FR 2024-31311

General Summary

The Coast Guard has issued a temporary interim rule that modifies its current safety measures around the Kernwood Avenue Bridge, which spans the Danvers River between Salem, Massachusetts, and Beverly, Massachusetts. The effective period of the safety zone has been extended by 11 months, making it operational until November 30, 2025. This extension allows for ongoing repair work to the bridge, aimed at ensuring safety for personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the vicinity. The regulation stipulates that the safety zone will be enforced only during specific repair activities, and entry into the zone is generally prohibited unless expressly authorized by the Captain of the Port Boston or a designated representative.

Significant Issues or Concerns

There are several issues and concerns associated with this regulation. Firstly, the document does not clearly outline the financial implications of extending the safety zone and whether the costs associated with this extension are justified. This lack of clarity might lead to questions about the economic efficiency of the rule.

Another concern is the discretionary power given to the Captain of the Port Boston or their designated representatives to authorize entry into the safety zone. Without transparent criteria and procedures for granting permission, there is a potential perception of favoritism or unequal treatment.

Additionally, the document's discussion of Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments seems superficial. It may not fully address the deeper legal, social, or economic implications these groups might face, potentially overlooking significant concerns.

The document acknowledges the potential impact on small entities, such as businesses. However, it fails to provide a detailed analysis of how these smaller stakeholders can effectively navigate the regulatory requirements, which may create uncertainty about economic impacts and compliance strategies.

Moreover, the document mentions communication through the Local Notice to Mariners for updates regarding safety zone enforcement. However, it does not specify alternative communication methods for those without access to this resource, which could hinder effective dissemination of safety information.

Impact on the Public

This regulation primarily impacts the general public by potentially restricting access to specific areas around the Kernwood Avenue Bridge for safety purposes. While the public generally will not be significantly affected, those wishing to navigate these waters might experience delays or rerouting during specific enforcement periods.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

For maritime operators and other stakeholders in the affected area, this regulation imposes operational constraints. Vessels needing access to these waters must seek permission, potentially affecting scheduling and costs related to transport or commercial activities. The delegation of authority for granting access could impact how efficiently these operations are managed.

Local businesses, especially small entities, might find the regulation burdensome if it disrupts regular activities or increases operational costs. However, the rule also seeks to protect these entities and their clients from potential hazards associated with the bridge repairs, indicating a complex balance between safety and operational freedom.

In summary, while the rule aims to ensure safety during bridge repairs, it brings forth considerations regarding economic impact, discretionary authority, and communication efficiency, which must be addressed to minimize negative consequences on stakeholders.

The document referenced here is a rule update from the Coast Guard concerning the safety zone around the Kernwood Avenue Bridge. Despite its focus on public safety and navigation, it does make limited mention of financial implications and potential costs, primarily concerning regulatory actions that might trigger expenditures.

In the document, there is one key monetary reference: the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, which requires considerations for actions potentially resulting in expenditures by government bodies or the private sector of $100,000,000 or more within a year. This reference indicates a threshold for when extended analysis or assessments might be necessary to evaluate the economic impact of regulatory actions.

Notably, the document does not provide specific details on any actual costs or financial commitments associated with the extension of the safety zone around the Kernwood Avenue Bridge project. It also does not explore whether the expenses involved in extending this zone for 11 months are justified or who would bear such costs. This omission could be linked to one of the issues identified: a lack of clarity on the financial impact of enforcing this regulation.

The reference to the $100,000,000 threshold provides context for understanding when more detailed financial analysis is warranted under federal statutes. However, it does not provide insight into the expenditures directly related to the safety zone's extension. This lack of financial detail raises concerns because it leaves unclear how extensive or burdensome the financial impact might be on the state, local, or tribal governments, or on private entities. Additionally, the potential cost concerns could relate to another identified issue about lacking detailed analysis regarding the regulation's impact on small entities. Such detail would help these smaller organizations to better navigate compliance with the update.

In summary, while the document acknowledges the broader statutory responsibilities around significant spending, it provides little specific information on financial allocations or costs directly associated with the safety zone extension. This omission could leave stakeholders without vital information needed to assess the financial implications of complying with this updated rule.