[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