Proposed Rule2024-22822
Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Hackensack River, Little Snake Hill, NJ
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
October 3, 2024
Effective
February 1, 2025
Issuing agencies
Homeland Security DepartmentCoast Guard
Abstract
The Coast Guard proposes to modify the operating conditions of the Amtrak Portal Bridge across the Hackensack River, mile 5.0, at Little Snake Hill, New Jersey. This action is necessary to facilitate the construction of the new replacement Portal Bridge North, adjacent to the current Amtrak Portal Bridge. This proposed rulemaking would limit the extent of the opening of the Amtrak Portal Bridge in the horizontal position to prevent the swing span from striking the new Portal Bridge North during construction. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 192 (Thursday, October 3, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 192 (Thursday, October 3, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 80436-80439]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-22822]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[Docket No. USCG-2024-0412]
RIN 1625-AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Hackensack River, Little Snake
Hill, NJ
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to modify the operating conditions of
the Amtrak Portal Bridge across the Hackensack River, mile 5.0, at
Little Snake Hill, New Jersey. This action is necessary to facilitate
the construction of the new replacement Portal Bridge North, adjacent
to the current Amtrak Portal Bridge. This proposed rulemaking would
limit the extent of the opening of the Amtrak Portal Bridge in the
horizontal position to prevent the swing span from striking the new
Portal Bridge North during construction. We invite your comments on
this proposed rulemaking.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before November 4, 2024. The Coast Guard anticipates that this proposed
rule will be effective on or about February 1, 2025.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2024-0412 using the Federal Decision Making Portal at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a>. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for
instruction on submitting comments. This notice of proposed rulemaking
with its plain-language, 100-word-or-less proposed rule summary will be
available in this same docket.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email Ms. Judy Leung-Yee, First Coast Guard District,
Project Officer; telephone 212-514-4336, email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#044e71607d2a4f2a4861716a63295d616144717767632a696d68"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="327847564b1c791c7e57475c551f6b575772474151551c5f5b5e">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Table of Abbreviations
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
OMB Office of Management and Budget
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Advance, Supplemental)
Sec. Section
U.S.C. United States Code
II. Background, Purpose and Legal Basis
The Amtrak Portal Bridge is a swing bridge across the Hackensack
River, at mile 5.0, in Little Snake Hill, NJ. The bridge has a vertical
clearance of 23 feet at mean high water in the closed position and 102
feet at mean high water in the open position. When closed, the Amtrak
Portal Bridge allows trains to transit across the river. When marine
traffic needs to transit down the waterway, the bridge swings open from
a central pivot to create horizontal clearance for vessels. The
waterway
[[Page 80437]]
users include recreational and commercial vessels, and the existing
drawbridge operating regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.723(e).
In partnership with New Jersey Transit, Amtrak plans to replace the
Amtrak Portal Bridge (existing bridge), with a 52-foot-tall, fixed
bridge, the Portal Bridge North (new bridge) that will allow marine
traffic to pass without movement of the bridge.\1\ Shoreside
construction of the new bridge is already underway and New Jersey
Transit estimates completion by February 2027. To support construction
of the new bridge, New Jersey Transit submitted a request to the Coast
Guard to change the drawbridge operating regulations of the existing
bridge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ More details on the construction plans can be found here:
<a href="https://www.amtrak.com/portal-north-bridge">https://www.amtrak.com/portal-north-bridge</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The purpose of this proposed rule is to limit the opening of the
existing Amtrak Portal Bridge to prevent striking the new Portal Bridge
North while swinging open. This is necessary due to the proximity of
the new Portal Bridge North to the existing Amtrak Portal Bridge.
The Coast Guard is proposing this rulemaking under the authority in
33 U.S.C. 499.
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
The Amtrak Portal Bridge would continue to operate under its
regular operating schedule found in 33 CFR 117.723(e), but there would
be a difference in the horizontal clearance. Presently, the Amtrak
Portal Bridge provides 88 feet horizontal clearance in the east channel
and 91 feet horizontal clearance in the west channel. This proposed
rule would allow the bridge to only open to 55 feet horizontal
clearance in the east channel and the west channel would be closed to
all navigation.
Construction on the new Portal Bridge North will prevent the
existing Amtrak Portal Bridge from fully opening in the horizontal
position in order to prevent the swing span from striking the new
Portal Bridge North during construction. The construction will impact
the Amtrak Portal Bridge for approximately 2 years, from February 1,
2025, to February 1, 2027, after which the existing bridge will be
demolished.
