FR 2021-02356

The document in question is a Federal Register notice issued by the United States Coast Guard. It pertains to the establishment of a temporary safety zone on the Grand River in Grand Haven, Michigan. This measure is directly related to the controlled implosion of the J.B. Sims power plant. The safety zone is intended to cover a radius of 1,400 feet from the demolition site to protect individuals, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards associated with this work. The rule will be enforced during specific times—9:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.—on two specific dates, February 5 and 19, 2021.

General Summary

The Coast Guard has put this temporary rule in place under its authority to ensure safety during the demolition process. By establishing this safety zone, unauthorized vessels and individuals are prohibited from entering the zone to prevent accidents or interference with the demolition.

Significant Issues and Concerns

Several concerns arise from the details provided in the document:

1. Entry and Authorization Criteria: The document does not specify clear criteria or procedures for obtaining authorization from the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan to enter the safety zone. This lack of specification might lead to confusion or inconsistency in how permissions are granted.

2. Transparency and Public Accountability: The document states that there was "good cause" for not issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) due to time constraints, suggesting that the Coast Guard wasn't aware of the demolition plans until quite late. However, the explanation is brief and lacks depth, possibly diminishing transparency and public accountability.

3. Economic Impact Assessment: Although the report claims no significant economic impact on small entities, it does not describe how this conclusion was reached. There is also no consideration of indirect economic impacts on businesses that might rely on river traffic.

4. Environmental Considerations: The document states that the action does not require a detailed environmental assessment. However, there is no provision for examining unforeseen environmental consequences that might occur within the safety zone.

5. Technical Language and Statutory References: The document makes heavy use of legalese and references to external statutes, which aren't explained or simplified, potentially alienating the general public not versed in legalese.

Impact on the Public and Stakeholders

For the general public, the establishment of a safety zone may initially seem like a minor inconvenience, especially for those planning to navigate or use the Grand River during the specified times. However, public safety is maximized as the risk of exposure to hazards from the demolition is minimized.

For specific stakeholders such as local businesses, particularly those dependent on waterway traffic, even short-term restrictions could have economic implications. Although the Coast Guard asserts that these impacts are minimal, stakeholders might disagree if they experience disruptions or financial losses.

Regarding environmental stakeholders, the lack of a robust environmental review could be concerning, especially to groups cautious about unforeseen consequences of the demolition process.

Overall, while the Coast Guard's actions appear geared towards ensuring public and environmental safety, the approach lacks transparency and detailed justification, which might impact stakeholder acceptance and trust.

The financial reference in the document primarily highlights the potential implications under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, mentioning an expenditure threshold of $100,000,000. This act is significant as it requires federal agencies to evaluate the costs of their regulatory actions, especially if these actions could result in substantial financial burdens on local, state, or tribal governments, or the private sector.

The document does not specify any direct spending or appropriations related to the temporary safety zone around the demolition site in Grand Haven, MI. Instead, the mention of the $100,000,000 figure serves as a benchmark for determining when federal actions trigger additional scrutiny under the act. This ensures that regulations do not inadvertently impose excessive financial demands on non-federal entities.

Financial Considerations in Relation to Identified Issues

One of the issues identified in the document is the assumption that there will be no significant economic impact on small entities. The financial threshold mentioned in the document underscores the need for a careful assessment to determine whether regulatory actions might lead to large unintended expenses. However, the document does not provide a detailed explanation of how this assessment is conducted or its findings. By referencing the $100,000,000 figure, the document hints at regulatory considerations, but it lacks transparency in how cost evaluations specifically justify the rule's economic impact assessment.

Additionally, while the act addresses scenarios involving substantial financial burdens, the document does not detail any provision for compensating or assisting small businesses or local governments that might be indirectly affected by the restricted access to the Grand River during the demolition process. Explaining potential indirect economic impacts, particularly on small entities relying on river traffic, would provide a clearer understanding of the regulation's economic implications.

In conclusion, the financial reference to the $100,000,000 expenditure threshold acts as a precautionary guideline for regulatory assessments, yet the overall clarity could be enhanced by explicitly describing any lower-scale economic impacts and detailing the evaluation process for arriving at these conclusions.