Opinion ID: 794672
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Communications with the Coast Guard

Text: 7 Shortly after the amended COI was posted, the plaintiffs initiated contact with the Coast Guard. On August 11, 1997, a group of twelve officers, including six plaintiffs — Messrs. Gaffney, Goodridge, Palmer, Reilly, Horton and Doncet — sent a letter to the Commandant of the Coast Guard, Admiral Robert E. Kramek. Mr. Gaffney authored this letter and obtained the signatures of the other officers. In the letter, the officers expressed concern that the relaxation of licensing requirements for the engineers on the M/V Showboat... substantially reduces passenger safety by not requiring experienced personnel to crew the vessel. R.34, Ex.2. The plaintiffs concluded the letter by requesting information from the Coast Guard about the amended COI. Mr. Gaffney testified that this letter was sent to obtain clarification about licensing requirements because the COI did not specify what [the change] actually meant. Tr.I at 113. The Coast Guard responded with two separate letters that, according to Mr. Gaffney, did not answer the plaintiffs' questions about the nature of the licensing relaxation but did provide necessary information about proper appeals procedures. Gaffney Dep., R.81, Ex.7 at 42. 8 A second letter was sent to the Coast Guard on October 3, 1997, this time signed only by Mr. Gaffney and addressed to Lieutenant Neil Shoemaker. R.34, Ex.3. In this letter, Mr. Gaffney expressed concern that two employees 8 had been fired because of their correspondence with the Coast Guard about the relaxation of licensing requirements. In addition, Mr. Gaffney reiterated his concern that the licensing changes risked a serious disaster, given the shear [sic] number of people onboard and the relationship between licensing and experience. Id. Mr. Gaffney also inquired about the specific qualifications for limited engineers, including the number of years' experience required to obtain the license in question. Id. 9 On October 5, 1997, Mr. Gaffney sent follow-up correspondence to Lieutenant Shoemaker. See R.34, Ex.4. He reported that one of the assistant engineers with an unlimited license recently had been approved to sit for his limited license for a chief engineer position. Mr. Gaffney expressed concern that allowing a person with so limited experience to sign[] on as Chief Engineer of this vessel is the reason why myself and my fellow officers wrote the initial letter to [Coast Guard] Commandant. Id. 10 The last letter to the Coast Guard, which is the focus of this appeal, is dated October 10, 1997. All of the plaintiffs except Mr. Horton and Mr. Doncet signed this letter, as did eight other individuals not parties to this suit. See R.34, Ex.5. 9 In this letter, the plaintiffs requested a thirty-day extension of time to file an appeal challenging the relaxation of licensing requirements granted to the M/V Showboat. Our request, the plaintiffs explained, is based on the following reasons: 11 The lowering of licensing standards for engineering officers aboard the M/V Showboat occurred April 11th, 1997 .... It was not publicized until mid June, 1997 .... After some preliminary research into the lowered licensing requirements, we wrote the USCG Commandant in an effort to understand the exact reason for relaxing these standards.... As a group directly effected [sic] by this decision, we feel that we should have been extended the opportunity to have our thoughts, opinions and concerns heard . . . . 12 It is our contention that the change in licensing requirement for the engineers on the M/V Showboat Mardi Gras from Unlimited to Limited has served to potentially and substantially compromise safety standards aboard the vessel. 13 The safety requirements set by the United States Coast Guard are minimum requirements for safe operation of vessels, and the operative word here is minimum. Typically, vessel owners and managers conform only to the bare minimum requirements while viewing additional safety items as an inconvenience or extra cost. The request from Riverboat Services Incorporated (RSI) to lower the license requirement for the engineers is a prime example of this tenet as evidenced by their letter of request.... Approval of their request has effectively lowered required experience for engineers to a substandard level. 