There is one regular commercial waterway user that transits the
Portal Bridge on an average of two to three round trips per week. There
are also some recreational vessels that transit the bridge. The Coast
Guard's review of the bridge logs in the last two years shows that
bridge openings average 25 per month. Vessels narrower than 55 feet
wide would still be able to transit through the narrower opening of the
bridge. There are no other known commercial or recreational vessels
that will be impacted by this rule.
IV. Regulatory Analysis
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on these statutes and Executive Orders.
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This proposed rule has not been designated a
``significant regulatory action,'' under section 3(f) of Executive
Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing
Regulatory Review). Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). A regulatory analysis follows.
This proposed rule would allow the existing bridge to open to only
55 feet horizontal clearance in the east channel compared to the
current horizontal clearance of 88 feet. The west channel would be
closed to all navigation. This closure would prevent operation of a
commercial tug that tows a 70 feet wide barge because the 55-foot
opening is too narrow for the barge to transit safely. This is the only
known commercial vessel that would be impacted by this rule.
Affected Population
We anticipate that this proposed rule would only impact a single
commercial vessel that would be unable to transit the Amtrak Portal
Bridge during construction of the new bridge. There are no other known
commercial vessels impacted by this rule. If you believe that there are
additional impacted vessels, please submit a public comment providing
the vessel(s) size, type, and destination. The Coast Guard did not
identify other commercial entities that would be impacted by this
proposed rule. Also, we do not anticipate that recreational vessels
would be impacted by this proposed rule as the Coast Guard did not
identify any recreational vessel that could not transit within the 55-
foot horizontal clearance.
Costs
The costs of this proposed rule would be lost revenue incurred by
the commercial tug whose barge cannot transit the narrower opening of
the existing bridge. The commercial tug has several alternative options
to avoid the lost revenue, however. The first option is for the
commercial tug company to buy a new barge that is narrow enough to go
through the 55-foot bridge opening. Additionally, the commercial barge
company could switch the current barge for another barge in their
fleet, assuming that barge is compatible with their various tasks.
Benefits
The benefit of this rule is that it allows for the construction of
a new bridge to transport the 150,000-200,000 daily passenger train
commuters who currently use the bridge. Construction of the new bridge
has been approved by New Jersey Transit and is already in progress. The
new bridge would allow for trains to travel at up to 90 mph, compared
to the current 60 mph allowed by the current bridge.\2\ Additionally,
the new bridge is not a drawbridge and therefore, should experience
less mechanical malfunction leading to fewer delays.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ New Jersey's Portal Bridge, bane of the Northeast Corridor,
is due for upgrade--The Washington Post, article written November
15, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Impact on Small Entities
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. 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. To achieve this principle, agencies are required to solicit and
consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for
their actions to assure that such proposals are given serious
consideration.
When an agency promulgates a final rule under section 553 of 5 U.S.
Code, after being required by that section or any other law to publish
a general notice of proposed rulemaking, the agency must prepare an
initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) or have the head of the
agency certify pursuant to RFA section 605(b) that the rule will not,
if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The RA prescribes the content of the IRFA,
which we discuss below.
[[Page 80438]]
(1) A description of the reasons why action by the agency is being
considered;
(2) A succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for,
the rule;
(3) A description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number
of small entities to which the rule will apply;
(4) A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping and
other compliance requirements of the rule, including an estimate of the
classes of small entities that will be subject to the requirement and
the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report
or record;
(5) An identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant
Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap or conflict with the rule;
and
(6) A description of any significant alternatives to the rule that
accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and that
minimize any significant economic impact of the rule on small
entities.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/5/603">https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/5/603</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below is a discussion of the IRFA analysis for each of these six
elements.
(1) A description of the reasons why action by the agency is being
considered:
This proposed rule would address the need to accommodate the
construction of the new Portal Bridge North, which would prevent the
existing bridge from fully opening due to the proximity of the existing
bridge to the bridge currently under construction.
(2) A succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for,
the rule:
The objective of this rule is to modify width of opening for the
Amtrak Portal Bridge in 33 CFR 117.723(e) to accommodate construction
activity for the new Portal Bridge North. The Coast Guard has statutory
authority to promulgate drawbridge operation regulations under 33.
U.S.C. 499.
