DRAWBRIDGE VIOLATIONS – UNREASONABLE DELAYS AND 

UNNECESSARY OPENINGS 

Written by: CDR Mark Hammond

Unreasonable delays and unnecessary openings constitute the majority of the 

drawbridge operation cases received at the Hearing Office. This article briefly 

discusses each type of case, and highlights the important elements of each 

violation as well as challenges that arise in the adjudication of these cases.

The regulations governing the operation of drawbridges are found at Title 33 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 117. These regulations are divided 

into two subparts. Subpart A prescribes the general and special drawbridge 

operating regulations that apply to all drawbridges across the navigable waters 

of the United States. Subpart B contains the specific requirements for the 

operation of some individual drawbridges, which may supersede the general 

requirements of Subpart A where specified. Violations of drawbridge operating 

regulations are serious and can result in civil penalties of up to $25,000.00.

Unreasonable Delays

33 CFR § 117.5 requires that drawbridges open “promptly and fully” when a 

request or signal is given. (The means of signaling that may be used are 

described at § 117.15). Title 33 CFR § 117.9 states: No person shall 

unreasonably delay the opening of a draw after the signals required by § 117.15 

have been given.” To find a violation of this cite, there must have been a delay 

in the opening of the particular drawbridge, and the delay must have been 

unreasonable--but what constitutes an unreasonable delay? 

Given the high-speed, time constrained nature of today’s society, I’d be willing 

to bet that most vessel operators would say that any delay in the opening of a 

drawbridge is unreasonable. Clearly, there are some vessel operations for which 

a delay in a bridge opening is more burdensome, and presents a greater safety 

risk, than others. Depending on the circumstances of a particular case, however, 

a delay may not be deemed “unreasonable” under the applicable regulations. 
The term “unreasonable delay” is not defined in 33 CFR 117 Subpart A. The 

maximum time permitted for delay for some specific bridges however, is 

defined in Subpart B. For example, for bridges across the Hackensack River, 33 

CFR § 117.723(a)(3) states: “Train and locomotives shall be controlled so that 

any delay in opening the draw shall not exceed 10 minutes...” 

The typical cases received by the Hearing Office for alleged violations under 

33 CFR § 117.9 involve railroad bridges and delays associated with train 

crossings. 33 CFR § 117.9 contains a note which states: “Trains are usually 

controlled by the block method. That is, the track is divided into blocks or 

segments of a mile or more in length. When a train is in a block with a 

drawbridge, the draw may not be able to open until the train has passed out of 

the block and the yardmaster or other manager has ‘unlocked’ the drawbridge 

controls...” 

For example, a delay might not be unreasonable if a train were “in the block” of 

a drawbridge at the time that the signal to open was received. If a drawbridge 

operator were to allow additional trains to approach and enter the block while 

the first train was crossing the bridge, however, and delayed the bridge opening 

further until subsequent trains cleared the bridge, then the resultant delay might 

be considered unreasonable. 

Oftentimes case files received by the Hearing Office lack sufficient evidence to 

support a conclusion that a delay was unreasonable. Detailed evidence, 

including logbook entries showing times, locations, communications,

mechanical issues etc., is helpful to the Hearing Officer in determining if a 

violation under 33 CFR § 117.9 did or did not occur. 

Unnecessary Openings

According to 33 CFR § 117.11, no vessel owner or operator shall “(a) Signal a 

drawbridge to open if the vertical clearance is sufficient to allow the vessel, 

after all lowerable non-structural vessel appurtenances that are not essential to 

navigation have been lowered, to safely pass under the drawbridge in the closed 

position; or (b) Signal a drawbridge to open for any purpose other than to pass 

through the drawbridge opening.” 

In the typical case received by the Hearing Office for an alleged violation under 

this cite, a sport fishing vessel operator requests a bridge opening to 

accommodate the height of the vessel’s outriggers or antennae. In most cases 
those outriggers or antennae can be made lowerable. These types of cases are 

often returned for correction or dismissed for lack of evidence. 

In order for a violation under this cite to have occurred, it must be shown that 

after all lowerable, non-structural vessel appurtenances that are not essential to 

navigation have been lowered, the vertical clearance of the subject bridge was 

sufficient to allow the vessel to safely pass. It must also be shown that the 

appurtenance(s) for which the bridge opening was requested is/are lowerable, 

non-structural, and not essential to navigation. 

It’s important to have a clear understanding of what “lowerable non-essential 

vessel appurtenances not essential to navigation” means. The following 

definitions are found at 33 CFR § 117.4: 

Lowerable means a non-structural vessel appurtenance that is or can be made

flexible, hinged, collapsible or telescopic so that it can be mechanically or 

manually lowered. (Underlining added.)

Nonstructural means that the item is not rigidly fixed to the vessel and can be 

relocated or altered.

Appurtenance means an attachment or accessory extending beyond the hull or 

superstructure that is not an integral part of the vessel and is not needed for a 

vessel piloting, propelling, controlling, or collision avoidance capabilities.

Not essential to navigation means that a nonstructural vessel appurtenance, 

when in the lowered position would not adversely affect the vessel’s piloting, 

propulsion, control, or collision-avoidance capabilities.

Detailed evidence, including the vertical clearance of the bridge involved, the 

reason for the requested opening, and the subject vessel’s height when all nonstructural appurtenances are lowered, among other factors, can be helpful to the 

Hearing Officer in making her/his determination.