33 C.F.R. § 107.215

Regulations

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Each person or vessel to which this subpart applies may not get underway or depart from U.S. territorial waters without a written permit from the Commander, USCG Southeast District, or the District Commander's designee. Permits may be obtained pursuant to the process established in § 107.220. The owner, agent, master, or person in charge of the vessel must maintain the written permit for the vessel on board the vessel.

(b) Each person or vessel to which this subpart applies must obey any oral or written order issued by a Coast Guard Area or District Commander, or their designees, who may issue oral or written orders to control the anchorage or movement of such vessels and persons. Designees include Captains of the Port, and commissioned, warrant and petty officers of the Coast Guard.

(c) No person or vessel to which this subpart applies may obstruct or interfere with the exercise of any power conferred by this subpart.

(d) Coast Guard commissioned, warrant and petty officers may go or remain on board a vessel subject to this subpart, may place guards on the subject vessel, may remove all persons not specifically authorized by the Coast Guard to go or remain on board the subject vessel, and may take full or partial possession or control of any such vessel or part thereof, or person on board. Such actions to be taken are in the discretion of the Coast Guard Area or District Commander, or their designees, as deemed necessary to ensure compliance with this subpart and any order given pursuant thereto.

(e) Where there is a reasonable, articulable basis to believe a vessel to which this subpart applies intends to enter Cuban territorial waters, any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer may require the owners, agents, masters, officers, or persons in charge, or any member of the crew of any such vessel to provide verbal assurance that the vessel will not enter Cuban territorial waters as a condition for a vessel to get underway from a berth, pier, mooring, or anchorage in U.S. territorial waters, or to depart from U.S. territorial waters. A Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer may require the owners, agents, masters, officers, or persons in charge of the vessel to identify all persons on board the vessel and provide verbal assurances that all persons on board have received actual notice of these regulations. The failure of an owner, agent, master, officer, or person in charge, or any member of the crew of any vessel (including all auxiliary vessels) to which this subpart applies to provide requested verbal assurances shall not be used as the sole basis for seizing the vessel for forfeiture under this subpart.

(f) The provisions of this subpart are in addition to any powers conferred by law upon Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officers, and not in limitation of any powers conferred by law or regulation upon such officers, or any other officers of the United States.

[ Order 2004-001, 69 FR 41372, July 8, 2004, as amended by USCG-2025-0716, 90 FR 47586, Oct. 2, 2025]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 2008–2020 · leading case: United States v. Bryan Evan Singer, 963 F.3d 1144 (11th Cir. 2020).
United States v. Bryan Evan Singer, 963 F.3d 1144 (11th Cir. 2020). “See 33 C.F.R. § 107.215 (a). Individuals apply for this permit by submitting a written application to the Coast Guard on an official form called the CG-3300.”
United States v. Rolando Gonzalez-Delgado, 271 F. App'x 837 (11th Cir. 2008). “§ 192 , 33 C.F.R. §§ 107.215 (a) and 107.230, and 18 U.”
United States v. Steven Melton Kivett, 262 F. App'x 967 (11th Cir. 2008). · cites it 2× “§ 192 , 33 C.F.R. §§ 107.215 , 107.230; and making a false statement to Coast Guard officials, a violation of 18 U.”
United States v. Nelson Reyes, 284 F. App'x 785 (11th Cir. 2008). · cites it 2× “§ 192 and 33 C.F.R. §§ 107.215 , 107.230. Reyes has not shown that the district judge abused his discretion in denying Reyes’s motion for mistrial or, alternatively, a new trial because he did not carry his burden of showing that remarks by the prosecutor referencing the lack of…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.