Overview
Title
Safety Zone; Straits of Mackinac, Mackinaw City, MI
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Coast Guard wants to make sure everyone is safe when there's a big swim event under a bridge in Michigan, so they're creating a "keep away" zone around the bridge on July 26, 2025, and no boats or people can enter unless they get special permission. They're asking people to share their thoughts about this plan until June 2, 2025.
Summary AI
The Coast Guard is proposing a temporary safety zone for waters around the Mackinac Bridge, located in Mackinaw City, Michigan, because a swimming event will take place under the bridge on July 26, 2025. This safety zone will be enforced from 7 a.m. to noon and will restrict access to a 100-yard radius around the bridge to ensure the safety of swimmers, other vessels, and the environment. These restrictions will only be waived if authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Northern Great Lakes or a designated representative. Interested parties have until June 2, 2025, to provide feedback on this proposed rule through the Federal Decision-Making Portal.
Abstract
The Coast Guard is proposing to establish a temporary safety zone for navigable waters within a 100-yard radius of the center span of the Mackinac Bridge, Straits of Mackinac, Mackinaw City, MI. The safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from a marine event involving swimmers under the bridge. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from being in the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Northern Great Lakes or a designated representative. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
General Summary
The document in question is a proposed rule from the United States Coast Guard related to establishing a temporary safety zone around the Mackinac Bridge in Michigan. The purpose of this safety zone is to ensure the protection of swimmers, vessels, and the environment during a swimming event scheduled for July 26, 2025. This safety zone would be in effect from 7 a.m. to noon and would restrict access to within a 100-yard radius around the bridge. Participation in this zone is restricted, and access will only be granted with authorization from the Captain of the Port Sector Northern Great Lakes or an appointed representative. Comments on this proposal are open until June 2, 2025.
Significant Issues or Concerns
Several issues arise from the proposed rule:
Economic Impact: The document mentions that there will not be a significant economic impact on small entities, yet it lacks a detailed cost analysis or examples that might help small businesses better understand potential impacts and any mitigation strategies.
Clarity: The role of a "designated representative" is mentioned but not clearly defined, leaving doubts about how such individuals are chosen or authorized.
Accessibility of Comments: While the document encourages submitting feedback through an online portal, it lacks alternative methods for those who might not have internet access, hindering comprehensive public participation.
Complex Language: The text uses complex legal terminology which may not be easily understood by the general public, potentially restricting public engagement and understanding.
Enforcement Details: There is a lack of specific information regarding how the enforcement of this temporary rule will be managed, including what resources will be required, which could involve additional costs or logistical considerations.
Impact on the Public
The proposed rule is intended to safeguard individuals participating in and near the swimming event. For the general public, the primary impact is that certain navigable waters will be temporarily inaccessible, necessitating rerouting for vessels. This rule is particularly relevant to boat operators and those planning to navigate near the Mackinac Bridge during the specified times.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Swimmers and Event Organizers: The safety zone will directly benefit the swimmers and organizers of the event by offering a controlled and regulated environment, minimizing potential dangers.
Vessel Operators: While vessel operators will experience restrictions and potential inconvenience due to the temporary safety zone, they can navigate alternative routes. However, the lack of explicit details about operational changes may create uncertainties.
Small Businesses and Local Government: Although the rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact, any restriction that affects vessel traffic could have unforeseen implications on local commerce or tourism reliant on maritime activities.
Overall, while the rule primarily aims to ensure safety, it presents complications that could be mitigated with clearer communication, more accessible public participation options, and a thorough analysis of potential impacts on small businesses and local communities.
Financial Assessment
The document refers to financial implications primarily through its mention of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. This Act requires federal agencies to assess potential financial impacts when regulatory actions may lead to expenditures by state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.
Expenditure Threshold
The document highlights that if a federal regulation results in spending of $100,000,000 or more in any given year (adjusted for inflation), it must be thoroughly assessed in terms of economic impact. In this instance, the Coast Guard's proposed rule does not anticipate exceeding this financial threshold. Therefore, it is not expected to have a significant economic impact requiring detailed financial mitigation measures.
Relation to Identified Issues
However, the document's lack of clarity surrounding the economic impact on vessel operators can raise concerns. While it states that the proposed rule would not significantly influence costs, particularly for small entities, the absence of detailed financial analysis could leave room for potential issues if actual costs for compliance or enforcement exceed expectations. This lack of specificity may lead to underestimating the economic impact on small businesses, which could, in unexpected cases, lead to economic burdens underestimated by the Coast Guard.
Additionally, the vague mention of a "designated representative" could imply potentially unknown costs related to enforcement and compliance. If the designation process involves specialized training or certification, there might be financial implications not fully covered in the document. Furthermore, no explicit details on resources and logistics for enforcement might suggest unanticipated expenditures, which again ties back to the need for a more exhaustive financial impact assessment. Overall, while the document assures minimal economic impact under the specified threshold, there is room for improving the clarity and depth of financial considerations associated with this rule.
Issues
• The document does not provide clear information on how the proposed rulemaking might affect costs for vessel operators, beyond stating that it is not expected to have a significant economic impact.
• There is a potential issue with the vague mention of 'designated representative,' as it does not explicitly outline the criteria or the process of how individuals are designated.
• The document mentions submitting comments via https://www.regulations.gov but does not give alternative methods clearly for individuals who may not have internet access.
• While the discussion on small entities suggests no significant impact, the document could benefit from more detailed analysis or examples of potential impacts and mitigation strategies for affected small entities.
• The language used in regulatory and legal citations could be overly complex for individuals unfamiliar with legal terminologies, potentially limiting public understanding and engagement.
• The 'Enforcement period' section lacks details on how the enforcement will be ensured and what resources will be allocated for enforcement, which might involve additional costs or logistics.