33 C.F.R. § 115.60

Procedures for handling applications for bridge permits

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

The following procedures will be observed in the handling of applications for permits to construct, modify, or replace bridges over navigable waters.

(a) District Commander's review of application and plans. When an application is received, the District Commander verifies the authority for construction of the bridge, reviews the application and plans for sufficiency, ascertains the views of local authorities and other interested parties, and ensures that the application complies with relevant environmental laws, regulations, and orders. If the application contains any defects that would prevent issuance of a permit (as for example, if the proposed bridge provided insufficient clearance), the applicant is notified that the permit cannot be granted and given reasons for this determination. The applicant may then request that the application be considered by the Commandant. If the applicant makes such a request, or if the application is not found defective, the District Commander notifies the public that it has been received and continues its processing.

(b) Public meeting. (1) Public meetings will be held when there are substantial issues concerning the effect that the proposed bridge will have on the reasonable needs of navigation.

(2) Notice of the public meeting will be published in the Federal Register. Notice of the meeting is also emailed or mailed to State, county, municipal authorities, and all other known interested parties. It may also be posted in public places in the vicinity of the project or published in local publications and through local media channels, or both.

(3) Meetings are public and conducted in an informal manner. A designated Coast Guard official presides. The submission of written statements is invited and encouraged. Anyone desiring to do so may speak. Statements, written or oral, are not under oath, and cross-examination is not permitted. No fixed order has been established for the presentation of evidence or argument although proponents are generally heard first, followed by opponents with full opportunity afforded for rebuttals.

(c) Report and recommendations. After the close of the comment period and any public meeting, a detailed statement of findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on all available information (including Coast Guard records and experience) is prepared. The following factors may be discussed in this report:

(1) Comparison of proposed bridge with existing bridges over the waterway; attitude of local authorities; summary of objections raised by the public, and District Commander's comments or responses; probable effect on navigation, present and prospective.

(2) Description of the navigation on the waterway past the site of the proposed bridge, the number and type of vessels, the number of vessel trips, and the principal method of handling traffic, whether in single vessels or in tows.

(3) Whether the District Commander approves, or recommends approval of the plans. If they are found objectionable, the reasons for this finding will be stated. If there are objectionable features in the plans which may be corrected, the applicant is given an opportunity to revise them. If approval is given or recommended, all conditions to which the permit should be subject will be stated.

(d) Action on permit application. (1) The District Commander may issue the permit if authorized under § 1.01-60(b) of this chapter; otherwise, a report with the application shall be submitted to the Commandant for final action.

(2) When an application is approved, the issuing official signs the permit and transmits it to the applicant.

(3) When an application is not approved, the applicant is notified and provided with reasons for the disapproval and suggestions for modifications that would justify reconsideration, if appropriate.

(4) If an application is disapproved by the District Commander, the applicant may appeal this decision to the Commandant under § 114.50 of this chapter. The Commandant's determination shall constitute final agency action.

(e) Permit amendments. Applications for amendments to permits will be processed in the same manner as permit applications. The District Commander may approve amendments to any permits which that official is authorized to issue under § 1.01-60(b) of this chapter. All other amendments must be approved by the Commandant.

(5 U.S.C. 559; 14 U.S.C. 503; 33 U.S.C. 401, 491, 499, and 525; and 49 CFR 1.46(c) and (q)) [CGD 80-099, 46 FR 38354, July 27, 1981; 46 FR 42268, Aug. 20, 1981, as amended by CGD 82-006, 47 FR 36641, Aug. 23, 1982; CGD 82-074, 47 FR 51865, Nov. 18, 1982; USCG-2008-0179, 73 FR 35012, June 19, 2008; USCG-2010-0351, 75 FR 49410, Aug. 13, 2010: USCG-2012-0306, 77 FR 37314, June 21, 2012; USCG-2013-0397, 78 FR 39174, July 1, 2013; USCG-2020-0304, 85 FR 58278, Sept. 18, 2020; USCG-2022-0323, 88 FR 10029, Feb. 16, 2023; USCG-2024-1103, 90 FR 52877, Nov, 24, 2025]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1974–2014 · leading case: Detroit Int'l Bridge Co. v. Gov't of Canada, 53 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2014).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Detroit Int'l Bridge Co. v. Gov't of Canada, 53 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2014). “” 33 C.F.R. § 115.60 (a). C. The Ambassador Bridge and Proposed Twin Span The American Transit Company (ATC), predecessor to DIBC, was established in 1920 to build a suspension bridge between Detroit, Michigan and Ontario, Canada.”

State of Delaware v. Bender, 402 F. Supp. 1066 (D. Del. 1975). · cites it 6× “The proposed project was given public notice and objections to it were made by the State of Delaware, the City of Seaford and numerous other companies and individuals who primarily resided or carried on business in lower Delaware in the area of Seaford.”

State of Delaware v. Bender, 370 F. Supp. 1193 (D. Del. 1974). “” Pursuant to 33 C.F.R. § 115.60 (d), on October 21, 1969, the Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District, filed a report with the “Commander” 8 which stated that in response to the public notice, objections to the proposed vertical clearance of 40 feet were received from six persons…”

Citizens for Mass Transit, Inc. v. Adams, 492 F. Supp. 304 (E.D. La. 1980). “33 CFR § 115.60 (e)(1). However, the Secretary of Transportation has “delegated to the Commandant, U.”

Port of Jacksonville Mar., Etc. v. Hayes, 485 F. Supp. 741 (M.D. Fla. 1980). · cites it 2× “33 C.F.R. § 115.60 (d). It also asserts that the Commandant's decision was arbitrary and capricious.”

Port of Jacksonville Mar. Ad Hoc Comm., Inc. v. Hayes, 485 F. Supp. 741 (M.D. Fla. 1980). · cites it 2× “33 C.F.R. § 115.60 (d). It also asserts that the Commandant’s decision was arbitrary and capricious.”

— 33 C.F.R. § 115.60(d) — 2 cases

Port of Jacksonville Mar., Etc. v. Hayes, 485 F. Supp. 741 (M.D. Fla. 1980). “33 C.F.R. § 115.60 (d). It also asserts that the Commandant's decision was arbitrary and capricious.”

Port of Jacksonville Mar. Ad Hoc Comm., Inc. v. Hayes, 485 F. Supp. 741 (M.D. Fla. 1980). “33 C.F.R. § 115.60 (d). It also asserts that the Commandant’s decision was arbitrary and capricious.”

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.