FR 2021-03974

The Federal Register document concerns the Coast Guard's establishment of a temporary safety zone on a section of the Ohio River, specifically from mile marker 452.0 to 454.0, near New Richmond, Ohio. This measure aims to ensure safety during a scheduled demolition project. The safety zone is active from 9:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. on February 26, 2021, with contingency dates on February 27 and 28, should weather conditions necessitate changes. During this period, unauthorized entry, passage, or anchoring within the zone is strictly prohibited. Due to the short notice of the demolition, the rule was enacted without prior public comment.

Key Issues and Concerns

One significant issue within the document is the complexity of the language used in sections dedicated to regulatory analyses and discussions of legal authority. These parts could be difficult for individuals not versed in maritime or legal terminology to comprehend. Simplifying these sections would aid public understanding and broaden accessibility.

There is also an apparent lack of transparency regarding the process for obtaining authorization from the Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley or their representative. The document frequently references the need for this authorization but offers limited guidance on how the process functions or what criteria apply.

Moreover, the document provides a brief statement concerning environmental impact, qualifying it under a categorical exclusion. However, stakeholders concerned about environmental implications might find this lacking in detail and would likely appreciate a more thorough exploration.

Impact on the Public and Stakeholders

Broadly speaking, the document serves the public interest by prioritizing safety measures on the navigable waters, protecting both individuals involved in the demolition project and other river users from potential hazards associated with the event. The quick enactment of the rule reflects an urgent and necessary response to ensure safety.

For specific stakeholders—such as local residents, business owners who rely on river transport, and small entities—the rule could potentially cause disruptions. Yet, the measure is deemed temporary, lasting only one hour on a single day, thus limiting its disruptive impact. The provision for small entities states that the impact is nominal due to the short duration and limited geographical scope. However, more concrete examples of how this was determined might offer greater reassurance.

Conclusion

This document reflects a regulatory decision that prioritizes safety while recognizing the need for rapid implementation. Despite its potentially disruptive nature for river users during the specified period, it seems designed to minimize impact efficiently. Addressing concerns about the clarity of authorization procedures and environmental impact assessments would further enhance public confidence in such measures.

The document in question pertains to a temporary safety zone established by the Coast Guard on the Ohio River, near New Richmond, Ohio, due to a demolition project. Within this document, there is a notable financial reference regarding potential expenditures related to federal regulations.

Financial Reference Summary

The document specifically mentions a threshold regarding potential financial impacts that could arise from the rule itself or related actions. Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, the document suggests that regulations such as this one must be assessed to determine if they could result in expenditures by state, local, or tribal governments, or by the private sector amounting to $100,000,000 or more in any given year. This reference indicates that the Coast Guard does not anticipate the rule will lead to such financial burdens.

Relation to Identified Issues

One of the identified issues in the document is the potentially complex regulatory language used, which might be difficult for laypersons to understand. The financial reference, with its mention of a high monetary threshold ($100,000,000), might contribute to this complexity, especially for individuals lacking familiarity with federal financial impact assessments.

Understanding such a large figure in the context of a safety zone rule can be daunting without clear explanation or more accessible language. Additionally, regulations surrounding financial implications often tie into the broader considerations of federal, state, and local interactions, as captured under the sections about federalism and tribal governments. Thus, incorporating more simplified explanations or relatable examples could enhance public understanding regarding why such fiscal assessments are necessary, even if the specific rule in question is not expected to reach the financial impact mentioned.

Furthermore, the document highlights the non-significant impact on small entities; however, a brief mention of the gigantic threshold number might leave those unfamiliar with federal regulatory processes wondering about the detailed financial implications for businesses or local governments. Addressing this with more concrete examples or by comparing the expected minimal impact against the defined high-cost threshold could aid clarity.

In conclusion, while the document aims to clarify potential regulatory costs, the inclusion of such a hefty figure requires careful explanation to ensure stakeholders understand its purpose and relevance in assessing federal regulations. Providing context and simplifying explanations can significantly aid in demystifying these financial elements for the general public.