Skip to Content


Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Milwaukee, Menomonee, and Kinnickinnic Rivers and South Menomonee and Burnham Canals, Milwaukee, WI

Document Details

Information about this document as published in the Federal Register.

Published Document

This document has been published in the Federal Register. Use the PDF linked in the document sidebar for the official electronic format.

Start Preamble


Coast Guard, DHS.


Final rule.


The Coast Guard has revised the drawbridge operating regulation for the Canadian Pacific (formerly Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific) railroad bridge over the Burnham Canal in Milwaukee, WI, allowing the bridge to remain closed to navigation due to infrequent use. This will allow the bridge owners to reduce maintenance and operation costs at a location where there is no known need for drawbridge openings.


This rule is effective November 3, 2003.


Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket [CGD09-03-215] and are available for inspection or copying at the Bridge Administration Branch, Ninth Coast Guard District, between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Start Further Info


Mr. Scot Striffler, Bridge Administration Branch, at the address above or phone (216) 902-6084.

End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information


Regulatory History

On July 21, 2003, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Milwaukee, Menomonee, and Kinnickinnic Rivers and South Menomonee and Burnham Canals, Milwaukee, WI, in the Federal Register (68 FR 43066). We received no letters commenting on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held. Start Printed Page 57357

Background and Purpose

The Canadian Pacific Railway bridge at mile 1.74 over Burnham Canal is a swing type bridge with a vertical clearance of approximately eight feet in the closed position. In accordance with 33 CFR 117.1093, it is currently required to open for vessels if at least two-hours advance notice is provided prior to passing. Canadian Pacific Railway requested the Coast Guard allow the bridge to be maintained in the closed to navigation position since there have been no requests from vessels to open the bridge since June 13, 1997. There are no active marine facilities along the canal, and the area in Milwaukee Harbor where the bridge is located is part of a city re-development project. Burnham Canal is a federal waterway. The waterway is reportedly no longer actively maintained by the Corps of Engineers. This final rule allows the bridge to be untended and maintained in the closed to navigation position as per 33 CFR 117.39. However, the Coast Guard will retain the authority, should conditions make such an action necessary, to order the bridge owner to restore the bridge to an operable condition within 12 months of notification from Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District. This rule will allow the railroad bridge to remain closed, as it has been, and still be in compliance with Coast Guard requirements.

In addition to the regulation for the railroad bridge, the current regulation refers to ‘all other bridges across the Burnham Canal'. The only other bridge on the canal that falls within the jurisdiction of the Coast Guard Bridge Administration Program is the Interstate 94 bridge at mile 1.79, which is a fixed bridge, and should not be referred to in the drawbridge regulations. Therefore, the Coast Guard is removing this section from 33 CFR 117.1093.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

The Coast Guard did not receive any comments on the NPRM. Therefore, no changes were made to the final rule.

Regulatory Evaluation

This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

There is no known commercial or recreational use of Burnham Canal. No information was received by the Coast Guard to demonstrate impending activity on the waterway that would require the drawbridge to be operable. However, as stated, if these conditions were to change, then the bridge would be required to be operational again within 12 months of notification from the Coast Guard.

Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Assistance for Small Entities

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.

Collection of Information

This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).


A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

This rule will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. It has not been designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.


We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors Start Printed Page 57358in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e) of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation.

Start List of Subjects

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

  • Bridges
End List of Subjects


For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

Start Part


End Part Start Amendment Part

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

End Amendment Part Start Authority

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); section 117.255 also issued under the authority of Pub. L. 102-587, 106 Stat. 5039.

End Authority Start Amendment Part

2. In § 117.1093, revise paragraph (f) to read as follows:

End Amendment Part
Milwaukee, Menomonee, and Kinnickinnic Rivers and South Menomonee and Burnham Canals.
* * * * *

(f) The draw of the Canadian Pacific Railway bridge, mile 1.74 over Burnham Canal, need not be opened for the passage of vessels.

Start Signature

Dated: September 22, 2003.

R.F. Silva,

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

End Signature End Supplemental Information

[FR Doc. 03-25187 Filed 10-2-03; 8:45 am]