This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-489 
entitled 'Coast Guard: Administrative Law Judge Program Contains 
Elements Designed to Foster Judges' Independence and Mariner 
Protections Assessed Are Being Followed' which was released on June 12, 
2009. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Report to Congressional Requesters: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

June 2009: 

Coast Guard: 

Administrative Law Judge Program Contains Elements Designed to Foster 
Judges' Independence and Mariner Protections Assessed Are Being 
Followed: 

GAO-09-489: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-09-489, a report to congressional requesters. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

The United States Coast Guard’s Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) program 
is designed to, among other things, promote safety at sea while 
protecting mariners’ rights and is composed of judges whose duties 
include presiding over cases involving mariners’ credentials. If a 
mariner does not meet certain requirements related to safety and 
security at sea, Coast Guard investigative officers are to serve the 
mariner with a complaint that lists the allegation(s) and initiate 
proceedings that can result in the mariner’s credential being suspended 
or revoked. GAO was asked to review elements of the ALJ program and 
this report addresses (1) the extent to which the ALJ program contains 
elements designed to foster the decisional independence of ALJs, (2) 
the extent to which the ALJ program includes protections for mariners 
and whether complaints and decisions include elements required by 
program regulations, and (3) the outcome of mariner suspension and 
revocation cases in recent years. 

To conduct this study, GAO analyzed the laws, regulations, and policies 
governing the ALJ program. GAO also reviewed all suspension and 
revocation cases opened and closed from November 10, 2005, through 
September 30, 2008, to determine outcomes, and further reviewed a 
representative sample of these cases to determine whether complaints 
and decisions included the required elements. GAO supplemented these 
case reviews with interviews of Coast Guard ALJ program officials. 

What GAO Found: 

The Coast Guard’s ALJ program contains elements designed to foster the 
decisional independence of its judges by following Office of Personnel 
Management regulations governing the ALJs’ hiring and employment. These 
regulations are designed to ensure that the ALJs are not subject to 
undue influence from Coast Guard officials. For example, personnel 
actions against a judge, such as the removal of an ALJ, may only be 
taken through an independent agency, the Merit Systems Protection 
Board. 

The Coast Guard’s ALJ program contains protections for mariners—such as 
the right to a hearing and representation—and complaints filed by the 
Coast Guard and decisions issued by ALJs that we reviewed generally 
included the required elements. In particular, GAO reviewed cases 
opened and closed from November 10, 2005, through September 30, 2008, 
and determined that (1) regulations governing complaints, which are 
intended to notify mariners of the allegations against them; and (2) 
regulations requiring ALJs’ decisions to contain certain elements, such 
as finding of fact, were being followed. 

Based on GAO’s review of the 1,675 suspension and revocation cases 
opened and closed from November 10, 2005, through September 30, 2008, 
the majority (62 percent) resulted in settlement agreements; for 
example, a mariner may give up his or her credential while completing 
safety training. In these cases, the outcomes were determined through 
negotiations between the mariners and the Coast Guard. In contrast, 3 
percent of the cases resulted in a hearing before an ALJ that ended 
with a decision and order—a decision presents the ALJ’s findings, while 
an order states the sanction, if any, imposed on the mariner. The 
remaining 36 percent of cases had a variety of outcomes. The 
disposition of all cases reviewed is shown below. 

In commenting on a draft of this report, the Coast Guard generally 
concurred with the findings and believes that the report is both 
complete and accurate. 

Figure: Disposition of the 1,675 Suspension and Revocation Cases Opened 
and Closed from November 10, 2005, through September 30, 2008: 

[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] 

Settlement: Coast Guard and mariner enter into negotiated settlement: 
62%; Default: Mariner fails to respond to complaint or appear at 
hearing: 11%; Withdrawal: Coast Guard withdraws complaint: 9%; 
Voluntary surrender: Mariner voluntarily relinquishes the credential 
permanently: 9%; Admission: Mariner admits to allegations: 7%; Decision 
and order: ALJ issues decision and order after hearing: 3%. 

Source: GAO analysis of Coast Guard ALJ case outcomes. 

Note: Percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding. 

[End of figure] 

What GAO Recommends: 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-489] or key 
components. For more information, contact Stephen L. Caldwell at (202) 
512-8777 or caldwells@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

The Coast Guard's ALJ Program Contains Elements Designed to Foster the 
Decisional Independence of Its Judges: 

Coast Guard's ALJ Program Contains Protections for Mariners' Interests 
and Complaints and Decisions That We Reviewed Generally Included the 
Required Elements: 

Majority of Mariners' Cases Resulted in Settlement Agreements, with 
Relatively Few Decided by Coast Guard Judges: 

Agency Comments: 

Appendix I: Comparison of the Structure and Procedures of 
Administrative Law Judge Programs at Select Federal Agencies: 

Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix III: Details Regarding the Sanction Outcomes of Mariners' 
Suspension and Revocation Cases: 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security: 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Related GAO Products: 

Table: 

Table 1: Administrative Procedures of the Coast Guard ALJ Program 
Compared to Three Other ALJ Programs in the Federal Government: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Photographs Showing the Exxon Valdez and the Damage Caused as 
a Result of the Captain's Failure to Abide by Safety Standards: 

Figure 2: Disposition of the 1,675 Suspension and Revocation Cases 
Opened and Closed from November 10, 2005, through September 30, 2008: 

Figure 3: Sanction Outcomes of the 1,035 Suspension and Revocation 
Cases That Resulted in Settlement Agreements from November 10, 2005, 
through September 30, 2008: 

Figure 4: Disposition of the 45 Decision and Order Cases from November 
10, 2005, through September 30, 2008: 

Figure 5: Sanction Outcomes of the 1,675 Suspension and Revocation 
Cases Opened and Closed from November 10, 2005, through September 30, 
2008: 

Figure 6: Sanction Outcomes of 116 Admissions Cases Opened and Closed 
from November 10, 2005, through September 30, 2008: 

Figure 7: Sanction Outcomes of the 177 Default Cases Closed from 
November 10, 2005, through September 30, 2008: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

June 12, 2009: 

Congressional Requesters: 

The United States Coast Guard, a component within the Department of 
Homeland Security, is charged with ensuring that over 200,000 licensed 
merchant mariners are competent and their conduct promotes marine 
safety, security, and protection of the marine environment. If a 
mariner does not meet certain requirements related to safety and 
security at sea, Coast Guard investigative officers serve the mariner 
with a complaint, initiating proceedings that can result in the 
suspension or revocation of the mariner's credential, which would 
temporarily or permanently bar the mariner from working in a maritime 
position that requires that credential. 

The Coast Guard's Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) program is composed of 
judges who, among other things, preside over cases involving the 
suspension and revocation of merchant marine credentials.[Footnote 1] 
An ALJ's function as an impartial decision maker is similar to the role 
of a trial judge presiding over nonjury civil proceedings. ALJs preside 
in administrative proceedings that provide mariners the right to be 
represented by counsel and to call and cross-examine witnesses. Coast 
Guard ALJs review or preside over 600 suspension and revocation 
adjudications annually.[Footnote 2] 

Press reports and congressional hearings highlighted concerns about the 
decisional independence of ALJs in the Coast Guard ALJ system. As a 
result, Congress asked us to review the Coast Guard's ALJ program 
[Footnote 3]. In particular, this report addresses the following 
questions: 

* To what extent does the Coast Guard's ALJ Program contain elements 
designed to foster the decisional independence of ALJs? 

* To what extent does the Coast Guard's ALJ Program include protections 
for mariners, and do complaints and decisions include elements required 
by the program's regulations? 

* What is the disposition of Coast Guard ALJ suspension and revocation 
cases that were opened and closed from November 10, 2005, through 
September 30, 2008? 

Appendix I discusses the similarities and differences in the structure 
and regulations governing the Coast Guard's ALJ program with those of 
ALJ programs in three other federal agencies--the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture (USDA), the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), 
and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). 

To address the first and second objectives, we analyzed the statutory 
provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the Office of 
Personnel Management (OPM) regulations on administrative law judges, 
and Coast Guard regulations and policies and procedures governing 
administrative actions. Through reviews of the APA and pertinent OPM 
and Coast Guard regulations, we determined what structural elements are 
in place that are designed to foster the ALJs' decisional independence. 
We did not, however, assess whether the structural elements are 
effective at ensuring the ALJs' decisional independence. 

For the second and third objectives, we initially obtained data from 
the Coast Guard ALJ program's case tracking database. Through 
discussions with knowledgeable officials from the Coast Guard's Office 
of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ), we determined that the database 
was not designed to capture all of the information necessary for 
addressing our specific objectives. In particular, the database was 
designed to function as a case tracking system and was not intended to 
capture the type of information that we were seeking. For example, 
outcomes were not categorized in a way that was consistent with how we 
intended to report them. As a result, to address these objectives we 
performed a review of mariners' cases that had been completed in recent 
years. Due to a change in policy regarding the disposition of cases 
involving convictions for violations of drug laws that was effective 
from November 10, 2005, we limited the time frame for our case file 
reviews to those cases that were opened and closed from November 10, 
2005, through September 30, 2008. To address the second objective, we 
selected a random, probability sample of 181 of the 1,675 closed cases 
to determine the extent to which certain mariner protections identified 
in Coast Guard procedures were documented in the mariners' case files. 
To address the third objective, we reviewed all 1,675 mariner case 
files to determine the procedural and sanction-based outcomes 
associated with the cases.[Footnote 4] To verify the outcomes were 
recorded accurately, we had a pair of independent analysts subsequently 
selected a random sample of 198 cases (from the population of 1,675 
cases) and recorded their outcomes. Then, this same pair of analysts 
compared their results with the originally recorded outcomes for the 
same 198 cases. Based on the results of this comparison, we estimate 
that the error rate in recording case outcomes for the population 
(1,675) is 2 percent; and we are 95 percent confident that the actual 
error rate is less than or equal to 5 percent. Therefore, we conclude 
that the data generated from our analysis are sufficiently reliable for 
the purposes of our review. 

In addition to the case file reviews, we also compared the structure 
and procedures of the Coast Guard's ALJ program to ALJ programs of 
three other federal agencies. In doing this comparison, we reviewed the 
regulations governing each of the programs and interviewed officials at 
each of the agencies. We did not perform a case file review of the 
other agencies to determine whether their procedures were being 
followed or evaluate the effectiveness of their adjudicatory processes. 
Rather, we summarized the structures and procedures and highlighted 
similarities and differences among the agencies' programs to provide 
context for the Coast Guard's ALJ program. 

We conducted this performance audit from May 2008 to June 2009 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those 
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 
based on our audit objectives. Appendix II provides additional details 
about our scope and methodology. 

Background: 

Administrative Adjudications for the Federal Government: 

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), enacted in 1946, established 
minimum uniform standards for agency adjudications. Before the 
enactment of the APA, the functions of investigation, prosecution, and 
adjudication were generally combined within a federal agency. Because 
federal agencies often promulgated policy through the adjudication 
process, agency heads had to control agency policy by overseeing 
adjudications. However, critics raised concerns that the fairness of 
the evidentiary fact-finding associated with adjudications may be 
jeopardized by the policy priorities of the agency head. The APA served 
to separate the fact-finding process and policy-making by establishing 
the position of the ALJ, which was to be insulated from undue agency 
influence and designed to oversee the fact-finding process. 
Specifically, the APA includes, among other things, requirements for 
ALJ appointment, pay, and tenure, as well as procedural requirements 
for adjudications over which ALJs preside, such as requirements related 
to evidence. At the same time, because ALJ decisions are subject to 
review within the agency, this process allows the agency head to 
maintain control over agency policy. 

The APA has been implemented through OPM and agency-level regulations. 
Agencies that employ ALJs operate according to OPM regulations that 
govern the appointment, compensation, and removal of all ALJs in the 
federal government. Furthermore, each agency that conducts 
adjudications under the APA also has its own regulations or rules of 
practice, based on the APA, that govern its proceedings. 

