UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

Complainant 

vs 

JEFFREY OVERSTREET 

Respondent. 

Docket Number CG S&R 03-0329 

CG Enforcement No. 1792585 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Issued: March 23, 2004 

Issued by: Edwin M. Bladen, Administrative Law Judge 

Decision and Order - 1 

Appearances: 

For the Coast Guard 

LTJG Michael C. Reed 

USCG MSO Chicago 

215 West 83rd Street, SuiteD 

Burr Ridge, IL 60527 

Telephone: 630-986-2133 

For the Respondent 

Robert Nienhuis, Esq. 

Goldstein and Price L.C. 

One Memorial Drive, Suite 1000 

St. Louis, MO 63102 

Telephone: 314-516-1713 
PRELThfiNARYSTATEMENT 

Respondent is licensed as a Master of uninspected towing vessels on the inland rivers (No. 

10480 17). He is charged in a three count amended complaint alleging: (1) While serving as a river 

Pilot1

ofthe MIV LAURA ELIZABETH he was negligent in his duties and responsibilities by 

committing an act or failing to perform an act that contributed to the allision between the vessel 

LAURA ELIZABETH and the Jefferson Street Bridge in Joliet, Illinois. The allegation essentially 

asserts Respondent, while operating under the authority ofhis license, (1) failed to safely navigate 

the vessel and struck the bridge which was a well charted and fixed object; (2) violated 33 USC § 

2005 by failing to maintain a proper lookout and; (3) violated 33 USC§ 2006 when he failed to 

maintain a safe speed. 

Thus, under the authority of 46 USC § 7703, 46 CPR§ 5.29, § 5.33 and 5 USC §§ 556-558, 

this proceeding was brought by the Coast Guard seeking a three [3] months suspension of 

Respondent's license for each of the three alleged violations for a total of nine [9] months 

suspension. 

Respondent obtained an attorney who answered the complaint admitting the jurisdictional 

allegations and denying the factual allegations. Respondent's counsel asserted the affirmative 

defense that the: 

Jefferson Street Bridge is an unreasonable obstruction to free 

navigation. The owner of the bridge was negligent in failing to 

install appropriate protection for the right descending pier of the 

bridge. Those responsible for controlling the flow of the river and 

providing accurate information about the flow of the river were 

negligent. 

1 A pilot is apparently a term used on inland rivers with tugs and barges and essentially identifies an assistant master and 

is not a traditional pilot as that term is understood in maritime law. 

Decision and Order - 2 
Respondent demanded a hearing which was held on December 2 and 3, 2003 at the Will 

County Courthouse, 14 West Jefferson Street, Room 312, Joliet, Illinois. 

No ex parte communications were received or made during the course of this proceeding? 

At the close of the Coast Guard's case, Respondent requested that all three counts of the 

complaint be dismissed. This judge granted the Respondent's motion as to Count 2 which alleged 

the failure to have a proper lookout, and denied the request as to the remaining counts.3 

At the conclusion of the hearing the parties were offered the opportunity to file proposed 

findings of fact and conclusions of law as authorized by the Administrative Procedures Act. 

Instead, the parties preferred to file closing arguments in the form of memoranda of fact and law. A 

transcript of the proceedings was prepared and provided to the parties. Both parties filed their 

closing arguments on February 25, 2004. The Coast Guard and Respondent filed their rebuttal 

briefs on March 16, 2004. Now having reviewed the complete record including the arguments of 

the parties, this matter is now ripe for decision. 

