Respondent Exhibit B ~Dredging Chain of Command/Job Descriptions oflnland 

Dredging Co., LLC 

Respondent Exhibit C ~Statement ofWolfgang R. Mueller 

Respondent Exhibit D ~Excerpt from Contract DACWOl~Ol~D~0004 
KNOTT 

Respondent Exhibit E- Letter dated March 6, 2002 from James E. Mohead, 

President of Inland Dredging Co., LLC. 

After careful review of the facts in this case, I find that the Coast Guard has proved the 

5 

allegations in the complaint by a preponderance of reliable and credible evidence. However, for 

reasons stated herein, I decline to revoke Respondent Knott's license. 

The facts ofthis case are as follows: 

FINDING OF FACT 

1. Respondent Johnny L. Knott is the holder of Merchant Mariner's License number 

847354, authorizing him to serve as a master of steam or motor vessels of not more than 

100 gross tons upon Inland waters. 

2. Respondent Knott has held a Coast Guard license for approximately fifteen (15) years. 

3. Pursuant to a consent order approving a settlement agreement to resolve USCG v. Johnny 

L. Knott, 99-0250 (USCG ALJ Consent Order Dec. 27, 1999) involving the Respondent's 

alleged refusal to submit to drug testing, the Respondent's license was on good faith 

deposit with the Coast Guard pending completion of cure. 

4. In entering into the settlement agreement and good faith deposit, the Respondent 

promised that he would not be employed in any position requiring use of a Coast Guard 

issued license. 

5. The Coast Guard returned Respondent's license to him in April2002, following 

completion of cure. Said license is up for renewal on October 30, 2002. 

6. Respondent Knott is employed as a Deck Captain/Mate at Inland Dredging Company, 

LLC. (Respondent Exhibit ("Ex. '') E). 
KNOTT 6 

7. On September 12, 2001, while his license was on deposit with the Coast Guard and upon 

the request of his supervisor, Respondent Knott served as a dredge tender operator on 

board the M/V MS. PAULA in the Apalachicola River between Mile Markers 36.0 and 

39.0. During which time the vessel hit a submerged pipeline and sank. (Agency Ex. 1; 

Respondent Ex. C, E). 

8. The M/V MS. PAULA is a 47.9-foot U.S. documented uninspected towing vessel owned 

by Choctaw Transportation Co., Inc. bearing Official Number 293720 with a coastwise 

endorsement. The vessel is used in support of dredging operations and engages in 

moving pontoon barges, crane barges, and pipe barges up and down the river. (Agency 

Ex. 4, 5). 

9. Clause 19b of Contract DACW01-01-D-0004, between Inland Dredging Company, LLC 

and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, provides in pertinent part: 

b. All boat operators ofboats 26 feet or longer and while used in a towing status for 

towing operations shall posses a current operator's license issued by the U.S. 

Coast Guard. Vessels used at the job site only, within 1 mile of the dredge, 

shall not require a licensed operator but, beyond this range, a licensed operator 

shall be required. 

(Respondent Ex. D) (Emphasis added). 

10. Neither the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers nor Inland Dredging Company, LLC sought or 

applied for a job site specific variation from the Coast Guard, which would authorize an 

exemption from the manning requirements. (Respondent Ex. E). 

11. Since institution of this administrative action and after learning that the terms of the 

dredging operation contract conflicts with Coast Guard law and regulations, the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers is modifying all of its dredging operation contracts and will 

eliminate the exemption that allowed non-Coast Guard licensed operators to operate 

vessels used within 1 mile of the job site. 
KNOTT 7 

12. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers defines the job site as the area beginning from the 

Kelly dredge at Mile Marker 36.6 to the discharge site at Mile Marker 38.8 on the 

Apalachicola River, including the pipeline. 

CONCLUSION OF LAW 

1. Respondent Johnny L. Knott, and the subject matter of this hearing are within the 

jurisdiction of the United States Coast Guard in accordance with 46 USC 7703. 

2. On September 12, 2001, Respondent Knott was the holder of License Number 847354 

that was on good faith deposit with the Coast Guard pending completion of cure ordered 

in USCG v. Johnny L. Knott, 99-0250 (USCG ALJ Consent Order Dec. 27, 1999). 

3. Specification 1 under the allegation of Violation of Law or Regulation is PROVED. 

4. Specification 2 under the allegation ofViolation of Law or Regulation is PROVED. 

DISCUSSION 

A. RESPONDENT KNOTT VIOLATED 46 USC 8904 AND 46 CFR 15.610 BY 

OPERATING THEM/VMS. PAULA WHILE HIS LICENSE WAS ON GOOD 

FAITH DEPOSIT WITH THE COAST GUARD PENDING COMPLETION OF 

CURE 

For the most part, the facts of this case are not in dispute. During the hearing, 

Respondent Knott acknowledged that on September 12, 2001, his license was on deposit with the 

Coast Guard pending completion of cure. He also acknowledged that on September 12, 2001, he 

operated the M/V MS. PAULA on the Apalachicola River between Mile Markers 36.0 and 39.0. 