According to OPM's Central Personnel Data File, as of March, 2008, 30 
federal agencies employed ALJs. The purpose and scope of the 
administrative proceedings vary greatly among agencies. For example, 
the Social Security Administration adjudicates non-adversarial cases 
involving disputes about individual disability claims, the National 
Labor Relations Board adjudicates cases involving allegations of unfair 
labor practices, and the Environmental Protection Agency adjudicates 
cases involving the suspension and revocation of facility permits and 
violations of environmental regulations. 

Several of the federal agencies that employ ALJs, including the Coast 
Guard, employ ALJs who adjudicate cases involving the suspension and 
revocation of credentials that are necessary for employment in a 
particular field. For example, USDA employs ALJs who hear cases 
involving individuals employed by firms that buy and sell perishable 
agricultural commodities and dealers and exhibitors of animals, among 
other things. The Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) ALJs 
handle cases involving individuals employed by broker-dealers and 
investment advisers.[Footnote 5] NTSB hears cases involving airmen, 
which include pilots, flight instructors, air traffic control-tower 
operators, and mechanics, among others. For more information about 
these agencies' ALJ programs, see appendix I. 

The Coast Guard ALJ Program: 

The Coast Guard issues credentials that permit merchant mariners to 
engage in commerce at sea. There are several types of credentials that 
a mariner may need to be employed on a vessel. Mariners must meet 
certain requirements to obtain each type of credential, as well as 
ongoing requirements to continue operating under it. Merchant mariner 
documents are required for mariners that serve on merchant vessels of 
at least 100 gross tons, with some exceptions, and serve as 
certificates of identification and qualification. Licenses are required 
for officers, and certificates of registry are issued to medical 
personnel and pursers.[Footnote 6] Standards of Training, 
Certification, and Watchkeeping for Seafarers endorsements are issued 
to mariners who hold another merchant mariner credential and who meet 
international standards and serve aboard vessels to which the standards 
apply.[Footnote 7] 

The purpose of suspension and revocation proceedings is to promote 
safety at sea. If a mariner does not meet certain safety and security 
requirements, the Coast Guard may initiate proceedings to suspend or 
revoke the mariner's credential. Federal law establishes circumstances 
in which the Coast Guard may, or must, suspend or revoke a mariner's 
credential. For example, the law provides that a credential may be 
suspended or revoked if the holder is convicted of certain driving 
offenses or poses a threat to the safety or security of a vessel or the 
marine environment.[Footnote 8] The law also provides that a credential 
must be suspended or revoked if it is shown at a hearing that the 
mariner has been convicted of violating a dangerous drug law within the 
prior 10 years and that a credential must be revoked if it is shown at 
a hearing that the mariner has been a user of, or addicted to, a 
dangerous drug, unless the mariner provides satisfactory proof that he 
or she is cured.[Footnote 9] 

The Coast Guard has issued regulations implementing the law, including 
that the Coast Guard may initiate an investigation when it appears that 
there are reasonable grounds to believe that a merchant mariner may 
have (1) committed an act of incompetence, misconduct, or negligence 
while acting under the authority of the credential; (2) violated any 
law or regulation intended to promote marine safety or to protect the 
navigable waters while acting under the authority of a credential; or 
(3) been convicted of a dangerous drug law violation or been a user of, 
or addicted to, a dangerous drug.[Footnote 10] 

An example of a case that demonstrates the importance of safety at sea 
is the case of the Exxon Valdez. Specifically, in March 1989, tank 
vessel Exxon Valdez struck Bligh Reef in Alaska; what followed was the 
largest oil spill in U.S. history. According to ExxonMobil, the company 
spent $2.2 billion on cleanup. Finding that the master of the vessel 
had consumed alcohol within 4 hours of performing scheduled duties and 
had left the bridge of the ship before the accident, the Coast Guard 
ALJ suspended the master's license for 9 months, with an additional 3 
months suspension if further violations of law governing his credential 
were proved. Figure 1 below shows photographs of the Exxon Valdez and 
the aftermath of its oil spill. 

Figure 1: Photographs Showing the Exxon Valdez and the Damage Caused as 
a Result of the Captain's Failure to Abide by Safety Standards: 

[Refer to PDF for image: two photographs] 

Source: U.S. Coast Guard. 

[End of figure] 

As of May 2009, the Coast Guard employs six ALJs; one Chief ALJ and 
five field ALJs. The Chief ALJ is located in Baltimore, Maryland. Field 
positions for ALJs are located in Alameda, California; New Orleans, 
Louisiana; New York, New York; Houston, Texas; Norfolk, Virginia; and 
Seattle, Washington (the Seattle position is vacant as of April 
2009).[Footnote 11] Coast Guard ALJs are assigned cases by the Chief 
ALJ, who reports to the Commandant of the Coast Guard. Cases are 
assigned to ALJs on a rotational basis, unless the case is contested 
and may lead to a hearing. Under those circumstances, the case is 
assigned to an ALJ based on geographic proximity to the mariner. The 
Coast Guard ALJ Docketing Center (located in Baltimore, Maryland), is 
the centralized office that handles the administrative duties related 
to suspension and revocation cases. 

Coast Guard Administrative Proceedings: 

If a Coast Guard investigating officer determines that a suspension and 
revocation proceeding is appropriate, the officer serves a complaint on 
the mariner, which outlines the allegations against him or her. After 
the investigating officer has served the complaint, but before the 
mariner has taken any action, the officer may withdraw the complaint 
without any action by the ALJ if, for example, the officer is unable to 
locate the mariner or if he or she determines that there is not 
sufficient evidence to pursue the case. 

There are several actions that a mariner can take in response to a 
complaint. These actions include (1) not responding to the complaint 
(default), (2) admitting all the allegations (admission), (3) denying 
some or all of the allegations (denial and hearing), (4) entering into 
a settlement agreement (settlement agreement), or (5) voluntarily 
surrendering his or her credential rather than appearing at a hearing 
(voluntary surrender). In addition to these mariner actions, the Coast 
Guard can temporarily suspend a mariner's credential without a hearing 
(temporary suspension). Further details on each of these actions are 
addressed below. 

Default: 

If the mariner does not respond to a complaint, the ALJ may issue a 
default order, which is considered an admission of the facts alleged in 
the complaint and a waiver of the right to a hearing on those 
facts.[Footnote 12] Any time after a mariner has been found in default, 
the mariner may present good cause, such as evidence of being at sea, 
to set aside the default order. If the mariner does not submit an 
answer and the investigative officer does not file a motion for default 
within 180 days after the expiration of the answer period, the 
docketing center will administratively withdraw the complaint. 

Admission: 

The mariner may file an answer admitting all of the allegations in the 
complaint, and the ALJ will issue an appropriate admissions order. For 
example, if the Coast Guard filed a complaint alleging that a mariner 
was negligent and proposed a 6-month suspension and the mariner 
admitted the allegation, the ALJ would then review the complaint and 
answer and, if proper, issue an order suspending the mariner's 
credential for 6 months. 

Denial and Hearing: 

If the mariner wishes to deny any allegation, the mariner must file an 
answer to the complaint denying the allegation(s), and the mariner may 
request a hearing. At the hearing, the mariner (or his or her legal 
representative) and the investigative officer may present evidence in 
defense or support of the case and may conduct cross-examination of any 
evidence presented.[Footnote 13] The officer bears the burden of 
proving the case by a preponderance of the evidence; that is, the 
officer must prove that the allegations are more likely to be true than 
not.[Footnote 14] If the mariner does not appear at a conference or a 
hearing and does not show good cause for failing to appear, the ALJ may 
issue a default order.[Footnote 15] After the hearing, the ALJ issues a 
decision and order,[Footnote 16] which must include the sanction, if 
any, imposed on the mariner.[Footnote 17] 

Settlement Agreement: 

If the mariner wishes to enter into a settlement agreement with the 
Coast Guard, the parties may submit a proposed settlement to the ALJ, 
who must approve the agreement.[Footnote 18] The settlement agreement 
may provide, for example, that in exchange for taking a maritime safety 
course, the proposed sanction of a 6-month suspension may be reduced to 
a 3-month suspension. 

Voluntary Surrender: 

The mariner may also voluntarily surrender his credential in preference 
to appearing at a hearing. The mariner must sign a written statement 
affirming that the surrender is made voluntarily in preference to 
appearing at a hearing, that all rights to the credential are 
permanently relinquished, and that any rights to a hearing are 
waived.[Footnote 19] 

Temporary Suspension: 

In certain circumstances, such as when a mariner performs a safety- 
sensitive function on a vessel and there is probable cause to believe 
that the mariner has violated a law or regulation regarding the use of 
alcohol or a dangerous drug,[Footnote 20] the Coast Guard may 
temporarily seize the mariner's credential without a hearing, so long 
as the ALJ holds a hearing within 30 days and issues a decision 45 days 
or less after the temporary suspension.[Footnote 21] According to Coast 
Guard officials, a majority of cases that resulted in temporary 
suspensions were drug and alcohol-related cases. 

Outcomes of Coast Guard ALJ Cases: 

Each mariner case has two types of outcomes, procedural and sanction. 
Procedural outcomes include courses of action, such as a negotiated 
settlement between a mariner and the Coast Guard, or a decision and 
order issued by an ALJ as a result of a hearing. The other types of 
outcomes--sanction outcomes--are the actions taken against the 
mariner's credential and include penalties, such as suspension or 
revocation. Thus, for example, the outcome of a case may be that a 
mariner could enter into a negotiated settlement (procedural outcome) 
in which he or she agrees to a suspension of his or her credentials for 
a specified period of time (sanction outcome). 

Procedures for Appeals: 

Once a Coast Guard ALJ has decided a case, either a mariner or an 
investigating officer may appeal the ALJ's decision to the Commandant 
of the Coast Guard.[Footnote 22] The Commandant reviews the record on 
appeal to determine whether the ALJ committed an error in the 
proceedings and whether the ALJ's decision should be affirmed, 
modified, reversed, or should be remanded for further proceedings. The 
Commandant then issues a written decision. 

If the Commandant affirms an ALJ decision to revoke or suspend a 
credential, the mariner may then appeal the Commandant's decision to 
NTSB.[Footnote 23] NTSB may affirm the Commandant's decision, set aside 
the Commandant's decision and dismiss the case, or set aside the 
Commandant's findings, conclusions, or order and remand the case to the 
Commandant for further consideration. A mariner or the Commandant may 
seek judicial review of NTSB's decision in an appropriate U.S. court of 
appeals or the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
Circuit.[Footnote 24] 

The Coast Guard's ALJ Program Contains Elements Designed to Foster the 
Decisional Independence of Its Judges: 

The structure of the Coast Guard's ALJ program contains elements 
designed to foster the decisional independence of its judges through a 
series of administrative requirements related to appointment, pay, and 
tenure that are mandated by the APA and administered by OPM. In 
addition to regulations implemented by OPM, which govern ALJ programs 
for the federal government, the Coast Guard has issued additional 
regulations that govern its administrative proceedings and are designed 
to ensure judges' decisional independence. Both OPM and Coast Guard 
regulations stem from APA provisions, which in part are designed to 
foster the decisional independence of ALJs. 

OPM Regulations Are Designed to Foster Judges' Decisional Independence: 

OPM regulations regarding the ALJ appointment processes are designed to 
ensure that ALJs are hired based on their merits and not for other 
reasons, such as political views or loyalties to a federal agency, thus 
fostering decisional independence. For example, OPM recruits and 
selects ALJs. Although each federal agency, including the Coast Guard, 
hires its own ALJs, OPM has been exclusively responsible for the 
initial examination, certification, selection, and determination of the 
compensation of ALJs for each federal agency that has an ALJ program. 
Under this process, OPM periodically conducts competitive examinations 
and uses the results of these examinations to rank applicants for ALJ 
positions according to their qualifications and skills. Applicants are 
to be licensed attorneys authorized to practice law in the United 
States (including the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto 
Rico, or any territorial court). Applicants who meet these minimum 
qualification standards and pass the examination are then assigned a 
score and placed on a register of eligible hires. Agencies, including 
the Coast Guard, then select an ALJ from the top three available 
candidates, taking into account the location, geographical preference, 
and veterans' preference rules. Additionally, agencies may appoint 
current or former ALJs from other federal agencies. 

