FR 2021-01329

The document under review is a rule issued by the U.S. Coast Guard, establishing a temporary safety zone on the Lower Mississippi River near Natchez, Mississippi. This safety zone spans from Mile Marker 368 to 370 and is in place due to line pulling operations. The rule is effective from January 14, 2021, to February 5, 2021. It aims to protect people, property, and the environment from potential hazards associated with these operations. Unauthorized entry into the zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) or their designated representative.

General Summary

The Coast Guard's decision to establish this safety zone reflects its commitment to ensuring the welfare of both individuals and the marine environment in Natchez, MS. The rule is a temporary measure, intended to preemptively address any safety concerns stemming from the specified operations within this one-mile stretch of the river.

Significant Issues and Concerns

There are several concerns that stakeholders might have with the implementation of this rule. One primary issue is the lack of detailed information about the nature of the line pulling operations. Without this, stakeholders might find it challenging to understand the necessity and implications of the safety zone. Furthermore, the relatively short timeframe for the rule's enforcement may inconvenience local marine traffic and businesses who may not have ample time to adjust their schedules or operations.

Another concern is the lack of clarity regarding how permissions to enter the zone will be granted. While contact details are provided, the decision-making process remains somewhat opaque, centralized in the authority of the COTP or their representative, with no clear options for appeal or review.

Additionally, while the document assures that there will be no significant economic impact on small entities, this claim lacks quantitative support. More data could bolster the Coast Guard's assessment, addressing potential concerns of local businesses and organizations.

The reliance on electronic communication, including VHF-FM radio channels and email, as the primary means of enforcement and coordination may present accessibility challenges. Not everyone has access to this technology, which could complicate compliance and communication efforts.

Impact on the Public

Broadly speaking, the implementation of this rule may instill confidence in the public regarding the Coast Guard's proactive measures for marine safety. However, confusion or lack of compliance could arise due to ambiguities regarding enforcement and the procedure for obtaining permission to enter the safety zone. Moreover, the limited discussion on the handling of potential protest activities within the safety zone might leave some stakeholders unprepared should such events occur.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

For local businesses, particularly those dependent on river traffic, the establishment of a safety zone could potentially disrupt operations, albeit temporarily. The document asserts minimal economic impact, yet businesses may still feel financial pressure, especially if delays or rerouting are necessary.

Conversely, the rule is likely to reassure environmental groups and public safety advocates, as it demonstrates a clear focus on preventing harm and mitigating risks associated with maritime operations.

In conclusion, while the Coast Guard's temporary safety zone represents a necessary step for safeguarding the Lower Mississippi River area near Natchez, improved communication and transparency regarding the process and implications would better serve all stakeholders involved.

The document establishes a temporary safety zone on the Lower Mississippi River, specifically between Mile Markers 368 and 370, due to line pulling operations near Natchez, MS. Financial considerations and potential economic impacts are briefly touched upon within the regulation, albeit not extensively.

The single explicit financial reference in the document is the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, which necessitates an evaluation of the financial impact of federal regulations. It notes that actions might lead to expenditure by state, local, or tribal governments—or by the private sector—of $100,000,000 or more in any given year, adjusted for inflation. However, the Coast Guard clarifies that this specific rule will not result in financial commitments of such magnitude.

Financial Implications and Issues

This financial reference serves to reassure that the safety zone regulation does not impose significant economic burdens on smaller governmental bodies or businesses. While the document states that the rule will not have a substantial economic impact, it does not provide quantitative data to comprehensively support this claim. This absence of detailed analysis could contribute to concerns from small entities or local businesses that might rely on river traffic and could be economically impacted during the 23-day enforcement period of the safety zone.

Another potential area where financial concerns may arise relates to compliance with the safety zone. Though the Paperwork Reduction Act is mentioned, there is no exploration of any additional paperwork that might be required for obtaining entry permission into the safety zone. This omission might inadvertently lead to extra costs or time burdens on entities needing access during this period.

The legal and regulatory framework avoids significant financial obligations but leaves open questions about how stakeholders—especially smaller ones—can navigate the rule's economic impact. Consequently, while the document provides a foundation for financial assessments, the absence of detailed economic analysis might require further evaluation and communication to thoroughly address and mitigate stakeholder concerns.