However, the Respondent argues that pursuant to clause 19b of Contract DACW01-01-D-0004 a 

Coast Guard license was not required for operation of the M/V MS. PAULA within 1 mile of the 

job site and that the vessel was operated pursuant to his supervisor's instruction. The 

Respondent's arguments are unavailing. 
KNOTT 8 

Pursuant to 46 USC 8904(a) and its implementing regulations codified at 46 CFR 

15.610(a), any "towing vessel that is at least 26 feet in length measured from end to end over the 

deck (excluding sheer) shall be operated by an individual licensed by [the Coast Guard]." This 

requirement is mandatory not discretionary. Insurance Co. of North America v. John J. Bordlee 

Contractors, Inc., 532 F. Supp. 774, 782 (E.D. La. 1982), aff'd 733 F.2d 1161 (5th Cir. 

1984)(interpreting 46 USC 405, which is the precursor statute to 46 USC 8904). However, not 

all towing vessels at least 26 feet in length are subject to the manning requirements established in 

46 usc 8904. 

Under Coast Guard regulations, there are two exceptions to the manning requirement for 

towing vessels. The manning requirement "does not apply to any vessel engaged in assistance 

towing, or to any vessel of less than 200 gross register tons engaged in exploiting offshore 

minerals or oil if the vessel has sites or equipment so engaged as its place of departure or 

ultimate destination." 46 CFR 15.610(a). Moreover, contrary to the Coast Guard 8th District's 

position in its memorandum dated July 12, 2002 (see Agency Ex. 6), there is a work boat 

exclusion recognized by the Commandant for certain towing vessels. See Marine Safety Manual 

("MSM"), Volume III, Marine Personnel, at p. 26-2, COMDT INST M16000.8B. 

Primarily relying on the legislative history of the precursor statute to 46 USC 8904 (see 

U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce Report of June 27, 1972, H.R. 92-125, 92nd Cong., 1st 

Sess., 3), the Commandant has held that, as determined on a case-by-case basis: 

Towing vessels not specifically engaged in the commercial towing service, operating 

solely as work boats in dredging operations may be exempt from the manning 

requirements of 46 U.S.C. 8904. 

Marine Safety Manual ("MSM"), Volume III, Marine Personnel, at p. 26-2, COMDT INST 

M16000.8B (Emphasis added). However, this exclusion is narrowly construed. The caveat is 

that "vessels engaged to perform towing services, however intermittently, [are] required to be 
KNOTT 9 

operated by licensed individuals." !d. A vessel is considered to be performing towing services if 

it is "engaged in or intending to engage in the service of pulling, pushing, or hauling alongside, 

or any combination of pulling, pushing, or hauling along side." 46 USC 21 01(40) (defining 

towing vessel). In Appeal Decision 2566 (WILLIAMS), the Commandant held that a vessel that 

was used "off shore and outside towing, ship assists in [the] harbor, and to tow petroleum 

barges" is a "towing vessel" within the meaning of 46 USC 8904(a) and thus required licensed 

personnel on board since the vessel was over 26 feet in length. 

Based on the facts and circumstances of this case, the work boat exclusion is an 

unavailable defense. A review ofthe logbook for the M/V MS. PAULA indicates that the vessel 

was not operated solely as a "work boat." See Agency Ex. 5. On the contrary, the M/V MS. 

PAULA was primarily used to tow pontoon barges, crane barges, and pipe barges up and down 

the river. !d. Therefore, in light of its size and manner in which it was used, the M/V MS 

PAULA was required to have a Coast Guard licensed individual in the capacity of Master or 

Mate on board while navigating the Apalachicola River. 

Under 46 CFR 5.57(a), "[a] person employed in the service of a vessel is considered to be 

acting under the authority of a license . . . when the holding of such license .... is required by 

law or regulation." The Commandant has made it perfectly clear that it is unlawful for a 

respondent to serve under the authority of his license during the period of cure. See Appeal 

Decision 2634 (BARRETTA). 

Mistake of law based upon a good faith reliance on the terms clause 19b of Contract 

DACWOl-01-D-0004 is not a defense exonerating Respondent Knott from violating Coast Guard 

law and regulations. The fact that the respondent relied on a misstatement of law by public 

officials in a contract is not an excuse, unless the reliance was: (a) reasonable; (b) occurred in 
KNOTT 10 

good faith; and (c) the authority making the statement had actual authority to do so. See 

generally United States v. Gebhart, 441 F.2d 1261, 1265 (6th Cir. 1971); United States v. Barker, 

546 F.2d 940, 946-947 (D.C. Cir. 1976); United States v. Tallmadge, 829 F.2d 767, 778 (9th Cir. 

1987). 1 

In this case, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has no authority to bind the Coast Guard. 

