Overview
Title
Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Passaic River, Harrison, New Jersey
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Coast Guard decided to stop the rules for opening and closing a bridge because it will no longer move up and down. It's now fixed and doesn't need those special rules anymore.
Summary AI
The Coast Guard has issued a final rule to remove the regulation for the AMTRAK Dock Railroad Bridge along the Passaic River in Harrison, New Jersey. This decision follows the authorization to change the bridge from a movable to a fixed structure, making the existing regulations about its operation unnecessary. The rule does not impact waterway or land traffic and was included in the Federal Register to update the Code of Federal Regulations by removing obsolete operational language.
Abstract
The Coast Guard is removing the existing drawbridge operation regulation for the AMTRAK Dock Railroad Bridge, mile 5.0 across the Passaic River, Harrison, New Jersey. On December 11, 2024, the U.S. Coast Guard issued a permit amendment for the AMTRAK Dock Bridge which authorized the conversion of the bridge from a movable bridge to a fixed bridge. The operating regulation for the bridge, is no longer applicable or necessary and will be removed from the CFR.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document issued by the Coast Guard represents a formal regulatory update in the Federal Register, removing the operating regulation for the AMTRAK Dock Railroad Bridge over the Passaic River in Harrison, New Jersey. This decision follows the transformation of the bridge from a movable structure to a fixed one, rendering previous regulations regarding its operation obsolete. The removal of this regulation is intended to update the Code of Federal Regulations and does not affect current traffic, either by water or by land.
General Summary
The Coast Guard's rule, effective as of April 17, 2025, eliminates the operational passage concerning the AMTRAK Dock Railroad Bridge, which was previously a drawbridge. The change reflects the bridge's conversion, permitted on December 11, 2024, from a drawbridge—which opens and closes—to a fixed structure. Consequently, the regulations around its operation, formerly under 33 CFR 117.739(e), are no longer relevant, simplifying the regulatory framework and removing inapplicable procedures.
Significant Issues and Concerns
One noteworthy concern is the lack of explanation regarding how the removal of these regulations will be communicated to affected mariners or whether alternative notification systems will be employed. This absence could lead to confusion for individuals accustomed to the former operations of the bridge.
The document’s justification for bypassing the usual notice and comment period under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) merits attention. The Coast Guard argues that the rule is "unnecessary," due to the bridge’s recent conversion, potentially skipping over a process some stakeholders might expect to be included in or consulted on.
Another issue is the lack of explicit engagement with local stakeholders or community entities. The document does not detail any feedback or discussions held with individuals or groups that may have a vested interest in the bridge's operational changes. This omission could overlook valued community perspectives or concerns.
Additionally, while the rule is confirmed not to require new data under the Paperwork Reduction Act, there is minimal detail explaining any preliminary assessments taken to reach this conclusion, perhaps leaving ambiguity on the process of confirming such a decision.
Public Impact
Broadly, the public might see little direct impact from this change, especially given that the bridge's transformation into a fixed structure has already been approved. The regulation update serves mainly to clear outdated language from public records.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For certain stakeholders, particularly small entities or local businesses that may have been using the waterway under the previous drawbridge operations, this change could carry positive implications by simplifying nautical journey planning. Conversely, for smaller navigation entities that relied on the bridge's opening capabilities, having it permanently fixed could present new navigational challenges. However, as the document indicates, no significant economic impact is expected.
Overall, the update serves as a routine adjustment to federal regulations, aligning legal texts with the current infrastructure and ensuring clarity in maritime operations. Yet, communicating these changes effectively to all relevant parties and engaging with local stakeholders remains crucial for a seamless transition.
Financial Assessment
The document primarily revolves around the removal of the drawbridge operation regulation for the AMTRAK Dock Railroad Bridge in Harrison, New Jersey, and its conversion to a fixed bridge. This change is procedural and does not involve any specific financial allocations or spending directly related to the document.
Financial Reference Summary
The document mentions $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation), which appears in the context of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. This Act requires federal agencies to assess the financial impact of their regulatory actions, specifically if they result in expenditures by state, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector, amounting to $100,000,000 or more in any year. However, the regulation removal discussed in this document does not fall under such a financial impact category, implying that it neither costs nor saves any significant amount of government or private sector money.
Financial References and Identified Issues
The financial reference indicates a threshold for assessing substantial economic impacts, but the document states that the removal of the regulation will not trigger this level of expenditure. This is critical in addressing regulatory issues, as it relates to concerns about the document's communication regarding the economic impact on small entities or local stakeholders.
The text certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Yet, the document does not elaborate on any specific methods used to ascertain that no significant financial burden would be placed on affected parties, particularly smaller businesses or those reliant on waterway transit. This lack of detail might concern those who would typically expect a thorough economic analysis when operations affecting public infrastructure and businesses are altered.
In conclusion, while the document clarifies there is no need for financial allocations or concerns exceeding the $100,000,000 threshold, it somewhat skirts around providing a detailed financial impact analysis on smaller scales which might reassure individual stakeholders or local businesses. This potentially leaves some uncertainty about how certain groups, particularly small entities, are financially impacted or consulted in the process.
Issues
• The document indicates that the Coast Guard is removing regulations concerning a drawbridge, but it doesn't clearly explain how the removal of these regulations will be communicated to affected mariners or whether additional notification mechanisms will be utilized.
• The language around the issuance of the final rule, such as citing that the rule does not require the standard notice and comment period because it's 'unnecessary,' might not fully address or articulate the implications for entities accustomed to such processes.
• The document does not explicitly address or provide examples of any feedback or consultation with local stakeholders or entities that may have an interest in the bridge's operation, potentially overlooking important community engagement aspects.
• The document mentions no new collection of information is required under the Paperwork Reduction Act, but does not detail whether there have been any consultations or preliminary assessments to confirm the absence of need for additional data.
• While the document aligns with certain Executive Orders and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, it lacks clarity on the engagement with small entities, given the certification that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Further elaboration on how this conclusion was reached could be beneficial.