Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Hackensack River, Little Snake Hill, NJ, 13699-13702 [2025-05091]

Agencies

• Coast Guard
• DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 57 (Wednesday, March 26, 2025)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13699-13702]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-05091]


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

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: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is modifying the operating schedule that 
governs 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, 
as designed by Amtrak as the owner of the bridge, adjacent to the 
current Amtrak Portal Bridge. This final rulemaking limits 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.

DATES: This rule is effective April 25, 2025.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being 
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulation.gov. Type the 
docket number (USCG-2024-0412) in the ``SEARCH'' box and click 
``SEARCH''. In the Document Type column, select ``supporting & Related 
Material.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this 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
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Information and Regulatory History

    On October 3, 2024, the Coast Guard published a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Hackensack 
River, Little Snake Hill, NJ in the Federal Register (89 FR 80436). 
There we stated why we issued the NPRM and invited comments on our 
proposed regulatory action related to this regulatory change. During 
the comment period that ended November 4, 2024, we received two 
comments, and those comments are addressed in Section IV of this Final 
Rule.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under the authority in 33 
U.S.C. 499.

[[Page 13700]]

The Amtrak Portal Bridge will continue to operate under its regular 
operating schedule found in 33 CFR 117.723(e), but there will 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 rule allows the 
bridge to only open to 55 feet horizontal clearance in the east channel 
and the west channel will 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 March 3, 2025, 
to March 3, 2027 (estimated), after which the existing bridge will be 
demolished. The NPRM proposed that the restricted clearance would begin 
on February 1, 2025, however, due to project delays, the restricted 
clearance will begin on or about March 3, 2025. While this regulation 
will be effective 30 days after publication, the Bridge owner can still 
operate the bridge to its full opening until constructions limits the 
horizontal opening.
    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 will 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. Discussion of Comments, Changes and the Final Rule

    As noted in Section II of this preamble, the Coast Guard provided 
30 days for comment regarding this rule and two comments in the docket 
were received. We provide a detailed discussion below in response to 
each comment in turn.
    We received one comment from Towboat Harbor Carriers Association 
dated November 4, 2024. The comment letter (dated October 30, 2024) 
included the following four specific concerns:
    Lack of Maritime Stakeholder Engagement During the Bridge 
Permitting Process: The commentor stated that the first public meeting 
regarding the Portal Bridge was not held until July 26, 2022. This was 
the first time the maritime industry was made aware that the 
replacement bridge plan that would limit vertical clearance, and that 
the engineering plan failed to identify that the location of the new 
bridge would impact the ability of the existing bridge to fully open.
    Coast Guard Response: For clarification, this rule does not affect 
the vertical clearance of the bridge as implied in the comment above. 
Comprehensive maritime stakeholder engagement was conducted during a 
Marine Traffic Study conducted in 2006 to gather input regarding the 
vertical and horizontal clearance of the proposed fixed bridge. 
Numerous maritime stakeholders were contacted during this study for 
input. After the conclusion of that study and consideration of the 
feedback, the Coast Guard widely disseminated a Public Notice on 6 
April 2010 with the new bridge dimensions and proceeded with issuing a 
permit having received no negative comments regarding the vertical 
clearance of the bridge. The Coast Guard permitted the replacement of 
this bridge on June 6, 2013, based on a design provided by the bridge 
owner, Amtrak, and its accompanying environmental impact statement 
approved by the Federal Railroad Administration. Immediately upon being 
made aware in 2022 of the impact the new bridge's construction and 
design would have on the ability of the existing bridge to fully open, 
the Coast Guard facilitated maritime stakeholder outreach to fully 
assess impacts to navigation.
    The Proposed Rule Unreasonably Impacts Marine Navigation: The 
commentor also stated that the proposed modification to the bridge 
fails to meet the reasonable needs of navigation because it forces 
mariners to transit through a reduced opening or under the bridge in 
the closed position.
    Coast Guard Response: The location and design of the replacement 
bridge, coupled with the design and age of the current bridge, make it 
physically impossible to increase the horizontal opening of the current 
bridge during this phase of construction. Upon review, the Coast Guard 
identified only one vessel, a commercial tug and barge, that would be 
impacted by the proposed modification the bridge's operation. The 
county municipality that owns the barge and transports the cargo 
successfully transported this cargo by land transportation between 2016 
and 2022 and has shifted back to land transportation of the cargo 
recently in July 2024. The bridge owner investigated various methods of 
minimizing impacts on marine navigation and determined the proposed 
construction schedule best balanced impacts on marine transportation 
with impacts on the 150,000-200,000 daily train commuters who use the 
existing bridge. Based on the above factors, the Coast Guard assessed 
that the temporary modification to the bridge's operating schedule 
meets the reasonable needs of maritime navigation. The Coast Guard will 
continue to work closely with all stakeholders to adequately understand 
and serve the needs of all transportation modes while meeting the 
reasonable needs of maritime navigation.
    Port of New York and New Jersey Harbor Safety, Navigation and 
Operations Committee Consultation: The commentor requested that the 
Committee be consulted on all bridge proposals.
    Coast Guard Response: The Coast Guard has implemented this 
consultation as a standard practice for bridge proposals in the Port of 
New York and New Jersey and also allowed for public comment on the 
regulatory change through the published NPRM.
    Bridge Owner Accountability to Avoid Conflicts During Construction: 
The commentor stated that bridge owners should take accountability for 
failure to avoid conflicts during construction and that affected 
parties be compensated for significant commercial losses incurred.
    Coast Guard Response: The Coast Guard is not the bridge owner. 
However, when considering bridge actions, the Coast Guard promotes the 
maritime transportation goals of the Nation while accommodating, to the 
greatest extent practicable, the needs of all transportation modes. 
When conflicts arise during bridge construction that are unavoidable, 
the Coast Guard works with stakeholders across all transportation modes 
to best meet the needs of commerce in an equitable compromise of all 
interests.
    We received a second comment from Vinik Marine Services, LLC dated 
November 4, 2024. The comment included the following two specific 
concerns:
    Inadequate Notice/Approval of Bridge Plans: The commentor stated 
stating that full implications for navigation should have been clear 
and presented to stakeholders for comment before permits were issued, 
and as construction progressed as there are impacts to navigation.
    Coast Guard Response: Comprehensive maritime stakeholder engagement 
was conducted by the Coast Guard during a Marine Traffic Study 
conducted in 2006 to determine the vertical and horizontal clearance of 
the proposed fixed bridge. The Coast Guard

