33 C.F.R. § 325.7

Modification, suspension, or revocation of permits

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

(a) General. The district engineer may reevaluate the circumstances and conditions of any permit, including regional permits, either on his own motion, at the request of the permittee, or a third party, or as the result of periodic progress inspections, and initiate action to modify, suspend, or revoke a permit as may be made necessary by considerations of the public interest. In the case of regional permits, this reevaluation may cover individual activities, categories of activities, or geographic areas. Among the factors to be considered are the extent of the permittee's compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit; whether or not circumstances relating to the authorized activity have changed since the permit was issued or extended, and the continuing adequacy of or need for the permit conditions; any significant objections to the authorized activity which were not earlier considered; revisions to applicable statutory and/or regulatory authorities; and the extent to which modification, suspension, or other action would adversely affect plans, investments and actions the permittee has reasonably made or taken in reliance on the permit. Significant increases in scope of a permitted activity will be processed as new applications for permits in accordance with § 325.2 of this part, and not as modifications under this section.

(b) Modification. Upon request by the permittee or, as a result of reevaluation of the circumstances and conditions of a permit, the district engineer may determine that the public interest requires a modification of the terms or conditions of the permit. In such cases, the district engineer will hold informal consultations with the permittee to ascertain whether the terms and conditions can be modified by mutual agreement. If a mutual agreement is reached on modification of the terms and conditions of the permit, the district engineer will give the permittee written notice of the modification, which will then become effective on such date as the district engineer may establish. In the event a mutual agreement cannot be reached by the district engineer and the permittee, the district engineer will proceed in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section if immediate suspension is warranted. In cases where immediate suspension is not warranted but the district engineer determines that the permit should be modified, he will notify the permittee of the proposed modification and reasons therefor, and that he may request a meeting with the district engineer and/or a public hearing. The modification will become effective on the date set by the district engineer which shall be at least ten days after receipt of the notice by the permittee unless a hearing or meeting is requested within that period. If the permittee fails or refuses to comply with the modification, the district engineer will proceed in accordance with 33 CFR part 326. The district engineer shall consult with resource agencies before modifying any permit terms or conditions, that would result in greater impacts, for a project about which that agency expressed a significant interest in the term, condition, or feature being modified prior to permit issuance.

(c) Suspension. The district engineer may suspend a permit after preparing a written determination and finding that immediate suspension would be in the public interest. The district engineer will notify the permittee in writing by the most expeditious means available that the permit has been suspended with the reasons therefor, and order the permittee to stop those activities previously authorized by the suspended permit. The permittee will also be advised that following this suspension a decision will be made to either reinstate, modify, or revoke the permit, and that he may within 10 days of receipt of notice of the suspension, request a meeting with the district engineer and/or a public hearing to present information in this matter. If a hearing is requested, the procedures prescribed in 33 CFR part 327 will be followed. After the completion of the meeting or hearing (or within a reasonable period of time after issuance of the notice to the permittee that the permit has been suspended if no hearing or meeting is requested), the district engineer will take action to reinstate, modify, or revoke the permit.

(d) Revocation. Following completion of the suspension procedures in paragraph (c) of this section, if revocation of the permit is found to be in the public interest, the authority who made the decision on the original permit may revoke it. The permittee will be advised in writing of the final decision.

(e) Regional permits. The issuing official may, by following the procedures of this section, revoke regional permits for individual activities, categories of activities, or geographic areas. Where groups of permittees are involved, such as for categories of activities or geographic areas, the informal discussions provided in paragraph (b) of this section may be waived and any written notification may be made through the general public notice procedures of this regulation. If a regional permit is revoked, any permittee may then apply for an individual permit which shall be processed in accordance with these regulations.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 31 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1979–2024 · leading case: Vieux Carre Prop. Owners, Residents & Assocs., Inc. v. Colonel Lloyd Kent Brown, 948 F.2d 1436 (5th Cir. 1991).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Vieux Carre Prop. Owners, Residents & Assocs., Inc. v. Colonel Lloyd Kent Brown, 948 F.2d 1436 (5th Cir. 1991). · cites it 4× “First, it asserted that although the Corps has authority to revoke, suspend, or modify nationwide permits under 33 CFR § 325.7 , it has no authority to do so when the project is “substantially completed” because once “[t]he developers have completed virtually all of the work…”

