Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Chicago River, Illinois

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD09-95-023]

RIN 2115-AE47

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Chicago River, Illinois

agency: Coast Guard, DOT.

action: Notice of proposed rulemaking; notice of public hearing.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

summary: The Coast Guard is proposing changing the operating

regulations governing the drawbridges over the Chicago River system,

most of which are owned and operated by the City of Chicago. This

proposed rule would establish the times when, and the conditions under

which, the bridges need to open for the passage of commercial and

recreational vessels, and require advance notice of a recreational

vessel's time of intended passage through the bridges. Special

provisions would be added to provide drawbridge openings for flotillas

of five or more recreational vessels. The proposed regulations have one

set of rules for the period of high vessel activity, 1 April through 30

November, and other rules for the remainder of the year. Further,

certain bridges on the North Branch of the Chicago River have been

deleted from the previous permanent rule because they no longer exist

or are no longer in the route of commercial or recreational vessels.

The changes are being proposed in response to a request by the City of

Chicago to reduce the number of required bridge openings. That request

was premised on the unique situation in Chicago, where 26 bridges cross

the Chicago River and its North and South branches in the very heart of

the City. As a result, City officials asserted that drawbridge openings

in Chicago have a greater potential impact on vehicular traffic than in

any other major city in the United States. This action should

accommodate the needs of vehicle traffic while providing for the

reasonable needs of navigation. The Coast Guard will hold a public

hearing on this proposal on August 22, 1995, in Chicago, IL.

dates: Written comments on this proposed rulemaking must be received by

August 30, 1995.

The hearing will be held on August 22, 1995, from 7 p.m. until 11

p.m.

addresses: Comments should be addressed to, and documents referenced in

this preamble are available for inspection and copying at, the office

of the Commander (obr), Ninth Coast Guard District, room 2083, 1240

East Ninth Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44199-2060, between 6:30 a.m. and 3

p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

The public hearing on August 22, 1995 will be held at the Ralph H.

Metcalfe Federal Building, 77 West Jackson Street, Chicago, IL 60604.

for further information contact: Ms. Carolyn Malone, Bridge Branch,

Ninth Coast Guard District, (216) 522-3993.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Drafting Information

The principal persons involved in drafting this document were:

Commander James M. Collin, U.S. Coast Guard, and Project Counsel; Mr.

A.F. Bridgman, Jr., Chief, Regulations and Administrative Law Division,

U.S. Coast Guard.

Request for Comments

The Coast Guard encourages interested persons to submit written

data or views concerning this proposed rule. Persons submitting

comments should include their names and addresses and identify this

notice [CGD09-95-023]. Please submit two copies of all comments and

attachments in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches,

suitable for copying and electronic filing. Persons wanting

acknowledgment of receipt of comments should enclose stamped, self-

addressed postcards or envelopes. The Coast Guard will consider all

comments received during the comment period. The comment period has

been limited to August 30, 1995, in order to enable the Coast Guard to

have a final rule in effect by the end of the boating season.

Public Hearing

The Coast Guard will hold a public hearing on this proposal on

August 22, 1995, from 7 p.m. until 11 p.m. at the Ralph H. Metcalfe

Federal Building, 77 West Jackson Street, Chicago, IL 60604. Attendance

at the hearing is open to the public. Persons wishing to make oral

presentations should notify Ms. Carolyn Malone at the number listed

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT no later than the day before the

meeting. Written material may be submitted at the hearing for inclusion

in the public docket. Individuals making oral presentations at the

hearing are encouraged to submit a written copy of their remarks for

the rulemaking docket.

Regulatory History

Since the 1970's, the regulations for the operation of the bridges

on the

[[Page 39288]]

Chicago River had provided for on signal openings seven days a week,

except during rush hours Monday through Fridays. This regulation is

referred to as the ``permanent rule.'' On May 12, 1993, under the

provisions of 33 CFR 117.43, the Coast Guard published (58 FR 27933) a

deviation from the permanent rule to allow the City of Chicago to limit

weekday openings for recreational vessels, to require advance notice

for opening, and to require the recreational vessels to be organized in

flotillas of five to twenty-five vessels for passage. Deviations such

as this for not more than 90 days are utilized to evaluate suggested

changes to drawbridge operation requirements. Subsequent deviations,

with varying requirements, were published on June 16 (58 FR 33191),

August 12 (58 FR 42856), October 21 (58 FR 54289) and November 29, 1993

(58 FR 62532).

On Wednesday, December 22, 1993, the Coast Guard published a notice

of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing entitled Drawbridge

Operation Regulation: Chicago River, IL (58 FR 67745). The Coast Guard

received 132 letters commenting on this proposal. A public hearing was

held on January 20, 1994 in Chicago, Illinois, attended by 107 persons,

of whom 32 made oral statements or furnished data on the proposed

regulations.

Following this notice and comment rulemaking, on April 18, 1994,

the Coast Guard promulgated a new final rule for drawbridge operations

on the Chicago River. This rule provided for evening openings on

Tuesday and Thursday, Saturday and Sunday openings during the day, and

Wednesday daylight openings from April 15 through June 15. It also

specified a flotilla size of between 5 and 25 vessels.

On September 26, 1994, the United States District Court for the

District of Columbia issued an order in the case of Crowley's Yacht

Yard, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Federico Pena, Secretary, United States

Department of Transportation, Defendant, (C.A. No. 94-1152 SSH),

rescinding the new final rule published on April 18, 1994, and

reinstating the previous regulations or permanent rule. The Court's

decision was based on its conclusion that there was not a sufficient

basis in the administrative record to support the Coast Guard's

decision to allow weekday daylight openings only in the spring, and its

view that a traffic study provided by the City was suspect since it

took place in part during the ``Taste of Chicago'' festival, which

resulted in increased vehicular traffic.

As a result of the Court decision and to gather data for future

use, the District Commander authorized a temporary deviation to the

permanent rule for the period October 11, 1994 through December 5,

1994. A notice of this deviation, soliciting comments on the effect of

the deviation, was published on October 24, 1994 (59 FR 53351). The

deviation provided for openings of bridges, with a twenty-four hour

advance notice to the City of Chicago, from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on

Saturdays and Sundays, and on Wednesdays between the hours of 6:30 p.m.

and 10 p.m., throughout the entire period. In addition, from October 11

through October 23 the draws were to be opened between the hours of

10:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and from October 23

through December 5 the draws were to be opened for vessel passage

between the hours of 10:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. on Wednesdays. Flotilla

size was specified. The Coast Guard decided on this approach since it

was consonant with public comments on behalf of the City and its

citizens urging that ``on demand'' openings should not continue, and

also with the boatyards which had stated that some weekday openings

were necessary. Moreover, the schedule set forth in this deviation

accommodated the Court's concern by providing weekday openings during

the fall season.