[[Page 13701]]

considered this report in reviewing the constructability of the 
proposed bridge in the Public Notice issued on 6 April 2010. In 2016, 
the sole remaining commercial vessel regularly transiting through the 
bridge ceased operations when the municipality that owned the cargo 
shifted to land transportation. In 2022, that municipality shifted back 
to barge transportation, concurrent with the bridge owner notifying the 
Coast Guard that new bridge construction would impact the ability of 
the existing bridge to fully open. Immediately upon being made aware of 
the impact of new bridge construction on the ability of the existing 
bridge to be fully open, the Coast Guard facilitated maritime 
stakeholder outreach to fully assess impacts to navigation. The bridge 
owner hosted a public meeting for preconstruction on July 26, 2022, to 
present the project overview and construction schedule, including 
approximate time frame for channel closures and restrictions. In 
addition to regular outreach to impacted stakeholders as construction 
progressed, a second mariners' meeting was held on September 18, 2024, 
to prepare the stakeholders upcoming channel closures and restrictions.
    Alternative Options Not Economically Feasible: The commentor stated 
that the option put forth in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to 
purchase a barge narrow enough to transit through the 55-foot bridge 
opening is not economically feasible. The commentor also stated that 
modifying a tugboat to transit underneath the bridge when closed is 
also not economically feasible.
    Coast Guard Response: This comment is noted. The Coast Guard will 
continue to work closely with all stakeholders to adequately serve the 
needs of all transportation modes while meeting the reasonable needs of 
maritime navigation.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and 
Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses 
based on a number of these statutes and Executive Orders, and we 
discuss First Amendment rights of protesters.

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 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, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB).
    Background information on the initial analysis of this action can 
be found in the NPRM, published October 3, 2024 (89 FR 80436). As noted 
in the NPRM, the location and design of the replacement bridge, coupled 
with the design and age of the current bridge, 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. The Coast Guard 
notes no evidence of this barge making transits since July of 2024, so 
the potential impact noted in the NPRM will not be realized.

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. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business 
Administration on this rulemaking. 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.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the 
bridge may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A 
above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of vessel owners or operators.
    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 rule. If the 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.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal 
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal 
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory 
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory 
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and 
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to 
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR 
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small 
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or 
action of the Coast Guard.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the ability that 
vessels can still transit the bridge given the reduced horizontal 
clearance. Background information for the Impact on Small Entities on 
this action can be found in the NPRM, published October 3, 2024 (89 FR 
80436).

C. Collection of Information

    This 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 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, or the relationship between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this 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 rule will not result in 
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this proposed rule 
elsewhere in the preamble.

[[Page 13702]]

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 rule promulgates the operating 
regulations or procedures for drawbridges and is categorically excluded 
from further review, under paragraph L49 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS 
Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1.
    Neither a Record of Environmental Consideration nor a Memorandum 
for the Record are required for this rule.

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 Department of 
Homeland Security Delegation No. 00170.1. Revision No. 01.3


0
2. Revise Sec.  117.723(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. 2025-05091 Filed 3-25-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P