14 Id. at 1. The letter also described the training discrepancies between an engineer with a limited license and an engineer with an unlimited license. Further, it set forth the reasons why extensive experience on board a large vessel is an essential qualification of engineers navigating the M/V Showboat — the difficulty of maneuvering in shallow waters and around obstacles, the passenger capacity of the vessel and the dangers of wind gusting. Finally, the letter rebutted the claim that engineers with limited licenses generally have sufficient experience to serve on inland vessels such as the M/V Showboat. 15 In a letter dated October 31, 1997, Captain M.W. Brown, the Officer in Charge of Marine Inspection, denied the plaintiffs' appeal. See R.34, Ex.8. Captain Brown acknowledged receipt of the October 10th letter, which — although phrased as a request for an extension of time — he classified as an appeal[] of the decision to permit the use of engineers with `limited' licenses aboard Great Lakes vessels not more than 4,000 gross tons. 10 Id. After researching the issue raised in the appeal, he disagreed that 16 the use of limited licensed engineers threatens the safety of M/V SHOWBOAT. 17 While the service requirements between unlimited and limited engineers are different, limited engineers are still required to have appropriate and relevant experience. The regulations currently permit the use of limited engineers for vessels of any gross tons on inland waters. The SHOWBOAT, due to its extremely short close in route, combined with its fairweather operating criteria, is analogous to operation on inland waters.... 18 Accordingly, your appeal is denied, and the SHOWBOAT's existing Certificate of Inspection remains valid. 19 Id. The signatories to the October 10th letter appealed Captain Brown's decision to the Commander of the Ninth Coast Guard District. See R.34, Ex.9. In the appeal, the plaintiffs expressed frustration with Captain Brown's failure to differentiate between passenger vessels and cargo vessels. Id. We feel, they wrote, that the highest standards should be required, not wavered, on high capacity passenger vessels such as the M/V Showboat, which carries 4,250 passengers and crew. Id. This letter also expressed concern that the relaxation of licensing requirements was a growing trend. In that regard, it noted that the Coast Guard recently had issued an amended COI, endorsing the employment of engineers with limited engineering licenses for a vessel similar in size and function to the M/V Showboat. 20 Captain G.S. Cope, acting at the direction of the Ninth District Commander, granted the plaintiffs' appeal on December 19, 1997. See R.34, Ex.10. Captain Cope wrote: 21 In reviewing the record of this appeal, I found that the endorsement of the M/V SHOWBOAT's certification of inspection to allow limited engineers, did not comply with 46 CFR 15.915. That regulation authorizes individuals licensed as Chief Engineer (limited) or Assistant Engineer (limited) to serve as Chief or Assistant Engineer on vessels up to 1,600 Gross Tons upon the Great Lakes. Since the M/V SHOWBOAT is greater than 1,600 Gross Tons, an individual holding only a limited engineer license could not legally serve as the vessel's Chief or Assistant Engineer. 22 Id. The Captain directed the Officer in Charge of Marine Inspection at the Coast Guard to remove the endorsement allowing for employment of limited license engineers from the M/V Showboat 's COI. An amended COI was sent to Riverboat on December 31, 1997. It was posted on the vessel on January 5, 1998. 23 It is undisputed that, by January 5, Mr. Gourguechon had become aware of the plaintiffs' correspondence with the Coast Guard. Mr. Gourguechon testified that, in late October, he found the plaintiffs' October 10th letter to the Coast Guard, which he characterized as merely a job security letter, in the pilot house. Tr.IV at 47-48. Further, at the end of 1997, Mr. Gaffney had approached Mr. Gourguechon with his concerns about the relaxation of licensing requirements, as well as discussed with him developments in the plaintiffs' October 10th appeal. 11 Tr.I at 154-57. There is no evidence, however, that — before the complaint was filed on January 13, 1998, to which was attached the relevant Coast Guard correspondence — Mr. Gourguechon had read any of the previous letters or that Mr. Heitmeier had read any of the four letters at all. See Gourguechon Test., Tr.IV at 47; Heitmeier Dep., R.81, Ex.2 at 59-60.