The comment period ended on January 15, 1995. The Coast Guard

received twenty-one comments on this deviation. The City expressed

opposition to any new permanent regulation for the spring 1995

breakout. In support of its position, the City provided data concerning

the number of boat runs during the preceding spring and fall seasons,

including the number of boats traversing through the drawbridges and

the number of times the individual drawbridges were opened and delays

that occurred. The City was unable to provide a vehicular traffic count

for the fall, but stated that it would provide traffic count statistics

for the spring season. The City urged a deviation schedule allowing one

weekday daylight opening and weekend openings. Comments from the

boatyards favored the existing regulatory structure and also opposed a

new permanent regulation for the spring breakout. Thirteen of the other

twenty comments favored no change to the existing regulations and

expressed opposition to establishing minimum and maximum flotilla

sizes. Other comments indicated that, if a change is necessary, there

should be weekday daylight openings and expressed opposition to

flotilla sizes.

On February 16, 1995 (60 FR 8941), the Coast Guard published a

Notice of Intent to issue a temporary deviation for the spring breakout

and announced a public hearing to discuss the proposed schedule in the

deviation. The proposed deviation would have required the draws to

open, except during rush-hours, for recreational vessels that had

provided twenty-four hours notice of their intended passage through the

draws. This proposal was published to provide a basis for discussion

and comment. The proposal explicitly noted that any deviation

ultimately issued for the spring 1995 season might differ as a result

of comments received and positions expressed during the course of a

public hearing scheduled for March 9, 1995.

The hearing provided all concerned parties with the opportunity to

present oral and written statements, with supporting data, to the Coast

Guard for evaluation to determine if any revisions should be made to

the proposed deviation. A Coast Guard representative presided at the

hearing which was well attended. In addition to individual comments by

boaters and other interested persons, there were multiple

presentations, primarily by representatives of three interested groups:

the City of Chicago, the boatyards, and national level maritime

organizations.

The vast majority of the 68 written comments were received from a

wide variety of Chicago civic organizations and businesses, including

property owners and managers and developers. Individual businesses

commenting ranged from taxi companies and delivery services to Union

Station, AMTRAK, and De Paul University. The City of Chicago, including

the Chicago Police Department and members of the Chicago City Council,

also submitted comments and additional data. These comments opposed the

temporary deviation which would have allowed unrestricted weekday

openings, other than during rush hours, and urged that openings be

limited to weekends and evenings. They vigorously opposed any daytime

weekday openings. The boating organizations and the boatyards favored a

24-hour notification with no additional restrictions other than during

rush hours.

At the public hearing, City representatives stated that they have

determined that weekday daylight openings are not necessary, since all

outgoing and incoming vessels can be accommodated on weekends. They

stated that weekday openings are too disruptive to emergency services,

commercial vehicular traffic during business hours, and pedestrian and

midday vehicular traffic.

[[Page 39289]]

Representatives of commercial interests stated their opposition to

weekday openings due to disruption of deliveries, public

transportation, and emergency services. Representatives of the

boatyards stated that the permanent regulation in effect should not be

modified until data are collected for an entire navigation season. They

discussed their practice of voluntarily arranging flotillas to minimize

the number of openings required, and asserted there was a need for

individual vessels to transit the Chicago River system in order to

obtain routine servicing or repairs. They asserted that failure to

provide convenient access to the boatyards seriously affected their

business, citing a reduction in the number of vessels utilizing their

yards for winter storage as well as a decline in income from repairs.

Representatives of the boaters stated that not all boats can

participate in weekend flotillas, but they can join weekday daylight

flotillas. In their opinion, nighttime navigation is not conducive to

safety. Individual boaters also expressed concern over the safety of

large flotillas transitting the confined waters of the Chicago River

system. Representatives of national manufacturing and boating interests

expressed concern that the right of free navigation was being unduly

restricted by the proposed temporary deviation, and that if the Coast

Guard restricted openings on the Chicago River, it would be a precedent

for restricting navigation elsewhere.

As a result of the public hearing and a reassessment of all the

comments received, the Coast Guard promulgated a temporary deviation to

the operating schedule of the Chicago River Bridges on April 10, 1995

(60 FR 18006) covering the period from April 15, 1995 to July 13, 1995.

The temporary deviation featured daytime and evening openings on

Tuesdays and Thursdays as well as weekend openings, flotilla maximums,

and 24-hour advance notice prior to opening. The temporary deviation

recognized the concerns of the City and business interests by limiting

weekday openings. It also addressed the concerns expressed by the

boatyards and boaters by not requiring a minimum flotilla size and by

providing for transits on four days of the week. The advance notice

requirement was selected as being adequate to allow scheduling of

bridge openings by the City, but responsive to unanticipated needs for

transits by boats. It provided the basis for comparing the merits of an

alternative schedule with previously imposed schedules. Simultaneously,

the Coast Guard published on April 10, 1995 (60 FR 18061) a Notice of

Intent to form a negotiated rulemaking committee to bring together

representatives of all affected parties to attempt to reach consensus

on a new permanent rule.

On May 18, 1995, the United States District Court for the District

of Columbia vacated the April 10, 1995 temporary deviation and

reinstated the permanent rule in effect previously, codified at 33

C.F.R. 117.391 (1993). The Court's decision was premised on its

conclusion that the Coast Guard's authority to issue temporary

deviations is subject to the Administrative Procedures Act constraints

and that, while the Coast Guard had provided notice, comment, and a

hearing, the Court did not have before it the administrative record on

which the decision was based. Although the reinstated permanent rule

provides for opening the bridges ``on signal'' except during rush

hours, the drawbridges have been operating on scheduled weekend and

limited weekday openings through voluntary cooperative agreements

between the principal boatyards and the City.

Negotiated Rulemaking

As detailed above, there have been a wide variety of temporary

deviations and one permanent rule addressing bridge operating schedules

on the Chicago River. In addition, there have been two court challenges

that have overturned these schedules and reinstated the pre-1993

operating regulations. There have also been periods of voluntary

cooperation when boatyard owners and City representatives have worked

together to established scheduled openings within regulatory

parameters. All of these activities have supported the idea that a

formal negotiated rulemaking leading to a meeting of the minds and

cooperation by all interested parties would provide the best chance for

successful rulemaking. Utilizing an experienced and impartial

facilitator, the Coast Guard contacted representatives of the City,

commercial interests, boatyards, and boaters, and determined that they

would participate in a negotiated rulemaking and received their

assurances they would negotiate in good faith.

In light of the difficulties experienced in arriving at a

drawbridge rule that best accommodates the needs of vehicular and

boating traffic, as required by the 1988 amendment to 33 U.S.C. 499

which provides that rules and regulations governing drawbridges shall,

to the extent practical and feasible, provide for regularly scheduled

openings that would help reduce motor vehicle traffic delays and

congestion, the Coast Guard chartered a negotiated rulemaking committee

in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App)

(FACA). The negotiating committee, consisting of representatives of the

City of Chicago, Chicago commercial interests, boatyards on the Chicago

River system, the Chicago Yachting Association, and the Coast Guard,

met to share views and attempted to come to consensus on the best

possible operating parameters for the operation of the City of Chicago

bridges. The committee met under the guidance of an experienced neutral

facilitator, on June 5, 14, 20, 28 and July 12, 1995. During the day-

long sessions the committee engaged in detailed discussions concerning

the history of drawbridge operations, future concerns, and the goals

sought by the interest groups represented. Despite a full and frank

exchange of views, the presentation of several alternatives by the

Coast Guard, and modifications suggested by members, the committee was

unable to come to consensus on an appropriate operating schedule for

the bridges. As stated in the notice announcing the establishment of

the negotiated rulemaking committee, the Coast Guard is committed to

proceeding with notice and comment rulemaking procedures in order to

have a final rule in place by the end of the boating season in the

fall, 1995, when recreational vessels leave Lake Michigan for winter

storage. Accordingly, the Coast Guard has published this notice of

proposed rulemaking and has scheduled a public hearing. In the absence

of a consensus-based rule, this proposal is based on the extensive

administrative record that the Coast Guard has assembled to date.

