FR 2025-00693

The Coast Guard has proposed a set of changes to its existing regulations concerning special local regulations and safety zones in the Captain of the Port Zone Eastern Great Lakes. This initiative is driven by a need to ensure the safety of both the public and vessels navigating these waters during specific scheduled events. By amending these regulations, the Coast Guard aims to adapt to changes in events that take place annually and remove entries that are no longer relevant. The proposal invites public comments on these changes until February 20, 2025.

Summary of the Document

This document outlines proposed amendments designed to maintain safety in the Eastern Great Lakes region. These amendments involve updating event names, refining existing regulations, and removing outdated ones. The Coast Guard intends to establish temporary safety zones during these events, restricting access to unauthorized individuals or vessels. This approach is intended to protect both attendees and participants during these occurrences.

Significant Issues and Concerns

A number of issues arise from the document:

• Cost Implications: The document does not explicitly discuss any costs associated with implementing the changes, which could lead to concerns about potential financial waste.

• Beneficiaries: There is a lack of clarity on who specifically benefits from these amendments, raising questions about whether any undue favoritism exists.

• Accessibility of Legal Language: The use of legal citations might be obscure for those not well-versed in legal terminology, potentially reducing the accessibility of the document.

• Environmental Impact: The phrase regarding environmental impact is somewhat vague. More clear criteria or examples could enhance understanding.

• Technical Jargon: Acronyms like "COTP" and "NPRM" are used without explanation, which could be confusing to readers unfamiliar with these terms.

• Complexity of Information: The lengthy and detailed nature of the proposed amendments might overwhelm readers, making it difficult to comprehend and follow.

• Protest Activities: While the document addresses the right to protest, it lacks specificity on how protest activities can be conducted without interfering with safety zones.

Impact on the Public

For the general public, these changes are primarily about enhancing safety during events in the Great Lakes region. Access to water zones will be temporarily restricted, potentially affecting recreational boaters and local residents. However, due to the temporary and event-specific nature of these restrictions, the overall impact might be minimal for most individuals. It is also a reminder of the necessary balance between safety and accessibility.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

For stakeholders such as event organizers and participants, these changes may have both positive and negative effects. On the positive side, the regulations are designed to ensure safer events, which could lead to more successful and secure gatherings. On the downside, the restrictions could impose logistical challenges and necessitate additional planning to accommodate new safety measures.

Overall, the Coast Guard's proposed modifications strive to enhance safety but present certain challenges related to clarity and accessibility that should be addressed. By soliciting public comments, there's an opportunity for those affected to voice their concerns and contribute to the refinement of these measures.

The document proposes amendments to existing regulations concerning special local regulations and safety zones in the Captain of the Port Zone Eastern Great Lakes. It notably addresses potential economic impacts but lacks specifics regarding the financial implications for different stakeholders.

One particular mention in the document relates to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, which cites actions that may lead to expenditures by State, local, or tribal governments, or by the private sector, amounting to $100,000,000 or more in any given year. The document suggests that the proposed rule would not result in such significant expenditures. This reference raises questions about the broader financial implications of the proposal, especially since it does not specify the anticipated costs associated with the implementation. Without detailed financial projections, it may be challenging to determine whether the proposal could inadvertently lead to wasteful spending, particularly concerning who will bear these costs.

This financial threshold is referenced to assure that the proposal does not overburden these entities. However, the absence of detailed financial impact analysis could lead to insufficient information being available for stakeholders to assess whether the amendments may have indirect financial burdens. This point connects to the identified issue of lacking explicit cost assessments, leaving potential for unforeseen expenditures not being immediately identified or addressed.

Furthermore, the document emphasizes that although the rule will not significantly impact a large number of small entities economically, it invites comments from those who might be affected. This aligns with the aim to understand unexpected economic burdens on smaller operators that might be indirectly influenced by the regulatory changes.

Overall, the document adopts a cautious stance on financial implications, using established federal guidelines to mitigate the economic impact on governments and small entities. However, without precise financial data, the extent of these impacts remains somewhat ambiguous, emphasizing the need for public engagement to uncover any hidden costs.