[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 148 (Wednesday, August 2, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39287-39297]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-18976]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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