Once an ALJ is hired by a federal agency, OPM regulations regarding ALJ 
pay and performance are designed to preserve the ALJ's integrity, 
independence, and insulation from agency influence. For example, OPM 
regulations state that an agency may not rate the job performance of an 
ALJ, nor are agencies allowed to grant any monetary or honorary award 
or incentives to ALJs.[Footnote 25] According to OPM regulations, OPM 
assigns each ALJ position to one of the three levels of pay (AL-3, AL- 
2, or AL-1).[Footnote 26] The pay levels are determined based on the 
Executive Schedule, and advancement through the pay levels is primarily 
based on time served. These provisions are designed to prevent an 
agency from exercising influence over a judge by, for example, 
promising raises or bonuses if the ALJ finds in the agency's favor. We 
reviewed personnel files and verified that all of the Coast Guard ALJs 
that were serving at the time of our review were hired and paid under 
OPM regulations.[Footnote 27] 

OPM regulations regarding ALJ tenure also serve as a protective measure 
that is designed to ensure decisional independence. Upon appointment, 
ALJs are given career appointments. As ALJ positions are granted career 
appointments, measures exist to protect them from being dismissed or 
removed from office without good cause and a hearing before an 
independent agency. For example, the APA, as amended, states that an 
agency may remove, suspend, reduce in level, reduce in pay, or furlough 
for 30 days or less an ALJ only for good cause and after a hearing 
before the Merit Systems Protection Board.[Footnote 28] 

Coast Guard Regulations Contain Elements Designed to Foster Decisional 
Independence: 

In addition to OPM regulations, Coast Guard regulations include 
provisions designed to foster the decisional independence of the ALJs. 
For example, Coast Guard regulations state four key requirements to 
ensure the integrity and independence of its ALJs: (1) ALJs may not 
engage in ex parte communications;[Footnote 29] (2) ALJs may not be 
responsible to or subject to the supervision or direction of those 
investigating for or representing the Coast Guard;[Footnote 30] (3) 
Coast Guard officers, agents, and employees who investigate for, or 
represent the Coast Guard in any administrative proceeding, are 
prohibited from participating or advising in the decision of the ALJ, 
except as a witness or counsel in the proceeding;[Footnote 31] and (4) 
ALJs may disqualify themselves if they have a personal bias.[Footnote 
32] These four requirements are designed to ensure that ALJs are 
protected from agency coercion or influence and that all persons 
related to the case are adequately informed in a fair manner. 
Additionally, Coast Guard's OALJ maintains a separate headquarters 
office in Baltimore, Maryland and reports directly to the Office of the 
Commandant. 

Coast Guard's ALJ Program Contains Protections for Mariners' Interests 
and Complaints and Decisions That We Reviewed Generally Included the 
Required Elements: 

The Coast Guard ALJ program contains protections for mariners, and 
complaints filed by the Coast Guard and decisions issued by Coast Guard 
ALJs that we reviewed generally included the elements required by the 
program's regulations. Specifically, in reviewing closed cases, we 
found that regulations governing elements to be included in a complaint 
filed against a mariner and those required for an ALJ decision were 
being followed. 

Coast Guard's ALJ Program Contains Procedures for Protecting Mariners' 
Interests: 

According to the Coast Guard, it is responsible for ensuring that 
merchant mariners' conduct promotes marine safety and security, among 
other things, and, as such, its ALJ proceedings are designed to protect 
the integrity of the credentials rather than to discipline or penalize 
merchant mariners. The Coast Guard also recognizes that mariners have 
interests in possessing their credentials, and the ALJ program has 
procedures that protect the mariners' interests. For example, the ALJ 
program allows mariners to dispute any allegations at administrative 
hearings, provides that mariners may be represented by attorneys at the 
hearings, and allows mariners to appeal ALJs' decisions. For a 
discussion of how the protections provided by the Coast Guard's ALJ 
program compare to those provided by the other ALJ programs that we 
reviewed (USDA, SEC, and NTSB), see appendix I. 

APA Protections: 

Mariners are afforded specific rights in ALJ hearings under the 
APA.[Footnote 33] For example, under the APA, mariners have the right 
to: 

* Submit evidence and argument in response to allegations; 

* Be heard by a judge who is not subject to the supervision of an 
employee engaged in the investigation or prosecution of the case; 

* Be accompanied, represented, and advised by counsel or other duly 
qualified representative; 

* Inspect and copy certain, nonprivileged documents obtained or 
prepared in connection with the administrative proceeding, and to 
request the issuance of subpoenas; and: 

* Submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law before a 
decision is rendered in a particular case. 

Coast Guard ALJ Program Protections: 

In addition to the protections afforded mariners under the APA, the 
Coast Guard has also implemented protections through the regulations 
that govern its administrative proceedings. For example, a complaint 
filed by the Coast Guard must contain certain elements, such as facts 
alleged against the mariner,[Footnote 34] and the decision issued by 
the ALJ must contain certain elements, such as findings of fact, 
conclusions of law, and sanctions, if ordered.[Footnote 35] Other 
protections include the appeals process, expediting hearings, the 
ability to reopen a case, and issuance of temporary credentials. 

Coast Guard ALJ Program Appeals Process: 

The Coast Guard ALJ program's appeal process is designed to protect the 
mariners' interests. In particular, any party may appeal the ALJ's 
decision to the Commandant of the Coast Guard on any of four issues: 
(1) whether each finding of fact is supported by substantial evidence; 
(2) whether each conclusion of law is consistent with applicable law, 
precedent, and public policy; (3) whether the ALJ abused his or her 
discretion; or (4) whether the ALJ's denial of a motion for 
disqualification was proper.[Footnote 36] In reviewing the appeal, the 
Commandant reviews the record to determine whether the ALJ committed an 
error in the proceedings and whether the Commandant should affirm, 
modify, or reverse the ALJ's decision or should remand the case for 
further proceedings, and the Commandant issues a written decision. If 
the Commandant affirms an ALJ decision to revoke or suspend a 
credential, the mariner may then appeal the Commandant's decision to 
NTSB.[Footnote 37] The grounds for appeal to NTSB are that a finding of 
a material fact is erroneous; that a necessary legal conclusion is 
without governing precedent or is contrary to law or precedent; that a 
substantial and important question of law, policy, or discretion is 
involved; or that a procedural error that harmed the interests of the 
mariner has occurred.[Footnote 38] NTSB may affirm the Commandant's 
decision; set aside the Commandant's decision and dismiss the case; or 
set aside the Commandant's findings, conclusions, or order and remand 
the case to the Commandant. A mariner or the Commandant may seek 
judicial review of NTSB's decision in an appropriate U.S. Court of 
Appeals or the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
Circuit.[Footnote 39] 

According to Coast Guard officials, from November 10, 2005, through 
September 30, 2008, the Coast Guard Commandant made decisions on 29 
appeals filed either by the mariner or the Coast Guard. In 9 instances, 
the Coast Guard appealed the ALJ decision; in 19 instances, the mariner 
appealed the ALJ decision, and in 1 case, both the Coast Guard and the 
mariner appealed the ALJ decision. Of the 9 cases in which the Coast 
Guard appealed the ALJ decision, the Commandant affirmed the ALJ 
decision in 6 cases and overturned the ALJ decision in 3 
cases.[Footnote 40] Of the 19 cases in which the mariner appealed the 
ALJ decision, the Commandant affirmed the ALJ decision in 16 cases and 
overturned the ALJ decision in 3 cases.[Footnote 41] In the case in 
which both the Coast Guard and the mariner appealed, the Commandant 
affirmed the ALJ decision. 

According to the NTSB's Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ), 
from November 10, 2005, through September 30, 2008, NTSB decided two 
appeals of the Commandant's decisions. In both cases, NTSB denied the 
appeals and affirmed the Commandant's orders. 

Expedited Hearing: 

While mariners generally have a right to a hearing before the 
suspension or revocation of their credentials, the Coast Guard may 
suspend or take immediate possession of a mariner's credential if the 
mariner performs a safety-sensitive function on a vessel and there is 
probable cause to believe the mariner violated law or federal 
regulations regarding alcohol or dangerous drug use, was convicted of 
an offense that would preclude issuance of a credential, was convicted 
of certain driving offenses, or is a security risk.[Footnote 42] Under 
these specific circumstances, the Coast Guard is to (1) immediately 
file a complaint with the ALJ Docketing Center, (2) hold an expedited 
hearing within 30 days of the temporary suspension, and (3) issue a 
decision within 45 days of the temporary suspension. According to Coast 
Guard officials, from November 10, 2005, through September 30, 2008, 
there were four cases in which mariners' credentials were temporarily 
suspended. In two cases, the mariner voluntarily surrendered the 
credential, in one case the mariner and the Coast Guard settled; and in 
one case, the ALJ issued a decision and order. 

Reopening a Case: 

As a further protection, ALJs are permitted to reopen a case if it is 
believed that a change in fact or law warrants such a reopening or that 
it is in the public's interest to reopen the case in order to take 
additional evidence. Furthermore, any party may request to reopen a 
case within 30 days of the closing of the case, and a mariner may also-
-within 3 years after a suspension and revocation proceeding has 
resulted in a revocation of a credential--request to reopen the 
proceeding to modify the order of revocation. Requests of this type 
must clearly state why the basis for the revocation is no longer valid 
and how the issuance of a new license, certificate or document is 
compatible with the requirement of good discipline and safety at sea. 
[Footnote 43] According to Coast Guard officials, from November 10, 
2005, through September 30, 2008, ALJs issued five decisions on motions 
to reopen cases--ALJs denied motions to reopen in three cases, and 
granted motions to reopen in two cases. Similarly, if a mariner can 
show good cause, an ALJ may set aside a finding of default.[Footnote 
44] For example, ALJ program officials explained that because mariners 
are away at sea for extended periods of time, it is not unreasonable 
that complaints served upon their residences may not have reached them 
in a timely fashion. Consequently, ALJs are allowed the flexibility to 
set aside a default to allow the mariner to exercise his or her right 
to a hearing. According to Coast Guard officials, there were no 
defaults set aside in our date range. 

Temporary Credentials: 

Finally, as an added protection, a mariner who has appealed an ALJ 
decision suspending or revoking his or her credentials may apply for 
temporary credentials pending a decision on the appeal.[Footnote 45] 
This application is made either to the ALJ or to the Coast Guard Office 
of Investigations and Analysis, depending on whether the case has 
already been transferred to the Coast Guard Chief Counsel. Temporary 
credentials are valid for 6 months or until the Commandant issues a 
decision on the appeal. However, if a decision has not been issued when 
a temporary credential expires, a mariner may request another temporary 
credential. A mariner who has appealed a decision of the Commandant 
affirming a suspension or revocation of his or her credential to NTSB 
is also eligible to apply for a temporary credential.[Footnote 46] 
These requests must be submitted to the Office of Investigations and 
Analysis. 

