FR 2025-05091

General Summary of the Document

The document in question is a final rule issued by the Coast Guard, a part of the Department of Homeland Security. It involves changes in the operating schedule for the Amtrak Portal Bridge across the Hackensack River in Little Snake Hill, New Jersey. This change is driven by the necessity of accommodating the construction of a new bridge, the Portal Bridge North, designed by Amtrak. To avoid potential collisions during this construction phase, the rule limits the horizontal opening of the bridge to 55 feet in the east channel while the west channel will be closed to all navigation. This rule is set to become effective on April 25, 2025, and it will have implications for various stakeholders, specifically those involved in maritime and railway operations.

Significant Issues or Concerns

A notable concern arising from the document is the potential lack of adequate engagement with maritime stakeholders during the planning and permitting process. The responses to public comments suggest some dissatisfaction from stakeholders who feel that the consultation process could have been more robust. There is also a question of financial transparency, as the document does not provide detailed information on the budget or financial implications of the construction project, making it difficult to assess for potential waste.

Impact on the General Public

For the general public, particularly those who rely on train services across the Hackensack River, the changes might not be noticeable unless there's a significant disruption in train schedules or unforeseen delays due to the bridge construction. However, this might not be the case for maritime users who will see a more direct impact due to restricted navigation routes.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

Maritime stakeholders, including commercial and recreational vessels, are likely to be most affected by the new rule. The restriction to a 55-foot horizontal opening in the east channel and the complete closure of the west channel will particularly impact large vessel operators who may need to adjust their routes or methods of cargo transport. Concerns have been raised regarding the economic feasibility of purchasing new, narrower vessels to accommodate the changes, which smaller entities might find especially challenging.

While the document outlines that there will be continued coordination with stakeholders, there are no specific measures mentioned to compensate those adversely affected financially. It would be beneficial if the Coast Guard could further clarify their support strategies for small businesses and other potentially impacted parties during this transition.

Conclusion

Overall, while the Coast Guard has attempted to balance the needs of various stakeholders, including the daily train commuters and the maritime operators, the deployment of this rule may lead to some friction due to perceptions of inadequate stakeholder engagement and financial ambiguity. The successful implementation of this rule will likely depend on open lines of communication and, potentially, additional measures to support those stakeholders who experience adverse effects during the construction period.

The document primarily addresses changes to the operating schedule of the Amtrak Portal Bridge due to construction activities. Financial references within the document are limited and do not provide extensive information regarding the specific budget or financial allocations associated with the project's implementation.

One key financial reference in the document relates to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, which requires federal agencies to assess the financial impact of their regulations. The document mentions that "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." However, it is noted that this rule will not result in such an expenditure.

This reference provides a threshold for significant spending, implying that while the construction of the new Portal Bridge North is a major undertaking, it is not expected to trigger these fiscal limits. Thus, one can infer that the project's direct costs or financial burdens are not expected to reach a point where they necessitate additional scrutiny under this particular legislative framework.

The document does not delve into the specific budgetary allocations or financial resources being utilized for the construction project itself. There is no mention of the project's cost, funding sources, or the financial responsibilities of involved parties, such as Amtrak, the Coast Guard, or other governmental or private entities. This absence of detailed financial data can leave readers without a clear understanding of the scale of investment or potential economic implications of the project. A more detailed breakdown of the financial aspects could help address concerns regarding potential wasteful spending or inefficient use of public funds.

Furthermore, although the document acknowledges potential impacts on small businesses, it lacks specific measures or compensation plans for stakeholders negatively affected by the temporary changes to bridge operations. Not addressing these financial concerns might exacerbate issues related to stakeholder dissatisfaction, as affected parties might face economic challenges during the transition without clear support or remedial measures outlined.

Overall, the document focuses on procedural and operational changes without offering comprehensive insight into the financial dimensions of the project, which could be a point of concern for stakeholders seeking to understand the economic impact of the proposed rule and the associated construction activities.