FR 2024-29455

The document outlines a temporary safety measure enacted by the U.S. Coast Guard to secure a specific area on the Patapsco River in Baltimore, Maryland, during a planned New Year's Eve fireworks event. The safety zone, effective from late December 31, 2024, to early January 1, 2025, restricts access to a 300-foot radius around the fireworks barge. This restriction is aimed at ensuring safety by preventing harm from accidental fires, dangerous projectiles, and debris during the fireworks display. Only individuals or vessels with explicit permission from Coast Guard authorities can enter this restricted area.

Significant Issues or Concerns

One prominent issue within the document is the heavy reliance on technical abbreviations and references to legal statutes without providing sufficient descriptive context, which could cause confusion for readers unfamiliar with these terms. Abbreviations like COTP (Captain of the Port), CFR (Code of Federal Regulations), and DHS (Department of Homeland Security) are used without explanation, leading to potential misunderstandings.

Furthermore, the document mentions certain legal statutes and executive orders such as 5 U.S.C. 553 and Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13132 without breaking down their relevance or implications, which makes the document complex and challenging to comprehend for those not versed in legal jargon.

The procedure for gaining permission to enter the safety zone is outlined but lacks detail on processing times or expected delays, possibly leading to operational confusion during the enforcement period.

Public Impact

For the general public, these measures might be perceived as minor inconveniences if they plan to navigate the Patapsco River during the restricted time. However, this restriction certainly aims to enhance public safety by preventing any potential accidents related to the fireworks event.

While the intention is clear, broader awareness may not be achieved due to the document's complexity, potentially minimizing public engagement or preparation.

Stakeholder Impact

The impact on specific stakeholders varies. For residents or businesses relying on river navigation, these restrictions could pose a temporary disruption. The document could be particularly confusing for small businesses or those directly affected, as it includes regulatory references without plain language guidance.

Positively, those attending the fireworks display — as well as those living near the river — benefit from enhanced safety precautions, reducing the likelihood of accidents or injuries. On the regulatory side, agencies tasked with enforcement will have operational guidance, although this guidance could benefit from greater clarity.

In summary, while the document outlines critical safety measures for a public event, its presentation could be optimized for accessibility and understanding, ensuring that all affected parties can more effectively leverage or comply with these safety protocols.

The document addresses financial considerations primarily through a specific reference to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. This act is mentioned within the context of evaluating the financial impact of federal actions, particularly those that may cause significant expenditures exceeding $100,000,000 in any given year by state, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector. However, it is noted in the document that this rule will not result in such expenditure levels.

This financial reference is meant to reassure the public and affected entities that the temporary safety zone regulation will not impose an overwhelming fiscal burden. It's important to highlight that the estimated financial impact does not trigger the thresholds established by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. This means that implementing and enforcing the safety zone rule is not expected to create substantial financial challenges for governments or businesses involved.

However, there is a gap in conveying how smaller financial impacts might still affect smaller entities or local authorities. The complexities and potential costs associated with enforcing the safety zone—for instance, expenses related to maritime coordination or smaller operational costs—are not broken down in simpler, more relatable terms. This aligns with issues pointed out, where the document’s language can be complex, potentially making it hard for small business owners to assess how the rule might financially influence their operations.

While the authority and necessity behind the safety zone are clear, the document lacks clarity on potential small-scale financial consequences or assistance measures for impacted entities. This absence might raise concerns among smaller businesses or local agencies about unforeseen compliance costs, suggesting that further elaboration could help promote understanding and alleviate concerns. Providing more precise financial implications or support options might have benefited the clarity and reception of the rule among non-federal stakeholders.