Select Mariner Protections We Assessed Are Being Followed: 

Based on our file reviews, we determined that regulations requiring 
that certain elements be included in a complaint against a mariner and 
in an ALJ decision were being followed. While other protections are to 
be in place, as addressed above, we could not objectively verify that 
they were followed based on our case file review. Under the ALJ 
program, Coast Guard regulations state that complaints filed against a 
mariner are to include the following elements: 

* the type of case, 

* the statute(s) or rule(s) allegedly violated, 

* the pertinent facts alleged, and: 

* the order of suspension or revocation proposed by the Coast Guard. 
[Footnote 47] 

Additionally, the Coast Guard investigative officer, as the filing 
party of the complaint, is to ensure that the complaint bears a signed 
certificate of service.[Footnote 48] 

Just as the complaints filed against mariners are to contain specific 
elements, decisions rendered by ALJs are to also contain particular 
elements. After closing the record of the proceeding, Coast Guard 
regulations state that the ALJs are to prepare a decision that contains 
the following elements: 

* a finding of fact on each material issue of fact and conclusion of 
law, as well as the basis for each finding; 

* the disposition of the case, including any appropriate order 
necessary to achieve that disposition; 

* the date on which the decision will become effective; and: 

* a statement of further right to appeal.[Footnote 49] 

While the ALJ may render a decision orally from the bench, Coast Guard 
regulations provide that an oral decision is to also state the issues 
in the case and make clear, on the record, the ALJ's findings of fact 
and conclusions of law. When an ALJ renders an oral decision, the ALJ 
is to also prepare and serve a written order upon the parties after the 
conclusion of the hearing. In all cases, the ALJ is required to base 
the decision upon a consideration of the whole record of the 
proceedings. 

We determined that almost all of the case files we reviewed contained 
the elements required to be included in a complaint against a mariner. 
Specifically, we analyzed a probability sample of 181 cases to 
determine the extent to which the case files contained documentation 
that included the required elements. Based on this sample, we estimate 
that: 

* 100 percent of the complaints in the case files set forth the type of 
case;[Footnote 50] 

* 100 percent of the complaints in the case files set forth the 
statute(s) or rule(s) allegedly violated; 

* 100 percent of the complaints in the case files set forth the 
pertinent facts for the alleged violation; 

* 100 percent of the complaints in the case files set forth an order of 
suspension or revocation proposed by the Coast Guard; and: 

* 95 percent of the complaints in the case files contain a completed 
certificate of service.[Footnote 51] 

We determined that all cases in which a decision was issued contained 
the elements required for an ALJ decision. Of the 1,675 cases opened 
and closed from November 10, 2005, through September 30, 2008, 45 ended 
with a decision made by an ALJ. Of these 45 cases, 36 cases contained 
written decisions issued after the hearing, while the remaining 9 cases 
contained oral decisions rendered at the conclusion of the hearing. Our 
review of the 36 case files with written decisions showed the 
following: 

* 100 percent set forth findings on each material issue of fact and 
conclusions of law, as well as the basis for each finding; 

* 100 percent set forth the disposition of the case, including the 
appropriate order; 

* 100 percent provided the date upon which the decision became 
effective; and: 

* 100 percent included a statement of the parties' further right to 
appeal the decision. 

We also reviewed the 9 cases containing oral decisions provided at the 
conclusion of the hearing and found that all 9 contained a subsequent 
written order. 

Majority of Mariners' Cases Resulted in Settlement Agreements, with 
Relatively Few Decided by Coast Guard Judges: 

In terms of procedural outcomes, the majority of cases we reviewed 
involving the possible suspension or revocation of mariners' 
credentials resulted in negotiated settlement agreements between the 
mariners and the Coast Guard. For the majority of these cases, the 
mariners received a stayed revocation in which they agreed to 
voluntarily relinquish their credentials pending completion of certain 
conditions--a sanction outcome. In contrast, relatively few cases 
resulted in a hearing in which a Coast Guard ALJ issued a decision and 
order. For about half of the cases resulting in a decision and order, 
the mariners received a sanction of revocation in which they were 
ordered to permanently forfeit their credentials. 

The Procedural Outcome for the Majority of Mariners' Cases Was a 
Settlement Agreement: 

Based on our review of the procedural outcomes of the 1,675 suspension 
and revocation cases that were opened and closed from November 10, 
2005, through September 30, 2008, we found that 1,035 cases (or 62 
percent) resulted in settlement agreements, while 45 cases (3 percent) 
resulted in decisions and orders by ALJs. The remaining 595 cases (36 
percent) resulted in a variety of outcomes. The results or disposition 
of all 1,675 cases are shown in figure 2. 

Figure 2: Disposition of the 1,675 Suspension and Revocation Cases 
Opened and Closed from November 10, 2005, through September 30, 2008: 

[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] 

Settlement: Coast Guard and mariner enter into negotiated settlement: 
62%; Default: Mariner fails to respond to complaint or appear at 
hearing: 11%; Withdrawal: Coast Guard withdraws complaint: 9%; 
Voluntary surrender: Mariner voluntarily relinquishes the credential 
permanently: 9%; Admission: Mariner admits to allegations: 7%; Decision 
and order: ALJ issues decision and order after hearing: 3%. 

Source: GAO analysis of Coast Guard ALJ case outcomes. 

Note: Percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding. 

[End of figure] 

A logical explanation for the relatively large percentage of settlement 
agreements is that federal law and Coast Guard regulations require ALJs 
to revoke credentials in certain cases involving dangerous drug use. 
Specifically, if after a hearing it is proved that the mariner is a 
user of, or is addicted to, a dangerous drug, the ALJ is required to 
revoke the mariner's credentials.[Footnote 52] However, in these types 
of cases, a mariner may enter into a settlement agreement with the 
Coast Guard that imposes a sanction other than outright revocation. As 
a result, there is an incentive for mariners to settle in drug use 
cases. 

The Most Common Sanction for Settlement Agreement Cases Was a Stayed 
Revocation: 

Of the 1,035 cases that resulted in settlement agreements, the majority 
of these cases (68 percent) resulted in a sanction of a stayed 
revocation, as shown in figure 3. In a stayed revocation, a mariner 
temporarily relinquishes his or her credential and is required to 
comply with certain conditions before his or her credential is 
returned. This sanction may be used in settlement agreement cases where 
there is proof of dangerous drug use. In such cases, mariners must 
demonstrate cure from addiction to dangerous drugs by completing a 
series of requirements laid out in the settlement agreements before 
their credential can be returned.[Footnote 53] During this time, the 
mariners cannot work in any position requiring mariner credentials. If 
the mariners complete the requirements, they are able to get their 
credentials back; otherwise, the credentials are forfeited. 

Figure 3: Sanction Outcomes of the 1,035 Suspension and Revocation 
Cases That Resulted in Settlement Agreements from November 10, 2005, 
through September 30, 2008: 

[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] 

Stayed revocation: Coast Guard permanently removes credential if mariner
fails to meet agreed-to condition(s): 68%; 
Mitigated penalty with condition(s): Sanction reduced by the mariner 
fulfilling agreed-to condition(s): 17%; 
Suspension and probation: Coast Guard temporarily withholds the 
credential, followed by probation: 6%; 
Suspension: Coast Guard temporarily withholds credential for a 
specified period of time: 5%; 
Probationary suspension: Coast Guard temporarily withholds credential 
if the mariner violates probation: 4%. 

Source: GAO analysis of Coast Guard ALJ case outcomes. 

[End of figure] 

The Most Common Sanction Outcome for Decision and Order Cases Was a 
Revocation: 

Of the 45 cases that resulted in a decision and order by a Coast Guard 
ALJ, the most common sanction was revocation (49 percent), as shown in 
figure 4 below. In a revocation, mariners are ordered to permanently 
forfeit their credentials. Additionally, in 13 percent of the cases, 
the ALJ did not order a sanction, meaning that the mariners retained 
their credentials. 

Figure 4: Disposition of the 45 Decision and Order Cases from November 
10, 2005, through September 30, 2008: 

[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] 

Revocation: Coast Guard permanently removes the mariner’s credential: 
49%; 
Suspension: Coast Guard temporarily withholds credential for a 
specified period of time: 16%; 
No sanction: Mariner retains his or her credential: 13%; 
Suspension and probation: Coast Guard temporarily withholds the 
credential, followed by probation: 11%; 
Probationary suspension: Coast Guard temporarily withholds credential 
if the mariner violates probation: 7%; 
Stayed revocation: Coast Guard permanently removes credential if 
mariner fails to meet agreed-to condition(s): 4%. 

Source: GAO analysis of Coast Guard ALJ case outcomes. 

[End of figure] 

Further details on the results of our case file reviews, specifically 
regarding sanctions outcomes, can be found in appendix III. 

Agency Comments: 

In May 2009, we requested comments on a draft of this report from the 
Department of Homeland Security and the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard 
provided technical comments, which we have incorporated into the 
report, as appropriate. In addition to the technical comments, the 
Department of Homeland Security and the Coast Guard jointly provided an 
official letter for inclusion in this report. In the letter, the 
agencies noted that they generally concur with our findings and believe 
the report to be both complete and accurate. A copy of this letter can 
be seen in appendix IV. 

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Homeland 
Security, the Commandant of the Coast Guard, the Director of the Office 
of Management and Budget, and interested congressional committees. The 
report is also available at no charge on the GAO Web site at 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staffs have any questions concerning this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-8777 or caldwells@gao.gov. Contact points for 
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found 
on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are 
listed in appendix V. 

Signed by: 

Stephen L. Caldwell: 
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues: 

List of Congressional Requesters: 

The Honorable John D. Rockefeller IV: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Kay Bailey Hutchison: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Peter T. King: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Homeland Security: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Maria Cantwell: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Olympia J. Snowe: 
Ranking Member: 
Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Frank R. Lautenberg: 
Chairman: 
Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine 
Infrastructure, Safety, and Security: 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Frank LoBiondo: 
Ranking Member: 
Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Steven C. LaTourette: 
House of Representatives: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Comparison of the Structure and Procedures of 
Administrative Law Judge Programs at Select Federal Agencies: 

This appendix describes the structures and procedures of administrative 
law judge (ALJ) programs in three federal agencies to show how they 
compare to the Coast Guard's ALJ program. ALJs at each of these 
agencies hear cases involving the suspension and revocation of 
credentials that are necessary for employment in a particular field. 
This appendix (1) describes the types of cases that the ALJs at select 
federal agencies hear, (2) summarizes similarities and differences in 
the structures and procedures of the ALJ programs at each of the 
selected agencies, and (3) presents a more detailed description of the 
procedures involved in adjudications at each agency. 

Types of Cases Heard by ALJs in Select Federal Agencies: 

Like the Coast Guard ALJs, ALJs at the U.S. Department of Agriculture 
(USDA), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the National 
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) hear cases related to the possible 
suspension and revocation of credentials required for employment in a 
particular field. Further details on each of these agency's ALJ 
programs are provided below. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture: 

USDA hears cases involving individuals employed with firms that buy and 
sell perishable agricultural commodities and dealers and exhibitors of 
animals, among other things. For example, within USDA, the Animal and 
Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) regulates certain animal 
dealers and exhibitors, who are required to maintain licenses and meet 
certain standards. If a licensee does not meet the necessary standards, 
the dealer or exhibitor license may be suspended or revoked. Similarly, 
firms that buy and sell perishable agricultural commodities are 
regulated by USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), and 
individuals that are responsibly connected to a firm that violates AMS 
regulations may be subject to employment restrictions, such as a 
prohibition on employment with another licensee for 1 year. In order to 
suspend or revoke an animal dealer or exhibitor license or to impose 
employment restrictions on individuals responsibly connected to 
violator firms, the responsible USDA component conducts an 
investigation, and the Office of General Counsel (OGC) within that 
component prepares a complaint and submits it to the Office of 
Administrative Law Judges (OALJ). A USDA ALJ then conducts the 
administrative proceeding between the agency, represented by the 
component OGC, and the licensee, who may also have legal 
representation. 

Securities and Exchange Commission: 

SEC handles cases including those involving individuals employed by 
broker-dealers and investment advisers.[Footnote 54] Broker-dealers and 
investment advisers are required by federal law to comply with certain 
standards in order to, for example, prevent fraud, and if individuals 
associated with those firms do not meet or violate those standards, SEC 
may, among other sanctions, bar the individuals from associating with 
broker-dealers or investment advisers for a specified period of time. 
In order to impose this sanction, SEC's Division of Enforcement 
conducts an investigation, presents evidence to the commission, and if 
the commission decides to issue an order instituting proceedings, an 
SEC ALJ adjudicates the claim between the agency, represented by the 
SEC Division of Enforcement, and the regulated entity. 

