Source: http://kesterfamily.net/Documents/Active/NS/CFRs/33CFR116.htm
Timestamp: 2018-11-17 15:56:19
Document Index: 38350370

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 116', '§ 116', '§ 116', '§ 116', '§ 116', '§ 116', '§ 116', '§ 116', '§ 116', 'art 116', '§116', '§116', '§116', '§116']

§ 116.01 General.
§ 116.05 Complaints.
§ 116.10 Preliminary review.
§ 116.15 Preliminary investigation.
§ 116.20 Detailed investigation.
§ 116.25 Public meetings.
§ 116.30 Administrator, Office of Bridge Programs Review and Evaluation.
§ 116.35 Order to Alter.
§ 116.55 Appeals.
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 116 appear at 73 FR 35012, June 19, 2008 and 75 FR 49410, Aug. 13, 2010.
Source: CGD 91–063, 60 FR 20902, Apr. 28, 1995, unless otherwise noted.
(b) This part describes the general procedures by which the U.S. Coast Guard determines a bridge to be an unreasonable obstruction to navigation and issues an Order to Alter under the authority of the following statutes, as appropriate: Section 18 of the Rivers and Harbors Appropriations Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. 502; Section 4 of the Bridge Act of 1906, 33 U.S.C. 494; or the Truman-Hobbs Act of 1940, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 511–524.
(1) In the case of a railroad or publicly owned highway bridge, an Order to Alter is issued to the bridge owner under the provisions of the Truman-Hobbs Act (33 U.S.C. 511 et seq. ). In ordering these alterations, the Coast Guard will give due regard to the necessities of free and unobstructed navigation and of rail and highway traffic. For alterations to bridges governed by the Truman-Hobbs Act, the Coast Guard must approve general plans, specifications, and contracts for the alteration project, as well as approving the apportionment of the total cost of the alterations between the United States and the bridge owner.
[CGD 91–063, 60 FR 20902, Apr. 28, 1995, as amended by USCG–2010–0351, 75 FR 49410, Aug. 13, 2010]
(c) The District Commander will inform the complainant and the Administrator, Office of Bridge Programs of the determination of any Preliminary Review. If the District Commander decides that the bridge in question is not an unreasonable obstruction to navigation, the complainant will be provided with a brief summary of the information on which the District Commander based the decision and will be informed of the appeal process described in §116.55. There will be no further investigation, unless additional information warrants a continuance or reopening of the case.
[CGD 91–063, 60 FR 20902, Apr. 28, 1995, as amended by CGD 96–026, 61 FR 33663, June 28, 1996]
(a) During the Preliminary Investigation, the District Commander will prepare a written report containing all pertinent information and submit the report, together with a recommendation for or against the necessity of a Detailed Investigation, to the Administrator, Bridge Administration Program.
(c) The Administrator, Office of Bridge Programs will review the Preliminary Investigation Report and make a Preliminary Decision whether or not to undertake a Detailed Investigation and a Public Meeting.
(d) If after reviewing the Preliminary Investigation Report, the Administrator, Office of Bridge Programs decides that further investigation is not warranted, the complainant will be notified of the decision. This notification will include a brief summary of information on which the decision was based and details of the appeal process described in §116.55.
(a) When the Administrator, Office of Bridge Programs determines that a Detailed Investigation should be conducted, the District Commander will initiate an investigation that addresses all of the pertinent data regarding the bridge, including information obtained at a public meeting held under §116.25. As part of the investigation, the District Commander will develop a comprehensive report, termed the “Detailed Investigation Report”, which will discuss: the obstructive character of the bridge in question; the impact of that bridge upon navigation; navigational benefits derived; whether an alteration is needed to meet the needs of navigation; and, if alteration is recommended, what type.
(b) The District Commander will forward the completed Detailed Investigation Report to the Administrator, Office of Bridge Programs for review together with a recommendation of whether the bridge should be declared an unreasonable obstruction to navigation and, if so, whether an Order to Alter should be issued.
(a) Any time the Administrator, Office of Bridge Programs determines that a Detailed Investigation is warranted, or when Congress declares a bridge unreasonably obstructive, the District Commander will hold a public meeting near the location of the bridge to provide the bridge owner, waterway users, and other interested parties the opportunity to offer evidence and be heard, orally or in writing, as to whether any alterations are necessary to provide reasonably free, safe, and unobstructed passage for waterborne traffic. The District Commander will issue a public notice announcing the public meeting stating the time, date, and place of the meeting.