Summary of Issues

When the City of Chicago first came to the Coast Guard in 1993 with

a request to change the bridge regulation that had been in existence

since the 1970's, the Coast Guard began looking at whether that ``on

demand'' regulation was appropriate. A primary factor in this review

was the statutory change in 1988 that specifically requires the Coast

Guard to balance land and water transportation needs. As amended in

1988, 33 U.S.C. 499 provides that rules and regulations governing

drawbridges shall, to the extent practical and feasible, provide for

regularly scheduled openings of drawbridges during seasons of the year,

and during times of the day, when scheduled openings would help reduce

motor vehicle traffic delays and congestion on roads and highways

linked by drawbridges. As noted above, and detailed more fully below,

Chicago

[[Page 39290]]

is unique in that no other major city has so many drawbridges

incorporated into a downtown web of thoroughfares. Thus the potential

for disruption of vehicular traffic related to openings of the

drawbridges is greater in Chicago than in any other major city in the

United States.

In recent years the number of boatyards on the Chicago River system

has decreased. There also has been evidence of physical deterioration

in bridge operations. Due to changes in the number of personnel

utilized by the City to open the bridges, costs associated with

operating the bridges have increased. Expanded commercial development

outside of Chicago's ``Loop'' business district has generated

additional vehicular and pedestrian traffic demands, raising concerns

from City commercial interests as well as City officials. As a result,

there has been growing disbelief on the part of the City and boatyards

that voluntary cooperation among them would continue to provide for

mutually satisfactory drawbridge operations. The City has desired

increased predictability and a move away from an ``on demand'' opening

schedule that leaves the City at the mercy of any boater's request to

have up to 26 bridges, most owned by the City, open on demand. The City

has asserted that the existing rule cost the City thousands of dollars

in labor, caused thousands of hours of vehicle and pedestrian delay for

each series of bridge openings, and benefited only a relatively few

boat owners who chose to traverse the Chicago River without lowering

the masts on their vessels. The boatyard owners also have wanted

predictable drawbridge openings but were concerned that limited

openings, particularly during weekday daylight hours, would adversely

affect their business. The boaters were concerned that individual

boaters would continue to have reasonable opportunity to traverse the

river.

At the outset, the Coast Guard recognized that the situation

involving the drawbridges over the Chicago River and its branches was

both complex and unique. The Chicago River and the North and South

branches divide the core portion of the third largest city in the

United States into three segments. The main branch virtually bisects

the downtown area, at the North edge of the Chicago Loop. There is

virtually no vessel destination in the main branch. Recreational

vessels that require bridge openings normally transit the entire main

branch segment enroute to destinations on either Lake Michigan or the

North or South branches, thus requiring the opening of all ten bridges

over the main branch. In addition, due to the confined nature of the

Chicago River and the close proximity of the bridges, few recreational

sailing vessels ``cruise'' on the river. These circumstances are

drastically different from the normal situations addressed by

drawbridge regulations. Virtually all of the Coast Guard's drawbridge

regulations concern single bridges. The procedures and guidance in the

Bridge Administration Manual (COMDTINST M16590.5A) primarily address

those normal situations. Accordingly, in the Chicago situation the

Coast Guard adopted a systems approach to analyzing the need for

changes to the existing rules and, if changes were found to be

appropriate, the nature of those changes. It was recognized that unique

solutions might be required and that any revised rules that resulted

should not be considered as setting a precedent for the drawbridge

regulations where normal navigational and land traffic exists.

In addition, the Coast Guard realized that it was necessary to

distinguish between the provisions of the existing permanent rule and

the practices that had been followed, on a voluntary basis, in earlier

years and during more recent times. The existing rule requires the

bridges to be opened on demand, and bridge logs for the years prior to

1993 showed that bridges were opened frequently, during weekday

daylight hours, for single vessel transits. In 1992, apparently related

to an accident involving the Michigan Avenue bridge and the flooding of

a tunnel under the main branch of the river, the City desired to limit

weekday daylight openings, concentrate openings on weekends, and

arrange for recreational vessels to transit in flotillas. Since 1993,

weekday daylight openings have been limited through the voluntary

practices of the boatyards in grouping vessels into flotillas for

transits, particularly during the spring breakout and the return to

winter storage in the fall. While this practice has worked, with

varying degrees of friction, to limit the number of drawbridge openings

and the consequent impact on land traffic, the statute obligates the

Coast Guard to regulate drawbridge openings, where necessary. If there

is a need to restrict the number of openings of the drawbridges over

the Chicago River, the Coast Guard cannot leave it to the good will of

the boatyard owners and individual boaters to limit their requests for

openings. There are no market forces available to balance the needs of

the recreational boater and the citizens of the City. It is the Coast

Guard's obligation to promulgate a rule which will balance the needs of

land and maritime transportation and that clearly sets forth the rights

and obligations of the bridge owner and the vessel owners.

It should be noted that the proposed rulemaking does not govern all

the drawbridges on the Chicago River. The proposal only affects the

bridges owned or operated by the City. With the exception of bridges

which carry Chicago Transit Authority trains, the bridges carry

vehicular and pedestrian traffic. There are four railroad bridges, not

owned by the City, that are manned by bridge tenders 24 hours a day.

These bridges would continue to open on signal for both commercial and

recreational vessels.

Summary of Comments

Over the course of the history outlined above there have been two

public hearings and many comments from a wide variety of special and

public groups as well as individuals. Positions over the course of this

two and one-half year process have run the spectrum from opening the

bridges on demand, with no flotilla or advance notice restrictions, to

opening only on weekends with a variety of restrictions. The following

discussion briefly summarizes the positions of the interested parties,

which have remained essentially unchanged since the City first

requested a change to the existing regulations.

The City representatives have urged that weekday daylight openings

are not necessary, since all outgoing and incoming vessels can be

accommodated on weekends. Weekday openings are too disruptive to

commercial vehicular traffic during business hours, emergency services,

and midday pedestrian, public transit, and vehicular traffic. The City

has submitted lengthy comments and data concerning the problems caused

by multiple openings and the costs associated with maintaining and

operating the aging drawbridges. Representatives of the City have

attended hearings and discussed the potential impact of bridge openings

on emergency response by police, fire, and rescue vehicles. In

addition, City representatives have commented on the detrimental

effects of vehicle delays on the environment and commercial

development. The comments submitted on behalf of the City particularly

oppose on demand openings.

Businesses in Chicago are not in favor of weekday daylight openings

due to disruption of deliveries, public transportation, and emergency

services. Comments to this effect have been received from taxi

companies, couriers,

[[Page 39291]]

parcel delivery companies, an ambulance company, hotels, a bank,

parking companies, property management firms, De Paul University, Union

Station, AMTRAK, and business associations. The commercial and business

interest comments particularly oppose on demand openings.