National Transportation Safety Board: 

NTSB hears cases involving airmen, which includes pilots, air traffic 
control tower operators, and mechanics, among others. Airmen are 
required to obtain Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued 
certificates. If FAA determines that the suspension or revocation of an 
airman's certificate is necessary for aviation safety and the public 
interest, FAA may issue an order suspending or revoking the 
certificate. An airman may then appeal the order to an NTSB ALJ, who 
conducts the proceeding between the FAA Division of Enforcement and the 
certificate holder. 

Comparison of Structures and Procedures of Select Agencies' ALJ 
Programs: 

The structure of each of the agencies (Coast Guard, USDA, SEC, and 
NTSB) is similar, in that it contains elements designed to protect ALJs 
from undue agency influence, as required by the Administrative 
Procedures Act (APA). For example, no ALJ may be subject to the 
supervision or direction of an employee engaged in an investigating or 
litigating function for the agency, and the agency cannot remove an ALJ 
from office without good cause and a hearing before an independent 
entity. However, these agencies are illustrative of one primary 
structural difference among ALJ programs. Like Coast Guard ALJs and 
ALJs at most federal agencies, the ALJs at USDA and SEC are located 
within the regulating agency. That is, the ALJs that adjudicate 
disputes between the regulating agency and the regulated individual are 
located within the regulating agency. In contrast, NTSB ALJs handle the 
adjudication of cases arising in another agency, FAA. Under this 
structure, which is called a split-enforcement model, the adjudicating 
agency is distinct from the regulating agency. That is, the ALJs that 
adjudicate disputes between the regulating agency and the regulated 
individuals are located within a separate agency. 

Because the APA requires certain minimum procedures for these 
adjudications, the procedures associated with adjudications in each of 
these agencies are similar. For example, all of the agencies' 
regulations require the ALJs to consider the convenience of the parties 
when scheduling the date and location of hearings, require that ALJs 
include certain elements, such as findings of fact and conclusions of 
law, in their decisions, and provide a process by which an ALJ may be 
disqualified for bias. However, there are differences across the 
agencies. For example, the agencies have different procedures governing 
discovery, or the exchange of information between parties prior to 
adjudication. The Coast Guard and SEC require the parties to exchange 
certain information in all cases, whereas for USDA and NTSB 
proceedings, all discovery is discretionary, meaning that the ALJs 
order the parties to exchange certain information on a case-by-case 
basis. For example, the Coast Guard requires the parties to exchange 
the names of witnesses, a brief summary of their expected testimonies, 
and copies of each document to be introduced; with additional discovery 
being discretionary and requiring an ALJ order. SEC requires the agency 
to make available for inspection and copying documents collected during 
the investigation of the case, with some exceptions, but additional 
discovery is discretionary. No such requirements exist for USDA and 
NTSB proceedings. 

The appeals process also differs across the agencies. The Coast Guard 
is the only agency that has a two-step appeals process after the ALJ 
decision, with one of the appeals to a separate agency. In this 
process, a party may appeal an ALJ decision to the Commandant, and, 
subsequently, in certain circumstances, the mariner may appeal the 
Commandant's decision to the full board at NTSB.[Footnote 55] At USDA, 
a party may appeal an ALJ decision to the judicial officer, an employee 
designated by the Secretary of Agriculture to hear such appeals. At 
SEC, a party may appeal an ALJ decision to the full commission. At 
NTSB, a party may appeal an ALJ decision to the full board. For a more 
detailed description of the procedures associated with administrative 
procedures at the Coast Guard, NTSB, USDA, and SEC, see table 1 below. 

Table 1: Administrative Procedures of the Coast Guard ALJ Program 
Compared to Three Other ALJ Programs in the Federal Government: 

Topic: Representation of agency in adjudication; 
Coast Guard: Coast Guard Investigating Officer; 
NTSB: FAA Enforcement Division; 
USDA: Office of General Counsel (OGC) within USDA Responsible 
Component; 
SEC: SEC Division of Enforcement. 

Topic: Elements of complaint/order instituting proceedings; 
Coast Guard: (1) Type of case; (2) Relevant statute or rule; (3) 
Pertinent alleged facts; (4) Proposed sanction; 
NTSB: Before issuing order, FAA advises respondent of charges or 
reasons for action. FAA order is refiled as complaint; no requirements 
in regulations; 
USDA: (1) Nature of the proceeding; (2) Identification of the 
complainant and respondent; (3) Legal authority and jurisdiction under 
which proceeding is instituted; (4) Allegations of fact and provisions 
of law that form basis for proceeding; (5) Nature of the relief sought; 
SEC: (1) Nature of hearing; (2) Legal authority and jurisdiction under 
which hearing will be held; (3) Matters of fact and law to be 
considered and determined; (4) Nature of any relief or action sought or 
taken; The order instituting proceedings will also specify a period in 
which the ALJ will file an initial decision, which must be either 120, 
210, or 300 days. The Chief ALJ must file a request with the commission 
for an extension. 

Topic: Deadline to answer; 
Coast Guard: 20 days; 
NTSB: 20 days; 
USDA: 20 days; 
SEC: 20 days, except where a different period is provided by rule or by 
order. 

Topic: Default procedures for failure to answer complaint/order 
initiating proceedings; 
Coast Guard: The agency files motion for default, to which respondent 
has 20 days to reply. If the respondent fails to reply, the ALJ issues 
default order; 
NTSB: N/A; 
USDA: If the respondent fails to answer complaint, the agency submits 
proposed decision, with a motion to adopt. The respondent has 20 days 
to file objections. If no meritorious objection filed, the ALJ grants 
motion to adopt proposed decision; 
SEC: If respondent fails to answer complaint, the ALJ may decide the 
case against the respondent upon a consideration of the record, 
including the order instituting proceedings. 

Topic: Procedure to set aside default order; 
Coast Guard: Any time after the respondent has been found in default, 
the respondent may present good cause to set aside the default order; 
NTSB: N/A; 
USDA: Within 30 days of the issuance of the adopted decision, the 
respondent may appeal decision; 
SEC: The respondent may, within a reasonable time after being found in 
default, request to set aside a default order for good cause. 

Topic: Extensions of time; 
Coast Guard: The ALJ may grant a request for extension to file a 
response; 
NTSB: The ALJ may grant an extension of time to file any document for 
good cause shown. However, no extension of time will be granted for the 
filing of a document to which a statutory time limit applies; 
USDA: The ALJ may grant an extension of time to file a document for 
good cause shown; 
SEC: The ALJ may shorten or extend any time limits, for good cause 
shown, but may not extend more than 21 days unless the ALJ sets forth 
the reasons that a longer period of time is necessary. 

Topic: Settlements; 
Coast Guard: The ALJ may approve settlement agreement between agency 
and respondent, ensuring, for example, that the complaint states an 
offense and that the law permits the settlement; 
NTSB: N/A; 
USDA: The ALJ must approve a settlement submitted in the form of a 
proposed decision unless an error is apparent on the face of the 
document; 
SEC: The commission may approve an offer of settlement proposed by the 
respondent and submitted by the litigating entity with its 
recommendation to the commission. 

Topic: Discovery; 
Coast Guard: Unless the ALJ otherwise orders, at least 15 days prior to 
the hearing, each party must exchange the names of witnesses and a 
brief summary of their expected testimonies and copies of each document 
that parties intend to introduce. The ALJ may also order further 
discovery, such as depositions, interrogatories, and requests for 
documents; 
NTSB: At any time before the hearing, the parties may request the 
exchange of information, such as witness lists, exhibit lists, 
curricula vitae, and bibliographies of expert witnesses. Parties may 
also use interrogatories, requests for admissions, and other discovery 
tools. If there is a dispute between the parties, the ALJ may issue an 
order regarding discovery; 
USDA: The ALJ may order parties to furnish outlines of the case or 
defense, the underlying legal theories, copies of or a list of 
documents that the parties anticipate introducing, and a list of 
anticipated witnesses. The ALJ may also order the taking of a 
deposition. At least 10 days prior to a hearing conducted by telephone, 
unless the hearing is scheduled to begin less than 20 days after the 
ALJ's notice stating the time of the hearing, each party must exchange 
a written narrative verified statement of the oral direct testimony of 
that party, each employee or agent of that party, and each expert 
witness that the party will call; 
SEC: Unless otherwise ordered, no later than 7 days after service of 
the order instituting proceedings, the Enforcement Division must make 
available for inspecting and copying documents obtained by the division 
prior to the institution of proceedings in connection with the related 
investigation, with certain exceptions. The ALJ may also order any 
party to furnish appropriate information, such as an outline or summary 
of the case or defense, the underlying legal theories, copies and a 
list of documents to be introduced, and a list of witnesses, including 
a brief summary of their expected testimonies. Each party intending to 
call an expert witness must submit information about the witness, 
including a brief summary of the expected testimony, statement of the 
expert's qualifications, listing of other proceedings at which the 
expert has given testimony, and a list of the expert's publications. 
The ALJ may also order the taking of depositions. 

Topic: Expedited procedure; 
Coast Guard: Coast Guard may suspend and seize a credential without a 
hearing if the mariner performs a safety-sensitive function on a vessel 
and there is probable cause to believe that he has committed certain 
violations. Agency must immediately file a complaint, and the ALJ must 
conduct a pre-hearing conference as early as practicable, at which time 
the respondent enters his answer. As soon as practicable after the 
conference but no later than 30 days after the temporary suspension, 
the ALJ holds a hearing, and the ALJ must issue the decision 45 days or 
less after the temporary suspension. At any time, the respondent may 
request that the credential be returned on the grounds that the agency 
lacked probable cause to suspend the credential. At any time, the 
respondent may move to discontinue the expedited process and continue 
under standard procedure; 
NTSB: FAA may issue an emergency order, suspending a certificate 
immediately, upon determination that an emergency exists and safety in 
air commerce or air transportation requires the immediate suspension of 
the certificate. Respondent may file appeal within 10 days. FAA must 
serve complaint within 3 days of appeal. The respondent must file 
answer within 5 days of complaint. The hearing must be held no later 
than 30 days after the appeal was received, and oral decision is issued 
at close of the hearing. The respondent may appeal the ALJ's initial 
decision to the board within 2 days after decision. The respondent may 
also, within 2 days after the date of receipt of an emergency order, 
file a petition for review of the FAA determination that an emergency 
exists. The ALJ must decide petition within 5 days, and if the ALJ 
grants petition, respondent retains certificate until completion of 
appeal. Under certain circumstances, respondent may waive expedited 
proceedings; 
USDA: N/A; 
SEC: Expedited procedures do not apply to cases involving persons 
associated with broker-dealers and investment advisers. 

Topic: Hearing; 
Coast Guard: The ALJ schedules date, time, and place of hearing, with 
due regard for the convenience of the parties; 
NTSB: The ALJ sets reasonable date, time, and place for hearing. In 
setting date, due regard must be given to the parties' discovery needs. 
In setting the place, due regard must be given to the location of the 
subject incident, the convenience of the parties and witnesses, and the 
conservation of agency funds; 
USDA: The ALJ sets time, place, and manner for hearing with due regard 
for the public interest and convenience and necessity of parties. The 
ALJ will conduct hearing by audio-visual telecommunication (AVT) unless 
the judge determines that conducting the hearing by personal attendance 
of any individual is necessary to prevent prejudice to a party, is 
necessary because of a disability of any individual, or would cost less 
than conducting the hearing by AVT. The ALJ may conduct the hearing by 
telephone if it would provide a full and fair evidentiary hearing, 
would not prejudice any party, and would cost less than conducting a 
hearing by AVT or personal attendance. Within 10 days after the ALJ 
issues notice of hearing, any party may request that the ALJ reconsider 
the manner in which the hearing is to be conducted; 
SEC: The ALJ sets time and place for hearing with due regard for the 
public interest and the convenience and necessity of the parties. The 
order instituting proceedings will specify a time period in which an 
initial decision must be filed, and the order instituting proceedings 
will also state the period in which the hearing will take place. Under 
the 120-day deadline, the hearing will take place within approximately 
1 month; under the 210-day deadline, the hearing will take place within 
approximately 2 1/2 months; under the 300-day deadline, the hearing 
will take place within approximately 4 months. 