FINDINGS OF FACT 

1. On May 2, 2003, the Respondent was serving as the operator on board the MN LAURA 

ELIZABETH, which is 114 foot, 3600 horsepower twin engine towing vessel, under the authority of his 

license which authorizes him to serve as the operator of uninspected towing vessels on the inland waters 

of the United States.4 

2. Respondent was in command of the M/V LAURA ELIZABETH which was pushing a 

flotilla in a transit down bound on the Illinois Waterway. 5 

2 See, 5 USC§ 557(d)(1)(C) 3 Transcriptpp 147-159 [Motiongrantedp.159] 4 CG Exhibit 3; Transcript p. 14 [Respondent concession as to licensure] 5 CG Exhibit 1 

Decision and Order ~ 3 
3. The vessel and tow were under the actual direction and control ofRespondent from their 

departure at mile marker 291.1 of the Lockport Lock and Dam. 6 

4. The tow, or flotilla, was comprised of fifteen [15] barges in an array 1120 feet long, 105 

feet wide, comprised of three across and five down toward the tug which was pushing the fifteen 

barges in the notch7

• 

5. The first nine [9] barges were empty and the remaining six [6] were loaded and placed 

nearest the tug at the rear of the flotilla [i.e., tug LAURA ELIZABETH and the15 barges].8 

6. The flotilla was made up on May 1, 2003 above the Lockport lock and Dam on the 

Illinois Waterway.9 

7. The Joliet section of the Illinois Waterway is known in the maritime community as one 

difficult to navigate. 10 

8. As a flotilla normally proceeds downstream from the Lockport Lock and Dam until the 

Brandon Road Lock & Dam, it would pass under six bridges: Ruby Street, Jackson Street, Cass 

Street, Jefferson Street, McDonough Street and Interstate 80.11 

9. After leaving the Lockport Lock and Dam, (mile 291.1) and transiting more than two 

miles of the Illinois Waterway, the flotilla laid up at the Ruby Street Bridge at mile 288.7 at 2100 

hours due to a Channel Delay.12 

10. At the time ofthe flotilla's transit through the Lockport Lock and Dam, the Dam was 

discharging water at the rate of2500 cubic feet per second [CFS]. 13 

6 CG Exhibit 1; CG Exhibit 3; Transcript pp 41-45 7 Respondent's Exhibit H 8 Respondent's Exhibit H 9 CG Exhibit 1 10 Transcript pp 491-492 [Respondent]; Transcript p. 45 [Tommy Parrish] 11 Respondent's Exhibit L [U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, lllinois Waterway, Map No. 112] 12 CG Exhibit 1; Transcript p.404 [Respondent] 13 Respondent's Exhibit J 

Decision and Order - 4 
11. The Lockport Lock and Dam increased its discharge of water into the lllinois Waterway 

at 2048 hours, to 5200 CPS, which was 12 minutes prior to the flotilla's hold up at the Ruby Street 

Bridge.14 

12. This water flow increased the Illinois Waterway's flow rate and the increase reached the 

Brandon Lock about 20 minutes later, but reached Respondent's flotilla at the Ruby Street Bridge 

prior to its departure from Ruby Street Bridge. 15 

13. The MIV LAURA ELIZABETH and its tow remained at the Ruby Street Bridge for 

about one halfhour, and again commenced its down-bound transit from the Bridge at 2130 hours. 16 

14. The flotilla had two lookouts stationed on the front port and starboard barges.17 

15. The flotilla was transiting at bare steerage way which was at most one mile an hour over 

the ground. 18 

16. One lookout was the first mate on Starboard and the other was an able seaman on the 

Port side. Both were in a position to observe the area ahead and to the sides of the flotilla and the 

Starboard lookout was an experienced mariner and lookout. 19 

17. At mile 288.2, the Illinois Waterway makes a left turn, just before the Cass Street 

Bridge. 20 

18. The Cass Street Bridge is at mile 288.1 on the Illinois Waterway?1 

19. Respondent set the flotilla in such a manner to navigate the left turn, but the last barge 

on the starboard side of the tow touched up and scraped the wooden pilings at the Cass Street 

Bridge. 22 

14 Respondent's Exhibit J [Lockage records for Lockport Lock and Brandon Lock] 15 Transcript p. 535 [Testimony ofR. Granados, U.S. Army Corp. Engineers: When Lockport Lock releases water, it 

takes 20 minutes for the downstream Brandon Lock to experience the change in flow rate.]Transcript p. 536 

