FR 2021-02107

Summary of the Document

The document is a temporary rule established by the Coast Guard to create a safety zone on waters near downtown Tampa, Florida, during the Super Bowl LV celebrations. This regulation, enforced from January 29 to February 7, 2021, aims to safeguard the public and event personnel from potential hazards resulting from increased vessel traffic in the area. The rule mandates that all vessels navigate this zone at a steady speed, prohibiting stopping or anchoring unless an emergency or mechanical failure occurs. Communication with the Captain of the Port must be initiated via VHF channel 16 in emergencies. This measure is expected to efficiently manage maritime traffic during the celebratory period without imposing significant operational restrictions on local vessels.

Significant Issues and Concerns

The document primarily uses legal and bureaucratic language, which may not be easily understood by the general public. References to legal codes and executive orders could create confusion for lay readers. Although the rule highlights its potential economic impacts on small entities, it fails to provide a detailed quantitative assessment, leaving readers without a clear understanding of its full economic implications.

Furthermore, the rule's enforcement section is somewhat vague regarding the specific consequences for non-compliance beyond the initial requirement to notify the Captain of the Port. The term "steady speed" is not defined, potentially causing confusion for vessel operators who may be unsure of what speed meets this requirement. Additionally, assuming all operators have access to VHF channel 16 may overlook those lacking necessary equipment, indicating possible access issues.

Impact on the Public

Broadly, the document's measures, which protect both the public attending the Super Bowl celebrations and the maritime traffic in Tampa, seeks to enhance safety. However, there might be some underlying concerns regarding the clarity and understanding of the rules due to the technical and legal language employed. An essential aspect of public impact is ensuring the safety measures proposed minimize disruption to everyday activities and operations, especially during a high-traffic event like the Super Bowl.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

For stakeholders, such as vessel operators—including small businesses—the document intends to provide a framework to prevent accidents and manage traffic efficiently, yet it could impose additional operational constraints or require equipment some may not possess, such as VHF channel 16 communication devices.

While the rule is implemented to prevent potentially hazardous situations and ensure safety during a widely attended event, clarity and effective communication are crucial to its successful implementation. Understanding the balance between maintaining safety and allowing normal activities is vital for stakeholders like business operators, emergency services, and event coordinators, as well as individuals relying on waterway access.

Overall, the intended outcome of this temporary rule is beneficial, ensuring safety and a smooth transit for vessels during a major event. However, there is room for improvement in terms of language accessibility and addressing potential impacts on small entities and businesses operating in the designated zones. The Coast Guard's engagement with affected parties could better address concerns and optimize regulation effectiveness.

The Federal Register document concerning the Safety Zone established for the Super Bowl LV in Tampa, Florida includes a specific financial reference within its broader regulatory content. This commentary focuses on analyzing that financial element.

The document mentions the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, which requires Federal agencies to evaluate the economic effects of discretionary regulations. Specifically, it highlights that actions leading to expenditures by State, local, or tribal governments, or by the private sector, amounting to $100,000,000 or more annually, necessitate special consideration. This reference implies an upper threshold of financial impact that the Coast Guard's rule does not meet. The absence of financial obligation exceeding this amount suggests that the rule is not expected to impose significant fiscal burdens on these entities.

In the context of the identified issues, the mention of the $100,000,000 threshold plays a critical role. Despite the assurance that the financial burden does not surpass a significant level, the document could benefit from a more detailed economic analysis or breakdown to aid public understanding. For example, concerns about the rule's impact on small businesses or operators could be alleviated by providing even an estimated range of potential costs, rather than simply stating that it falls below the specified financial threshold.

Additionally, while the document asserts no notable economic impact on small entities, the lack of a detailed quantitative assessment might leave some stakeholders questioning the depth of economic scrutiny applied. Providing more clarity around potential costs and their allocation could better equip small entities to understand and plan for any incidental expenses resulting from compliance with the rule.

Overall, it is clear that the rule was crafted with consideration of its economic implications, as evidenced by its compliance with Federal mandates against imposing significant unfunded costs. However, additional transparency around these financial considerations could improve stakeholder understanding and acceptance.