Therefore, the Coast Guard is not bound by the terms of clause 19b of Contract DACWOl-01-D0004. Likewise, the mere fact that Respondent Knott was merely acting on the behest of his 

supervisor when he operated the M/V MS. PAULA is no excuse. The Commandant has 

previously rejected a similar argument raised by a respondent in Appeal Decision 2524 

(TAYLOR), where, as in this case, the evidence showed that the respondent assumed full 

navigational control of the vessel and its tow. 

Consequently, I find that the Coast Guard has established by a preponderance of reliable 

of evidence that Respondent Knott violated 46 USC 8904 AND 46 CPR 15.610 by operating the 

M/V MS. PAULA while his license was on good faith deposit with the Coast Guard pending 

completion of cure. 

B. RESPONDENT KNOTT VIOLATED 46 USC 7110 BY FAILING TO 

DISPLAY HIS LICENSE WITHIN 48 HOURS AFTER EMPLOYMENT ON 

THE MV MS. PAULA 

The Coast Guard has also established by a preponderance of reliable and credible 

evidence that Respondent Knott violated 46 USC 7110. 

Under 46 USC 7110, "[ e ]ach holder of a license ... shall display, within 48 hours after 

employment on a vessel for which that license is required, the license in a conspicuous place on 

the vessel." Since Respondent Knott's license was on deposit with the Coast Guard pending 

1 While the rule that ignorance of the law is no excuse typically involve criminal cases, the rule applies equally in 

civil cases. Barlow v. United States, 32 U.S. 404, 411 (1833). 
KNOTT 11 

completion of cure, he could and did not display his license on the vessel in a manner consistent 

with the requirements of 46 USC 7110. 

C. REVOCATION IS NOT AN APPROPRIATE ORDER 

Although the Coast Guard has established the allegations in the complaint, I decline to 

revoke Respondent Knott's license. I note that revocation is not a mandatory sanction. 

Under 46 USC 7703 a license may be suspended or revoked "if the holder when acting 

under the authority of that license ... has violated or fails to comply with ... any law or 

regulation intended to promote marine safety or to protect navigable waters." The Table of 

Suggested Range of an Appropriate Order ("Table") codified at 46 CFR 5.569( d) suggests 1-3 

months suspension for failure to comply with U.S. law or regulations. The Table serves as 

information and guidance intended to promote uniformity in orders rendered. 46 CFR 5.569(d). 

In determining the appropriateness of a sanction, exclusive authority and discretion rests with the 

ALJ. See 46 C.F.R. § 5.569(a); see also Appeal Decision 2427 (JEFFRIES), Appeal Decision 

2452 (MORGANDE). Both aggravating and mitigating factors are considered when fashioning 

an appropriate order. See 46 C.F.R. 5.569(b). 

Although mistake of fact is not a defense excusing a violation of Coast Guard laws and 

regulations, it has been recognized as a mitigating factor justifying a lesser order where the 

respondent makes a mistake while acting in good faith. In Appeal Decision 1277 (OLSON), the 

Commandant modified an order of revocation and ordered a 12-month outright suspension where 

a respondent stood an oiler watch on board a merchant vessel while his document was 

suspended. In reducing the order, the Commandant noted that the union and the shipowner were 

contributory at fault for not requiring the respondent to produce his document as a condition of 

employment and the respondent made a mistake while acting in good faith. 
KNOTT 12 

While the fact that Respondent Knott was operating the M/V MS. PAULA at a time when 

his license was on deposit with the Coast Guard pending cure is a serious offense, I am not 

insensitive that Respondent Knott made a mistake while acting in good faith. The evidence 

shows that Respondent Knott, his employer, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers all 

mistakenly believed that a Coast Guard issued license was not required to operate the M/V MS. 

PAULA a short distance at the job site. This is supported by the fact that Contract DACWO 1-01-

D-0004 had a clause that specifically exempted vessels operating within 1 mile of the job site 

from the Coast Guard licensing requirements. Consequently, an order less than revocation will 

be issued in this case. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that license number 847354 and all other valid license and 

documents issued to you by the United States Coast Guard, or any predecessor authority, now 

held by you, be and the same, are hereby suspended Outright, effective as of the date on which 

you deposit your license with the U.S. Coast Guard. 

The said Outright suspension shall remain in effect for two (2) months. 

The rules governing appeals are attached hereto. 

Done and dated this ~ay of November 2002 

ARCHIE ~R~~ R. BOGGS 

Administrative Law Judge 

New Orleans, LA 70130-3396