~Respondent's expert Edward Henle ben] 6 Transcript p. 61; CG Exh. 1 [MN Laura Elizabeth Daily Log] 17 Transcript pp 92-94 18 Transcript pp. 84- 85 [Tommy Parrish testimony] 19 Ttanscriptpp95-104, 107-109 20 Transcriptp. 106; Respondent's Exhibit L.[U.S. Army Corp ofEngineers Illinois Waterway Maps 112, 113, 114] 

21 Respondent Exhibit L [Army Corp of Engineers Illinois Waterway Maps] 

Decision and Order - 5 
20. At the same time as the Cass Street Bridge pilings were touched, the starboard lead 

barge [GSC 9225] struck the Jefferson Street draw bridge,23 which caused damage shutting the draw 

bridge to Joliet traffic for approximately six months and causing substantial economic damage to 

the community. 

21. The Jefferson Street Bridge is at mile 287.9. 

22. The allision with the Jefferson Street drawbridge pier occurred at 2200 hours or 10:00 

P.M. 

ULTIMATE FINDINGS OF FACT AND 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

1. Jurisdiction is established in this matter with Respondent having admitted the 

jurisdiction, and by reason of the Respondent having served as the pilot aboard the tug LAURA 

ELIZABETH during all relevant times pursuant to his license. 

2. The Coast Guard's charge that Respondent violated law or regulation, 33 USC§ 2005, 

by failing to maintain a proper lookout was found not proven because there was a lack of 

substantial, reliable and probative evidence. As a result that charge had been dismissed on Motion 

of the Respondent at trial. 

3. The Coast Guard's charge that Respondent violated law or regulation, 33 USC§ 2006, 

by failing to maintain a safe speed fails for a lack of substantial, reliable and probative evidence. As 

a result that charge is found not proven and is dismissed. 

4. Respondent's affirmative defense that Jefferson Street Bridge is an unreasonable 

obstruction to free navigation is rejected as not supported by substantial, reliable and probative 

evidence. 

5. Respondent's further affirmative defenses of contributory negligence, i.e., the owner of 

the bridge was negligent in failing to install appropriate protection for the right descending pier of 

the bridge, and those responsible for controlling the flow of the river and providing accurate 

information about the flow of the river were negligent are also rejected because contributory 

negligence is not a recognized defense in suspension and revocation cases charging a licensee with 

22 Transcript pp 62-64 

23 Transcript p. 41 [Tommy Parrish); Coast Guard Exhibit 1 [Laura Elizabeth log] 

Decision and Order - 6 
negligence. See, Appeal Decision 2402 (Pope). 

6. Respondent's claim that the substantial increase of the flow of water from the Lockport 

Lock and Dam suddenly and unexpectedly caused the flotilla to allide with the Jefferson Street 

Bridge and Cass Street bridge is rejected as not consistent with the evidence. 

7. The M1V LAURA ELIZABETH flotilla's allision with the Jefferson Street Bridge is 

presumed to be the result of negligence unless the negligence is rebutted by substantial evidence. 

Appeal Decision 2284 (Brahn) 

8. Respondent has failed to rebut the presumption of negligence arising from the allision. 

9. The Coast Guard's charge that Respondent was negligent in his duties and 

responsibilities by committing an act or failing to perform an act that contributed to the allision 

between the flotilla's front starboard barge and the Jefferson Street Bridge in Joliet, Illinois is found 

proven by substantial, reliable and probative evidence. 

DISCUSSION 

Negligence 

Respondent was in command of a large flotilla of barges down bound on the Illinois 

River. This flotilla's dimensions were 1120 feet by 105 feet consisting of fifteen barges three across 

and five down with the M!V LAURA ELIZABETH piloted by Respondent, pushing in the notch. 

Having commenced its tow from the Lockport Lock and Dam it proceeded down the Illinois 

Waterway and laid up at the Ruby Street Bridge24 for about one half hour beginning at 2100 hours. 