Representatives of the boatyards contended that predictable and

readily available openings are essential to their continued business

viability. They urged that provision for passage of single vessels must

be retained and the rules should be as flexible as possible to account

for peak traffic and unexpected vessels. They also urged that the

regulations presently in effect should not be modified until data are

collected for an entire navigation season to depict seasonal changes of

impact.

Boating interests urged that requiring flotillas was too

restrictive of the right to navigation and that openings during the

weekday daylight hours were essential. Boating interests and individual

boaters generally supported on demand openings, although some comments

indicated that limited restrictions on weekday openings would be

acceptable. They also indicated that if a change was necessary, there

should be daylight openings during the weekdays and openings should not

be restricted to strictly nighttime hours from Monday through Friday.

Concerns were expressed about the difficulties encountered in arranging

flotillas and the hazards to safe navigation presented by large numbers

of vessels transiting the confined waters of the Chicago River. Some

concerns were also expressed over the increased hazards to safety

inherent in transiting the Chicago River and navigating on Lake

Michigan at night.

The above summary contains the essence of the comments received by

the Coast Guard over the past two and one-half years. The record of

comments and data is voluminous. Some of the comments are duplicative,

having been submitted directly to the Coast Guard and also included in

submissions by the City. Extracts from the comments and references to

the data can be found in the documents filed by both the plaintiff and

the defendant in the litigation outlined above, copies of which have

been included in the public record of this rulemaking.

The Coast Guard will continue to consider all comments previously

received and all comments submitted in response to this notice of

proposed rulemaking. It is not necessary to resubmit comments or data

previously filed. Comments are desired that specifically address the

methodology employed by the Coast Guard in developing the proposed

rule, as discussed below, the data on which the proposal is based, or

that provide new data.

Proposed Rule

In light of all the comments thus far received, in writing and

during public hearings, the Coast Guard is proposing a rule that it

believes best accommodates the needs of the City and its citizens, the

commercial interests, the boatyards, and the individual boater, while

still conforming to the statutory mandate which, in the Coast Guard's

view, requires balancing the requirement that drawbridges be opened for

the passage of vessels with the requirement that, to the extent

practical and feasible, the regulations should provide for scheduled

openings that would help reduce motor vehicle delay and congestion.

The proposed regulation would have different rules apply to the

period of high vessel activity from April 1 through November 30 of each

year and the period of low activity, from December 1 through March 31

of the following year. As data, written comments, and presentations at

hearings show, the recreational boating season is over well before

November 30 and from December 1 through March 30 there is little vessel

traffic on the Chicago River. The current regulations provide different

rules for the period from April 1 through December 31, and January 1

through March 31, each year.

Other than the above change, the proposed rules maintain the

existing provisions for commercial vessels. Editorial changes have been

made to clarify the rules and adopt a new format, which separates the

regulations for commercial vessels from those for recreational vessels.

The proposed rules also eliminate reference to some bridges which no

longer exist.

For recreational vessels, the existing permanent rule provides that

bridges will open on signal from April 1 through December 31, except

for specified rush hours. In some cases, where bridges are not

continually manned, a delay of up to 30 minutes is permitted before

opening the bridge. The proposed rules would impose the following

limitations:

(1) On Saturdays and Sundays openings to accommodate two transits

would be available each day, if requested 20 hours in advance of the

intended time of passage, without regard to the number of vessels.

(2) Weekday daytime openings, with no minimum flotilla requirement,

would be limited to Wednesday morning, with 20-hour advance notice.

(3) On Monday and Friday evenings, after 6:30 p.m., the bridges

would be required to open to accommodate transits, if requested 6 hours

in advance, with no minimum flotilla requirement.

(4) In addition to the above openings, which would be available for

the passage of one or more vessels, supplemental openings could be

scheduled for flotillas of 5 or more vessels, with 20-hour advance

notice. These openings could not be requested for rush hour periods.

(5) If requests were received for both outbound and inbound

transits, the inbound transit would be scheduled to commence after the

outbound transit had cleared Lakeshore Drive, so that only one opening

of the Lakeshore Drive bridge could accommodate both transits.

The following discussion explains how these proposed rules were

developed:

In crafting these regulations the Coast Guard took into account all

the comments received from prior Chicago River rulemaking activities,

in writing and at hearings, as well as views expressed and data

furnished during the extensive negotiated rulemaking process. During

the course of the negotiated rulemaking procedure the City of Chicago

provided the Coast Guard and the committee with two volumes of traffic

data to assist in determining the scope of the problems associated with

bridge openings and to point out factors or parameters that would

suggest solutions. They also had the consultant who prepared the study

present at two meetings to answer questions on methodology and other

study issues. In addition, the Coast Guard considered the voluntary

practices followed by the boatyards and the City, which have

demonstrated that using flotillas and scheduling openings in advance is

a feasible means of reducing the number of drawbridge openings

necessary to accommodate a major portion of the needs of recreational

boaters.

First, the Coast Guard decided to concentrate on the situation

affecting the 10 bridges across the Chicago River. While opening

bridges across the North and South branches does impact land traffic in

the downtown area, particularly traffic using the Ohio Street and

Congress Street Parkway bridges, it is the Coast Guard's impression

that the impact is not as immediate or as severe as the impact of

opening the bridges on the Chicago River since, other than the two

bridges mentioned, they are not primary arteries or are not in close

proximity to the Chicago Loop. As

[[Page 39292]]

discussed above, whether a recreational vessel's transit originates on

or terminates on either the North or South branch, and involves some or

all of the bridges on either branch, the transit invariably involves

opening all of the bridges on the Chicago River. If a beneficial and

balanced approach is to be taken in modifying the existing regulations,

the changes must address these bridges. In addition, it is the position

of the Coast Guard that if a regulation can be developed that provides

a reasonable balance between the needs of land and vessel traffic for

the bridges on the Chicago River, a logical extension of those rules to

the North and South branches would be appropriate.

The second step was to ascertain whether there was a demonstrable

need to change the existing regulations. The traffic data presented by

the City were based on directional traffic counts, taken at fifteen

minute intervals, 24 hours per day, at certain bridges. Normal traffic

flow counters and methodologies were used to record traffic activity

for one week in the fall of 1994 and two weeks in the spring of 1995.

The data showed that downtown Chicago traffic does not follow a typical

urban traffic pattern. Rather than traffic levels increasing during the

morning rush hour, decreasing during midday, and increasing again

during the evening rush hour, the traffic increased in the morning,

then declined slightly, but remained high until early evening. There

was no significant variation in the traffic patterns or volumes between

the two periods.

Although the traffic counts do not cover the full boating season,

the Coast Guard has no reason to believe that there is substantially

more or less vehicle traffic during the summer months. Chicago traffic

does not appear to vary appreciably on a seasonal basis.