Topic: Decision; 
Coast Guard: ALJ decision must include a finding on each material issue 
of fact and conclusion of law, as well as the basis for each finding; 
the disposition of the case, including any appropriate order; the date 
upon which the decision is effective, and statement of the respondent's 
right to appeal. The ALJ may issue an oral decision at the close of the 
hearing, in which case ALJ must state the issues in the case and make 
clear, on the record, the findings of fact and conclusions of law; 
NTSB: ALJ decision must include findings and conclusions upon all 
material issues of fact, credibility of witnesses, law and discretion, 
as well as the reasons for each finding and conclusion. The ALJ may 
issue an oral decision at the close of the hearing; 
USDA: The ALJ may issue a decision orally at the close of the hearing 
or within a reasonable time after the closing of the hearing, and a 
copy of the decision --written or oral--must be furnished to the 
parties; 
SEC: ALJ initial decision must include findings and conclusions, and 
the basis for the findings and conclusions, as to all the material 
issues of fact, law, or discretion, and the appropriate order, 
sanction, relief or denial of relief. Decision must also state the 
respondent's right to appeal, as well as the time period, not to exceed 
21 days, within which an appeal may be filed. 

Topic: Review of a ruling prior to close of proceeding; 
Coast Guard: The Commandant may not review a ruling prior to the close 
of the proceeding; 
NTSB: ALJ rulings prior to close of proceeding may not be appealed 
except in extraordinary circumstances and with the consent of the ALJ. 
Such appeals may only be allowed if the ALJ finds that it is necessary 
to prevent substantial detriment to the public interest or undue 
prejudice to a party; 
USDA: The ALJ may request that the judicial officer make a 
determination on a motion, request, objection, or other question; 
SEC: The ALJ may request that the commission review a ruling prior to 
the close of the proceeding if the ruling would compel testimony of 
commission members, officers, or employees or the production of 
documentary evidence in their custody or if the ALJ believes that the 
ruling involves a controlling question of law as to which there is 
substantial ground for difference of opinion and an immediate review of 
the order may materially advance the completion of the proceeding. The 
commission will grant a petition to review such an order only in 
extraordinary circumstances. The commission may, at any time, on its 
own initiative, direct that any matter be submitted to it for review. 

Topic: Disqualification of ALJ; 
Coast Guard: The ALJ may disqualify himself at any time. Until the 
filing of the decision, any party may request that the ALJ disqualify 
himself for personal bias or other valid cause. If the ALJ does not 
disqualify himself, the moving party may appeal to the Commandant once 
the hearing has concluded; 
NTSB: The ALJ must withdraw from a proceeding if, at any time, he deems 
himself disqualified. If the ALJ does not withdraw, and if an appeal 
from the ALJ's initial decision is filed, the board will, if requested 
by the party, determine whether the ALJ should have withdrawn; 
USDA: No ALJ can be assigned to serve in any proceeding that has any 
pecuniary interest in any matter or business involved in the 
proceeding, is related within the third degree by blood or marriage to 
any party, or has any conflict of interest that might impair the ALJ's 
objectivity. Any party may request that the ALJ withdraw from the 
proceeding because of an alleged disqualifying reason. The ALJ may 
either rule on the request or request that the Secretary decide the 
issue; 
SEC: The ALJ must withdraw if he believes himself to be disqualified 
from considering a matter. Any party that has a reasonable, good faith 
basis to believe that an ALJ has a personal bias or is otherwise 
disqualified from hearing a case may make a request to the ALJ that the 
ALJ withdraw. 

Topic: Entity deciding appeals of ALJ decisions; 
Coast Guard: The ALJ decision may be appealed to the Commandant of the 
Coast Guard; The decision of the Commandant may be appealed to NTSB; 
NTSB: Full board; 
USDA: USDA judicial officer; 
SEC: Full commission. 

Topic: Deadline to appeal; 
Coast Guard: To Commandant: 30 days; To NTSB: 10 days; 
NTSB: 10 days; 
USDA: 30 days; 
SEC: Time period specified in initial decision, not to exceed 21 days, 
unless a party has filed a motion to correct a manifest error in the 
initial decision, in which case a party has 21 days from the date of 
the ALJ's order resolving the motion to correct. 

Topic: Issues to appeal; 
Coast Guard: To Commandant: (1) Whether each finding of fact is 
supported by substantial evidence; (2) Whether each conclusion of law 
accords with applicable law, precedent, and policy; (3) Whether the ALJ 
abused his discretion; (4) The ALJ's denial of a request for 
disqualification; To NTSB, in a case in which the credential was 
suspended or revoked; (1) Whether a finding of material fact is 
erroneous; (2) Whether a necessary legal conclusion is without 
governing precedent or is contrary to law or precedent; (3) A 
substantial and important question of law, policy, or discretion is 
involved; (4) Whether a prejudicial procedural error has occurred; 
NTSB: (1) Whether the findings of fact are each supported by a 
preponderance of reliable, probative, and substantial evidence; (2) 
Whether conclusions are made in accordance with law, precedent, and 
policy; (3) Whether the questions on appeal are substantial; (4) 
Whether prejudicial procedural errors occurred; 
USDA: The decision, any part of the decision, or any ruling by the ALJ; 
SEC: Any issue. 

Topic: Discretion to grant review; 
Coast Guard: To Commandant: No; To NTSB: No; 
NTSB: No; 
USDA: No; 
SEC: Yes; the commission has discretion in determining whether to grant 
review. The commission considers: whether the petition makes a 
reasonable showing that a (1) a prejudicial error was committed in the 
conduct of the proceeding, or; (2) the decision embodies a finding or 
conclusion of material fact that is clearly erroneous, a conclusion of 
law that is erroneous, or an exercise of discretion or decision of law 
or policy that is important and that the commission should review. 

Topic: Oral argument; 
Coast Guard: To Commandant: No; To NTSB: Each party may request to 
present an oral argument, and NTSB will grant the request for good 
cause; 
NTSB: NTSB may order oral argument, in response to a request or on its 
own initiative, if NTSB determines that oral argument is necessary; 
USDA: Each party may request to present an oral argument, and the 
judicial officer may grant, deny, or limit any request; 
SEC: Each party may request to present oral argument, and the 
commission may, in response to a request or on its own initiative, 
order oral argument with respect to any matter. The commission will 
order oral argument if the presentation of facts and legal arguments in 
the briefs and record and the decisional process would be significantly 
aided by oral argument. Motions for oral argument on whether to affirm 
part or all of the initial decision of an ALJ will be granted unless 
exceptional circumstances make oral argument impractical or 
inadvisable. 

Topic: Review on own initiative; 
Coast Guard: The Commandant may call up for review any decision of an 
ALJ in which there has been a finding that an allegation was proved; 
NTSB: NTSB may not review an ALJ decision on its own initiative; 
USDA: The judicial officer may not review an ALJ decision on his own 
initiative; 
SEC: The commission may, on its own initiative, order the review of any 
initial decision, or any portion of an initial decision, within 21 days 
after the end of the period established for filing an appeal. 

Topic: Reopening proceedings/requests for reconsideration; 
Coast Guard: Within 30 days after the close of the hearing, any party 
may request to reopen the proceeding. The ALJ may reopen the proceeding 
upon belief that any change in law or fact or the public interest 
warrants reopening it. Within 3 years after a proceeding has resulted 
in revocation of a credential, a respondent may request that the 
proceeding be reopened to present evidence that the order of revocation 
is no longer valid and that the issuance of a new credential is 
compatible with the requirement of good discipline and safety at sea. 
At any time, a party can request to reopen a case if the order rests on 
a specified conviction that has been unconditionally set aside by a 
court; 
NTSB: Before filing an appeal to the board, a party may request a 
reconsideration of the ALJ's decision. Within 30 days after the board's 
order on appeal, a party may petition the board for rehearing, 
reargument, reconsideration, or modification of the board order on 
appeal; 
USDA: Within the period of time fixed by the ALJ, any party may propose 
corrections to the transcript or recording of the hearing, and as soon 
as practicable after the close of the hearing, the ALJ must issue an 
order making any corrections to the transcript or recording that the 
ALJs finds are warranted. A party may request to reopen a hearing to 
take further evidence at any time prior to the issuance of the decision 
of the judicial officer. Within 10 days after the judicial officer's 
decision, a party may petition to rehear or reargue the proceeding or 
to reconsider the decision of the judicial officer; 
SEC: Within 10 days of the initial decision, a party may file a motion 
to correct a manifest error of fact in the initial decision. A brief in 
opposition may be filed within 5 days of a motion to correct, and the 
ALJ must rule on the motion within 20 days of the filing of the brief 
in opposition. Within 10 days after the commission's order, a party may 
request a reconsideration of the commission's decision. 

Topic: Judicial review; 
Coast Guard: A respondent or the Coast Guard may seek judicial review 
of NTSB's decision; 
NTSB: A party may seek judicial review of a final order of the board; 
USDA: A respondent may seek judicial review of the final decision of 
the judicial officer on appeal; 
SEC: A respondent may seek judicial review of the final order of the 
commission. 

Source: GAO analysis based on a review of pertinent agency regulations. 

Note: For purposes of this table, "board" refers to the National 
Transportation Safety Board, and "commission" refers to the Securities 
and Exchange Commission. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

This report addresses three objectives: 

* To what extent does the Coast Guard's Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) 
Program contain elements designed to foster the decisional independence 
of ALJs? 

* To what extent does the Coast Guard's ALJ Program include protections 
for mariners and do complaints and decisions include elements required 
by the program's regulations? 

* What is the disposition of Coast Guard ALJ suspension and revocation 
cases that were opened and closed from November 10, 2005, through 
September 30, 2008? 

To address the first and second objectives, we analyzed the statutory 
provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the Office of 
Personnel Management (OPM) regulations on administrative law judges, 
and Coast Guard regulations and policies and procedures governing 
administrative actions. We also interviewed Coast Guard Office of 
Administrative Law Judges (OALJ) officials to discuss Coast Guard 
administrative procedures and ALJ hearing process. Through reviews of 
the APA and pertinent OPM and Coast Guard regulations, we determined 
what structural elements are in place that are designed to foster the 
ALJs' decisional independence. We did not, however, assess whether the 
structural elements are effective at ensuring the ALJs' decisional 
independence. 

To address the second and third objectives, we initially obtained data 
from the Coast Guard ALJ program's case tracking database. Through 
discussions with knowledgeable officials from OALJ, we determined that 
the database was not designed or sufficiently reliable for addressing 
our specific objectives. In particular, the database was designed to 
function solely as a case tracking system and was not intended to 
capture the type of information that we were seeking. For example, 
outcomes were not categorized in a way that was consistent with how we 
intended to report them. As a result, we performed a case file review 
of open and closed mariner cases that had been completed in recent 
years. Due to a change in policy regarding the disposition of cases 
involving convictions for violations of drug laws effective November 
10, 2005, we limited the time frame for our case file reviews to those 
cases that were opened and closed from November 10, 2005, through 
September 30, 2008. We used September 30, 2008, as the ending date for 
our case file selections because we began our review of cases in 
October 2008. This resulted in a review of 1,675 cases for our first 
objective. Then, to address the second objective, we selected a random, 
probability sample of 181 of the 1,675 closed cases to determine the 
extent to which certain mariner protections were being followed. In 
particular, we reviewed these cases to determine whether specific 
protections identified in Coast Guard procedures were documented in the 
mariners' case files. 

