FR 2024-29089

General Summary

The document outlines a rule issued by the Coast Guard to establish a temporary safety zone on the Lower Mississippi River, near Natchez, Mississippi. This zone covers a short stretch from mile markers 364.4 to 365.5 and is scheduled for December 31, 2024, between 6 p.m. and 7 p.m. The purpose of this safety zone is to protect people, vessels, and the environment during a planned waterborne fireworks display. Essentially, this zone restricts access during this time frame, unless prior authorization is obtained from the Captain of the Port, Sector Lower Mississippi River.

Significant Issues or Concerns

A few notable concerns and issues arise from this rule:

1. Lack of Cost Information: The rule does not provide specific details on the costs associated with enforcing this temporary safety zone. Such information could be important for assessing whether the resources required are justified or whether they might lead to unnecessary spending, especially when public funds are involved.

2. Justification for Waiving Notice Period: The rule was established without a notice and comment period, a procedure typical for new regulations. The Coast Guard justifies this with the argument of impracticability due to time constraints, but it lacks detailed evidence or a clear explanation. This omission could raise questions about transparency and whether public engagement was considered adequately.

3. Feedback Mechanism for Small Entities: While opportunities for small businesses and other small entities to provide feedback or raise concerns are mentioned, the method seems limited to a general helpline. A more direct or specialized contact might facilitate better accessibility and support for these stakeholders.

4. Lack of Economic Impact Analysis: Although the document claims there is no significant economic impact on small entities, it does not offer detailed analysis or data to substantiate this claim. This lack of depth might leave these entities uncertain about the potential implications.

5. Entry into Safety Zone: The document specifies how to request permission to enter the safety zone, yet it does not define what constitutes valid reasons for entry. This ambiguity can lead to confusion or inconsistencies in enforcement.

Public Impact

The general public, particularly those residing near or using the Lower Mississippi River in the Natchez area, may experience short-term disruptions due to access restrictions during the specified period. Those planning activities in the area might need to adjust plans accordingly to comply with the safety regulations.

Specific Stakeholder Impact

• Local Businesses and Vessel Operators: Local businesses relying on river traffic, especially small entities, might face brief interruptions in operations. Although the rule states there is no significant economic impact, affected businesses could still feel minor effects during the restricted hour.

• Maritime and Environmental Safety Stakeholders: The rule positively impacts maritime safety personnel and environmental advocates, as its primary intent is to minimize hazards during the fireworks display. This proactive measure helps ensure that the event proceeds safely with reduced risks to people and nature.

• Regulatory Transparency Advocates: For those advocating for regulatory transparency, the lack of a notice and comment period and minimal economic impact detail could be points of concern. It highlights a need for improved procedural transparency and better engagement with affected parties.

Overall, while the rule aims to ensure safety during a festive event, its execution could benefit from clearer communication and comprehensive stakeholder consideration.

In the examination of the Federal Register document detailing the establishment of a temporary safety zone on the Lower Mississippi River, financial references, though sparse, touch upon potential economic impacts and regulatory considerations.

Financial Thresholds and Expenditures

The document highlights the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, which requires federal agencies to assess the effects of regulatory actions that may result in an expenditure by governmental or private entities of $100,000,000 or more in any given year. It is noted that this rule—a temporary safety zone established for a fireworks display—is not expected to result in such significant expenditures by state, local, or tribal governments, nor by the private sector. While this indicates an attempt to alleviate concerns over substantial financial burdens, the document does not provide a detailed cost analysis related to the enforcement of the safety zone.

Economic Impact on Small Entities

The document asserts that there will be no significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. However, it lacks detailed financial data or analysis to back up this claim. The Coast Guard certifies under the Regulatory Flexibility Act that this rule would not impose a significant economic burden on small entities. Although the document prioritizes ensuring minimal financial impact, it does not delve into specifics, such as potential costs that small businesses might incur due to restricted navigation or potential delays.

Issues Related to Financial References

One of the identified issues is the absence of explicit costs associated with enforcing the temporary safety zone, which could be relevant to analyzing potential wasteful spending. The document assures that this zone does not impose large expenditures as addressed under federal statutes. Still, the lack of comprehensive financial data might lead to questions regarding the transparency and oversight of financial implications, even if they fall below significant thresholds.

Furthermore, small entities are provided mechanisms to voice their concerns, including contact points through a federal helpline. However, the lack of specific resources or accessible contact points related to financial queries may not fully support small businesses that seek clarity on potential economic effects or require assistance in compliance, especially those near the Lower Mississippi River.

In conclusion, while the document fairly reassures that no significant federal expenditure arises from the establishment of the safety zone, more granular financial insights or clear outlines of possible minor costs could better address concerns about transparency and potential economic impacts on stakeholders.