FR 2020-26070

The proposed rule by the U.S. Coast Guard introduces a temporary safety zone in the waterways around Tampa, Florida, during the Super Bowl LV celebrations. This measure, from January 29 to February 7, 2021, intends to ensure public safety and protect event staff from risks associated with increased vessel traffic in the area. The safety zone encompasses parts of the Garrison Channel, Seddon Channel Turning Basin, and Hillsborough River. It imposes restrictions requiring vessels to maintain a constant speed, prohibiting stops or anchorings unless in an emergency situation. Public feedback is welcomed on this proposed rule.

General Summary

The Coast Guard's proposal aims to manage potential congestion and hazards arising from increased activities on Tampa’s waterways during the Super Bowl festivities. By establishing this temporary safety zone, the Coast Guard seeks to ensure navigational safety in an area expected to see higher-than-normal marine traffic.

Significant Issues and Concerns

Several issues merit closer examination. Firstly, the document lacks precise definitions of the boundaries of the safety zone, an omission that could confuse maritime navigators, especially those unfamiliar with the local geography. Additionally, there is an operational challenge for vessels, particularly smaller ones; the mandate to transit at a constant speed without stopping might be problematic, particularly for those experiencing mechanical issues. Moreover, the document does not specify the consequences for non-compliance, possibly undermining the enforcement of the regulation.

There is also a gap in information regarding commercial shipping operations. The document does not clarify whether any exemptions or accommodations will be granted for these vessels, despite their economic importance and differing operational needs. Furthermore, the impact analysis on small entities is somewhat cursory, lacking specific examples or data that would illustrate potential effects, leaving small business owners uncertain about how they might be impacted.

While the Coast Guard plans to use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to provide updates, relying exclusively on this mechanism may be insufficient for mariners seeking real-time information, especially given the transient nature of some vessel operators.

Impact on the Public

For the broader public, this rule is a proactive measure to ensure safety during an event anticipated to draw large crowds. By regulating marine traffic, the rule aims to minimize the risk of accidents that could endanger lives or disrupt activities associated with the Super Bowl. While providing much-needed security, the regulatory requirements may inconvenience local operators who must adhere to these new restrictions.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

Recreational Boaters and Local Residents: These groups, especially those unfamiliar with regulatory language, might find the rule complex. However, they could benefit from the increased safety it provides.

Local Businesses and Small Entities: The potential negative economic impact on small enterprises relying on local waterways hints at the need for more specific guidance or exemptions to mitigate financial strain.

Environmental and Safety Advocates: From a positive standpoint, these stakeholders would likely support the initiative for its focus on safety and environmental protection by potentially reducing pollution from idling vessels.

Overall, the proposed rule highlights a well-intentioned effort to balance safety and maritime activity. However, addressing the outlined issues and enhancing communication strategies will be crucial for its success. Improved clarity in the rule’s application and stakeholder engagement will enhance public trust and compliance.

The document from the Federal Register discusses a proposed Coast Guard safety zone during the Super Bowl LV events in Tampa, Florida. Within the context of regulatory measures, financial implications are addressed through a legislative framework and statutory guidance.

Financial Implications and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

A notable financial reference in the document highlights the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. This Act requires Federal agencies to consider the financial impact of regulatory actions, particularly those that might result in expenditures by state, local, or tribal governments, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more in any given year. It serves as a threshold to identify significant financial burdens that regulations might impose.

This proposed rule anticipates not triggering any such expenditure, meaning it is not expected to financially strain local governments or the private sector to that extent. This information reassures regulatory compliance without incurring excessive financial burdens on smaller administrative bodies or businesses.

Relation to Identified Issues

One of the discussed issues is the potential impact on small entities, such as local businesses and small vessels operating within the designated safety zone. The Coast Guard has indicated that the rule should not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. However, more detailed analysis with specific data or case studies could provide greater clarity on the actual financial impact on these small entities. Without such specificity, stakeholders might have difficulty assessing the financial implications concerning this regulation.

Furthermore, while the document mentions how compliance measures are assessed financially, it does not elaborate on potential costs linked with enforcement actions or penalties for non-compliance, which could be significant considerations for those operating within the designated area. This lack of detail could lead to uncertainty for businesses potentially affected by the safety regulations, particularly if any enforcement would indirectly carry financial consequences.

Conclusion

In summary, the Coast Guard has taken steps to consider financial implications inherent to this proposal, such as compliance with federal acts that protect smaller governmental entities and private sectors from undue financial burdens. However, additional financial clarity, particularly concerning enforcement actions and their respective financial implications, could benefit the public and businesses operating in the vicinity of the proposed safety zone.