To address the third objective, an analyst reviewed all 1,675 mariner 
case files to determine the procedural and sanction-based outcomes 
associated with the cases. To verify the outcomes were recorded 
accurately, a pair of independent analysts subsequently selected a 
random sample of 198 cases (from the population of 1,675 cases) and 
recorded their outcomes. Then, this same pair of analysts compared 
their results with the originally recorded outcomes for the same 198 
cases. Based on the results of this comparison, we estimate that the 
error rate in recording case outcomes for the population (1,675) is 2 
percent; and we are 95 percent confident that the actual error rate is 
less than or equal to 5 percent. Therefore, we conclude that the data 
generated from our analysis are sufficiently reliable for the purposes 
of our review. 

In conducting a comparison of the structure and procedures of the Coast 
Guard's ALJ program to those of the ALJ programs of the three other 
federal agencies--the U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Securities 
and Exchange Commission, and the National Transportation Safety Board-
-we reviewed the regulations governing each of the programs and 
interviewed officials at each of the agencies. We selected these 
agencies because their ALJs hear cases involving the possible 
suspension or revocation of credentials necessary for employment in a 
particular field. We did not perform a case file review to determine 
whether the procedures were being followed or evaluate the 
effectiveness of their adjudicatory processes. Rather, we summarized 
the structures and procedures, highlighting similarities and 
differences between the agencies' programs to provide context compared 
to the Coast Guard's ALJ program. 

We also conducted outreach efforts to several mariner associations--to 
include American Maritime Officers; the Inland Boatman's Union; the 
Marine Engineers Beneficial Association; the International Organization 
of Master's, Mates, & Pilots; Seafarers International Union; and the 
U.S. Merchant Marine Academy--and attorneys to obtain their 
perspectives on Coast Guard structure and procedures, administrative 
actions, and ALJ hearing process. We identified mariner associations 
and attorneys through Internet searches and referrals obtained from 
interviews and agency contacts. We focused our outreach efforts on 
those associations and attorneys that represented or provided legal 
support to mariners who experienced a Coast Guard administrative 
action. Because the input we received from the various mariner 
associations and attorneys was varied and did not have a consistent 
message, we were not able to draw any conclusions from their input and 
so we did not include their comments in the report. This outreach 
effort, however, did provide us with important contextual information 
how mariner associations and attorneys perceived the Coast Guard's ALJ 
program. 

We conducted this performance audit from May 2008 to June 2009 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those 
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 
conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Details Regarding the Sanction Outcomes of Mariners' 
Suspension and Revocation Cases: 

The purpose of this appendix is to provide additional analyses 
regarding the sanction outcomes of all suspension and revocation cases 
that were opened and closed from November 10, 2005, through September 
30, 2008. Specifically, in this appendix, we first provide additional 
details on the disposition of sanction outcomes for all 1,675 cases, 
and then we provide additional details on the sanction outcomes for two 
subsets (or types of procedural outcomes) cases--admissions and 
defaults. 

Sanction Outcomes of All Cases Reviewed: 

We reviewed case files from the total universe of 1,675 suspension and 
revocation cases that were opened and closed and found that 705 cases 
(42 percent) resulted in stayed revocations in which mariners agreed to 
voluntarily relinquish their credentials pending completion of certain 
conditions. In 205 cases (12 percent), the sanction was revocation in 
which the mariner's credential is permanently retracted by the Coast 
Guard. In 181 cases (11 percent) the sanction was a mitigated penalty 
with condition, in which the penalty was reduced upon the mariner 
fulfilling a stipulated condition. Figure 5 shows the range of sanction 
outcomes for all 1,675 cases reviewed. 

Figure 5: Sanction Outcomes of the 1,675 Suspension and Revocation 
Cases Opened and Closed from November 10, 2005, through September 30, 
2008: 

[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] 

Stayed revocation: Coast Guard permanently removes credential if 
mariner fails to meet agreed-to condition(s): 42%; 
Revocation: Coast Guard permanently removes the mariner’s credential: 
12%; 
Mitigated penalty with condition(s): Sanction reduced by the mariner 
fulfilling agreed-to condition(s): 11%; 
Voluntary surrender: Mariner voluntarily relinquishes the credential 
permanently: 9%; 
Suspension: Coast Guard temporarily withholds credential for a 
specified period of time: 9%; 
No sanction: Mariner retains his or her credential: 9%; 
Suspension and probation: Coast Guard temporarily withholds the 
credential, followed by probation: 5%; 
Probationary suspension: Coast Guard temporarily withholds credential 
if the mariner violates probation: 3%; 
Admonition: Coast Guard issues letter of warning to mariner: 1%. 

Source: GAO analysis of Coast Guard ALJ case outcomes. 

Note: Percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding. 

[End of figure] 

Sanction Outcomes of Admissions Cases: 

Our review of the suspension and revocation cases that were opened and 
closed from November 10, 2005, through September 30, 2008, showed that 
there were 116 cases in which mariners admitted to the allegations. 
Figure 6 shows the sanction outcomes by percentage of admissions cases. 
For example, the majority (65 percent) of admissions cases resulted in 
mariners receiving a suspension, in which their credentials were 
temporarily withheld by the Coast Guard for a specified period of time. 

Figure 6: Sanction Outcomes of 116 Admissions Cases Opened and Closed 
from November 10, 2005, through September 30, 2008: 

[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] 

Suspension: Coast Guard temporarily withholds credential for a 
specified period of time: 65%; 
Revocation: Coast Guard permanently removes the mariner’s credential: 
19%; 
Suspension and probation: Coast Guard temporarily withholds the 
credential, followed by probation: 9%; 
Probationary suspension: Coast Guard temporarily withholds credential 
if the mariner violates probation: 7%. 

Source: GAO analysis of Coast Guard ALJ case outcomes. 

[End of figure] 

Sanction Outcomes of Default Cases: 

Our review of the 1,675 suspension and revocation cases that were 
opened and closed from November 10, 2005, through September 30, 2008, 
showed that there were 177 default cases, in which a mariner did not 
respond to a complaint sent by the Coast Guard or appear at a 
conference or hearing. Figure 7 shows the sanction outcomes by 
percentage of default cases. For example, the majority (91 percent) of 
default cases resulted in mariners having their credentials revoked. 
Under this sanction, a mariner's credentials are permanently retracted 
by the Coast Guard. 

Figure 7: Sanction Outcomes of the 177 Default Cases Closed from 
November 10, 2005, through September 30, 2008: 

[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] 

Revocation: Coast Guard permanently removes the mariner’s credential: 
91%; 
Suspension: Coast Guard temporarily withholds credential for a 
specified period of time: 7%; 
Suspension and probation: Coast Guard temporary withholds the 
credential, followed by probation: 2%; 
Mitigated penalty with condition(s): Sanction reduced by the mariner 
fulfilling agreed-to condition(s): 1%. 

Source: GAO analysis of Coast Guard ALJ case outcomes. 

[End of figure] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security: 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security: 
Washington, DC 20528: 
[hyperlink, http://www.dhs.gov] 

June 2, 2009: 

Mr. Stephen L. Caldwell: 
Director, Homeland Security and Justice: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Caldwell: 

RE: Draft Report GAO-09-489, Coast Guard: Administrative Law Judge 
Program Contains Elements Designed to Foster Judges' Independence and 
Mariner Protections Assessed Are Being Followed (GAO Job Code 440725)
The Department of Homeland Security, particularly the Coast Guard, 
appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on the U.S. 
Government Accountability Office's (GAO's) draft report referenced 
above. Coast Guard officials generally concur with the findings and 
believe the report is both complete and accurate. There are no 
recommendations requiring attention. The program works as intended-
mariners' rights are protected as noted by GAO while safety at sea is 
promoted. 

GAO found that the Administrative Law Judge Program contains elements 
designed to foster the decisional independence of its judges. These 
elements include Office of Personnel Management and Coast Guard 
regulations which GAO found were being followed. GAO also found that 
the program contains protections for mariners and that regulations for 
protecting those interests are being followed. 

Coast Guard officials noted that GAO audit team members examined nearly 
1,700 case files as part of the review and appreciated their 
thoroughness. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Jerald E. Levine: 
Director: 
Departmental GAO/OIG Liaison Office: 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Stephen L. Caldwell (202) 512-8777 or caldwells@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, Christopher Conrad, Assistant 
Director, and Josh Diosomito, Analyst-in-Charge, managed this review. 
Michael Blinde, Julian King, and Jeff Jensen made significant 
contributions to the work. Tracey King provided legal and regulatory 
support; Lara Kaskie provided assistance in report preparation; William 
Bates and Stan Kostyla assisted with design, methodology, and data 
analysis; and Lydia Araya helped develop the report's graphics. 

[End of section] 

Related GAO Products: 

Military Personnel: DOD's and the Coast Guard's Sexual Assault 
Prevention and Response Programs Face Implementation and Oversight 
Challenges. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-924]. 
Washington, D.C.: Aug. 29, 2008: 

Coast Guard: Observations on the Fiscal Year 2009 Budget, Recent 
Performance, and Related Challenges. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-494T]. Washington, D.C.: Mar. 6, 
2008. 

Maritime Security: Coast Guard Inspections Identify and Correct 
Facility Deficiencies, but More Analysis Needed of Program's Staffing, 
Practices, and Data. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-12]. Washington, D.C.: Feb. 14, 
2008. 

Military Personnel: The DOD and Coast Guard Academies Have Taken Steps 
to Address Incidents of Sexual Harassment and Assault, but Greater 
Federal Oversight Is Needed. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-296]. Washington, D.C.: Jan. 17, 
2008. 

Coast Guard: Observations on the Fiscal Year 2008 Budget, Performance, 
Reorganization, and Related Challenges. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-489T]. Washington, D.C.: Apr. 18, 
2007. 

Coast Guard: Non-Homeland Security Performance Measures Are Generally 
Sound, but Opportunities for Improvement Exist. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-816]. Washington, D.C.: Aug. 16, 
2006. 

Coast Guard: Observations on the Preparation, Response, and Recovery 
Missions Related to Hurricane Katrina. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-903]. Washington, D.C.: July 31, 
2006. 

Coast Guard: Observations on Agency Performance, Operations, and Future 
Challenges. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-448T]. 
Washington, D.C.: June 15, 2006. 

Coast Guard: Improvements Needed in Management and Oversight of Rescue 
System Acquisition. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-623]. Washington, D.C.: May 31, 
2006. 

Coast Guard: Observations on Agency Priorities in Fiscal Year 2006 
Budget Request. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-364T]. 
Washington, D.C.: Mar. 17, 2005. 

Coast Guard: Station Readiness Improving, but Resource Challenges and 
Management Concerns Remain. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-161]. Washington, D.C.: Jan. 31, 
2005. 

Coast Guard: Key Management and Budget Challenges for Fiscal Year 2005 
and Beyond. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-636T]. 
Washington, D.C.: Apr. 7, 2004. 

Coast Guard: Station Spending Requirements Met, but Better Processes 
Needed to Track Designated Funds. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-704]. Washington, D.C.: Mar. 28, 
2004. 

Coast Guard Programs: Relationship between Resources Used and Results 
Achieved Needs to Be Clearer. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-432]. Washington, D.C.: Mar. 22, 
2004. 

Coast Guard: Challenges during the Transition to the Department of 
Homeland Security. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-
594T]. Washington, D.C.: Apr. 1, 2003. 

Coast Guard: Comprehensive Blueprint Needed to Balance and Monitor 
Resource Use and Measure Performance for All Missions. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-544T]. Washington, D.C.: Mar. 12, 
2003. 

Coast Guard: Strategy Needed for Setting and Monitoring Levels of 
Effort for All Missions. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-155]. Washington, D.C.: Nov. 12, 
2002. 

Coast Guard: Vessel Identification System Development Needs to Be 
Reassessed. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-477]. 
Washington, D.C.: May 24, 2002. 

