FR 2025-04018

The recently issued final rule by the Coast Guard under the Department of Homeland Security seeks to rename the "Gulf of Mexico" to the "Gulf of America" in its regulations. This change stems from Executive Order 14172, titled "Restoring Names That Honor American Greatness," signed on January 20, 2025. The intention is to maintain consistency across federal government documents following this directive. The rule was published without a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), exempted under guidelines allowing for amendments deemed merely conforming and thus substantive changes impacting public rights or obligations were not anticipated. The renaming officially takes effect on March 17, 2025, with the document emphasizing that it poses no additional costs to the public, focusing merely on internal procedural adjustments.

Significant Issues and Concerns

One notable issue is the absence of any explanation or rationale for the Presidential directive that led to this renaming. The document leaves readers to infer the motivations behind the change, which could foster questions or speculation. Furthermore, the rulemaking process was exempt from public notice and comment due to its classification as a conforming amendment, which may raise concerns about transparency and public participation in federal decision-making processes. While legally permissible, skipping a public comment period might seem exclusionary to stakeholders or parties interested in sharing their perspectives.

Additionally, the document claims that the name change will have no substantive impact on the public, yet it lacks elaboration on the potential effects on local or international communities who historically identify and reference the body of water as the Gulf of Mexico. The assumption that renaming one of the world's major bodies of water involves only "non-substantive technical amendments" may not align with public perception, calling for more detailed explanation.

Impact on the Public and Stakeholders

Broadly, the document implies minimal direct impact on the general public, asserting the change as merely a textual update with no legal or financial implications. However, the renaming may inadvertently lead to confusion among the public, especially concerning educational content, media references, maps, and navigation tools, all of which historically label the gulf as the "Gulf of Mexico."

For specific stakeholders, such as local residents, politicians, international communities, and industries in the Gulf region, the name change may hold geopolitical implications. These groups might view the renaming as contentious or symbolic, potentially influencing international relations or economic activities tied to the region. Furthermore, maritime industries and cartographers may need to adjust references in their operations and materials, incurring hidden costs or requiring logistical planning that was not initially anticipated.

In summation, while the regulation presents itself as a procedural update, the absence of public input and detailed consideration of community and geopolitical nuances signals potential areas for improvement in communication and stakeholder engagement. Ultimately, the shift from "Gulf of Mexico" to "Gulf of America" opens a broader discourse on the significance and impact of geographic naming and re-naming on identity and international relations.

The commentary refers exclusively to the financial aspects discussed in the final rule document related to the renaming of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America.

Financial Impact on Government and Private Sector

The document mentions a particular financial threshold under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It identifies that actions requiring a financial expenditure by state, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector, in the aggregate, should be assessed if they amount to $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. This threshold is significant because it determines whether a more detailed economic analysis is necessary to understand the financial impact of a regulation.

Regulatory Determination

The rule does not anticipate reaching this financial threshold, indicating that the name change is regarded as a non-substantive technical amendment. As such, it does not foresee imposing significant additional costs on the state, local, tribal governments, or the private sector. This conclusion suggests that the potential financial implications of the rule are minimal.

Relation to Identified Issues

One of the identified issues in the document is the absence of public input due to the exemption from standard notice and comment rulemaking procedures. Although deemed legally permissible, this exemption could be seen as lacking transparency, especially concerning potential hidden financial costs or the perception of such costs. Stakeholder participation in the rulemaking process might have illuminated unforeseen financial impacts, even if not directly reaching the $100,000,000 threshold. Similarly, while the document asserts no substantive impact on the public regarding financial expenditure, it does not thoroughly address how the renaming might indirectly affect economic activities or relationships in communities surrounding the Gulf previously known as the Gulf of Mexico.

Moreover, the potential impact on international relations, while primarily political, could also have financial dimensions, particularly considering trade and cross-border cooperation within the region historically identified as the Gulf of Mexico. Such geopolitical concerns, while not directly accounted for through domestic financial thresholds like the $100,000,000, may still have financial repercussions unaddressed by the document.

In summary, while the document outlines that no significant financial expenditure or economic burden is expected from the rule, the absence of a thorough discussion on all possible financial and economic implications, both domestically and internationally, suggests areas where additional examination could have been beneficial.