FR 2021-01993

General Summary

The document is a temporary rule issued by the Coast Guard to establish a safety zone in the waters of the Humboldt Bay Bar Channel and the Humboldt Bay Entrance Channel in Eureka, California. This measure is a response to the wreckage of a fishing vessel that sank and is currently posing potential hazards. The safety zone, effective from January 26, 2021, to February 10, 2021, restricts unauthorized piloted vessels to safeguard navigation and protect the environment. Unauthorized vessels are prohibited from entering the zone without express permission, which is only granted by the Captain of the Port San Francisco or a designated representative.

Significant Issues or Concerns

The rule does not completely elaborate on the economic impact that restricting piloted vessels could have on small businesses or other entities relying on these vessels for their operations. While the rule assures minimal economic impact on small entities, the lack of detailed analysis might be a concern for those stakeholders affected by the restricted access.

Furthermore, the legal language used to describe the rule's authority under specific U.S.C. codes and regulations is complex. Simplifying these passages would enhance public understanding and clarity.

Additionally, although the rule specifies the safety zone enforcement timeline, the process for obtaining necessary permissions is dependent upon contacting designated representatives. This requirement could be challenging for some vessel operators who are unfamiliar with these processes or face communication barriers.

Impact on the Public

For the general public, especially those involved in maritime activities around Eureka, this temporary rule aims to ensure safety by controlling navigation in the potentially hazardous area. While the overall intention of the rule is protective, the restrictions on piloted vessels could indirectly affect those dependent on maritime commerce and transportation.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

Positive Impact:

The safety zone is likely to alleviate risks of navigation accidents following the wreckage incident. By controlling and monitoring vessel traffic, the Coast Guard ensures the safety of human lives and the environmental conditions in the vicinity. This oversight is particularly crucial given the unknown location of the wreckage.

Negative Impact:

The prohibition of unauthorized piloted vessels could pose an inconvenience and economic burden for operators who typically rely on these routes for their business activities. They would have to seek permission and possible alternative routes, potentially increasing operational costs and causing delays.

There is also the aspect of the regulation's complexity that could deter some entities from fully understanding or complying with the requirements, potentially leading to unintentional violations.

Additional Considerations

The document does not detail the specific procedures for managing and removing the wreckage nor any long-term plans if the debris persists beyond the stated timeline. This lack of detailed planning might leave stakeholders uncertain about the future and enforcement of the rule.

Moreover, while the document assures that there are no substantial federalism or tribal implications, it does not articulate specific communication strategies for informing local entities or tribes, leading to a potential gap in awareness and preparation.

Overall, while this rule serves a significant protective function, it presents certain concerns related to economic impacts, communication, and clarity, which should be addressed to maximize its effectiveness and acceptance among affected parties.

The document mentions financial considerations in the context of government regulations. Specifically, it highlights provisions from the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, which requires federal agencies to assess the economic impact of their discretionary regulatory actions. This is particularly relevant when the actions could result in expenditures by state, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector, totaling $100,000,000 or more in any given year.

Summary of Financial References

The financial reference in the document indicates the threshold amount of $100,000,000, which is used as a benchmark to assess the economic impact of the regulation. It implies that any regulatory action leading to expenses meeting or surpassing this amount necessitates a thorough economic evaluation. However, this specific rule concerning the temporary safety zone in Humboldt Bay does not project such extensive expenditures. Thus, it suggests that the financial impact is likely below this level, and the rule does not require the comprehensive assessment mandated for larger financial implications.

Relation to Identified Issues

1. Economic Impact on Businesses: While the document briefly addresses the potential economic impact on small entities by assuring no significant economic disruption, it lacks detailed analysis on how businesses, particularly those relying on piloted vessel traffic, might be financially affected by this temporary restriction. This concern ties back to the reference of the $100,000,000 amount, where the indirect effects on the local economy may not have been deeply evaluated, assuming it would remain below the threshold.

2. Complex Legal Language: The document uses complex legal terminologies to describe fiscal responsibilities and regulatory thresholds, like the $100,000,000 mention. Simplifying this information could aid in public comprehension, especially for those directly impacted by potential regulatory costs.

3. Unclear Long-term Financial Plans: The document does not clarify how the Coast Guard intends to manage potential ongoing expenses if the wreckage is not located and removed within the specified timeframe, which could have financial implications beyond those initially assessed.

By referencing the $100,000,000 amount, the document attempts to provide context regarding the scale of economic impact typically required for a more in-depth financial analysis. However, it does not delve into detailed fiscal assessments particular to this rule, resulting in some uncertainty around the broader economic implications for businesses and governments at local and tribal levels.