Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Hackensack River, Little Snake Hill, NJ, 80436-80439 [2024-22822]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
80436
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2024 / Proposed Rules
On August 29, 2024, Airlines for
America, the International Air Transport
Association, the National Air Carrier
Association, and the Regional Airline
Association (collectively, ‘‘Members’’)
filed a joint request to extend the public
comment period on the family seating
NPRM for an additional 60 days. The
Members state that additional time is
needed to collect data and submit
comprehensive comments to help the
Department make an informed decision
on a final rule. Specifically, the
Members assert that the Department has
not sufficiently considered the impact of
its proposal on foreign airlines which
means that the airline industry must
collect, analyze, and submit information
regarding this impact. According to the
Members, this is a significant task that
will take time to complete. Furthermore,
the Members state that airlines need
additional time to fully consider and
analyze the proposed procedures for
mitigating harm to passengers who are
not provided adjacent family seating,
including time to determine the
proposals impact on their operations
and propose potential alternatives that
meet the Department’s goals but are less
disruptive to airlines. The Members also
note that the expert report that the
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) relied
on was placed in the docket two weeks
after the NPRM was published which
reduced the time available to review
this important report and negatively
impacted their ability to assess the
Department’s proposal and its potential
impacts and submit well informed
comments. Finally, the members point
to the Department’s request for
comments regarding fees charged by
airlines for ‘‘basic services’’ as a broad
request for which additional time is
needed to respond.
On September 3, 2024, Southwest
Airlines (Southwest) also filed a request
to extend the public comment period on
the family seating NPRM for an
additional 60 days. In addition to
expressing support for the Member’s
request to extend the comment period,
Southwest states in its request that the
comment period for the NPRM should
be extended because the airline is
currently transitioning from an open
seating model to a carrier that assigns
seat and unlike other carriers must
evaluate and comment on both the
assigned seating carrier and open
seating carrier provisions in the NPRM.
On September 11, 2024, the American
Economic Liberties Project, the
Consumer Action, the Consumer
Federation of America, the National
Consumers League, and the U.S. PIRG
(collectively ‘‘consumer advocacy
groups’’) filed an opposition to the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:16 Oct 02, 2024
Jkt 265001
Members’ request for an extension to the
public comment period for the family
seating NPRM. The consumer advocacy
groups urge the Department to stay on
its current rulemaking trajectory and
argue that an extension is unnecessary
since the Department has provided
ample time for relevant stakeholders to
respond to a proposed rule that has been
years in the making, especially since the
proposals in the NPRM are modeled
after draft legislation that the
Department made public before the
NPRM was issued.
The Department has carefully
considered both requests to extend the
comment period on the family seating
NPRM filed by the Members and
Southwest, and the consumer advocacy
groups opposition to an extension
request. After considering the arguments
presented, the Department has decided
to extend the comment period of the
proposed rule for 30 days from October
8, 2024, to November 7, 2024. In doing
so, the Department acknowledges that
the NPRM raises important issues which
require in-depth analysis and
consideration by stakeholders. At the
same time, the Department agrees with
the consumer advocacy groups that the
proposals in the NPRM are modeled
after draft legislation that Department
submitted to Congress and should not
be a surprise to the stakeholders. The
Department believes that granting a 30day extension of the original 60-day
comment period, is sufficient to allow
stakeholders to conduct a thorough and
careful consideration of all potential
impacts and prepare comments. Latefiled comments will be considered to
the extent practicable.
Signed in Washington, DC, under authority
delegated at 49 CFR 1.27(n).
Subash Iyer,
Acting General Counsel, U.S. Department of
Transportation.
[FR Doc. 2024–22632 Filed 10–2–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–9X–P
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
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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.
SUMMARY:
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.
DATES:
You may submit comments
identified by docket number USCG–
2024–0412 using the Federal Decision
Making Portal at https://
www.regulations.gov. 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, 100word-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
Judy.K.Leung-Yee@uscg.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
ADDRESSES:
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)
§ 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
E:\FR\FM\03OCP1.SGM
03OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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.
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.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
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
1 More
details on the construction plans can be
found here: https://www.amtrak.com/portal-northbridge.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:16 Oct 02, 2024
Jkt 265001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
80437
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.
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.
2 New Jersey’s Portal Bridge, bane of the
Northeast Corridor, is due for upgrade—The
Washington Post, article written November 15,
2014.
E:\FR\FM\03OCP1.SGM
03OCP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
80438
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2024 / Proposed Rules
(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
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
3 https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/5/603.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:16 Oct 02, 2024
Jkt 265001
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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.
E:\FR\FM\03OCP1.SGM
03OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
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
https://www.regulations.gov. To do so,
go to https://www.regulations.gov, 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 https://
www.regulations.gov, 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:16 Oct 02, 2024
Jkt 265001
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 https://www.regulations.gov 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
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.
2. Amend § 117.723 by revising
paragraph (e) to read as follows:
■
§ 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
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
80439
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R05–OAR–2022–0976; FRL–10788–
04–R5]
Air Plan Approval; Michigan;
Attainment Plan for the Detroit 2010
Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment Area
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA)
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
the State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by Michigan on
December 20, 2022, and supplemented
on February 21, 2023, December 14,
2023, and April 2, 2024, which amends
a SIP submission previously submitted
to EPA on May 31, 2016, and June 30,
2016, for attaining the 1-hour sulfur
dioxide (SO2) primary national ambient
air quality standard (NAAQS) for the
Detroit SO2 nonattainment area. This
action supplements a prior action which
found that Michigan had satisfied
emission inventory and new source
review (NSR) requirements for this area,
but had not met requirements under the
Clean Air Act (CAA) for the elements
proposed to be approved here.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before November 4, 2024.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–
OAR–2022–0976 at https://
www.regulations.gov, or via email to
arra.sarah@epa.gov. For comments
submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments
cannot be edited or removed from the
docket. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not
submit to EPA’s docket at https://
www.regulations.gov any information
you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI), Proprietary
Business Information (PBI), or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. EPA will generally not consider
comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e.,
on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission
methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the
full EPA public comment policy,
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\03OCP1.SGM
03OCP1
]]>Agencies
[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 [www.gpo.gov]
[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 https://www.regulations.gov. 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 [email protected].
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:
https://www.amtrak.com/portal-north-bridge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\ https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/5/603.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 https://www.regulations.gov. To
do so, go to https://www.regulations.gov, 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 https://www.regulations.gov, 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 https://www.regulations.gov 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