The study counted traffic during 1994 on the Lake Shore Drive,

Michigan Avenue, Wells Street and LaSalle Street bridges. In 1995 the

study counted traffic on the Lake Shore Drive, Michigan Avenue, Clark

Street and Dearborn Street Bridges. It was determined that the location

of the traffic counter on Lake Shore Drive was not in the best location

to provide accurate traffic data for the bridge, since a substantial

amount of traffic could exit before crossing the bridge, and some

traffic may have been counted that did not cross the bridge. In lieu of

disregarding the traffic on this major artery entirely, the volumes

recorded for Lake Shore Drive were reduced by half for purposes of this

proposed rule. The City has been requested to provide an accurate

traffic count for this bridge prior to the public hearing. While the

Coast Guard has received additional data from the City, the Coast Guard

has not yet analyzed this new information in light of the entire

record. The Coast Guard will consider these newly submitted data, any

revised data, and any comments on the accuracy of those data, before

action on a final rule. The 1994 and 1995 data were extrapolated to the

other downtown bridges. Based on this analysis, it is conservatively

estimated that in excess of 3,000 vehicles are potentially affected by

each sequence of bridge openings on weekdays between the hours of 10:15

a.m. to 3:15 p.m.

The average opening cycle for a bridge takes 8 minutes for a single

vessel transit and 10 minutes for a flotilla of 10 or more vessels.

There was no significant variation in the opening time associated with

the number of vessels in a flotilla. The average time for vehicle

traffic to return to normal after an opening was 4 minutes, although

there was substantial variation between bridges which appears related

to the volume of traffic on a particular bridge.

From these data the Coast Guard concluded that the existing

permanent rule does not strike a reasonable balance between the needs

of vehicular traffic and the needs of recreational boaters. The

existing rule requires the drawbridges to be opened, on demand, as many

times as recreational boaters want, within specified times. Other than

the rush hour restrictions, the rule does not provide for regularly

scheduled openings and the data indicate that openings have the

potential for affecting a large number of vehicles during periods of

heavy traffic.

There is no set formula for balancing the burden on vehicular

traffic against the burden on marine traffic. The Bridge Administration

Manual indicates that the length of delay caused by a bridge opening,

by itself, does not justify restricting bridge openings. There is sound

reason for this, since the amount of delay caused by a bridge opening

can be the result of many factors, including some within the control of

the bridge owner, from initial design of the bridge through current

maintenance and operational practices. On heavenly traveled roads the

delay to people in vehicles will invariably exceed the delay to people

on recreational vessels, unless the time between required openings is

extremely long. Any attempt to measure and weigh the value of waiting

time to persons in vehicles and compare it to the value of unrestricted

scheduling to boaters is misleading. As noted previously, the statute

requires the regulation to provide for scheduled openings to reduce

motor vehicle traffic delays and congestion, where practical and

feasible. The Coast Guard construes the statute as requiring only a

common sense evaluation, on a broad level, of the impact of bridge

openings on vehicular traffic and the reasonable expectations of the

owners and operators of vessels to be able to use the navigable waters

of the United States. In this instance the Coast Guard believes that an

appropriate balance requires some restriction, beyond the current rush

hour limitations, on the right of vessel owners and operators to

request openings. The balance must reflect vehicular traffic needs and

the peculiarities of the Chicago Loop and Must also accommodate the

needs of boaters. A proper balance is not one that continues on demand

openings except during rush hours. The voluntary restraint and

scheduling efforts practiced by the boatyards and boaters do not cure

the defects in the existing permanent rule. Since there are no market

forces that are operable to limit or control exercise of the right to

demand bridge openings, the Coast Guard concluded that revision of the

existing rule was appropriate if a practical and feasible method of

scheduling could be devised.

The third step was to analyze the available data to determine if

there is a practical and feasible way to schedule or limit openings

that would help reduce vehicle traffic delays and congestion on the

roads and highways served by the bridges on the Chicago River. To do

this, the Coast Guard analyzed available data from 1990 through July 5,

1995 concerning vessel transits of the Chicago River, concentrating on

those transits that took place on weekdays. Data on several years of

vessel traffic levels were provided by the City of Chicago, contained

in their Drawbridge Study or previously furnished to the Coast Guard.

The number of vessels requesting transit each year ranged from a

low of 461, in the spring of 1992, to a high of 662 in the fall of

1991. Of these, the number of vessels transiting on weekdays ranged

from a high of 207 in the spring of 1990 to a low of 78 in the spring

of 1993. Prior to 1993, approximately one-third of the vessel transits

occurred on weekdays. In 1994 and 1995 the percentage of weekday

transits decreased to 25% or less. It is noted that the data were

influenced by the various restrictions in place since 1993, including

the temporary deviation in effect from April 15, 1995 to May 18, 1995,

and by the voluntary cooperative scheduling arranged between the

[[Page 39293]]

boatyards and the City that accommodated a substantial majority of

vessel transits on weekends. These restraints favored flotillas of

between 5 and 25 vessels on a run. Data available for spring transits

in 1990 and 1991, where no restrictions were in effect, indicate that

approximately 75% of the vessels transiting on weekdays did so in

flotillas of 5 or more. Less than 100 vessels out of a total of 399

transited singly or in flotillas of less than 5 vessels, yet these

vessel transits accounted for approximately two-thirds of the weekday

openings.

Based on the data indicating that approximately one-quarter of the

vessels utilizing daytime weekday openings are causing two-thirds of

these openings, the Coast Guard believes that some restrictions on the

number of daytime weekday openings that these vessels can request would

help reduce traffic delays and congestion. It also appears that the use

of flotillas is a practical and feasible means of providing for a large

majority of the transits necessary to provide for the reasonable needs

of navigation. It does not appear that providing on demand openings for

single vessels on each weekday is necessary to accomodate the

reasonable needs of navigation. The spring, 1995, breakout season

appears to confirm the practicality of using flotillas. There were 69

openings during the period from April 15 to July 5. Of these, 41 were

for flotillas of five or more vessels. Another 14 were for groups of

from two to four vessels. Only 14 were for single vessels, of which 9

were on weekdays.

A review of the data showed that the greatest number of outbound

vessels during the weekdays in April and May 1990 and 1991 occurred on

Wednesday. Traditionally, Wednesday had been the day most used for

outbound vessel movements prior to 1992. In 1994, a change to Tuesday

and Thursday occurred after a temporary deviation of the drawbridge

regulation was implemented. In 1995, the greatest number of outbound

vessel movements occurred on Tuesday and Thursday due to the deviation

in place and the voluntary agreement to follow that schedule after it

was ruled invalid by the court.

The rule that the Coast Guard is proposing would not require the

City to open the bridges for weekday transits of less than five vessels

except on Monday and Friday evenings and on Wednesday morning. Monday

and Friday evenings were selected to facilitate vessel transits from

Lake Michigan to the boatyards for repairs or servicing after a weekend

of sailing, and return to the Lake before the following weekend, a need

that has been repeatedly expressed by boating interests. Wednesday

morning was selected based on the pattern existing in the absence of

restrictions and to equalize the periods when vessels not traversing in

flotillas of five or more could be denied passage. On any day except

Tuesdays and Thursdays, a single vessel would be able to transit the

Chicago River at some point during the day. This, the Coast Guard

believes, reasonably accommodates the expressed need for opportunities

to secure midweek repairs to vessels and return to Lake Michigan. The

rule provides for openings at any time for emergencies, and nothing in

the rule precludes the City from responding to other requests.