Mingo Logan Coal Co. v. Env't Prot. Agency, 829 F.3d 710 (D.C. Cir. 2016). · cites it 2× “33 C.F.R. § 325.7 (a). “Among the factors to be considered” by the Corps in making a revocation decision are: the extent of the permittee’s compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit; whether or not circumstances relating to the authorized activity have changed since…”

Ctr. for a Sustainable Coast v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 100 F.4th 1349 (11th Cir. 2024). · cites it 5× “Instead, it focuses on questions that this Court was not tasked with answering—such as whether the Center could petition the Corps under 33 C.F.R. § 325.7 for removal of the dock, or the effect of such a petition on speculative future litigation.”

Harmon Cove Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. John O. Marsh, Sec'y of the Army, Hartz Mountain Indus., Inc., & Hartz Mountain Assocs., 815 F.2d 949 (3rd Cir. 1987). · cites it 2× “5 (1986) states that "Reevaluation of a permit to assure compliance with its purposes and conditions will be carried out as provided in 33 C.F.R. 325.7.” 33 C.F.R. 325.7 authorizes discretionary Corps action.”

Mingo Logan Coal Co., Inc. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 850 F. Supp. 2d 133 (D.D.C. 2012). · cites it 3× “EPA’s “withdrawal” of the Pigeonroost and Oldhouse Branch discharge specifications On September 3, 2009 — almost two years after the Corps issued the section 404 permit — EPA sent a letter to the Huntington District Office of the Corps, requesting that it “use its discretionary…”

Airport Communities Coalition v. Graves, 280 F. Supp. 2d 1207 (W.D. Wash. 2003). · cites it 2× “33 C.F.R. § 325.7 . ACC and the state worry that the district engineer may decide not to modify the federal permit, resulting in conflicting state and federal requirements.”

Mingo Logan Coal Co. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 714 F.3d 608 (D.C. Cir. 2013). · cites it 2× “The permit expressly advised that the Corps “may reevaluate its decision on the permit at any time the circumstances warrant” and that “[s]ueh a reevaluation may result in a determination that it is appropriate to use the suspension, modification, and revocation procedures…”

Alaska Ctr. for the Env't v. State, 80 P.3d 231 (Alaska 2003). “ACE correctly responds that the State cites no authority for the proposition that the Corps permit, issued under federal law, somehow modifies the consistency determination issued under state law so as to make ACE’s challenge of the Division’s review under tire ACMP moot.”

Mo. Coalition for Env't v. Corps of Engineers, 678 F. Supp. 790 (E.D. Mo. 1988). · cites it 6× “As a result of the proposed inclusion of a domed stadium in Riverport, the Corps commenced a reevaluation of the circumstances and conditions of the original permit pursuant to the Corps' regulations, in particular 33 C.F.R. § 325.7 (1987) ("reevaluation regulation").”

City of Olmsted Falls v. U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, 233 F. Supp. 2d 890 (N.D. Ohio 2002). · cites it 3× “7 Defendants argue that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the Corps Defendants’ decision not to reevaluate the issuance of the Section 404 Permit issued to Cleveland because the language contained in 33 C.F.R. § 325.7 indicates that any decision by the Corps…”

Nat'l Parks Conservation Ass'n v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 446 F. Supp. 2d 1322 (S.D. Fla. 2006). · cites it 4× “1995-06797 On August 10, 2005, in an internal memorandum, the Corps determined that the circumstances concerning the original issuance of the permit had changed, and that immediate suspension of the permit would be appropriate pursuant to 33 C.F.R. § 325.7 (c). 4 According to…”

S. Nat. Gas Co. v. Pontchartrain Materials, Inc., United States of Am., 711 F.2d 1251 (5th Cir. 1983). “33 C.F.R. § 325.7 (emphasis added). Finally, section 325.”

Show all 31 citing cases →

— 33 C.F.R. § 325.7(a) — 2 cases

Sierra Club v. Andrus, 610 F.2d 581 (9th Cir. 1979).

Friends of Lydia Ann Channel v. Lydia Ann Channel Moorings, LLC (S.D. Tex. 2020).

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.