FR 2025-07333

General Summary

The document details a temporary rule issued by the U.S. Coast Guard to establish a safety zone in the Straits of Mackinac, Michigan. This zone encompasses a 500-yard radius around the vessels Ugle Duckling and Streak, which are conducting an underwater survey using Hybrid Autonomous Underway Vehicles (HAUV) and Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROV). Effective from May 28, 2025, to July 31, 2025, the rule is intended to ensure the safety of both the vessels and the surrounding marine environment during the survey period. Entry into this safety zone requires explicit permission from the Captain of the Port Northern Great Lakes (COTP).

Significant Issues and Concerns

Several issues arise from the implementation and communication of this temporary rule:

1. Transparency and Costs: The document does not disclose any potential costs associated with enforcing the safety zone or conducting the survey. This lack of financial transparency may raise concerns among taxpayers and stakeholders about government spending.

2. Non-compliance Penalties: There is no clarification on the penalties or enforcement procedures for entities that might violate this safety zone rule. This ambiguity could lead to inconsistent enforcement and misunderstanding of the rule's stipulations.

3. Complex Language: The document contains legal jargon and references to specific U.S. Codes and Executive Orders that might be challenging for the general public to comprehend, which could restrict informed public participation or compliance.

4. Contact Methods: The primary means of communication with the COTP for permission to enter the zone are via VHF radio and telephone. In an era increasingly dominated by digital communications, this could limit accessibility and responsiveness for some vessel operators who might prefer email or online platforms.

5. Impact on Small Businesses: Small businesses operating in or near the Straits of Mackinac may be affected by this rule. The document does not sufficiently address how these entities can understand their rights or navigate the process for gaining entry into the restricted area.

6. Lack of Prior Public Input: The lack of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) is justified by the Coast Guard under the "good cause" provision. However, this could be perceived as insufficient justification and a lack of transparency regarding the urgency bypassing standard procedures.

Broader Public Impact

The temporary safety zone may minimally impact the general public, particularly those interested in recreational or commercial maritime activities in the area. Mariners may need to alter their routes, which could result in minor delays or detours. Effective communication and dissemination of information about the safety zone will be vital to ensure compliance and avoid confusion.

Stakeholder Impact

Positive Impact

• Environmental Protection: The rule aims to safeguard against potential environmental hazards during the survey, contributing to the protection of the marine ecosystem in the Straits of Mackinac.

• Safety Assurance: By preventing unauthorized vessels from entering the area, the Coast Guard ensures a safe environment for conducting the underwater survey, minimizing risks to both surveyors and passing vessels.

Negative Impact

• Maritime Industry: Companies and small businesses relying on marine transport may face disruptions. Increased operational costs and delays could ensue, especially for those not fully apprised of how to seek entry into the safety zone.

• Recreational Boaters: Boaters who frequently navigate through the affected area might encounter restrictions, potentially impacting their usual routes and plans.

In summary, while the temporary safety zone is an essential measure for conducting safe and efficient underwater surveys, considerations around transparency, communication, and stakeholder impact need to be addressed to ensure the rule's success and acceptance by the affected community.

In reviewing the Federal Register document regarding the temporary safety zone for an underwater survey in the Straits of Mackinac, there are a few financial references and issues that warrant attention.

Financial References and Allocations

The document makes a reference to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, which requires federal agencies to consider actions that may lead to expenditures of $100,000,000 or more by state, local, or tribal governments, or by the private sector, in any given year. This reference indicates a financial threshold under which regulatory actions might have significant financial impacts that need detailed assessments.

However, the document does not quantify any exact financial allocations, costs, or expenditures associated with the enforcement of the safety zone or the HAUV/ROV survey. This absence makes it challenging to gauge the precise financial implications or investments made to support this regulatory action.

Relation to Identified Issues

One major issue identified in the safety zone rule is the lack of clear information concerning the costs associated with the enforcement and management of the safety zone or the HAUV/ROV survey. This lack of financial transparency could be a concern for those interested in how government funds are being utilized. Without clearly identified costs, stakeholders are left without an understanding of potential financial burdens that could arise, particularly for small entities.

Another issue arises from the subjective interpretation of 'good cause' used to forgo a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), which includes missing opportunities for public commentary or insight into potential financial implications. This omission might prevent stakeholders from voicing concerns about any indirect costs impacting their businesses or operations due to the established safety zone.

Additionally, the implication for small entities is noteworthy. While the document mentions that small entities will likely not face significant impacts, the lack of a detailed discussion on how financial obligations will be addressed or mitigated for these entities could lead to uncertainties.

In sum, the document misses an opportunity to fully inform the public about the financial aspects related to the temporary safety zone. While the reference to $100,000,000 serves as a benchmark for evaluating significant economic impacts, it does not provide sufficient transparency or detail about the actual costs incurred by this specific rule or how they are managed. Policymakers might consider including more detailed financial assessments in future editions to foster transparency and public trust.