Coast Guard: Budget and Management Challenges for 2003 and Beyond. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-538T]. Washington, D.C.: 
Mar. 19, 2002. 

Social Security Administration: Agency Is Positioning Itself to 
Implement Its New Disability Determination Process, but Key Facets Are 
Still in Development. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-779T]. Washington, D.C.: June 15, 
2006. 

SSA Disability Decision Making: Additional Steps Needed to Ensure 
Accuracy and Fairness of Decisions at the Hearing Level. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-14]. Washington, D.C.: Nov. 12, 
2003. 

Administrative Law Judges: Comparison of SEC and CFTC Programs. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-96-27]. Washington, 
D.C.: Nov. 14, 1995. 

Administrative Law Judges: Allegations of Interference by the 
Department of the Interior. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-93-6]. Washington, D.C.: Oct. 2, 
1992. 

Social Security: Reforms in the Disability Determination and Appeals 
Process. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/T-HRD-91-24]. 
Washington, D.C.: May 2, 1991. 

Medicare: Statistics on the Part B Administrative Law Judge Hearings 
Process. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/HRD-90-18]. 
Washington, D.C.: Nov. 28, 1989. 

Social Security: Results of Required Reviews of Administrative Law 
Judge Decisions. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/HRD-89-48BR]. Washington, D.C.: June 
13, 1989. 

Administrative Law Judges: Appointment of Women and Social Security 
Administration Staff Attorneys. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-89-5]. Washington, D.C.: Oct. 19, 
1988. 

Medicare Claims: HCFA Proposal to Establish an Administrative Law Judge 
Unit. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/HRD-88-84BR]. 
Washington, D.C.: Apr. 20, 1988. 

Question Concerning Administrative Law Judge's Entitlement to Benefits. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/B-217874]. Washington, 
D.C.: Oct. 7, 1985. 

Department of Energy Procurement Practices, Personnel Management, 
Administrative Law Judge Activities, and Advisory Committee Management 
Operations. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/108613]. 
Washington, D.C.: Feb. 15, 1979. 

Review of Administrative Law Judge Activity and Hearing Process at the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/EMD-79-28]. Washington, D.C.: Feb. 13, 
1979. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] Suspension is the temporary forfeiture of a merchant mariner's 
credential, during which time the mariner is prohibited from employment 
that would require the credential. Revocation is the permanent 
relinquishment of the merchant mariner's credential, although in 
certain circumstances, a mariner whose credential has been revoked may 
apply to receive a new credential. 

[2] In addition to the approximately 600 suspension and revocation 
cases Coast Guard ALJs hear each year, the ALJs hear other types of 
cases. From 2006 through 2008, Coast Guard ALJs annually adjudicated 
between 100 and 200 Transportation Security Administration (TSA) cases, 
between 55 and 75 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
(NOAA) cases, and between 14 and 25 Bureau of Industrial Security 
cases. 

[3] Concurrent with our review, the Department of Homeland Security's 
Office of Inspector General is reviewing specific allegations of bias 
among the Coast Guard ALJs and will be issuing its own report on this 
issue later this year. 

[4] Procedural outcomes include courses of action, such as a negotiated 
settlement between a mariner and the Coast Guard, or a decision and 
order issued by an ALJ as a result of a hearing. A decision presents 
findings of law and fact, while an order states the sanction, if any, 
imposed against the mariner. 

[5] Broker-dealers are entities engaged in buying and selling 
securities, either for their own accounts or for the accounts of 
others. 

[6] A purser is generally responsible for general administration and 
money-related tasks on a vessel. 

[7] On March 16, 2009, the Coast Guard issued a rule consolidating the 
four mariner credentialing documents into one credential, the Merchant 
Mariner Credential, effective April 15, 2009. 74 Fed. Reg. 11,196 (Mar. 
16, 2009). 

[8] 46 U.S.C. § 7703. 

[9] 46 U.S.C. § 7704. Decisions of the Commandant on appeal have 
established precedent regarding the requirements of a settlement 
agreement to ensure that the mariner has been cured. Settlement 
agreements must, for example, require the successful completion of a 
drug rehabilitation program followed by a complete non-association with 
drugs for a minimum of 1 year, which includes participation in a drug 
abuse monitoring program. See Coast Guard v. Sweeney, Appeal No. 2535 
(Feb. 18, 1992). 

[10] 46 C.F.R. § 5.101(a). 

[11] According to Coast Guard ALJ officials, an ALJ accepted a position 
to be assigned to the Houston sector, effective May 2009. 

[12] 33 C.F.R. § 20.310. 

[13] 33 C.F.R. § 20.801. 

[14] 33 C.F.R. § 20.701. 

[15] 33 C.F.R. § 20.310(a). 

[16] A decision presents findings of law and fact, while an order 
states the sanction, if any, imposed against the mariner. 

[17] 33 C.F.R. § 20.902. 

[18] 33 C.F.R. § 20.502. 

[19] 46 C.F.R. § 5.203. While a voluntary surrender is a permanent 
relinquishment of credentials, a mariner may also voluntarily deposit 
his or her credential in any case where there is evidence of mental or 
physical incompetence. The Coast Guard may accept such a deposit on the 
basis of a written agreement that specifies the conditions upon which 
the Coast Guard will return the credential. 46 C.F.R. § 5.201. 

[20] Other circumstances in which the Coast Guard may temporarily seize 
a credential before holding a hearing include when a mariner performs a 
safety-sensitive function on a vessel and there is probable cause to 
believe that the mariner has been convicted of an offense that would 
prevent the issuance or renewal of the credential or, within 3 years 
prior to the start of the proceeding, has been convicted of certain 
driving-related offenses. 

[21] 33 C.F.R. §§ 20.1201, 20.1207, 20.1208. 

[22] The parties may appeal the following issues: whether each finding 
of fact is supported by substantial evidence; whether each conclusion 
of law accords with applicable law, precedent, and public policy; 
whether the ALJ abused his or her discretion; and the ALJ's denial of a 
motion for disqualification. 33 C.F.R. § 20.1001. 

[23] 49 U.S.C. § 1153. The grounds for appeal to NTSB are that a 
finding of a material fact is erroneous; a necessary legal conclusion 
is without governing precedent or is contrary to law or precedent; a 
substantial and important question of law, policy, or discretion is 
involved; or a procedural error that harmed the interests of the 
respondent has occurred. 49 C.F.R. § 825.15. 

[24] There have been multiple decisions discussing whether a mariner 
may seek judicial review of an ALJ decision if he or she does not 
appeal the ALJ decision to the Commandant and whether a mariner may 
seek judicial review of the Commandant's decision if he or she does not 
appeal the Commandant's decision to NTSB, and the issue continues to be 
litigated. See Kinneary v. New York, 358 F. Supp. 2d 356 (S.D.N.Y. 
2005) (stating that the respondent would not have been able to seek 
judicial review of the Commandant's decision, but rather that judicial 
review of final agency action would be from an order of NTSB); 
Blackwell v. United States, 586 F. Supp. 947 (S.D. Fla. 1984) (stating 
that because the respondent did not file a timely appeal with NTSB, he 
had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies); but see Dresser v. 
Ingolia, 2009 WL 139662 (5th Cir. 2009) (suggesting that, based on 
Coast Guard regulations providing that an ALJ's decision becomes final 
action of the Coast Guard 30 days after the date of its issuance, 
unless appealed to the Commandant, the ALJ's decision would have been 
final agency action and thus subject to judicial review if the 
respondent had not appealed the decision to the Commandant); McDonald 
v. United States, 2005 WL 1571215 (S.D. Tex. 2005) (holding that 
because the Vice Commandant's decision is final agency action, the 
respondent may seek judicial review of the decision without appealing 
to NTSB). 

[25] 5 C.F.R. § 930.206. 

[26] 5 C.F.R. § 930.205. 

[27] GAO plans to issue another report regarding ALJ program 
management, hiring, and performance management later this year. 

[28] 5 U.S.C. § 7521. 

[29] The APA provides that an ALJ may not engage in communications 
relevant to the merits of the proceeding with interested parties 
outside of the agency. 5 U.S.C. § 557(d)(1). The APA also provides that 
an ALJ may not consult a person or party on a fact in issue, unless the 
ALJ provides notice and opportunity for all parties to participate. 5 
U.S.C. § 554(d)(1). 

[30] 33 C.F.R. § 20.206(a). 

[31] 33 C.F.R. § 20.206(b). 

[32] 33 C.F.R. § 20.204. 

[33] 5 U.S.C. § 554-557. 

[34] 33 C.F.R. § 20.307. 

[35] 33 C.F.R. § 20.902(a). 

[36] 33 C.F.R. § 20.1001. A party may request that an ALJ disqualify 
himself or herself for personal bias or other valid cause. If the ALJ 
denies the request, the party may appeal that decision to the 
Commandant. 

[37] 49 U.S.C. § 1133. 

[38] 49 C.F.R. § 825.15. 

[39] 49 U.S.C. § 1153. There have been multiple decisions discussing 
whether a mariner may seek judicial review of an ALJ decision if he or 
she does not appeal the ALJ decision to the Commandant and whether a 
mariner may seek judicial review of the Commandant's decision if he or 
she does not appeal the Commandant's decision to NTSB, and the issue 
continues to be litigated. See note 24 for more information. 

[40] In each of these three cases, the Commandant overturned the ALJ 
decision and remanded the case to the ALJ for further proceedings 
consistent with the Commandant's decision. 

[41] In two of these three cases, the Commandant overturned the ALJ 
decision and remanded the case to the ALJ for further proceedings. In 
the third case, the Commandant overturned the ALJ decision and 
dismissed the case. 

[42] 46 U.S.C § 7702. 

[43] 33 C.F.R. § 20.904(f). 

[44] 33 C.F.R. § 20.310(e). 

[45] 46 C.F.R. § 5.707(a). A mariner whose credential was revoked as a 
result of a finding that the mariner was a user of, or addicted, to a 
dangerous drug or was convicted of a dangerous drug law is not eligible 
to apply for a temporary credential during the time an appeal to the 
Commandant or NTSB is pending. 46 C.F.R. §§ 5.707, 5.715. 

[46] 46 C.F.R. § 5.715. 

[47] 33 C.F.R. § 20.307(a). 

[48] 33 C.F.R. § 20.304(c). A certificate of service is a document 
signed by the investigative officer stating that he or she has served 
the complaint on the mariner. The officer may serve a complaint by 
personal service, certified mail with return receipt, or by express 
courier service with receipt capability. 

[49] 33 C.F.R. § 20.902(a). 

[50] For all estimates of 100 percent, we are 95 percent confident that 
the actual compliance rate is between 98.4 percent and 100 percent. 

[51] Although 181 certificates of service were accounted for, we 
identified nine instances in which the certificate of service was not 
properly completed in that, for example, a box was left unchecked. We 
are 95 percent confident that the actual compliance rate for case files 
that contain a completed certificate of service is between 90 percent 
and 97.6 percent. 

[52] 46 U.S.C. § 7704(c). 

[53] In drug use cases, although a mariner may enter into a settlement 
agreement that imposes a sanction less than revocation, the mariner 
must demonstrate that he or she is cured before his or her credential 
is reinstated. As noted above, Commandant precedent describes the 
conditions that are to be included in such a settlement agreement, such 
as a drug rehabilitation program and a period of non-association with 
drugs, in order to ensure that the mariner is cured. 

[54] Broker-dealers are entities engaged in buying and selling 
securities, either for their own accounts or for the accounts of 
others. In addition to associated persons of broker-dealers and 
investment advisers, the Commission has adjudicatory jurisdiction over 
the broker-dealers and advisers themselves, investment companies, 
transfer agents, municipal security dealers, and government security 
dealers, as well as their associated persons, and disciplinary 
jurisdiction over those who appear and practice before the Commission, 
such as accountants and attorneys. 

[55] The National Transportation Safety Board has five members, 
appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate to serve 5-year 
terms. 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail Updates." 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: