[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 194 (Friday, October 6, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52298-52312]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-24916]



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


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
33 CFR Part 117

[CGD09-95-023]
RIN-2115-AE47


Drawbridge Operation Regulations, Chicago River, IL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard amends the operating regulations governing the 
drawbridges owned and operated by the City of Chicago over the Chicago 
River system. This final rule establishes the times when, and the 
conditions under which, the bridges need to open for the passage of 
commercial and recreational vessels, and requires advance notice of a 
recreational vessel's time of intended passage through the bridges. The 
rule allows additional drawbridge openings for flotillas of five or 
more recreational vessels. The regulations have one set of rules for 
the period of high vessel activity, from April 1 through November 30, 
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 made 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 
across 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 are more numerous than in any other major city in 
the United States and have a correspondingly great impact on vehicular 
traffic. This action accommodates the needs of vehicle traffic while 
providing for the reasonable needs of navigation.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on November 19, 1995.

ADDRESSES: 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 telephone number is (216) 522-3993.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. Carolyn Malone, Bridge Branch, Ninth Coast Guard District, (216) 
522-3993.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory History

A. Overview

    The final rule that is published today is the culmination of over 
two years of analysis by the Coast Guard concerning what restrictions, 
if any, should be applicable to the opening of drawbridges in downtown 
Chicago. This has proven to be a highly contentious issue, and the task 
of arriving at a final rule has been difficult. During the past two 
years, the Coast Guard has sought and received public comments on 10 
separate occasions (7 requests for comments on deviations, 1 request 
for comments on the regulatory negotiation process, and 2 requests for 
comments on Notices of Proposed Rulemaking). During this time, the 
Coast Guard also has conducted three public hearings, and has attempted 
to establish new rules during the course of what proved to be an 
unsuccessful negotiated rulemaking proceeding.
    As discussed below, Chicago presents unique drawbridge problems 
since there are 26 drawbridges over the Chicago River in the heart of 
the City's commercial district. Every time the bridges are required to 
open, the flow of vehicular and pedestrian traffic is interrupted. On 
the other hand, sailboat owners who sail their boats on Lake Michigan 
historically have stored their boats during the winter at yards located 
along the river, and the transits to and 

[[Page 52299]]
from these yards require periodic openings of the bridges. These 
transits to and from winter storage are commonly referred to as the 
Spring ``Breakout'' and Fall ``Return.'' During the Spring Breakout in 
April, May, and early June, boats travel down the Chicago River to 
seasonal moorings on Lake Michigan. At the end of the boating season in 
late September, October, and November, the boats travel back up the 
river for off-season storage; this is the Fall Return. Thus, there are 
substantial numbers of sailboats traveling the river between the yards 
and Lake Michigan during the Spring and Fall seasons. In addition, in-
season repair work at the boatyards necessitates transiting the river. 
Restricting the times at which drawbridges can be required to open 
potentially impinges on the ability of sailboat owners to traverse the 
Chicago River between the boatyards and Lake Michigan. On the other 
hand, not restricting the times at which drawbridges can be required to 
open potentially impinges upon vehicular traffic crossing the bridges 
at such times.
    The governing statute concerning drawbridge rules is clear. It 
imposes a duty on all persons ``owning, operating, and tending the 
drawbridges built * * * across the navigable rivers * * * of the United 
States, to open, or cause to be opened, the draws of such bridges * * * 
under such rules and regulations as in the opinion of the Secretary of 
Transportation the public interests require to govern the opening of 
drawbridges for the passage of vessels.'' (33 U.S.C. 499.) The 
Secretary of Transportation has delegated this authority to the 
Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard. The authority has been delegated further 
to the cognizant Coast Guard District Commander.
    In 1988, the Congress redefined the focus of the statute by 
directing for the first time that, ``any rules and regulations made in 
pursuance of this section 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 delays and congestion on roads and highways 
linked by drawbridges.'' Pub. L. No. 100-448, 102 Stat. 1846.
    The balancing of interests between the boaters and boatyards in 
Chicago on the one hand, and the bridge owners and users, on the other, 
is the heart of the Chicago drawbridge controversy. It is obvious from 
the history of these proceedings and the litigation they have spawned 
that the wishes of the City, its citizens, the boaters, and the 
boatyards diverge greatly and cannot all be accommodated fully. As a 
consequence, the Coast Guard has conducted an exhaustive review of the 
extensive record before it and has independently balanced all of the 
competing concerns in determining what rule best serves the public 
interest consistent with the drawbridge statute and the 1988 amendment 
to it. The Coast Guard believes that the rule published today fully 
satisfies the requirements of that law and the public interest by 
ensuring the drawbridges in Chicago are opened under a schedule that 
allows reasonable navigation opportunities for the passage of vessels 
while also reducing motor vehicle traffic delays and congestion on 
Chicago's roads and highways to the extent practical and feasible.

B. History of the Proceeding

    Since 1976, the regulations for the operation of the bridges on the 
Chicago River have provided for ``on-demand'' openings seven days a 
week, except during rush hours on Mondays through Fridays.
    This regulation is referred to in this preamble as the ``1976 
Rule.'' The 1976 Rule is a reference point for basic on-demand status. 
The regulatory language for temporary deviations is taken from the 1984 
reorganization of 33 CFR Part 117.
1. The 1993 and 1994 Temporary Deviations
    The provisions of 33 CFR 117.43 for many years have allowed a 
Chicago District Commander to authorize temporary deviations to 
regulations for no more than 90 days in order to evaluate suggested 
changes to drawbridge regulations. Notice of a temporary deviation is 
to be published in the Federal Register.
    On May 12, 1993, the Coast Guard published a temporary deviation 
from the 1976 Rule to allow the City of Chicago to limit weekday 
openings for recreational vessels (58 Fed. Reg. 27933). The temporary 
deviation was effective from April 26, to May 31, 1993. It was 
implemented to evaluate the usefulness of requiring flotillas, in 
response to a request by the City of Chicago that claimed it was unduly 
burdensome to open bridges for a single vessel and that sought a 
schedule that would have restricted openings to Saturdays and Sundays. 
Discussions with the Coast Guard resulted in the consideration of 
flotilla requirements for the first time. Specifically, the City 
proposed a temporary deviation that provided for bridge openings 
conditioned upon receipt of 24-hour notice on Saturdays and Sundays 
from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m. for organized flotillas of 5 to 25 vessels, and 
on Tuesday and Thursday evenings from 6:30 p.m. until passage was 
completed for similarly-sized flotillas.
    After discussions with the City and with boating interests, the 
Coast Guard adopted a schedule for the Spring, 1993 season which 
required bridges to open on twenty-four hours notice for flotillas of 5 
to 25 vessels on Saturdays and Sundays during daylight hours and on 
Tuesday and Thursday evenings for flotillas of the same size (Id. at 
27934). The Coast Guard noted that traditionally it had not specified 
flotilla requirements, but that such an approach might be appropriate 
in the context of Chicago, and that the temporary deviation would 
``provide an evaluation period which will provide the Coast Guard a 
valuable test of the reasonableness of such a regulatory structure'' 
(Id.). On June 16, a second temporary deviation was published covering 
the period from June 1 to July 31, 1993 (58 Fed. Reg. 33191). This 
temporary deviation implemented a schedule which provided more daylight 
hours for passage. Many comments to the Coast Guard concerning the 
previous deviation had questioned the safety of evening passages and 
large flotilla trips, and the possibility of the City making greater 
efforts to shorten trip time. This temporary deviation expanded the 
temporary rules to cover Wednesday evenings in addition to Tuesday and 
Thursday evenings. It also established that vessels returning for 
necessary repairs and service shall give ``advance notice'' and be 
passed through with no flotilla requirement for inbound or outbound 
trips.
    On August 12, a third temporary deviation was published which 
covered the period from August 1 to September 29, 1993 (58 FR 42856). 
This announcement solicited more information on the comments received 
during the two previous deviations which had indicated concern for 
safety of night trips and flotilla requirements. Schedule changes 
resulting from this deviation afforded more daylight hours for transit 
and eliminated flotilla sizes. A Wednesday morning opening at 11:00 
a.m. was added to supplement the evening opening for that day. Openings 
continued to be provided on Tuesday and Thursday evenings, with 2 
openings available on each of the weekend days.
    On October 21, the Coast Guard implemented a fourth temporary 
deviation covering the period from October 1 to November 30, 1993 (58 
FR 54289). This deviation addressed the same concerns that the City and 
boaters raised in comments on earlier 

[[Page 52300]]
deviations, which included minimizing land-based traffic impacts from 
bridge openings, the timing and number of transits, and flotilla 
requirements. The City had urged more use of weekend openings due to 
the greater impacts of weekday daytime openings on vehicular traffic. 
The temporary deviation established ``windows'' for openings on 
Saturdays and Sundays from 7:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., moved the Tuesday 
and Thursday evening starting time forward to 6:30 p.m., established a 
Wednesday opening ``window'' between 10:30 a.m. and 2:30 p.m., and 
added a similar daylight opening for a Federal holiday on October 11, 
1993.
    On November 29, 1993, the Coast Guard imposed a fifth temporary 
deviation schedule pursuant to which all recreational boats were 
required to traverse the river only on weekends during the months 
following the Fall, 1993 season (58 FR 62532). The Coast Guard invited 
public comment concerning each of these temporary deviations, and the 
submittals that it has received have been duly considered in the 
formulation of this final rule.
2. The 1994 Proposed Final Rule
    Following the 1993 boating season, the Coast Guard determined that 
it had obtained sufficient information to promulgate a new permanent 
rule. Therefore, on 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). 
That notice proposed to implement a new drawbridge rule that would have 
required bridges to open for noncommercial vessels during the Spring, 
Summer, and Fall seasons on Saturdays and Sundays during the day, and 
on Tuesday and Thursday evenings. During the Winter, the bridges would 
be required to open on demand, provided that 12-hour advance notice had 
been given. This schedule reflected elements of the City's request for 
an approach that would include 24-hour notice, flotillas of 5 to 25 
boats, Saturday and Sunday openings from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., and 
Tuesday and Thursday openings from 6:30 p.m. to midnight. The NPRM 
stated that the Coast Guard had preliminarily determined these days and 
times were in the best interest of boaters, would provide for safety, 
and would meet the traffic needs of the City. The Coast Guard invited 
public comments to be filed, scheduled a hearing on the matter, and 
received 132 submissions commenting on the proposal. The hearing held 
on January 20, 1994 in Chicago was attended by 107 persons, of whom 32 
made oral statements or furnished data on the proposed regulations. 
Comments received ranged from those urging that no weekday openings of 
Chicago draws should be allowed even at night, to those urging the 1976 
Rule, which allowed on-demand openings, should remain in place.
    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 (59 FR 18298). As proposed, this rule provided for 
evening openings on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and openings during the day 
on Saturdays and Sundays. The rule also provided for Wednesday daylight 
openings from April 15 through June 15, and specified a flotilla size 
of between 5 and 25 vessels as a condition for weekday boat runs. In 
promulgating the rule, the Coast Guard relied on the views expressed 
during the comment period and at the January 20, 1994 hearing, and on a 
traffic study submitted by the City of Chicago.
    The 1994 rule was challenged in court by Crowley's Yacht Yard, 
Inc., one of the boatyards located along the Chicago River. On 
September 26, 1994, the United States District Court for the District 
of Columbia issued a decision in the case of Crowley's Yacht Yard, Inc. 
v. Pena (C.A. No. 94-1152 SSH), rescinding the new rule published on 
April 18, 1994, and reinstating the previous regulations, that is, the 
1976 Rule. The Court's decision, which is published at 863 F. Supp. 18 
(D.D.C. 1994), concluded 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 that the data set 
forth in the traffic study provided by the City were suspect since the 
study took place, in part, during the ``Taste of Chicago'' festival, 
which resulted in increased vehicular traffic.
3. The Fall, 1994 Temporary Deviation
    Following the Court's decision, the Coast Guard authorized a new 
temporary deviation to the 1976 Rule for the period October 11, 1994 
through December 5, 1994. This temporary deviation was prompted by 
urgent concerns expressed by the City of Chicago regarding the effect 
of the reinstated 1976 Rule and was necessitated by the beginning of 
the ``Fall Return'' when boaters took their vessels from Lake Michigan 
to the Chicago River boatyards for winter storage. A notice of this 
temporary deviation, together with a request for comments, was 
published on October 24, 1994 (59 FR 53351). The deviation provided for 
openings of bridges on 24-hour advance notice 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 remaining Fall season. In addition, from 
October 11 through October 23 the temporary deviation required that, 
upon 24-hour advance notice, the bridges 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 bridges were to be opened for vessel 
passage between the hours of 10:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. on Wednesdays. A 
5 to 25 boat flotilla requirement was also imposed as a condition for 
weekday passages, with only the upper limitations on flotilla size 
applied to weekend runs. Crowley's Yacht Yard, Inc. challenged the 
Fall, 1994 temporary deviation before the same court that had stricken 
the 1994 rule, but the Court denied Crowley's motion to strike the 
temporary deviation, thereby allowing it to remain in effect throughout 
the remainder of the Fall, 1994 season.
    Following the issuance of the Fall, 1994 deviation, the Coast Guard 
formally requested the City of Chicago to prepare a new traffic study, 
and to provide other information that could be used in arriving at a 
new final rule. The City responded by citing the difficulties of 
beginning a new traffic study that late into the Fall, 1994 boating 
season. Instead, it suggested that a study should be conducted during 
the Spring, 1995 season.
    The Coast Guard received 21 comments concerning the deviation that 
was in effect during the Fall, 1994 season. Data supplied by the City 
of Chicago indicate that, of the 540 sailboats that returned to winter 
storage during the Fall, 1994 deviation, 455 traversed the Chicago 
River on weekends. Specifically, 245 sailboats returned in 16 runs on 
Saturdays, and 210 transited in 13 runs on Sundays. By contrast, 85 
sailboats returned on weekdays and weeknights in a total of 11 runs. 
Based on these data, the City urged that no future weekday daylight 
bridge openings were required and that all boaters' needs could be 
accommodated with weekend openings. However, the City stated that if a 
temporary deviation was to be implemented for the Spring, 1995 season 
when Chicago proposed to conduct its traffic study, at the most, 
bridges should only be required to open on weekends during the day, 
Wednesday during the day, and Tuesday and Thursday evenings. Chicago 
also urged that flotilla size 

[[Page 52301]]
limits and advanced scheduling should be required.
    The remainder of the other comments received by the Coast Guard 
following the issuance of the Fall, 1994 temporary deviation were from 
boaters or boating interests, and these comments took the position that 
the Coast Guard should establish a schedule that was more flexible to 
boaters. These comments generally urged the Coast Guard to implement a 
temporary rule that allowed a continuation of on-demand openings. 
Specific comments stated that allowing large flotillas presents 
inherent dangers to boaters, that some weekday openings are required by 
boaters, and that special circumstances may require boats to traverse 
the river at other than scheduled times, such as for repair or in 
emergencies.
4. The 1995 Temporary Deviation
    Given the schedule for the City of Chicago to prepare its traffic 
study, it was not possible for the Coast Guard to implement a new final 
rule in time for the Spring, 1995 season. Therefore, it was necessary 
for another temporary deviation to be implemented for that season. 
Based on the comments received on the Fall, 1994 deviation, on February 
16, 1995, the Coast Guard published a Notice proposing to adopt a new 
temporary schedule for the Spring, 1995 season that, if finalized, 
would have allowed on-demand openings of bridges, except during rush 
hour, and subject to a 24-hour notice requirement (60 Fed. Reg. at 
8942). Other than the notice requirement, this proposal would have been 
similar to the provisions in the 1976 Rule. The Notice ``encourage[d] 
interested persons to submit written data or views concerning the 
operation of drawbridges during this deviation period'' and also 
scheduled a public hearing on the issue for March 9, 1975 (Id. at 
8941). The Coast Guard stated in its Notice that:

    [T]he hearing will provide 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 are to be made to the deviation prior to its becoming 
effective on April 15, 1995.

Id.
    The Coast Guard received 80 comments in response to the February 16 
Notice. In contrast to the 21 comments received on the prior deviation, 
the vast majority of the comments received on this Notice took the 
position that the Coast Guard should not implement a temporary or final 
drawbridge schedule that allowed a return to on-demand drawbridge 
openings.
    A large number of commenters urged that the Coast Guard should 
modify its proposed 90-day schedule so that there would be limited, if 
any, weekday openings of Chicago bridges. By and large, these 
individuals and Chicago commercial interests stated that the disruptive 
effect of bridge openings that they had experienced during weekday 
business hours simply was not in the public interest. Some commenters 
also stated that the temporary schedule ultimately adopted by the Coast 
Guard should include requirements for minimum flotilla size to lessen 
the total number of drawbridge openings.
    Aside from general concerns relating to traffic disruption, many 
commenters stated that their particular business interests were harmed 
by on-demand openings. These included, among others, taxi cab 
companies, couriers, parcel delivery services, an ambulance company, 
hotels, associations, parking companies, property management firms, a 
bank, DePaul University, Union Station, and AMTRAK.
    Accompanying Chicago's submission were letters from both Illinois 
Senators, 7 Representatives, and 5 alderman calling for a rule that did 
not allow on-demand bridge openings, particularly on weekdays. Finally, 
the City urged that while in its view all sailboats could easily be 
accommodated only with weekend openings, the City was nonetheless 
amenable to the imposition of a temporary schedule ``of reasonable 
regulations limiting flotilla size and requiring bridge lifts only on 
weekends, Tuesday and Thursday evenings and Wednesdays during the day'' 
for testing purposes.
    Representatives from the City of Chicago in their comments to the 
docket, and in testimony at the public hearing, claimed that all needs 
of sailboaters could be accommodated by weekend openings. Chicago 
representatives stated that multiple openings of Chicago's bridges 
exacerbate problems relating to these aging structures, and pointed out 
that the total budget for all Chicago bridges is $20 million per year, 
of which $10 to $20 million goes for rehabilitation of drawbridges. The 
City claimed that the cost of opening drawbridges averages between 
$5,000 and $8,000 per boat run, and that the total cost of raising the 
bridges for the 82 runs under the 1994 deviation was $460,000. Chicago 
representatives also stated that on-demand bridge openings could not be 
handled without significant realignment of its bridge tender staff. The 
City noted that the costs of maintaining and operating the Chicago 
draws are incurred almost exclusively for the benefit of recreational 
boaters.
    Chicago also produced evidence concerning the potential impact of 
delays resulting from on-demand bridge openings on emergency fire and 
rescue efforts. Comments of the City of Chicago Department of Police 
Traffic Section summarized the potential delays to police, fire and 
rescue vehicles posed by weekday drawbridge openings, and noted that 
there is no radio contact with drawbridge tenders.
    The Chicago Fire Commissioner, the District Chief of the First 
District Fire Department, and an employee of the Chicago Department of 
Environment testified concerning the problems that potentially and 
actually arise in getting to fire or rescue sites when drawbridges are 
open, particularly on weekdays. The Deputy Chief of Police for Special 
Functions and the Commander of the Chicago Police Department and 
Traffic Section provided similar testimony concerning the effects of 
bridge openings on law enforcement and other police activities. Others 
testifying included the Chief of Trauma and Critical Care of 
Northwestern Memorial Hospital who, citing the need to move serious 
trauma patients to treatment within fifteen minutes, urged ``as a 
health care worker * * * stopping all bridges opening in Chicago.''
    A representative of the Chicago Development Council, comprised of 
``sixty-seven companies which represent over 70 million square feet of 
commercial real estate space in Chicago's central area'' urged that on-
demand drawbridge openings did not properly weigh the needs of 
Chicago's other citizens. Similar testimony was offered by a 
representative of the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce. The Deputy 
Commissioner for the Department of Planning and Development stated that 
``the potential damage to the City of Chicago that would result in the 
proposed bridge lift [on-demand] regulation far exceeds the benefit to 
recreational boaters or the recreational boating industry.'' The 
Director of the Mayor's Office of Special Events offered testimony as 
to the detrimental effects on tourism of traffic jams caused by bridge 
openings. All of these statements were consistent with similar 
statements made by Chicago commercial concerns to the public docket 
urging that commercial detriment would result from delays relating to 
on-demand weekday bridge openings.
    Boating interests presented their views in 7 comments filed with 
the Coast Guard. The boating interests urged that no basis had been 
shown to depart 

