FR 2021-01084

The document outlines a final rule issued by the Coast Guard, part of the Department of Homeland Security, concerning the annual establishment of a safety zone in Tanapag Harbor, Saipan, during the Escape from Managaha swim event. The rule aims to ensure the safety of those participating in the marine event by restricting unauthorized vessels and individuals from entering the designated area around the swim course.

General Summary

This regulation establishes a recurring safety zone around the swim event's course in Tanapag Harbor, which will be enforced on a specified Saturday or Sunday morning between February and April each year. The zone will be in effect for 3.5 hours and restricts access to the waters surrounding the event participants. Only race participants, chase boats, and event organizers are exempt from this restriction. Any other vessels wishing to enter the zone must obtain permission from the Captain of the Port in Guam or a designated representative.

Significant Issues or Concerns

A few issues emerge from the document which might raise concerns for stakeholders or the public. First, the timing of enforcement is somewhat vague, with the rule specifying only a general window from February to April, which could lead to uncertainty for local stakeholders who may need to plan around the event. More precise timing could improve public understanding and satisfaction.

Additionally, while the rule provides exceptions for "race participants, chase boats, and organizers," it does not clearly define what constitutes a "chase boat." A more specific definition would enhance clarity and prevent misunderstandings.

The term "designated representative" is defined in the document, but the criteria for appointing these representatives are not explicitly mentioned, which might affect transparency. Clarifying these criteria could improve confidence in the process.

Lastly, the document lacks specific data or analysis on how many or which small entities might be affected by the rule, which could be helpful for assessing economic impacts more comprehensively.

Impact on the Public

Broadly, the establishment of this safety zone is likely to be seen positively by the public as it prioritizes safety during a well-attended marine event. The restriction of vessel traffic in the designated area can prevent accidents and ensure a smooth event operation. However, those not directly involved in the event may view the restrictions as potentially disruptive, particularly commercial and recreational maritime users in the region.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

For the event participants, organizers, and associated vessels, the rule provides a necessary level of safety assurance, contributing to the successful and secure conduct of the event.

On the flip side, local businesses and small entities that rely on unobstructed use of the harbor for shipping or tourism might experience negative impacts due to restricted access, albeit temporarily. The document addresses this by stating that there will not be a significant economic impact, yet it lacks detailed analysis to support this claim.

In conclusion, the rule aims to enhance safety during a crowded marine event, balancing this need with potential disruptions. More detailed communication regarding enforcement timing and precise definitions could mitigate concerns and align the interests of all stakeholders involved.

In the Federal Register document concerning the establishment of a recurring safety zone in Tanapag Harbor, Saipan, there is a notable financial reference under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. This section addresses potential costs related to the rule's implementation.

Financial Reference:

The document highlights that the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act considers actions that might necessitate expenditures by State, local, or tribal governments, or by the private sector, in amounts reaching $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. However, the rule itself does not meet this threshold for economic impact.

Relevance to Identified Issues:

The lack of specific financial allocations or spending details is significant. The document points out that expenditures could be necessary if certain conditions were met, but it fails to specify what those expenditures might be related to the safety zone rule. This vagueness echoes one of the identified issues—that the document does not specify particular spending amounts, making it challenging to assess potential waste or favoritism in the use of resources.

Moreover, the document affirms that while the rule might impact vessel operators, it certifies that there will not be a substantial economic impact on a significant number of small entities. This statement lacks quantitative details on potential financial effects on local businesses that might rely on unobstructed access to the harbor. Considering the absence of financial specifics, it remains unclear how the modest impact claim aligns with or contrasts the interests of small maritime businesses or local stakeholders.

In summary, while the document references a substantial potential financial threshold, it lacks precise details on anticipated costs or financial burdens. This could limit the document's utility in enabling a detailed understanding of economic impacts or fiscal oversight. The absence of concrete figures or allocations might affect stakeholders' ability to make informed decisions.