(3) A description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number
of small entities to which the rule will apply:
The proposed rule would affect vessels transiting through the
Amtrak Portal Bridge. The only known entity impacted by this rule is a
commercial tug company that transports sludge to the NJ treatment
plant. We used available operator name and address information to
research public and proprietary databases for entity type (subsidiary
or parent company), primary line of business, employee size, revenue,
and other information. The company had no information available through
these databases. Consistent with DHS practice, entities with no
information available will be considered ``small entities.'' Without
quantitative cost data or revenue data, we're not capable of analyzing
the revenue impact of this rule to this small entity, thus we assume
the impact is significant.
(4) A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping and
other compliance requirements of the rule, including an estimate of the
classes of small entities that will be subject to the requirement and
the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report
or record:
This proposed rule calls for no new reporting, recordkeeping or
other compliance requirements.
(5) An identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant
Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap or conflict with the rule:
The Coast Guard has not identified any Federal rules that
duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the rule. 33 CFR 117.723(e) is the
only Federal rule that controls the drawbridge operation schedule for
the Amtrak Portal Bridge.
(6) A description of any significant alternatives to the rule that
accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and that
minimize any significant economic impact of the rule on small entities.
The Coast Guard considered several alternatives to this rule to
minimize any impact to small entities. The Coast Guard considered
closing the waterway to all commercial and recreational traffic to
ensure safety during construction of the new bridge. This alternative
was rejected since the drawbridge is still capable of opening part of
the way and allowing safe travel for vessels smaller than 55 feet wide.
Additionally, we considered allowing for shorter notice to open the
drawbridge for commercial vessels. This was rejected since the shorter
notice would be unsafe for the passenger trains that use the bridge
when it is closed.
Finally, the Coast Guard considers the rule as our preferred
alternative. This allows for recreational and commercial vessels
smaller than 55 feet wide to transit the waterway without disrupting
construction of the new bridge.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the proposed rule
would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate
against small entities that question or complain about this proposed
rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
C. Collection of Information
This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).
D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132
(Federalism), if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on
the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments) because it would not have substantial direct effect on one
or more Indian tribes, or the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has
implication for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
E. 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 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule will not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this
proposed rule elsewhere in the preamble.
[[Page 80439]]
F. Environmental
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01, Rev.1, associated implementing,
instructions, Environmental Planning Policy COMDTINST 5090.1 (series),
which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f). The
Coast Guard has determined that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule promulgates the
operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. Normally such
actions are categorically excluded for further review, under paragraph
L49 of chapter 3, Table 3-1 of the U.S. Coast Guard Environmental
Planning Implementing Planning Implementation Procedures.
Neither a Record of Environmental Consideration nor a Memorandum
for the Record are required for this rule. We seek any comments or
information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.
V. Public Participation and Request for Comments
We viewed public participation as essential to effective rulemaking
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
Submitting comments. We encourage you to submit comments through
the Federal Decision Making Portal at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. To
do so, go to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, type USCG-2024-0412 in the
search box and click ``Search.'' Next, look for this document in the
Search Results column, and click on it. Then click on the Comment
option. If your material cannot be submitted using <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.
Viewing material in docket. To view documents mentioned in this
proposed rule as being available in the docket, find the docket as
described in the previous paragraph, and then select ``Supporting &
Related Material'' in the Document Type column. Public comments will
also be placed in our online docket and can be viewed by following
instructions on the https://www/regulations.gov Frequently Asked
Questions web page. Also, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted, or a
final rule is published of any posting or updates to the docket.
We review all comments received, but we will only post comments
that address the topic of the proposed rule. We may choose not to post
off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that we receive.
Personal Information. We accept anonymous comments. Comments we
post to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> will include any personal
information you have provided. For more about privacy and submissions
in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking System of Records
notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117
Bridges.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:
PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS
0
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; and DHS Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.
0
2. Amend Sec. 117.723 by revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 117.723 Hackensack River.
* * * * *
(e) The draw of the AMTRAK Portal Bridge, mile 5.0, at Little Snake
Hill, New Jersey, shall only open to 55 feet horizontal clearance in
the east channel and the west channel will be closed to all navigation.
The draw need not open for the passage of vessel traffic from 5 a.m. to
10 a.m. and from 3 p.m. to 8 p.m. Additional bridge openings shall be
provided for tide restricted commercial vessels between 7 a.m. and 8
a.m. and between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m., if at least a two-hour advance
notice is given by calling the number posted at the bridge. At all
other times the bridge shall open on signal if at least a 2 hour
advance notice is given.
* * * * *
M.E. Platt,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2024-22822 Filed 10-2-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on October 3, 2024.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.