[CGD 91–063, 60 FR 20902, Apr. 28, 1995, as amended by CGD 96–026, 61 FR 33664, June 28, 1996]
(a) Upon receiving a Detailed Investigation Report from a District Commander, the Administrator, Office of Bridge Programs will review all the information and make a final determination of whether or not the bridge is an unreasonable obstruction to navigation and, if so, whether to issue an Order to Alter. This determination will be accompanied by a supporting written Decision Analysis which will include a Benefit/Cost Analysis, including calculation of a Benefit/Cost Ratio.
(d) If a bridge is statutorily determined to unreasonably obstruct navigation, the Administrator, Office of Bridge Programs will prepare a Decision Analysis to document and provide details of the required vertical and horizontal clearances and the reasons alterations are necessary.
(e) If the Administrator, Office of Bridge Programs decides to recommend that the Commandant issue an Order to Alter, or a bridge is statutorily determined to unreasonably obstruct navigation, the Administrator, Office of Bridge Programs will issue a letter to the bridge owner (“The 60-Day Letter”) at least 60 days before the Commandant issues an Order to Alter. This letter will contain the reasons an alteration is necessary, the proposed alteration, and, in the case of a Truman-Hobbs bridge, an estimate of the total project cost and the bridge owner's share.
(g) Upon receipt of the bridge owner's response, the Administrator, Office of Bridge Programs will reevaluate the situation based on the additional information submitted by the bridge owner. If after the Administrator, Office of Bridge Programs reviews the determination, there is no change, the Commandant may issue an Order to Alter as set out in §116.35. The Administrator, Office of Bridge Programs determination based on the reevaluation will constitute final agency action.
(c) If a proposed alteration to a bridge has desirable, non-navigational benefits, the Administrator, Office of Bridge Programs may require an equitable contribution from any interested person, firm, association, corporation, municipality, county, or state benefiting from the alteration as a prerequisite to the making of an Order to Alter for that alteration.
(a) After an Order to Alter has been issued to a bridge owner under the Truman-Hobbs Act, the Administrator, Office of Bridge Programs will issue a letter to the bridge owner outlining the owner's responsibilities to submit plans and specifications to the Administrator, Office of Bridge Programs for the alteration of the bridge. The plans and specifications, at a minimum, must provide for the clearances identified in the Order to Alter. The plans and specifications may also include any other additional alteration to the bridge that the owner considers desirable to meet the requirements of railroad or highway traffic. During the alteration process, balanced consideration shall be given to the needs of rail, highway, and marine traffic.
(b) The Administrator, Office of Bridge Programs will approve or reject the plans and specifications submitted by the bridge owner, in whole or in part, and may require the submission of new or additional plans and specifications.
(c) When Administrator, Office of Bridge Programs has approved the submitted plans and specifications, they are final and binding upon all parties, unless later changes are approved by the Administrator, Office of Bridge Programs. Any changes to the approved plans will be coordinated with the District Commander.
(a) Once the plans and specifications for a bridge eligible for funding under the Truman-Hobbs Act have been approved, the bridge owner must take bids for the alteration of the bridge consistent with the approved plans and specifications. Those bids must then be submitted to the Administrator, Office of Bridge Programs for approval.
(b) After the bridge owner submits the guaranty of cost required by 33 U.S.C. 515, the Administrator, Bridge Administration Program authorizes the owner to award the contract.
(a) Except for the decision to issue an Order to Alter, if a complainant disagrees with a recommendation regarding obstruction or eligibility made by a District Commander, or the Administrator, Office of Bridge Programs, the complainant may appeal that decision to the Deputy Commandant for Operations.
(b) The appeal must be submitted in writing to the Deputy Commandant of Operations, U.S. Coast Guard,(CG–DCO), 2100 2nd St., SW., Stop 7355, Washington, DC 20593–7355, within 60 days after the District Commander's or the Administrator, Office of Bridge Programs decision. The Deputy Commandant for Operations will make a decision on the appeal within 90 days after receipt of the appeal. The Deputy Commandant of Operations' decision of this appeal shall constitute final agency action.
[CGD 91–063, 60 FR 20902, Apr. 28, 1995, as amended by CGD 96–026, 61 FR 33663, June 28, 1996; CGD 97–023, 62 FR 33363, June 19, 1997; USCG–2008–0179, 73 FR 35013, June 19, 2008; USCG–2010–0351, 75 FR 36283, June 25, 2010]