The boatyards and boaters have urged maximum flexibility in

arranging and scheduling flotillas. The voluntary scheduling practices

agreed to by the City and the boatyards during recent years was

discussed during the negotiated rulemaking sessions and the possibility

of including provisions in the regulations that would provide flexible

arrangements for flotillas was considered. The Coast Guard has adopted

the concept of encouraging the use of flotillas to limit the number of

openings required by proposing to require openings for flotillas of

five or more vessels. The Coast Guard has also adopted the practice of

allowing the scheduling of these flotillas to be as agreed to between

the City and the boatyards. The proposed rule does not restrict

openings for vessels transiting in flotillas of five or more, except

for requiring advance notice and maintaining the existing rush hour

closure times; however, the proposed rule does not schedule these

openings. Thus, the proposed rule provides the flexibility urged by the

boatyards and boaters. As discussed later, the City's countervailing

need for predictability of schedules and time to mobilize bridge

opening teams is provided by proposing to require longer advance notice

of a requested opening.

The fourth step was to determine whether restricting bridge

operations to particular times of the day would help reduce vehicle

delay and congestion. The data indicate that downtown Chicago traffic

does not follow a typical urban traffic pattern. Rather than traffic

levels increasing during the morning rush hours, decreasing during

midday, and then increasing again for the evening rush hours, the

traffic only decline slightly after morning rush hours and remained

high until early evening. The lowest level of weekday daytime traffic

occurred between 10 a.m. and noon. The traffic data support the

existing rush hour closed periods, which end at 6:30 p.m. Weekend

traffic levels are lower than weekday levels, with the lowest levels

occurring before 1 p.m.

In order for weekday daytime openings on the Chicago River to be

least disruptive to vehicular traffic, the runs should start at 10 a.m.

or as soon thereafter as practical. The first bridge would open at that

time, with all other bridges following in sequence. Each bridge should

be open as the vessel or lead vessel in a flotilla approaches, so that

continuous movement of the vessel(s) can be maintained. Due to the

proximity of the bridges, it may be necessary to have more than one

bridge open at a time. For transits inbound from Lake Michigan, bridges

on the North or South branches would continue this sequential opening

pattern, depending on the destination of the vessel(s). For transits

originating on the North or South branches, it will be necessary for

the party requesting the run and the City to agree on the time for

starting the run in order to have the vessel(s) arrive at the Franklin

Street bridge as close to 10 a.m. as practical. Outbound transits will

occur after 10 a.m. due to the rush hour restrictions on certain

bridges on the North and South branches. This approach, which does not

specify the exact time each bridge will open, is different from the

usual drawbridge regulatory scheme but is based on the systems approach

taken in this rulemaking. Comments are specifically requested on the

feasibility of this approach and any problems that it may cause.

The fifth and final step was to determine whether requiring advance

notice of a requested transit is appropriate and, if so, how much

advance notice should be provided. The bridges are not manned

continuously and, if the rule provides for restricted openings, it

would be extremely burdensome to require all the bridges to be manned

at all times. Due to the city's manpower constraints, the practice has

been for necessary personnel to move from bridge to bridge as a vessel

transit proceeds from Lake Michigan to the boatyards or in the opposite

direction. The City has asserted that, at the present time, it requires

assembling a crew of electricans and other tradesmen to ensure the

satisfactory operation of the bridges. While efforts are underway to

improve the operation of the bridges there is no reason to believe that

this situation will improve in the near future. Thus, the City asserts

a need for time to assign appropriate personnel and schedule their work

hours to accommodate requested transits.

[[Page 39294]]

On the other hand, the boatyards and boaters have asserted that

requiring a lengthy advance notice makes scheduling vessel transits

difficult, especially when assembling a flotilla of 5 or more vessels.

They also assert the unpredictability of single vessels desiring

passage for maintenance or repairs.

In an attempt to accommodate these conflicting needs, the proposed

rule provides for 20 hours advance notice for weekend and Wednesday

daytime openings and for flotillas of 5 or more vessels. A 6 hour

advance notice would be required for evening openings. Except for

Sunday openings, these requirements should enable the City to arrange

for the necessary personnel during normal business hours, either for an

opening that evening or the next day, and would allow boaters and the

boatyards to arrange for openings on relatively short notice. The Coast

Guard believes that providing boaters an opportunity to request a

Sunday opening, based on events occurring on Saturday, is appropriate

and not unduly burdensome for the City.

The above discussion summarizes the analysis, methodology, and

conclusions of the Coast Guard in arriving at this proposed rulemaking.

During the many discussions with interested parties that have occurred,

certain other issues were raised that are not determinative of the

issues, but which still merit discussion.

The City expressed concern that runs would be scheduled in response

to a request and crews mobilized, but that no vessels would show up.

The available data do indicate that this has occurred, but the Coast

Guard is unable to conclude that this is a problem requiring regulatory

action. The statutes addressing drawbridge operation are generally

directed at the responsibities of the bridge owner and provide

penalties for not opening the bridge when required to do so. No

specific penalties are provided under these statutes penalizing the

vessel operator who does not show up for a requested opening, although

there are prohibitions against requesting unnecessary openings. The

Coast Guard will monitor this situation and may address it in a

separate rulemaking if it appears necessary.

The data on pedestrian delays caused by drawbridge openings were

informative but did not contribute significantly to the Coast Guard's

decisions in the formulation of this proposed regulation. The amount of

delay to vehicles and the extent of the vehicle ``backup'' also did not

contribute significantly to the formulation of this proposal. Delay to

land traffic caused by a drawbridge opening is unavoidable but can be

mitigated by efficient operation of the bridges. The Coast Guard is not

aware of any standardized method of determining the value of delay time

and current procedures require only the submission of traffic count

data. Therefore, the Coast Guard did not quantify delay time or assign

a value to it to balance land traffic and vessel transits. The proposed

action should reduce the number of openings and, therefore, the

cumulative delay time of pedestrians and vehicles, which could be

substantial, should be reduced.

During the negotiated rulemaking process, a letter from the

boatyard's attorneys contained the following allegations concerning

deficiencies in the traffic data presented by the City:

1. The letter asserted that the study grossly overstates the delay

time by assuming each person is delayed 12 minutes.

Response: Coast Guard regulations, policy and procedures do not

require data to be expressed in terms of person-hours of delay. The

volume of vehicular and pedestrian traffic was considered, but delay

time was not a determining factor in the rulemaking decision. Assigning

a value to person-hours delay appears to be even more subjective than

determining the impact of bridge openings on vehicles. Persons delayed

could be engaged in personal affairs or on a business venture. The

Coast Guard has not relied on estimates of person-hours of delay in

formulating the proposed schedule of drawbridge openings in this

rulemaking.

2. The letter asserted that, in addition to the methodological

error described above, the placement of vehicle counters has led to a

significant overstatement of bridge traffic.