When the flotilla left the Lockport Lock and Dam the water flow rate from the Lockport 

Lock and Dam was 2500 cubic feet per second [CFS]. At 2048 hours, and during the time the 

flotilla was laid up at the Ruby Street Bridge, the Lockport Lock increased the water flow rate to 

5200 CFS. This essentially doubled the water's flow rate. This increased flow rate reached the 

flotilla while it was still laid up at the Ruby Street Bridge. 

24 The Ruby Street Bridge is the first bridge the flotilla encounters after leaving the Lockport Lock and Dam. 

Decision and Order - 7 
Respondent claims he did not recognize or experience this increased flow rate, at the 

Ruby Street Bridge because he was busy in the wheelhouse with other matters, such as loose 

barges. 25 

The flotilla left the Ruby Street Bridge about one half hour after laying up (2130 hours), 

and proceeded south on the waterway. 

Past the Ruby Street Bridge, and just before the Cass Street Bridge, at mile 288.2, the 

Illinois Waterway makes a left turn. Respondent set the flotilla in such a manner to navigate the left 

hand turn, but the last barge on the starboard side of the tow touched up and scraped the wooden 

pilings at the Cass Street Bridge. At about the same time as the Cass Street Bridge pilings were 

touched, the first starboard side empty barge struck the Jefferson Street draw bridge which caused 

damage shutting the draw bridge to Joliet traffic for approximately six months and causing 

substantial economic damage to the community. 

The Coast Guard alleges that the allision between the flotilla and the Jefferson Street Bridge 

was the result of Respondent's negligence. Negligence is defined for purposes of this proceeding at 

46 CFR § 5.29 as: 

Negligence is the commission of an act which a reasonable and 

prudent person of the same station, under the same circumstances, 

would not commit, or the failure to perform an act which a 

reasonable and prudent person of the same station, under the same 

circumstances would not fail to perform. 

The Coast Guard principally relies upon the presumption of negligence arising when a 

vessel strikes a fixed object citing Appeal Decision 2284 (Brahn). Additionally, the Coast Guard 

asserts that Respondent failed to take into account the increased water flow in the Illinois waterway 

and thus navigated the waterway in such a manner as to cause the allision. 

The Respondent defends these claims asserting four theories. First, the Jefferson Street 

Bridge is an unreasonable obstruction to free navigation. Second, the owner of the bridge was 

25 Transcript p. 405 [Respondent] 

Decision and Order - 8 
negligent in failing to install appropriate protection for the right descending pier of the bridge. 

Third, those responsible for controlling the flow of the river and providing accurate information 

about the flow of the river were negligent. Fourth, the increased flow rate was sudden and 

unexpected causing the flotilla to allide with the Jefferson Street Bridge. 

The first theory that the Jefferson Street bridge is an unreasonable obstruction is 

centered on the fact this bridge with a one hundred fifty (150) foot wide span, was constructed in the 

1930's unlike more modem ones being three hundred feet wide. Respondent's Brief at p. 5. Thus, 

the passage under the bridge is narrow and does not fully accommodate the size of flotilla involved 

here. 

It is true, that a drawbridge spanning a navigable river is an obstruction to navigation but 

tolerated because of necessity and convenience to commerce on land. It must be operated and 

maintained so that navigation may not be impeded more than is absolutely necessary, the right of 

navigation being paramount. See Griffin on Collision, American Maritime Cases, Inc., 1949 at p. 

604 citing Clement v. Metropolitan Ry Co., 123 F. 271 (7th Cir. 1903). 

Even so, it has been held in City o[Milwaukee v. Kensington S.S. Co., 199 F.109 (ih 

Cir. 1912) cited in Griffin on Collision, supra at p. 604, where there is a dangerous obstruction to 

navigation remedied by maintenance of piles, it is the duty of the owner (City of Milwaukee) to put 

and keep them there. Failure to do so is negligence. It is the duty of the owner to make the 

obstruction as safe as is reasonably possible. Thus, if there is an improper projection of a bridge, for 

example, into navigable waters, there is an unreasonable obstruction. It is also the duty of the owner 

and operator of a drawbridge to open the draw, upon signal by an approaching vessel in time to 

permit its passage, or if it cannot be opened to give timely warning to the vessel. Griffin on 

Collision, supra at p. 605-606. 

