FR 2024-30753

The document in question is a temporary safety regulation issued by the Coast Guard, focusing on a specific area in North Tonawanda, NY. This regulation establishes a safety zone surrounding the Main Street Bridge over the Erie Canal, in effect from December 31, 2024, to January 1, 2025. The purpose is to safeguard people and vessels from potential hazards, particularly falling debris resulting from a fireworks display. Entry into this safety zone is strictly prohibited without prior authorization from the Captain of the Port, Eastern Great Lakes Sector.

General Summary

In essence, the Coast Guard is acting to mitigate risks associated with the fireworks display to protect both people and the environment. The temporary safety zone extends 125 feet around the designated coordinates on the bridge, and it remains in force for a limited duration of 1.5 hours. This proactive measure reflects the need for swift and decisive action in scenarios where safety concerns arise, particularly when time constraints limit public discourse on the matter.

Significant Issues or Concerns

A primary concern with the issuance of this rule involves the absence of a public comment period and advance notice. The document justifies this by citing "good cause," which allows agencies to bypass typical procedures when they deem it impractical or contrary to the public interest. While this decision might seem necessary due to the urgency, it also raises questions about transparency and public participation in regulatory processes.

Additionally, the document includes numerous abbreviations and legal jargon, such as "CFR" and "U.S.C.," which might not be immediately clear to individuals unfamiliar with regulatory language. This complexity, paired with the specialized nature of legal and maritime terminology, can make the rule difficult for the general public to comprehend.

Broader Public Impact

For the public at large, the existence of a temporary safety zone highlights the importance of remaining aware of local regulations, especially in areas with potential hazards. Such rules are designed to ensure safety but require individuals to adhere to restrictions or seek permission when necessary.

The timing of the rule might inconvenience those planning activities around the Erie Canal during New Year's celebrations. However, given the specific timeframe and duration, the overall disruption is likely minimal.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

For vessel operators, especially those who may be classified as small entities, the regulation could alter planned routes or activities. That said, the Coast Guard asserts that the impact on small businesses is expected to be minor. Since this rule coincides with a period when canal locks are inactive, the disruption to regular waterway traffic is limited.

Environmental groups might view this rule positively, as it demonstrates considerations for protecting the marine environment from fallout and debris. Conversely, those engaged in organizing the fireworks display or local tourism might perceive the safety zone as a hindrance to visibility or accessibility.

In conclusion, while the safety rule serves an important protective role, it also exemplifies the balance between rapid regulatory responses and the value of public input. The overall impacts appear contained and targeted, aiming to prioritize safety during a potentially high-risk period.

In this Federal Register document, there is a specific reference to potential financial impacts associated with regulatory actions, namely the $100,000,000 threshold related to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. This act requires federal agencies to evaluate the effects of their actions when there is a potential cumulative expenditure by governments or the private sector that meets or exceeds this amount in any given year.

Summary of Financial References

The document cites this particular financial figure within the context of assessing the regulatory impact of establishing a temporary safety zone for the Erie Canal. It addresses the statutory requirement for federal agencies to evaluate significant economic impacts, specifically those resulting in expenditures by state, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector.

Context and Relevance

The reference to $100,000,000 serves as a regulatory threshold under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, implying that the rule being discussed is not expected to result in expenditures reaching this level. Thus, the assertion serves to reassure that the temporary safety zone will not impose significant financial burdens on state, local, tribal governments, or the private sector.

Relation to Identified Issues

The document does not provide detailed financial allocations or spending related to the implementation of this safety zone. Although it acknowledges the significant threshold under federal law, it does not address potential smaller financial impacts or how these will be managed. The financial reference serves mainly to affirm compliance with the act rather than to detail specific associated costs.

The mention of contacting the Captain of the Port (COTP) for permission to enter the safety zone brings up a procedural issue that could indirectly relate to costs. A clear process for identifying the COTP's representative could prevent unnecessary delays, which may otherwise convert to financial losses for any economic activity temporarily impeded by the safety zone enforcement. However, the document falls short of analyzing such indirect financial implications.

In conclusion, while the document cites a significant financial benchmark in regulatory analysis, it does not delve into the specific financial logistics of enforcing the safety zone, nor does it address financial concerns below the threshold of $100,000,000 that may be more relevant to smaller entities potentially affected by the rule.