Response: The location of the traffic counter on Lake Shore Drive

was identified as being susceptible to recording traffic that did not

cross the drawbridge over the Chicago River. The level of traffic

recorded at the Lake Shore Drive counting station and projected for

crossing the bridge may be subject to some inaccuracies. However, Lake

Shore Drive Bridge is but one of 10 drawbridges on the main branch of

the Chicago River. Although the data from Lake Shore Drive may be

inaccurate, data from other bridges were considered accurate. As

previously stated, the data pertaining to Lake Shore Drive were

discounted for the purpose of developing this proposal and the City has

been asked to provide more accurate data in time for the public

hearing.

3. The letter assets that, in addition to the above errors, the

traffic data are skewed by a failure to separate out delays caused by

bridge malfunctions and other problems unrelated to boaters.

Response: The length of delays to land traffic caused by individual

bridge opening was not a significant factor in formulating this

regulation. Regardless of whether delays to land traffic were

attributable to mechanical or other problems, the delay would not occur

unless the bridge was opened for the passage of vessels. The length of

the delay was not quantified or assigned a value in developing these

proposed regulations.

4. The letter asserts that the evidence of delays to emergency

vehicles is not believable.

Response: The information regarding documented cases of delays to

emergency vehicles was requested by the Coast Guard to verify the cases

reported by the City of Chicago. Impacts of drawbridges on emergency

vehicle response were considered, but were not a determinative factor,

in developing this proposed regulation. Emergency land vehicles are

given special consideration, as stated in 33 CFR 117.31, which allows

drawbridges to close for passage of emergency vehicles. In addition,

readily available alternative routes exist. Requiring advance notice of

requested opening will facilitate dispatching emergency vehicles when

bridge openings occur.

5. The letter asserts that the conclusion that current restrictions

on weekday daytime openings ``only achieve a small reduction in land

traffic impacts'' and, therefore, support complete elimination of

weekday daytime openings, is contradicted by the study's own data.

Response: The Coast Guard reviewed the data and has found that

there is evidence of heavy vehicular traffic during most of the weekday

hours, not just during rush hours. The proposed rule is based on

evidence that there is a drop in weekday land traffic between 10 a.m.

and noon. Bridge openings during that period would therefore have the

least impact on land traffic, especially if the number of weekday

openings is minimal. The proposed regulation provides that single

vessels or flotillas of less than five vessels may request passage only

on Wednesday in this time period.

The City asserts that there should be no continuation of on demand

openings and expressed a desire for consistency and predictability to

schedule bridge crews. The proposed restrictions on the days and times

that openings can be requested for vessels not transiting in a flotilla

of five or more, and the notification requirements, are designed

[[Page 39295]]

to accommodate those positions. The City also expressed major concerns

about traffic and business disruption attributable to drawbridge

openings. The data provided give evidence of patterns showing decreased

traffic Saturday and Sunday mornings, weekday mornings near the 10 a.m.

hour and during the evenings after 6:30 p.m. This proposal attempts to

schedule openings to closely track the times when traffic and business

disruption would be the least.

The boatyards' major concerns, as expressed through their comments,

were that due to the unpredictable needs and desires of their customers

they needed to be able to transit the river every day. the proposed

rule addresses these concerns by allowing for daily transit for

flotillas of 5 or more vessels, with advance notice. The boatyards said

they needed access for repair work and to allow growth. Access by even

a single vessel 5 days a week, with advance notice, addresses those

needs. Boatyards also expressed a desire for some combination of

predictability and flexibility. the notice requirements and

supplementary openings in the proposal are designed to meet those

concerns.

A major innovation in this rule is the addition of supplemental

opening times. These unlimited openings, governed by a 20 hour notice

requirement and a flotilla size of at least five vessels, allow the

boatyards to schedule runs up or down the river as necessary: weekday

daytime with rush hour limitations, weekends, or evenings.

Under this regime the boatyards would have a great amount of

flexibility to meet the needs of their customers and grow, while at the

same time, the notice and flotilla requirements would give the City

enough lead time to meet its need for predictability in scheduling the

complex series of openings necessary to accommodate a transit of the

Chicago River system.

When looking at the spring 1995 period of cooperation between the

competing interests, this proposed rule is designed to accommodate the

needs expressed by the affected parties.

Regulatory Evaluation

This rule is not considered to be a significant rulemaking activity

under Executive Order 12886 and is not significant under the Department

of Transportation Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11040;

February 26, 1979).

The economic impact of the proposed rule cannot be accurately

determined. Its primary impact is on weekday openings of the bridges.

The number of openings for single vessels, or groups of less than 5,

should be substantially reduced. The number of these weekday runs each

year has been approximately 60. If all these runs were eliminated, and

no additional flotilla runs were added, the City could save

approximately $400,000 per year. Since single vessel transits could

still occur on 5 days a week, not all these runs will be eliminated.

Assuming these runs will be reduced 50%, the savings to the City would

be under $200,000 per year. However, the rule allows an unlimited

number of flotilla runs to be scheduled, and it is impossible to

predict how many will be actually utilized. Available data indicate

that there are approximately 90 total runs per year. Assuming that

flotilla runs increase by 10 per year due to the limitations on single

vessel transits, the cost to the City would be approximately $70,000.

Thus, the net savings to the City are estimated to be approximately

$130,000 per year.

The boatyards have asserted that restricting openings of the

drawbridges will adversely affect their business, because boaters will

be unwilling to put up with the restrictions and will utilize boatyards

in locations other than on the Chicago River. Information submitted to

the Coast Guard indicates that the number of vessels using the affected

boatyards has decreased and that utilizing alternative boatyards has

increased. Some of this displacement is asserted to have been caused by

the recent restrictions on drawbridge openings. Other displacements may

be attributable to the inherent difficulties in transiting numerous

drawbridges to get to the boatyards. Some loss of business may be due

to different reasons, such as development of alternative facilities or

personal choice of the boat owner. The Coast Guard has received

assertions that the net income of the boatyards has been substantially

reduced by past restrictions on bridge openings. This reduction appears

to be a transfer of economic costs and benefits, and not an increased

cost to the boat owner. The Coast Guard does not have an estimate of

the dollar value of this transfer and invites comment on the economic

impact of the proposed rules.

The Coast Guard has considered whether the proposed restrictions on

bridge openings constitutes a ``taking'' under the Fifth Amendment to

the Constitution, as discussed in E.O. 12630 and the Attorney General's

Guidelines implementing that Order. The proposed regulation does not

directly regulate the use of the boatyards' property, but it has been

asserted that the restrictions will adversely affect their profit. It

is the Coast Guard's position that the proposed regulation will

substantially advance the governmental purpose of balancing the needs

of land transportation and the navigational rights of recreational

boaters. The proposed provisions for supplemental openings, as

required, for flotillas of 5 or more vessels and the provisions

ensuring access by all vessels on 5 out of the 7 days in each week

should minimize the impact on the boatyards. The Coast Guard does not

believe that the proposed regulations have significant taking

implications. However, comments and data on this issue are specifically

requested.

Small Entities

The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires an assessment of whether

the proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities. For this proposal, the Coast

Guard considers any business employing less than 500 persons to be a

small entity. The four boatyards remaining on the North and South

branches of the Chicago River are small businesses and they have

asserted that restricting the drawbridge openings will adversely affect

their businesses. The proposed rule is not seen as having a significant

adverse economic effect on any other business.