Decision and Order - 9 
I have heard no evidence that the Jefferson Street Bridge was either dangerous or that it 

was negligently operated. At most there was the fact there was a history of some allisions with the 

bridge in spite of the passage of perhaps hundreds of tows through what may be a claimed narrow 

area. Also, while one or more of the other bridges in this stretch of the Illinois Waterway had 

protection cells placed around the bridge's steelwork and pilings, there was an effort underway to 

construct such a cell at the very spot where this allision took place. 

Further, there is no evidence in this record which shows there was an absence of 

compliance with the bridge permit for the Jefferson Street Bridge. 

Thus, I am not persuaded that the absence of a protection cell, together with two or more 

earlier allisions, mandates a finding that the Jefferson Street drawbridge was an unreasonable 

obstruction to navigation such that it was solely at fault for the allision. 

Next, Respondent argues that the owner of the bridge and the lock and dam operators 

were negligent causing the allision. These arguments are essentially that of contributory negligence. 

In a Coast Guard suspension and revocation proceeding, the only issue is the negligence of the 

licensee charged. Contributory negligence of others is not a defense. Appeal Decision 2380 (Hall). 

I must therefore reject the contributory negligence defense of Respondent. 

Lastly, the Respondent emphatically argues the increased flow rate was the main reason 

the flotilla's starboard front barge ended up among the steel works of the Jefferson Street Bridge 

putting it out of service for 6 months. 

To the contrary, the Coast Guard says the Respondent should have detected this increase 

in flow rate. Besides, it is argued, the increased flow rate had nothing to do with the allision. 

The Coast Guard Investigating Officer in his reply brief demonstrates the evidence is 

markedly inconsistent with Respondent's claim that the increased flow of water was the culprit. 

Coast Guard Rebuttal Brief pp. 1-2. 

Decision and Order - 10 
Given the distances between the two locks, the distance from the Lockport Lock and 

Dam to the Ruby Street, Cass Street and Jefferson Street Bridges and the timing of the increased 

flow, the speed of the water is mathematically certain. The Coast Guard Investigating Officer [IO] 

' calculates that to be 1.88 miles per hour. The IO then concludes, if the water flowed at that rate 

only 2.25 miles from the Lockport Lock and Dam, that would bring the increased flow% of a mile 

above the Cass street bridge, or at the Ruby Street Bridge when Respondent was laid up there 

awaiting a delay. That being so, the increased water could not have affected the tow or been a 

factor in the allision, since the increased water flow rate would have been past the flotilla when it 

left the Ruby Street Bridge, and before the time of allision. 

All of this tells me that the increased flow rate reached the flotilla while it was laid up at 

the Ruby Street Bridge. However, the exact time is not precise. But, what is relevant is that it 

arrived while the flotilla was laid up, and not when Respondent claims, when he was navigating 

under the Cass Street Bridge and the Jefferson Street Bridge?6 

It is well settled that a rebuttable presumption of negligence arises when a moving vessel 

strikes a fixed object. The Oregon, 158 U.S.186, 193 (1894);Appeal Decision 2380 (Hall). Also 

see Appeal Decision 2284 (Brahn) [a strong inference of negligence is established by the fact of an 

allision and a rebuttal requires the operator of the moving vessel to come forward with more than 

cursory evidence]. Without adequate rebuttal, the presumption permits an Administrative Law 

Judge to rely upon the presumption to fmd negligence in a suspension and revocation proceeding. 

Appeal Decision 2380 (Hall) 

I find Respondent has not adequately rebutted the presumption of negligence arising 

from the allision of the flotilla with the Jefferson Street Bridge. I must conclude the charge of 

negligence is proven. 