[[Page 52302]]
from the 1976 on-demand rules, that weekday transits were necessary to 
boaters and to the boatyards that serve them, and that the vehicular 
and pedestrian disruption noted by the City and other commenters was, 
in the view of the boating interests, exaggerated. Some of these 
parties claimed that flotilla requirements were potentially dangerous 
because a large grouping of sailboats in the Chicago River at any one 
time heightened the potential for collisions. Some boating commenters 
also stated that night transits of the Chicago River are inherently 
dangerous and should not be allowed under the rule.
    Boating representatives also appeared at the hearing and continued 
to voice their need to traverse the Chicago River unencumbered by 
schedules and, at a minimum, to have the opportunity for daytime 
weekday transits. Boating interests reiterated their claim that 
nighttime passages are inherently dangerous, and some charged that 
flotilla requirements result in large numbers of vessels transiting the 
river at one time which pose safety risks. The boatyards stated that 
their client base was shrinking as the result of more restricted bridge 
openings, and expressed concern that their viability as commercial 
enterprises was at stake if the Coast Guard moved away from an on-
demand approach. Boating interests argued that it was the City's burden 
to justify any change in the 1976 Rule, and that the City had not 
provided evidence demonstrating a need for change.
    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 
covering the period from April 15, 1995 to July 13, 1995 (60 FR 18006). 
The temporary schedule departed from the on-demand approach proposed in 
February, and instead set forth a schedule of daytime and evening 
openings on Tuesdays and Thursdays as well as weekend openings, maximum 
sizes for flotillas, and 24-hour advance notice prior to opening, 
except in emergencies. The temporary deviation attempted to recognize 
the concerns of the City and business interests by limiting weekday 
openings. It also addressed and attempted to accommodate 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, 
including daylight hours on two weekdays. The advance notice 
requirement was included to allow scheduling of bridge openings by the 
City, while still being responsive to unanticipated needs for transits 
by boats.
    Crowley's Yacht Yard, Inc. challenged the legality of the Spring, 
1995 deviation in court. On May 18, 1995, the United States District 
Court for the District of Columbia vacated the April 10, 1995 temporary 
deviation and reinstated the 1976 Rule in effect previously, as 
promulgated at 33 CFR 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 Administrative Procedure 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. The administrative record containing the 
comments summarized above thereafter was filed with the Court, but the 
Court refused to reconsider its ruling.
    Although the resinstated 1976 Rule provides for opening the bridges 
``on signal'' except during rush hours, the drawbridges in fact 
operated throughout the Spring and Summer of 1995 on scheduled weekend 
and limited weekday openings through voluntary cooperative agreements 
between the principal boatyards and the City. This schedule, which was 
agreed to by the boatyards, was virtually identical to that set forth 
in the Spring, 1995 temporary deviation that was invalidated by the 
Court's order upon challenge by Crowley's Yacht Yard, Inc.
    Following the March public hearing, the Coast Guard compiled its 
own summation of boating activity during the Spring of 1995. Coast 
Guard data show a total of 583 boats transiting between April 15 and 
July 5, 1995. The City bridge log tallied 498 South Branch and 85 North 
Branch transit; the Coast Guard observed 488 of those transits. Using 
the City bridge logs as the baseline number for the boat volume, 73 
percent of the South Branch transits occurred during the weekend 
compared to 79 percent North Branch; 74 percent of the total vessel 
traffic occurred during the weekend. The Spring outbound monthly 
breakdown shows April 1995 with 59 transits (10%) over a 15-day period; 
May 1995 with 371 transits (64%) over a 30-day period; June 1995 with 
141 transits (21%) over a 30-day period; and July 1995 with 12 transits 
(2%) over five days. A total of 52 flotillas was recorded.
5. Negotiated Rulemaking
    Simultaneously with the publication of the Spring, 1995 temporary 
deviation, the Coast Guard published on April 10, 1995 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 (60 FR 18061). Negotiated rulemaking committees 
provide greater opportunity for meaningful public participation in 
government decisionmaking.
    As detailed above, there have been a wide variety of temporary 
deviations and a permanent rule addressing bridge operating schedules 
on the Chicago River. There have also been periods when boatyard owners 
and City representatives, under the aegis of the Coast Guard, have 
worked together to schedule openings notwithstanding the availability 
of an on-demand or other lenient regulatory schedule for openings. The 
Coast Guard believed that this evidence of cooperation by all 
interested parties could provide a chance for successful rulemaking 
through a formal negotiated rulemaking process. Using an experienced 
and impartial facilitator, the Coast Guard contacted representatives of 
the City, commercial interests, boatyards, and boaters. They agreed to 
negotiate in good faith. The Coast Guard chartered a negotiated 
rulemaking committee in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (5 U.S.C. App. 561 et seq.) (FACA).
    The negotiating committee, consisting of representatives of the 
City of Chicago, Chicago commercial interests, boatyards on the Chicago 
River system (including Crowley's), the Chicago Yachting Association, 
and the Coast Guard, met repeatedly to share views and attempted to 
come to consensus on the best possible operating parameters for the 
operation of the City of Chicago bridges. Meetings of the committee 
were open to the public, with opportunities for public input afforded 
at the end of the committee's formal discussion.
    The Organizational Protocols under which the committee met provided 
that the committee would operate by consensus, meaning there must be no 
dissent by any member in order for the committee to be viewed as having 
achieved its goal. The committee's goal was to develop a written 
statement outlining a permanent schedule for Chicago bridge openings, 
including proposed rule language ready for publication in the Federal 
Register. If the committee reached a final consensus on all issues, 
including the proposed rule language, the Coast Guard could use the 
consensus language in its notice of proposed rulemaking, and committee 
members would refrain from commenting negatively on the consensus-based 
language. If the committee did not reach consensus on 

[[Page 52303]]
some or all issues, the Coast Guard would draft a notice of proposed 
rulemaking consistent with any agreed-upon issues, and committee 
members would retain their right to comment positively or negatively on 
those aspects of such a notice of proposed rulemaking that were not 
based on final consensus.
    The committee met under the guidance of an experienced neutral 
facilitator on June 5, 14, 20, 28 and July 12, 1995. Detailed summaries 
of committee meetings were provided by the facilitator and, after 
review and approval by the committee, were made available to the public 
and included in the public docket. During the five, 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.
    During the first meeting of the committee, there was an indication 
that there might be consensus for Saturday and Sunday daytime openings 
and weekday evening openings, and that only weekday daytime scheduling 
would be controversial. In the absence of any offers from the other 
members of the committee to draft regulatory language that would serve 
as a basis for discussion, the Coast Guard offered to provide a draft 
schedule for the committee to use at the next meeting.
    The second committee meeting was held on June 14, 1995. At that 
meeting, a representative of Civiltech Engineering, Inc., presented 
information from the ``Downtown Bascule Bridge Traffic Delay Study'' 
which that firm had prepared for the City. The City agreed to 
distribute copies of the backup data volume of the study and to have 
the Civiltech representative attend the next meeting to answer any 
further questions. The Coast Guard presented a revised draft of 
regulatory language for discussion and suggested that the committee 
should focus on provisions covering recreational vessels. The committee 
discussed the factors to be addressed in the regulations, including 
notice requirements, if any, for bridge openings; seasons of the year 
(i.e., Spring Breakout, Fall Return); direction of passage; days of the 
week; and hours of the day. While there was some tentative agreement on 
a number of these items, the central issue of whether and how often 
drawbridges would be required to open during the daytime on weekdays 
remained very much unresolved.
    The third committee meeting was held on June 20, 1995. There was 
further discussion at that time of the Civiltech study before the 
committee turned to the Coast Guard's revised draft of the regulatory 
language which reflected the tentative areas of agreement from the 
previous meeting. The committee discussed weekend passage issues 
including: 20-hour advance notice; no trips out to Lake Michigan 
starting after noon; no trips in from the lake after 1:00 p.m.; and two 
bridge lifts per weekend day. After much discussion of weekday daytime 
openings, however, no member could suggest an approach to this topic 
that might be mutually acceptable.
    The Coast Guard suggested that as of that date, without further 
study of recently submitted data, and in the absence of consensus, it 
was inclined to issue a proposed rule covering the Spring and Fall 
seasons with basic components that included two openings on Saturdays 
and Sundays, at least one weekday daytime opening, and at least two 
weekday evening openings.
    Most of the committee members found that those terms either 
provided too few or too many openings. The City stated it strongly 
preferred no daytime weekdays openings and fewer weekday evening 
openings. The Chicago Yachting Association stated that Tuesday and 
Thursday daytime openings are necessary to accommodate the reasonable 
needs of boaters.
    At the fourth meeting held on June 28, 1995, the committee 
discussed the revised draft language prepared by the Coast Guard and 
gave contrasting grounds for opposing it, again, with some members 
arguing that it was too strict and others arguing that it was too 
lenient. For discussion purposes, the facilitator proposed a schedule 
framework with the following components: one daytime lift on Wednesday, 
evening lifts on Mondays and Fridays, two lifts each on Saturdays and 
Sundays, a minimum flotilla size of 5 boats, opportunities for 
additional openings for flotillas of 5 or more boats, and an overall 
cap on the number of boat runs per season. Boaters or their 
representatives would be required to provide the City with 20-hour 
advance notice for all of the openings, except for the evening openings 
which would require 6-hour notice. In addition, the Coast Guard 
indicated specific operational parameters that might be associated with 
any schedule of openings that might be developed. The City and Chamber 
of Commerce agreed to study the facilitator's proposal and the Coast 
Guard's operational issues. The boatyards and the Yachting Association, 
however, indicated that their framework would require at least two 
specified weekday openings. The boating interests also pressed for 
openings on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday evenings in addition to 
the Monday and Friday evening boat runs that had been proposed to 
accommodate transits from and to the lake so that non-emergency repairs 
could be accomplished without affecting weekend sailing. The boating 
interests further indicated that they strongly preferred that no 
maximum number of trips per season be included in the framework. The 
meeting concluded with the respective frameworks of the Chicago 
Yachting Association and the facilitator still on the table, but 
without consensus. The Coast Guard agreed to prepare new drafts of the 
regulatory language using the facilitator's framework for a starting 
point.
    The last meeting was held on July 12, 1995. The committee 
discussion started with the two alternative schedule frameworks 
presented during the previous meeting. The Coast Guard reminded the 
committee members that its statutory obligation was to ensure the safe 
passage of vessel traffic while, to the extent practicable and 
feasible, reducing motor vehicle delays and congestion. The Coast Guard 
representative further pointed out that it was not the role of the 
agency to promote one set of economic interests over others and, to 
that end, any subsequent regulations must be grounded on the best 
available data on the issues of traffic access, delays, and congestion. 
The members could not find common ground in either of the two 
alternatives. A number of variations were discussed, but ultimately 
consensus simply could not be found on any suggested approach. The 
negotiated rulemaking concluded with the Coast Guard restating its 
determination to publish a proposed rule on schedule, which would be 
finalized in the Fall of 1995.
    Despite the fact that the committee did not reach consensus, the 
Coast Guard nevertheless gained valuable information and insight 
concerning the issues in this rulemaking from the negotiated rulemaking 
process.

Discussion of Traffic Study and Recommendations

A. Overview

    In the Spring of 1995, the Coast Guard had requested that the City 
of Chicago prepare a new traffic study to determine the effects of 
bridge openings on traffic in Chicago's Central Business District. The 
City of Chicago retained a traffic engineering firm, Civiltech 
Engineering, Inc., to perform 15-minute directional traffic counts at 
eleven bridges on fourteen days, and to document their findings in a 
comprehensive report. The 

[[Page 52304]]
resulting analysis, entitled City of Chicago Downtown Bascule Bridge 
Traffic Delay Study, was completed on June 9, 1995 and transmitted to 
the U.S. Coast Guard Ninth District.
    The study was presented and discussed during the negotiated 
rulemaking process summarized above. In response to questions raised 
during a review of this document by the City of Chicago, the U.S. Coast 
Guard, and other parties participating in the negotiated rulemaking, 
the traffic consultants prepared an addendum to the original study. 
This addendum was completed on July 20, 1995. Following a review by the 
City of Chicago, the addendum was transmitted to the U.S. Coast Guard 
Ninth District, but was not received in time for its findings to be 
reflected in the Federal Register Notice of August 2, 1995 that 
announced the proposed regulations. The addendum to the traffic study 
was entered into the public docket along with the traffic study report 
of June 9. While the addendum provided greater detail on calculations 
of delay time, placement of traffic counters (including those on 
Lakeshore Drive), documentation of delays to emergency vehicles, and 
other areas addressed in the June 9 report, the addendum did not 
present findings that were either significant additions to, or 
contradictory to, the basic findings set forth in the June 9 report.
    The traffic study findings presented in this section were 
summarized from information contained in both the June 9 report and the 
addendum to that report. The traffic study analyzed more than 35 
traffic counts during the Fall of 1994 and Spring of 1995, and avoided 
collecting any data during holiday and special event periods that may 
have skewed the data. The Spring, 1995 survey monitored 31 of the 35 
boat runs that were scheduled (2 weekend runs and 2 weekday evening 
runs were not monitored). Of the total number of boat runs that took 
place during the study period, 22 runs occurred on weekends, 11 runs 
occurred on weekdays during daytime hours, and only 2 took place on 
weekday evenings.
    To identify average durations of bridge opening and closing cycles 
during the 1995 Spring Breakout period, nearly 600 individual bridge 
openings were monitored. The study also attempted to quantify the 
effect of bridge openings on emergency vehicles by documenting their 
presence in traffic queues during boat runs. In addition, pedestrian 
counts were taken on four days at the eleven bridge locations to 
augment the vehicle traffic data.
    The traffic study found that the majority of bridges in downtown 
Chicago are not exposed to traffic surges normally associated with 
commuter traffic and instead have traffic volumes that peak sharply on 
weekday mornings, then decline by an average of only 15 percent and 
remain at elevated levels into the early evening. By contrast, bridges 
on major commuter routes such as Lakeshore Drive carried larger volumes 
of vehicles and experienced traffic surges which peaked sharply in the 
morning and afternoon rush hours and returned to more moderate flows 
during off-peak hours. The traffic data collected for this study are 
consistent with data collected through other planning activities such 
as the Chicago Area Transportation Study.
    Vehicular traffic counts were obtained by using mechanical ``road 
tube'' counters with electronic timers and by conducting on-site manual 
counts. Vehicular traffic counts were taken manually when mechanical 
counting stations could not be placed in close proximity to bridges, or 
when existing stations could not record traffic that might enter or 
exit the roadway prior to reaching the bridge or the counting station. 
Manual counting stations were established at Lakeshore Drive, the Ohio/
Ontario Feeder Ramp, and Congress Parkway to record the substantial 
traffic volumes that actually passed over these bridges.
    The Lakeshore Drive bridge, which carries the most vehicles of any 
structure in this study, had mechanical traffic counters installed at 
the bridge approaches to confirm the historical traffic counts recorded 
for this major commuter route. Data from mechanical counting stations 
for the Lakeshore Drive bridge were consistent with those previously 
recorded by the Illinois DOT for weekday, weekend, and weekly traffic 
conditions. The study consultant also performed aerial video 
surveillance of traffic on several dates during the study period to 
augment the observations of on-site ground crews monitoring vehicle and 
pedestrian traffic.
    At the time of the Coast Guard's proposed rule, traffic counts for 
Lakeshore Drive were tentatively discounted by 50 percent while the 
Coast Guard awaited additional submissions from Chicago concerning 
whether the reported counts were artificially high due to placement of 
the mechanical traffic counters in a manner that would have recorded 
vehicles that did not in fact pass over the bridge. The detailed 
description of the data collection procedures that was documented in 
the traffic study addendum revealed that traffic counts were taken by 
observers actually stationed at the Lakeshore Drive bridge, and 
supplemented with data from mechanical ``road tube'' counters, thereby 
confirming the original counts in the traffic study report of June 9.
    Pedestrian traffic counts were conducted at the eleven study 
bridges between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. on ``typical'' (i.e., no special 
events) Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays, and Saturdays. An average of 
3,050 pedestrians were counted crossing the eleven study bridges during 
a typical, non-rush hour, 15-minute period on weekdays. By comparison, 
only 690 pedestrians were counted crossing these bridges during an 
average typical weekend 15-minute period. By multiplying these 
pedestrian counts by the average delays associated with the bridge 
openings discussed below, it was possible to determine the percentage 
of total delay experienced by pedestrians as opposed to delays for 
vehicle occupants.

B. Estimates of Delay

    To calculate total person-hours of delay associated with bridge 
openings, the traffic study measured delays to vehicle occupants and 
pedestrians at 11 of the downtown bridges during 5 weekday and 3 
weekend boat runs. The analysis of traffic delay utilized a computer 
program (TRAF-NETSIM) developed by the Federal Highway Administration 
that is a nationally and internationally accepted model for traffic 
simulation and evaluation. The study did not attempt to calculate the 
delays incurred by vehicles or pedestrians that took alternative routes 
to avoid waiting for bridges to close, or the delays which these 
diversions created for other traffic. Thus, the total city-wide delays 
associated with bridge openings are likely to be somewhat greater than 
those reported in the study.
    The traffic study monitored bridge openings to determine the effect 
of flotilla size on the duration of bridge openings and traffic delays. 
The act of opening a bridge involves sounding a warning, lowering 
safety gates, and clearing the bridge deck before the leaf(s) can be 
raised. Once boats have cleared the bridge, the leaf(s) must be lowered 
and locked and the gates raised before ground-based traffic can resume. 
In assessing the effect of flotilla size on average bridge ``gate 
down'' time, the study found that passage of a single boat produced 6.7 
minutes of gate down time, while accommodating flotillas of up to 5 
boats took one minute longer. Flotillas of up to 10 boats and more than 
10 boats had respective gate down times of 8.2 and 9.4 minutes. The 
study concluded that the majority of time required to open a bridge is 
attributable 

[[Page 52305]]
to mechanical and safety constraints rather than flotilla size, and 
that if minimizing delays is an objective of bridge lift operations, 
minimum flotilla sizes should be considered when regulating these 
openings.
    Data analysis for the 11 bridge sites showed that average weekday 
boat runs resulted in a total of 2,024 person-hours of delay, while 
weekend boat runs caused an average of 1,034 person-hours of delay. 
Data from the 11 study sites were extrapolated to estimate boat run 
delays at all of the 25 downtown bridge based on historic vehicle and 
pedestrian traffic data provided by the Chicago Department of 
Transportation (DOT) and the Illinois DOT. Based upon these 
extrapolations, it was estimated that average weekday boat runs would 
generate 2,724 person-hours of delay and weekend runs would produce 
1,260 person-hours of delay. In summary, the person-hours of delay 
attributable to weekend bridge openings were found to be less than half 
of those caused by weekday openings.
    The consultant also expressed findings of traffic delay in terms of 
the average number of persons and vehicles affected by bridge openings 
that accommodated the passage of an average-sized flotilla. On-site 
monitoring of the Spring, 1995 Breakout boat runs found that an average 
weekday flotilla included 7 boats and that bridges took an average of 8 
minutes to open and close and 4 minutes for ground-based traffic to 
recover (12 total minutes of delay). Using the number of vehicles, 
vehicle occupants, and pedestrians as metrics, the consultant estimated 
that a weekday boat run of 7 boats caused a 12-minute delay for an 
average of 13,620 people and 5,360 vehicles. A similar quantification 
of impacts for people and vehicles was calculated based on weekend boat 
runs that averaged 12 boats per flotilla. An average weekend boat run 
of 12 vessels produced 12-minute delays for 6,300 people and 3,540 
vehicles.

C. Impacts on Emergency Services

    At the request of the City of Chicago, the traffic study also 
documented instances where emergency vehicles were delayed by bridge 
openings. The City has historically voiced its concern that bridge 
openings compromise police, fire department, and ambulance services by 
impeding their response to emergency calls and by delaying their return 
to their bases of operation. Delays by emergency response vehicles were 
documented in the traffic study by the notes of on-site traffic 
monitors, in Mobile Intensive Care Unit Report logs maintained by the 
Chicago Fire Department, and in the Bridge Lift Logs of the Chicago 
DOT. The traffic study found that 83 percent of the weekday boat runs 
were associated with the delay of at least one emergency vehicle, and 
similar delays were recorded for 26 percent of the weekend runs.

D. Study Findings Relevant to Final Rule

    The traffic analysis for downtown Chicago found consistent patterns 
of normal vehicle and pedestrian movement (i.e., no special events) 
that were directly attributable to factors of time of day and days of 
the week. Outlined below are the major factors that were considered in 
formulating the final rule. The following conclusions of the study are 
shown with a list of the relevant study findings.
    (a) If traffic impacts and their consequent delays are to be 
minimized, maximum opportunity should be afforded to schedule boat runs 
on weekends and evenings rather than during weekday daylight hours.
    (1) Pedestrian and vehicle traffic volumes on weekdays were 
approximately double those recorded on weekends.
    (2) Weekday evening traffic volumes on most downtown streets fall 
to levels that are at or below those which are experienced on weekend 
mornings.
    (b) If boat runs are to be made on weekdays, the runs should be 
scheduled during times when bridge lifts would generate the least 
amount of vehicular and pedestrian traffic delay.
    (1) Weekday vehicle traffic volumes on commuter routes (e.g., 
Lakeshore Drive) peak sharply during morning and evening rush hours 
(i.e., 7:00-10:00 a.m. and 4:00-7:00 p.m) and return to more moderate 
volumes during off-peak hours.
    (2) Other streets in the study sample had weekday traffic volumes 
that remained fairly consistent throughout the day, declining only 
slightly from morning/evening peak periods.
    (3) Pedestrians experienced 22 percent of the total person-hours of 
delay associated with weekday daytime boat runs and 11 percent of the 
total person-hours of delay created by weekend boat runs.
    (c) If a future schedule for boat runs is to reflect recent 
patterns of boaters' requests for transit, at least some opportunity 
should be afforded for periodic weekday daytime and evening runs.
    (1) For boat runs monitored during the study period, 92 of 359 
boats (25 percent) made runs on weekdays/evenings.
    (d) If provisions for weekday daylight boat runs are to be 
sensitive to the impacts of bridge lifts on traffic delays, 
requirements for minimum flotilla size should be considered.
    (1) The time needed to carry out the mechanical process and safety 
precautions during bridge lifts exceeds that which is usually required 
for the transit of boats in Chicago.
    (2) Bridge lifts to accommodate flotillas of up to 5 boats produced 
delays only 15 percent greater than those generated by single-boat 
passages.
    (3) Of the eleven weekday daylight runs that were monitored during 
the study, two runs accommodated only one boat and two others 
accommodated two and three boats, respectively.
    (e) Bridge lifts to accommodate boat runs do impact emergency 
vehicles, with far greater impacts associated with weekday daytime boat 
runs than with weekend runs.
    (1) At least one emergency vehicle was impacted during 83 percent 
of the weekday boat runs monitored in the study; only 26 percent of the 
weekend boat runs delayed at least one emergency vehicle.

The 1995 Final Rule

    When the participants in the negotiated rulemaking proceeding were 
unable to reach consensus, the Coast Guard published a new Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on August 2, 1995 (60 FR 39287). The Notice 
proposed to adopt a new Final Rule that would set the following 
schedule for the opening of Chicago drawbridges during the boating 
season:
    (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 after 10 a.m., 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.
    After reviewing the comments received, the Coast Guard's final rule 
adopts this schedule, which the Coast 

[[Page 52306]]
Guard has concluded best serves the public interest. As explained in 
the NPRM, the Coast Guard thought that the rule reasonably accommodated 
the needs of boaters and vehicular and pedestrian traffic. As the 
following analysis shows, the comments received on the NPRM do not 
alter the basis for this determination. However, the NPRM itself was 
based upon an extensive array of information compiled over the last two 
years, and reflected the Coast Guard's confidence that this bridge 
opening schedule represents the best possible balance of all interests 
that can be achieved. The final rule also continues the past practice 
of allowing vessels to transit the river in emergencies under special 
arrangements and without flotilla requirements.
    Two openings on each of the weekend days with no flotilla 
requirements were selected to accommodate what is generally agreed and 
shown by the administrative record to be the busiest and most 
appropriate time period for the heavy Spring Breakout and Fall Return 
recreational traffic. The Coast Guard found significant concurrence 
with this approach during the negotiated rulemaking, although no 
consensus was reached. These openings are on days that have been most-
utilized by boaters and also are days when daytime vehicular traffic is 
at its lowest volume.
    Monday and Friday weekday evening openings with significantly 
shorter (6 hour) advance notice were provided to meet any possible late 
supplements to demands for breakout and return passages, and to meet 
the need of a single boater to have access for non-emergency repairs at 
the beginning of a week in order to return to the lake for the next 
weekend's recreation. Although concerns have been raised by boaters 
about the safety of evening passages, a passage beginning shortly after 
6:30 p.m. would be conducted in daylight during the extended daylight 
hours that coincide with most of the boating season. Moreover, these 
evening hours are intended as a supplement to the weekend and Wednesday 
daytime openings provided by the rule. Past data and experience 
indicate that fewer boaters may actually use this option, but it is 
there for those who need it. As noted above, the possibility of Monday 
and Friday evening openings was discussed at length by all parties in 
the course of the negotiated rulemaking proceeding. While no consensus 
was reached on this issue, the Coast Guard believes that openings on 
these evenings provide some of the additional flexibility sought by 
boating interests, and can help to accommodate scheduling of mid-week 
repairs at the boatyards. The scheduled times of these openings should 
also minimize negative impacts on vehicular traffic.
    It should be noted that, in addition to considering the needs of 
boaters to make normal repairs during the boating season, the Coast 
Guard recognizes that situations may arise where a true emergency 
repair involving the substantial value of a boat may occur that cannot 
be accommodated by scheduled openings. The Coast Guard's rule 
explicitly provides that the general requirement, Subpart A, in 33 CFR 
Part 117, direct the opening of bridges for vessels in distress where a 
delay would endanger life or property.
    A Wednesday post-morning rush hour opening without flotilla 
requirements was selected based on information in the administrative 
record supporting Wednesday as a weekday chosen historically by boaters 
for transit, and to minimize the time between potential single vessel 
passages. The Coast Guard believes that providing a scheduled weekday 
opening with 20-hour advance notice will provide the necessary 
predictability and notification time to minimize the impact on 
congestion and avoid unacceptable delays to emergency vehicles. The 
Coast Guard recognizes that weekday daytime drawbridge openings are 
disruptive to vehicular traffic, but this fact must be weighed against 
the constraints of providing only evening passages to boaters. 
Ultimately, the Coast Guard believes that a Wednesday daytime openings, 
in addition to weekend openings, is a reasonable compromise. The need 
to accommodate mid-week daytime transits for non-emergency repairs was 
addressed by both the boaters and the boatyards. The boatyards claimed 
that they had experienced a decline in their summer repair business, 
although no documentation was submitted to confirm their losses. The 
need for both daytime and evening weekday openings also received the 
attention of the participants during the negotiated rulemaking 
proceeding. The Coast Guard believes that a balanced schedule of 
predictable bridge openings is in the public interest and will benefit 
all parties from the standpoint of planning future activities.
    The regulations allow additional non-rush hour openings to be 
scheduled for flotillas of five or more vessels with 20-hour advance 
notice. This provision responds to the assertion of the boating 
interests that flexibility in the schedule can reduce the overall 
number of openings. Based on previous usage of the Chicago River by 
sailboaters, it is anticipated that this provision will be used 
primarily to schedule additional breakout and return passages, but it 
could also be used to bundle trips for non-emergency repair work. 
Although the City asserts that any allowance for openings for 
supplemental flotillas will compromise the other scheduled openings' 
reductions of traffic delays and congestion, the Coast Guard expects 
that the advance scheduling of these openings and their announcement in 
the media would provide appropriate notice to land-based traffic and 
emergency services. Moreover, the flotilla requirement will also serve 
to reduce the frequency of disruptions caused by additional passage 
opportunities.
    Finally, the Coast Guard decided not to adopt two other potential 
variations to the regulations. Although there have been concerns raised 
by many boaters about the safety of evening passages, scheduling 
openings for all or more weekday evenings had been suggested by various 
boating interests during the negotiated rulemaking. The Coast Guard has 
concluded that the volume of recreational traffic simply does not 
require additional scheduled evening openings, especially in light of 
the provision for supplemental flotilla openings, and in light of the 
boaters' oft-stated position that they do not prefer to transit the 
river at night. On a second issue, the City had requested that the 
Coast Guard implement a procedure to penalize boaters who are ``no-
shows'' at pre-arranged openings. The Coast Guard has not been 
presented with any data indicating that boaters are abusing agreements 
on openings and therefore such a regulatory response would not be 
warranted.
    The comments received by the Coast Guard and the positions 
articulated at the August 22, 1995 hearing indicate that a compromise 
such as the new rule is required, and underscores what has been 
apparent from the outset of this proceeding. The Chicago boating 
interests and the City of Chicago, along with its non-boating 
commercial enterprises, have diametrically opposed and strongly held 
views concerning when Chicago's bridges should be required to open. Any 
solution will necessarily be a compromise that will not fully 
accommodate the needs of any one party.
    Approximately 25 businesses, associations, organizations and 
individuals who were not boaters or otherwise affiliated with sailing 
claimed that the Coast Guard's proposed rule was too permissive. These 
commenters stated that bridge openings impeded vehicular and pedestrian 
traffic in the Chicago downtown area, that weekday openings 
impermissibly constrained 

[[Page 52307]]
commerce, and that openings undermine the critical need of Chicago's 
substantial business and residential communities for uninterrupted 
access to the Loop. These commenters included individuals, businesses, 
commercial centers, taxicab companies, a delivery service, real estate 
concerns, office buildings, the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce, DePaul 
University, and community associations. All of these parties opposed 
the proposed rule and urged that there is no necessity for Chicago 
bridges to open except on weekends and occasional weekday evenings.
    By contrast, the majority of boaters or other parties affiliated 
with sailing viewed the proposed rule as being too strict, and that 
there was no need to change the on-demand approach embodied in the 1976 
Rule. These commenters urged that daylight openings are required in 
order to safely transit the Chicago River, that evening openings are 
inherently dangerous, that large flotillas create the potential for 
collisions, that boaters should have the right to unfettered passage on 
the river, and that maintenance problems were the real reason for 
bridge-related delays. Virtually all of these commenters claimed that 
on-demand openings every day were required. These parties also urged 
that unexpected situations required passage on the river without long 
advance notice and flotilla requirements.
    The claim by the boating community that they should have the right 
to unfettered passage on the river is at odds with the 1988 statutory 
change in 33 U.S.C. 499 that specifically requires the Coast Guard to 
balance land and water transportation needs. The comment that 
maintenance problems were a major cause of bridge-related delays is 
also inconsistent with findings of the traffic study commissioned by 
the City of Chicago. In fact, the traffic study found that 1995 bridge 
opening cycle times were 20 percent faster than 1994 cycle times--a 
condition which the traffic study attributed to fewer malfunctions, 
better maintenance, more efficient bridge crews, and more efficient 
boat operations.
    During the course of the August 22, 1995 hearing, testimony was 
heard from eight parties. On behalf of the City, Mr. Roger Kiley, Chief 
of Staff to the Mayor, opposed the proposed rule, urging that bridge 
openings should be allowed only on weekends and on weekday evenings, 
with minimum and maximum flotilla sizes. Mr. Kiley stated that over the 
years the number of sailboats requesting bridge openings remained a 
relatively constant 550 to 650 boats. Mr. Kiley urged that the issue is 
whether ``these few recreational boats need unimpeded access to the 
river in light of the overwhelming data submitted by the City and the 
lack of any contrary data provided by the boatyards.'' Mr. Kiley argued 
on behalf of Chicago that the Coast Guard's proposed rules do not 
properly balance the needs of ``more than 5,000 vehicles affected each 
time bridges open during the weekday'' and the ``thousands of 
pedestrians and public transit users who are similarly 
inconvenienced.'' Mr. Kiley stated that traffic backups occasioned by 
bridge openings can extend a half-mile or more, and that it can take up 
to ten or more minutes following closure of a bridge for traffic to 
return to normal. The City argued that the Coast Guard's proposed rule 
would accord too much flexibility to boaters and ``fails to strike the 
necessary balance between boating and land-based transportation 
interests.''
    Dr. Marcel Martin, Chief of Trauma and Critical Care at 
Northwestern Memorial Hospital, testified that delays in transporting 
patients to emergency rooms negatively affect the ability of medical 
staff to resuscitate patients. In Dr. Martin's words, ``a few minutes 
may make a difference between life and death.'' Dr. Martin questioned 
the usefulness of the provisions in the proposed rule allowing 
drawbridges to close for emergency vehicles in light of these time 
constraints, and similarly questioned the Coast Guard's conclusion that 
other routes could be utilized by emergency vehicles. In Dr. Martin's 
view this raised the possibility of an unacceptable ``compromise in 
time.''
    Mr. Grant Crowley testified on behalf of Crowley's Yacht Yard, Inc. 
Mr. Crowley stated that the re-examination of the Chicago drawbridge 
rules was originally occasioned by Chicago's desire to build a new 
transit system, the Circulator. Mr. Crowley also questioned the 
viability of traffic data submitted by the City, including that for 
Lakeshore Drive, and took the position that the boatyards should not be 
required to produce economic data that supported the continuation of 
the 1976 Rule. He argued that traffic is not inordinately delayed by 
bridge openings and that the rulemaking process is, in his opinion, 
arbitrary and capricious. Mr. Crowley further stated that, in his view, 
traffic returns to normal in four minutes following the closure of 
bridges. He additionally urged that requiring bridges to open 150 times 
per year is not unreasonable since other Chicago bridges open much more 
frequently than this.
    Mr. Vic Peterson of AAA Boatyard stated that this company had lost 
income from summer boat repairs as a result of restricted openings of 
Chicago drawbridges. He urged that reasonable passage had to be assured 
by any new rule.
    Mr. Bernard Ford spoke on behalf of the Chicagoland Chamber of 
Commerce, which he characterized as the largest business organization 
in Chicago. Mr. Ford discounted any effect of the proposed Circulator 
transit system on the pending rulemaking. He stated that the Chamber of 
Commerce did not favor the proposed rule and originally wanted a rule 
that would have been even more restrictive than that proposed by 
Chicago. Mr. Ford said that the Chamber of Commerce's review of the 
data submitted by the City indicate that ``no weekday daytime bridge 
openings are needed.
    Finally, three boat owners testified. They variously claimed that 
bridge problems were directly related to maintenance problems, that 
night travel is ``definitely more hazardous than daytime travel,'' that 
allowing large flotillas keeps the bridges up longer and such flotillas 
are potentially hazardous to boaters, that individual boaters need the 
opportunity to transit alone for repairs or in emergencies, that boat 
owners, unlike vehicles, have no alternative routes for transit, and 
that bridge openings are not realistically a problem for downtown 
businesses.