As discussed above, the Coast Guard has carefully considered the

boatyards' views and has proposed unlimited supplemental openings to

give the boatyards considerable flexibility to satisfy their customers'

needs. The five-boat minimum for flotillas is based on an analysis of

the data on past voluntary practices, which indicated that this limit

is feasible. The rule does restrict single vessel passages, but does

not prohibit them. The restrictions are considered to be the minimum

necessary to achieve the intent of the statute.

Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 605(b) of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) that this proposal, if adopted,

will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of

small entities. The Coast Guard specifically request comments on the

impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and will consider any

information provided before promulgating the final rule.

Collection of Information

The proposed rule contains no collection of information

requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et

seq.). No reports or information would be submitted to the government.

As is common with all other drawbridge regulations, persons

[[Page 39296]]

desiring passage of a vessel have to make their requests known to the

operator of a drawbridge, frequently some time in advance. This advance

notice is normally a single phone call. Advance notice has been

required under the existing rule for drawbridges on the Chicago River

and a simple verbal request for bridge openings would continue to be

required under the proposed rules.

Federalism

The Coast Guard has analyzed this action under the principles and

criteria contained in Executive Order 12612 and has determined that

this proposal, if adopted, will not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Environment

The Coast Guard considered the environmental impact of this rule

and concluded that, under section 2.B.2.g.5 of Commandant Instruction

M16475.1B, this rule is categorically excluded from further

environmental documentation. A Categorical Exclusion Determination

statement has been prepared and placed in the docket.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

Bridges.

For reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR

part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATING REGULATIONS

1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as

follows:.

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 49 CFR 1.46; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g).

2. Section 117.391 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 117.391 Chicago River.

The draws of the bridges operated by the City of Chicago shall

operate as follows:

(a) For commercial vessels:

(1) From April 1 through November 30--

(i) The draws of the bridges across the Chicago River from its

mouth to the junction of the North and South Branches, across the South

Branch from the junction to and including the Roosevelt Road, and the

Kinzie and Ohio Street bridges across the North Branch shall open on

signal; except that, from Monday through Friday from 7:30 a.m. to 10:30

a.m., and 4 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., the draws need not be opened for the

passage of commercial vessels.

(ii) The draws of the bridges across the North Branch of the

Chicago River at Grand Avenue, the bridges across the North Branch of

the Chicago River north of the Ohio Street bridge to and including

North Halsted Street, and bridges across the South Branch of the

Chicago River north of South Halsted Street to, but not including

Roosevelt Road, shall open on signal; except that, from Monday through

Friday from 7 a.m. to 8 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., the draws need

not open for the passage of commercial vessels.

(iii) The draws of the bridges across the North Branch of the

Chicago River north of North Halsted Street and the South Branch of the

Chicago River south of South Halsted Street shall open on signal;

except that, from Monday through Friday from 7 a.m. to 8 a.m. and 5:30

p.m. to 6:30 p.m. the draws need not be opened for the passage of

commercial vessels.

(iv) Subject to the restrictions in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through

(a)(1)(iii) of this section, the draws of the Randolph Street, Cermak

Road, and Loomis Street bridges across the South Branch of the Chicago

River, shall open on signal. The draws of the following bridges in

Chicago shall open on signal if tended or within 30 minutes after

notice is given to the City of Chicago Bridge Desk:

South Branch

Washington Street

Madison Street

Monroe Street

Adams Street

Jackson Boulevard

Van Buren Street

Congress Street (Eisenhower Expressway)

Harrison Street

Roosevelt Road

Eighteenth Street

Canal Street

South Halsted Street

West Fork of the South Branch

South Ashland Avenue

South Damen Avenue

Chicago River, North Branch

Grand Avenue

Chicago Avenue

North Halsted Street

Ogden Street

Division Street

(2) From December 1 through March 31, the draws of the highway

bridges across the Chicago River, the North Branch of the Chicago

River, and the South Branch of the Chicago River shall open on signal

if at least 12 hours notice is given. However, the bridges need not

open during those periods of time specified in paragraphs (a)(1) (i),

(ii) and (iii) of this section.

(b) For recreational vessels:

(1) From April 1 through November 30--

(i) The draws shall be scheduled to open, before 1 p.m., twice on

Saturdays and twice on Sundays if requests for passage have been

received at least 20 hours in advance. If the bridges have been

authorized to remain closed for portions of a Saturday or Sunday to

accommodate special events, openings shall be scheduled after 1 p.m. as

necessary to provide two openings.

(ii) The draws shall open on Monday and Friday, after 6:30 p.m.

Each opening requires notice that has been given at least 6 hours in

advance of a vessel's requested time of passage.

(iii) The draws shall open on Wednesdays at 10 a.m., or as soon

thereafter as practical, if a request for passage has been given at

least 20 hours in advance.

(iv) The draws shall open at times in addition to those listed in

paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (b)(1)(iii) of this section, after notice

has been given at least 20 hours in advance requesting passage for a

flotilla of at least five vessels. However, the bridges need not open

during those periods of time specified in paragraphs (a)(1) (i), (ii)

and (iii) of this section.

(2) From December 1 through March 31, the draws of the highway

bridges across the Chicago River, the North Branch of the Chicago

River, and the South Branch of the Chicago River need open on signal

only if at least 48 hours notice is given. However, the bridges need

not open during those periods of time specified in paragraphs (a)(1)

(i), (ii) and (iii) of this section.

(3) Paragraph (b) of this section applies to the following listed

bridges:

Main Branch

Lake Shore Drive

Columbus Drive

Michigan Avenue

Wabash Avenue

State Street

Dearborn Street

Clark Street

LaSalle Street

Wells Street

Franklin-Orleans Street

South Branch

Lake Street

Randolph Street

Washington Street

Monroe Street

Madison Street

Adams Street

Jackson Boulevard

Van Buren Street

Eisenhower Expressway

Harrison Street

Roosevelt Road

[[Page 39297]]

18th Street

Canal Street

South Halsted Street

South Loomis Street

South Ashland Avenue

North Branch

Grand Avenue

Ohio Street

Chicago Avenue

North Halsted Street

(c) The following bridges need not be opened for the passage of

vessels: The draws of the North Avenue, Cortland Street, Webster

Avenue, North Ashland Avenue, Chicago and Northwestern Railroad, North

Damen Avenue, and Belmont Avenue bridges across the North Branch of the

Chicago River, and the draws of the North Halsted St. bridge, the Ogden

Ave. bridge, the Division St. bridge and the Chicago, Milwaukee, St.

Paul and Pacific Railroad bridge across the North Branch Canal.

(d) The opening signal for all Chicago River bridges is three short

blasts or by shouting, except that four short blasts is the opening

signal for the Chicago and Northwestern railroad bridge near Kinzie

Street and the Milwaukee Road bridge near North Avenue and five short

blasts is the opening signal for the Lake Shore Bridge when approaching

from the north.

(e) The emergency provisions of Sec. 117.31 apply to the passage of

all vessels and the operation of all bridges on the Chicago River.

G.F. Woolever,

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District.

[FR Doc. 95-18976 Filed 7-28-95; 2:49 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-14-M