26 The flotilla being 1120 feet long its forward barges were vittually at the Jefferson Street Bridge when the last 

starboard barge scraped up against the piling of the Cass Street Bridge. 

Decision and Order - 11 
Safe Speed 

Respondent is also charged with failing to maintain a safe speed while navigating the 

Illinois Waterway contributing to the allision of the flotilla with the Jefferson Street Bridge. The 

Inland Navigation Rules are applicable here. Rule 6, 33 USC § 2006 provides: 

Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she can 

take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be stopped 

within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and 

conditions. 

In determining a safe speed the following factors shall be among 

those talcen into account: 

Decision and Order - 12 

(a) By all vessels; 

(i) The state of visibility 

(ii) The traffic density including concentrations of 

fishing vessels or any other vessels; 

(iii)The maneuverability of the vessel with 

special reference to stopping distance and 

turning ability in the prevailing 

conditions; 

(iv)At night the presence of background light 

such as from shore lights or from back 

scatter of her own lights; 

(v) The state of wind, sea and current, and the 

proximity of navigational hazards; 

(vi)The draft in relation to the available depth of 

water. 

(b) Additionally, by vessels with operational radar; 

(i) the characteristics, efficiency and limitations 

of the radar equipment; 

(ii) any constraints imposed by the radar ranges 

scale in use; 

(iii)the effect on radar detection of the sea state, 

weather and other sources of interference; 

(iv)the possibility that small vessels, ice and other 

floating objects may not be detected by 

radar at an adequate range; 

(v) the number, location and movement of 

vessels detected by radar; 

(vi)the more exact assessment of the visibility 

that may be possible when radar is used to 

determine the range of vessels or other 

objects in the vicinity. 
I have identified the following factors to be taken into account. First, the 

maneuverability of the vessel with special reference to stopping distance and turning ability in the 

prevailing conditions. Second, the state of the current, and the proximity of navigational hazards. 

Looking at the maneuverability of the vessel with special reference to stopping distance 

and turning ability in the prevailing conditions this is a flotilla comprised of 15 barges and a tug. 

Nine of the barges are empty and form the front of the flotilla. The remaining six are 

filled and at the back with the tug in the notch. The overall size is 1120 feet by 105 feet. This does 

not stand out as a highly maneuverable flotilla. Consequently, the speed at which this tow operated 

was bare steerage way,27 or the lowest speed consistent with the maintenance of headway. 

Moreover, Respondent agreed that the Joliet section of the Illinois Waterway is known 

in the maritime community is difficult to navigate.28 But he also said he intended to transit the river 

at what he called "slow bell, and slow bell as possible,"29 or at "clutch speed .... just knuclded in."30 

The "state of the current" factor implicates the increase in flow rate of the Illinois 

Waterway and its effect on the river's current and the speed of the flotilla. Of course, Respondent 

was not responsible for the increased flow rate, only whether he recognized the increase, took that 

into account, and made appropriate adjustments in the flotilla's speed. 

Respondent says he did not recognize the increased flow rate until it was too late. The flow 

rate increase must have effected the river's current, especially if the flow rate literally doubled. 

The intent of the Safe Speed Rule 6 is expressed in Decision on Appeal No. 2294 a'ittonis): 

The intent ... was to expand its circumstances. "Safe" is used in the 

relative sense. What is a safe speed must be determined on a case by 

case basis after analyzing the facts according to the factors listed in 

the rule. There can be no general rule for such a concept because of 

the many variables involved in any situation. 

27 Testimony of Larry Parrish, Transcript pp. 84-85 28 Transcript p. 491-492 29 Transcript p. 491 30 Transcript 407 [Respondent] 

Decision and Order • 13 
The Coast Guard argues that Respondent failed to take into consideration all of the 

appropriate conditions when determining his speed while transiting through the Cass Street and 

Jefferson Street bridges. Coast Guard Closing Argument at p. 5. The Investigating Officer [10] 

points out that the Jefferson Street bridge operator observation that the flotilla seemed to " ... be 

going a little bit faster than most that I have seen go through."31 The IO commends the operator's 

observation as highly credible given he has observed 2500-3000 tows transit through the Jefferson 

Street Bridge. 32 

What does a little bit faster mean? We do know that the flotilla was affected by the 

increased flow rate, so an increase in speed however small might be noticed by the bridge operator. 