Analysis of the Final Rule

    The long and detailed preamble to this final rule is due to the 
complex nature of the issues involved, the lengthy public process that 
preceded that final rule document, and the prior litigation on this 
subject. Supporters of the two main interest groups have tended to 
present maximalist positions: boating interests have claimed that no 
changes to a well-functioning regulation are needed, and the land-based 
interests have claimed that a schedule that limits openings to weekends 
and perhaps weekday evenings is all that is necessary. The Coast Guard 
believes there is a reasonable, practical, and feasible middle ground, 
and has concluded that there is ample reason to implement its final 
rule.
    As stated in the notice announcing the establishment of the 
negotiated rulemaking committee, the Coast Guard is committed to 
proceeding to a final rule for the end of the 1995 boating season when 
recreational vessels are leaving Lake Michigan for winter storage. In 
the absence of a consensus-based rule, the Coast Guard's final rule is 
based on the extensive administrative 

[[Page 52308]]
record that the Coast Guard has assembled to date, the information 
obtained from the negotiation process, and its professional judgment. 
In particular, the Coast Guard's final rule incorporates weekend 
openings, advance notice requirements, and weekday evening openings 
that received support by some committee members, although not unanimous 
consensus in a formal committee report. Weekday openings were clearly 
the most contentious issue, which the Coast Guard is resolving by 
scheduling one mid-week opening without flotilla requirements and 
authorizing unlimited opportunities for additional openings for 
flotillas of at least five vessels. The Coast Guard's solution does not 
match the negotiating position of either the City, which bargained for 
no weekday openings, or the boatyards and boaters which wanted on-
demand openings every day of the week. On this issue, the Coast Guard 
determined that a compromise was necessary to meet the needs of both 
groups and the public interest. The analysis of the final rule can be 
best summarized by responding to the comments submitted to the NPRM 
public docket by the attorney for Crowley's Yacht Yard, Inc. and by the 
City of Chicago.
    Written comments to the August 2, 1995 NPRM public docket submitted 
by the attorney for Crowley's, one of the boatyards on the Chicago 
River, discussed five topics. Each of these topics is addressed below 
in the Coast Guard's detailed response to this submission. However, no 
changes to the operating schedule proposed in the NPRM were made as a 
result of these comments because they did not offer any additional 
material facts for the Coast Guard to consider.
    The first comment asserts that no legitimate reason has been 
identified for altering an existing regulation that has worked well for 
many years. The City of Chicago requested that the Coast Guard initiate 
a rulemaking to change a basically on-demand system that provided 
maximum flexibility and access for waterborne transportation. The City 
and every non-boating interest that has participated in this two-year 
proceeding has argued that the current system is not equitable to the 
surface transportation needs of commercial, emergency, and other 
traffic in a major metropolitan center. The City's request was made in 
the context of a legislative change that now requires the Coast Guard, 
acting on the delegation of the Secretary of Transportation, to the 
extent practical and feasible, to establish rules that provide a 
schedule of openings that will help reduce traffic delays and 
congestion. The Coast Guard's decision to change the regulations is 
consistent with its statutory mandate and supported by the traffic 
study submitted by the City and analyzed elsewhere in the preamble.
    The statement that the existing regulation is working well is 
simply incorrect and is belied by the record, which contains ample 
evidence that on-demand openings are opposed by all non-boating parties 
in Chicago and have a disruptive effect on Chicago traffic and 
commerce, as is indicated not only by comments but by the traffic 
study. Furthermore, the actual operations under the existing regulation 
are based on agreements by the boatyards and the City to schedule 
openings. This approach has required significant and continuing 
involvement by, and costs to, the Coast Guard as shown in letters and 
other documents in the administrative record: to remind the parties to 
initiate scheduling, to facilitate compromises, to interpret 
agreements, to monitor implementation, and to mediate disagreements. 
The final rule, by contrast, gives notice to the public of the 
operating procedures and schedule to be followed and allows Coast Guard 
resources to be properly focused on enforcement.
    The second comment asserts that there is no basis for the NPRM and, 
by extension, the adoption of the proposal as a final rule. The comment 
is based on a perception of significant flaws in the traffic study 
requested by the Coast Guard and submitted by the City of Chicago. The 
Coast Guard's analysis and use of the study findings to support its 
final determination are explained separately in the preamble. In 
addition, the comment overlooks significant information that the Coast 
Guard received from the negotiated rulemaking and other data available 
to it. As discussed under the section on the negotiated rulemaking, the 
Coast Guard has based its new regulations on matters addressed in the 
public record, including areas where support, although not consensus, 
was reported in the negotiation process. Given the record of this 
proceeding, there is clearly a basis for an NPRM proposing a reasonable 
compromise aimed at accommodating the public interest.
    The third comment asserts that important Coast Guard reports were 
ignored in developing the proposed regulations. As mentioned above, the 
absence of predictable and permanent regulations in this area has 
required significant Coast Guard resources to be applied to facilitate 
bridge openings. For the 1995 Spring Breakout, Coast Guard personnel 
were assigned to observe and report on drawbridge openings for 
recreational boaters. The purpose of these reports was to ensure that 
agreements between the boatyards and the City were carried out and that 
passage of boats was achieved safely. These reports were not intended 
to record traffic impacts or to supplement professionally-conducted 
traffic studies, but to the extent that this information has been 
relevant to traffic and boating operations it has been considered, as 
discussed above.
    In developing the proposed rules, adopted without change as final 
by this document, the Coast Guard has relied on the following: traffic 
study findings and data submitted by the City of Chicago, the reports 
on and experience gained from an unsuccessful negotiated rulemaking, 
analyses of numerous submissions to this and earlier rulemaking and 
administrative dockets, and the Coast Guard's professional judgment 
gained from monitoring and overseeing the operation of the Chicago 
drawbridge system and other drawbridges throughout the United States. 
All of this played a part in formulating the new rule.
    The fourth comment asserts that certain elements of the rulemaking 
are arbitrary and capricious. Again, this is simply not so. The Coast 
Guard's final rule is based on exhaustive consideration of the factors 
discussed above and on its determination that a predictable schedule 
that still affords flexibility to the boaters and predictability to the 
City will stabilize the relationship between the boatyards and the 
City, meet to a substantial degree the expressed concerns of all 
groups, and reduce Coast Guard involvement in day-to-day disputes. As 
is evident from the discussion in this preamble, there is ample support 
in both the record and the law for the rule that the Coast Guard has 
adopted.
    The fifth comment criticizes the Coast Guard's response to various 
administrative requirements beyond the Administrative Procedure Act. 
Despite the expedited schedule for issuing a NPRM, the requisite 
discussions in response to the Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive 
Order 12866 were included in the NPRM. This matter is addressed more 
fully in the following section of this preamble. The discussion there 
fully supports the Coast Guard's determination made in this final rule.
    Significant comments on the August 2, 1995 NPRM were also received 
from the City of Chicago. Chicago opposed implementation of the 
proposed rule, and objected to the rationale outlined by the Coast 
Guard. Chicago stated that the rule ``provides none of the relief that 
the 

