FR 2021-03536

The document details a temporary rule set by the U.S. Coast Guard to establish a safety zone in the Duluth-Superior Harbor. This action intends to safeguard participants and viewers during an extreme sports event, which involves stunts across the waterway. The safety zone extends from Connor's Point Marina in Superior, WI, to Rice's Point in Duluth, MN, and incorporates additional buffer space extending 100 yards from certain positioned barges. During the effective period from February 24 to March 5, 2021, no vessels or individuals are permitted within this demarcated area unless specifically authorized by a designated Coast Guard authority.

Significant Issues

The implementation of this safety zone raised several concerns. Notably, the rule was put into effect without prior public notice or opportunity for public comment, which is typically an essential step in the rulemaking process. This decision was justified by citing safety concerns and the lack of expected vessel traffic due to ice conditions and the closure of nearby locks. However, this rationale may not fully address potential changes in these conditions or unforeseen circumstances, leading to questions about contingency strategies. Furthermore, the legal references and terminology throughout the document could present a challenge for those unfamiliar with regulatory language, potentially limiting public understanding.

Impact on the Public

For the general public, this rule primarily serves as a safety measure, ensuring that the extreme sports event proceeds without risk to spectators or participants. The Coast Guard has taken steps to notify mariners through established communication channels, and local citizens may observe limitations on recreational and commercial waterway usage during the specified time.

Impact on Stakeholders

The impact on specific stakeholders varies. Event organizers and participants stand to benefit from heightened safety and reduced risk of accidents or disruptions. Conversely, businesses or individuals dependent on waterway access might experience inconvenience or potential economic impact if they are unable to adjust to the temporary restrictions, despite assurances that the rule is unlikely to cause significant disruption due to the season's typical conditions.

Overall, while the temporary rule addresses immediate safety priorities, it highlights the tension between swift regulatory action and transparent public engagement. Stakeholders affected by the changes are encouraged to contact Coast Guard representatives for further information or assistance.

The document under review establishes a temporary safety zone in the Duluth-Superior Harbor area due to an extreme sports event. Although it primarily outlines the logistical and regulatory aspects of the safety zone, there are limited references to financial considerations.

Summary of Financial References

The document mentions the implications of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, specifically noting actions that could result in expenditures by state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. In particular, it addresses situations where such spending could amount to $100,000,000 or more in any one year. However, in the context of this specific rule, it clearly states that such significant expenditures are not anticipated as a result of this safety zone.

Relation to Identified Issues

The document does not disclose any specific financial allocations or government spending related to enforcing the safety zone. This omission makes it unclear whether there are dedicated funds or if the operation is drawing on existing budget resources. The absence of detailed financial information aligns with the first identified issue that questions the document's transparency regarding potential government spending. A reader might expect to see discussions on costs associated with resources allocated for monitoring and enforcement activities during the event period, yet these are not explicitly provided.

Moreover, the statement about expenditures of $100,000,000 highlights a threshold for evaluating significant financial impact but confirms that such a level of spending is not expected. This explanation underscores the regulatory assurance that the introduction of this safety zone does not impose a financial burden that might necessitate such a high-scale expenditure.

In terms of financial clarity, the document could benefit from a straightforward explanation of any anticipated costs or savings associated with the safety zone's implementation. This would enhance public understanding—especially given the complex legislative references—by providing a clearer financial picture of how the safety zone operates within the existing budgetary framework.