But, that does not suggest to me an unsafe speed. It appears that Respondent made a conscious 

choice to operate the .flotilla at the lowest speed necessary to maintain control. 

Taking into consideration all of the circumstances of the transit of the flotilla, I am not 

persuaded Respondent operated the flotilla at an unsafe speed. 

I must conclude there is a significant lack of substantial, reliable and probative evidence 

supporting the charge of unsafe speed. Accordingly, I will find that charge not proven. 

SANCTION 

The Coast Guard requests that Respondent's license be suspended for three months or more 

for each of the proven violations. I have dismissed the lookout and safe speed charges. This leaves 

the Negligence charge. 

The record here does not reflect that Respondent has any history of previous violations of 

the rules applicable to mariners. Of particular note there is no record evidence presented by the 

31 Coast Guard Closing Argument p. 5 citing Transcript p. 111 

32 Coast Guard Closing Argument p. 5 citing Transcript 111 

Decision and Order - 14 
Coast Guard which suggests that Respondent is likely a threat to safety to life at sea or the welfare 

of mariners. 

Moreover, it is of some mitigation that there was an effort by the Illinois Department of 

Transportation to let a contract to construct a protective cell at the base of the western pilings of the 

Jefferson Street drawbridge. The state has recognized that flotillas of the magnitude of that here 

involved do transit the area. The Coast Guard has announced its support for the construction of a 

protection cell.33 At the same time, the Coast Guard established a Regulated Navigation Area that 

limits the configuration of all southbound tows transiting beneath the Jefferson Street Bridge to 89 

feet overall width and 800 feet overall length, together with an assist tug. 34 

However, the Coast Guard points out that Respondent is unwilling to accept responsibility 

for the allision. I am not so certain that this is true given the defenses raised by Respondent. The 

fact he vigorously defends the charges does not imply to me he is unwilling to accept responsibility. 

Consequently I believe that the configuration of the flotilla together with the failure ofthe 

Respondent to recognize the doubling of the waterway's flow rate, and take appropriate precautions 

knowing of the length and tow and the width of the waterway, demands a sanction. Additionally, 

this failure resulted in a substantial economic loss to the Joliet community besides the cost of repair. 

I will suspend the Respondent's license for four [4] months, two [2] months remitted with 6 

months probation to follow after the conclusion of the suspension. As conditions of probation, (1) 

Respondent shall take and successfully complete a bridge resource management course approved by 

the Coast Guard; (2) any violation of the rules, regulations or COLREGS by Respondent during the 

probationary period shall subject Respondent to an outright 2 month suspension besides any further 

sanction warranted on account of the violation established after a hearing on the matter. 

33 See Respondent's Exhibit A [Letter of Captain R. E. Seebald to Illinois River Carriers Association dated 7 May, 2003] 34 Respondent's Exhibit A [Captain Seebold letter to Illinois River Carriers Association] 

Decision and Order - 15 
ORDER 

IT IS ORDERED Respondent's license is suspended for the period of four [4] months, two 

[2] months of which is remitted, with six [6] months probation to follow. As conditions of 

probation (1) Respondent shall take and successfully complete a bridge resource management 

course approved by the Coast Guard; (2) any violation of the rules, regulations or COLREGS by 

Respondent during the probationary period shall subject Respondent to an outright two [2] month · 

suspension besides any further sanction warranted on account of the violation established after a 

hearing on the matter. 

Service of this Decision upon you serves to notify you of your right to appeal as set forth in 

33 CFR Subpart J, §20.1001. (Attachment A) 

Dated: March 23, 2004. 

Decision and Order - 16 

L~ Edwin M. Bladen 

Administrative Law Judge