[[Page 52309]]
City sought'' and that it ``perpetuates weekday daytime openings to 
meet the needs of less than 100 boaters'' despite the fact that ``at 
least 3000 vehicles are delayed each time a bridge is opened.'' The 
City of Chicago also stated that despite a specific request in the NPRM 
that the boatyards provide data to show how they are in fact negatively 
impacted by a rule containing scheduled openings, no such data were 
ever provided. In the absence of such data, the City of Chicago urged 
that weekend openings are all that is required.
    As discussed previously, the Coast Guard is not unmindful of these 
concerns. But the Coast Guard has determined for the reasons 
articulated by the boatyards and boaters that some weekday openings 
should be allowed. While quantitative data were not supplied by the 
boatyards, concerns about any overly-restrictive access schedule were 
voiced by many boaters. The approach adopted in the final rule, which 
allows weekday openings only on Wednesdays, is a reasonable 
accommodation between the needs of boaters for the flexibility afforded 
by some weekday daytime passages and the needs of Chicago and its 
citizens to limit daylight openings to a schedule that is predictable 
and that does not unnecessarily result in vehicle delays and congestion 
on Chicago streets. The specific points raised in Chicago's comments 
are discussed below.
    First, the City states that it should not be required to raise two 
or more bridges at a time since this places undue burdens on the bridge 
system and on traffic. As the City notes, however, drawbridge openings 
are in large respect dependent on flotilla size. Thus, the more 
opportunity there is for boaters to transit the river, the more 
reasonably-sized individual flotillas can be. While on-demand openings 
have the potential for repeated disruption of Chicago traffic, in the 
Coast Guard's view the rule affords enough reasonable windows of 
opportunity for boaters to schedule their runs between the boatyards 
and Lake Michigan so as to encourage reasonably-sized flotillas to be 
formed. The rule's provision for additional boat runs for flotillas of 
5 or more boats provides more opportunities for river passages, gives 
the City and boatyards the flexibility to accommodate reasonably-sized 
flotillas as necessary, and accommodates additional vessels at the 
earliest available time. The Coast Guard believes this approach answers 
the expressed needs of boaters for flexibility and reduces the 
potential disruption to Chicago traffic occasioned by large flotillas 
that might be required if daylight openings were more restricted. This 
approach also minimizes the problems concerning the opening of the Lake 
and Wells Street bridges, which the City notes are dependent on Chicago 
Transit Authority train movements.
    Second, the City states that the rule should impose a means to 
prevent or curtail the possibility that boaters will request a bridge 
opening and then not show up at the scheduled time. As previously 
noted, the Coast Guard is not adopting such a provision at this time 
since no data have been provided to the Coast Guard that would confirm 
a problem concerning ``no shows.'' As a result, the Coast Guard does 
not believe that this matter is a significant problem that necessitates 
regulatory intervention.
    Third, the City states that the rule ``ignores the impact on 
emergency vehicle response times.'' The rule does not ignore this 
issue, and the potential for emergency vehicles being delayed by bridge 
openings has in fact received the Coast Guard's careful attention. The 
Coast Guard has noted, and discussed above, the fact that the traffic 
study commissioned by the City reports instances of emergency vehicle 
delays occasioned by bridge openings, and that the possibility of these 
delays is greatest during weekday daylight openings. Limiting the times 
at which bridges are opened, of course, limits the times when these 
delays could occur. The Coast Guard recognizes fully that weekend 
openings run less of a risk of delaying emergency vehicles since 
traffic is lighter than on weekdays, and concomitantly that allowing 
daylight weekday openings--even when limited solely to Wednesdays--runs 
the risk that emergency vehicles will be delayed as a result. But 
again, the Coast Guard has concluded that there is a basis and a need 
for allowing some limited, non-weekend, daylight openings. The Coast 
Guard believes that its approach of allowing Wednesday daylight 
openings accommodates reasonably the stated needs of boaters for 
weekday passages, while minimizing the likelihood of emergency vehicle 
delays.
    Fourth, the City states that the Coast Guard may be wrong in its 
premise that bridge openings on the North and South Branch bridges do 
not impact Chicago traffic as much as openings on the Main Branch of 
the river. The data in the traffic study bear out the Coast Guard's 
conclusion, and in developing the final rule the Coast Guard has 
considered these data on the impacts of bridge openings on vehicle 
traffic crossing the North and South Branch bridges. The Coast Guard's 
decision to restrict openings to weekends, specific weekday evenings, 
and one weekday during daylight hours, is designed to practically 
address the needs of boaters without unduly disrupting the substantial 
vehicular traffic that passes over the North and South Branch bridges 
during weekday daylight hours.
    The City also addresses several other issues. It takes exception 
with Coast Guard's statement in the preamble of the NPRM that there is 
evidence of deterioration in Chicago's bridges and notes that it has 
made great investments in its bridges. Nonetheless, Chicago's own prior 
comments, as well as the traffic study the City commissioned, have 
noted occasions of bridge malfunctions. Chicago also states that the 
Michigan Avenue bridge accident and freight tunnel flooding in 1992 
should not be characterized as the basis for the City's request for new 
bridge regulations. These events were discussed by the City in prior 
correspondence, but as is evident from the analysis set forth in this 
preamble, the rule that the Coast Guard is adopting results from an 
extensive review of the articulated needs of the public, including 
boaters, vehicular traffic, individuals, and businesses, not from these 
past extraordinary events.
    Chicago also recommends that, due to reconstruction, the Randolph 
and Loomis Street bridges should now be placed under the 30-minute 
notice requirement for commercial bridge openings, and that the Ogden 
Avenue bridge has been removed and therefore should be deleted from the 
lists of bridges subject to 30-minute notice requirement by commercial 
vessels. The Coast Guard agrees and has adopted this last comment.

Reasons for Effective Date

    In the notice announcing the formation of the negotiated rulemaking 
committee, the Coast Guard indicated its intent to have rules in place 
during the Fall, 1995 recreational boating season. That intent was 
repeated in the NPRM. Due to the time needed to produce a fully 
comprehensive and explanatory final rule, this final rule is being 
published shortly after the beginning of the Fall Return.
    As this final rule was being written, representatives of the City 
of Chicago and boating interests met on September 20, 1995 under the 
auspices of the Coast Guard and agreed on a schedule for the 1995 Fall 
Return. This temporary schedule tracks closely to the final rule and 
includes openings on Saturday and Sunday mornings, Wednesday mornings 
following rush hour, along with approximately five scheduled 
supplemental weekday openings. It is the expectation of the Coast 
Guard, 

[[Page 52310]]
based on the agreement of the City and the boatyards, that this 
schedule will bring the 1995 boating season to an amicable and 
successful conclusion. Therefore, the Coast Guard has made this rule 
effective on November 19, 1995, following the expiration of the Fall 
Return schedule agreed upon by the City and the boatyards. It should be 
emphasized that the flexibility and scheduling aspects of the Coast 
Guard's rule are consistent with the schedule agreed to by the 
boatyards and the City. This indicates that future seasonal boat runs 
should be able to proceed under the rule without untoward problems for 
the City or the boatyards and without continued diversion of Coast 
Guard resources.

Regulatory Process

A. Regulatory Evaluation

    The Coast Guard has determined that this rule is not a significant 
rulemaking activity under Executive Order 12886 and the Department of 
Transportation's Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11040; 
February 26, 1979). The Coast Guard has received extensive information 
from the City of Chicago on the costs associated with operating 
drawbridges to accommodate transits of recreational sailboats. Despite 
repeated requests to the boatyards, these businesses have provided the 
Coast Guard only with general allegations of lost profits and have not 
provided the Coast Guard with comparable information on the financial 
impacts that they would experience as a result of a more limited 
schedule of drawbridge openings. The final rule is not seen as having a 
significant adverse economic impact on any other businesses.
    No requirements for commercial transits are affected by this 
rulemaking. As a matter of record, most commercial transits consist of 
barges which typically do not require bridge openings. In addition, 
there are virtually no recreational vessel transits during the off-
season and the requirements governing recreational transits during the 
off-season are expected to have little or no economic impact.
    The rule does not constitute 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 Coast Guard has 
determined that the regulation will substantially advance the 
governmental purpose of balancing the needs of land-based transpiration 
and the navigational rights of recreational boaters. The provisions for 
supplemental openings for flotillas of five or more vessels and the 
provision ensuring access by all single vessels on five out of the 
seven days in each week should minimize the economic impact, if any, on 
the boatyards.

B. Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires an assessment of whether 
the rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. The Coast Guard has concluded the rule would 
not have such an impact and, therefore, a detailed regulatory 
flexibility analysis has not been undertaken. Nonetheless, the Coast 
Guard has weighed the potential impact of the rule on small entities.
    For this rule, 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. However, 
the Coast Guard also received a number of comments from other small 
businesses in the area that asserted that on-demand openings adversely 
affected their operations. The small businesses that objected to the 
on-demand openings included, among others, taxi companies, delivery 
services, and small shops in downtown Chicago.
    As discussed elsewhere in the preamble, the Coast Guard has 
carefully considered the views of the boatyards and of other small 
businesses that might be affected. The rule allows scheduled openings 
on five days of the week for single vessels in addition to allowing 
additional openings at all times, other than rush hour periods, for 
flotillas of five or more vessels. This approach is more flexible to 
boating interests than any of the prior temporary schedules implemented 
by the Coast Guard and also provides more opportunities for transit 
than did the 1994 rule. As noted above, the rule provides for 
drawbridge openings on days and at times when sailboaters have 
traditionally traversed the river. Specifically, the schedule provided 
for in the rule is also consistent with the requirements of boatyards 
as evidenced by the fact that it would accommodate recreational 
transits on the dates and at the time times agreed to by the boatyards 
during those periods in the past two years when drawbridge openings 
have been set pursuant to negotiations between the City and the 
boatyards. There is no basis for concluding that the boatyards will be 
significantly harmed by such an approach. As a result, the Coast Guard 
has concluded that the rule should have no significant impact on the 
operations of the boatyards. In addition to allowing on-demand openings 
for boats needing emergency repairs, the openings prescribed by the 
rule will allow any vessel that needs non-emergency repairs to transit 
the river for mid-week service and return to Lake Michigan in time for 
sailing on the following weekend.
    This provision answers expressed concerns by boaters and the 
boatyards during the comment periods and the negotiated rulemaking 
process. The schedule of boat runs emphasizes openings on evenings and 
weekends, and this will minimize the impact of openings on other small 
businesses in the area. While these entities by and large called for no 
weekday openings at all, the Coast Guard has determined, as explained 
above, that some such openings are necessary to meet the navigational 
needs of boaters. The schedule of openings and advance notice 
requirements set forth in the rule affords more certainty and 
predictability to this process and therefore will be more beneficial to 
small business than a continuation of the 1976 on-demand rule.
    Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 605(b) of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) that this regulation will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.

Collection of Information

    This 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 in common with 
other drawbridge regulations, persons desiring passage of a vessel have 
to make their requests known to the operator of a drawbridge some time 
in advance. This advance notice is normally a single phone call, even 
when there is a flotilla of several vessels. 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 new rules.

Federalism

    The Coast Guard has analyzed this action under the principles and 
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612 and has determined that 
this regulation involves only an area within Chicago and, therefore, 
will not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the 
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

[[Page 52311]]


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); Section 
117.255 also issued under the authority of Pub. L. 102-587, 106 
Stat. 5039.

    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 
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 draw of the Cermak Road bridge 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

Randolph Street
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
South Loomis Street

West Fork of the South Branch

South Ashland Avenue
South Damen Avenue

Chicago River, North Branch

Division Street
Grand Avenue
Chicago Avenue
North Halsted 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 per day.
    (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 (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 St.

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
18th Street
Canal Street
South Halsted Street
South Loomis Street
South Ashland Avenue

North Branch

Grand Avenue
Ohio Street
Chicago Avenue
N. Halsted St.

    (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, and 
North Damen Avenue 

[[Page 52312]]
bridges across the North Branch of the Chicago River, and the draws of 
the N. Halsted St. 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 of this part apply to 
the passage of all vessels and the operation of all bridges on the 
Chicago River.

    Dated: October 2, 1995.
G.F. Woolever,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 95-24916 Filed 10-4-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M