FR 2021-02172

The document in question involves a proposed rule by the U.S. Coast Guard. It intends to establish a temporary special local regulation around the 2021 Gasparilla Marine Parade in Hillsborough Bay, Tampa, Florida. This is primarily to manage safety concerns due to the large number of vessels expected in the area, which includes both a flotilla participating in the parade and numerous spectator craft. The rule, proposed under the authority of the U.S. Coast Guard, will be effective on April 17, 2021. Public comments are invited until March 8, 2021. The regulation is careful to delineate its potential scope and the restrictions on vessel traffic during the event.

Key Issues and Concerns

This document presents several areas of concern. One major issue is the lack of in-depth explanation or analysis regarding the financial implications of the proposed regulation. Without this, it risks potential critiques around unnecessary or wasteful spending. Furthermore, the rule lacks precise detail on how exactly it will mitigate the specific safety concerns it mentions. This lack of detail could cause doubt or questioning from stakeholders about its effectiveness.

The language used throughout much of the document, specifically regarding enforcement details and exact geographic coordinates, is quite technical. This could confuse the general public or those unfamiliar with maritime terms and mapping techniques.

When it comes to engaging with "small entities," the document indicates they could be impacted by the rule but does not clearly lay out how they can proceed with queries or assistance requests. This might lead to confusion or complications for businesses trying to comply with or seek exemptions from these regulations.

Moreover, the rule has a vague description of what constitutes an "unsafe vessel" at the discretion of law enforcement. This could lead to inconsistent application of the rule or misuse of discretionary powers by authorities.

Public and Stakeholder Impact

Broadly, this regulation may have implications for the general public, specifically those interested in attending the event from the water. It aims to ensure safety, which is a positive step; however, the implementation has to be clear and reasonable to avoid inconveniences or misunderstandings.

For businesses, particularly local ones, there might be indirect impacts. The rule doesn’t thoroughly explore its economic implications for these entities unless they specifically qualify as small entities. For stakeholders such as local yacht clubs, marinas, or businesses reliant on the maritime economy, this oversight might mean overlooking significant economic consequences that the regulation could prompt.

Concluding Thoughts

In summary, while the Coast Guard’s proposed rule has a commendable goal - maintaining safety during a large marine gathering - it leaves several questions unanswered. The technical language may confuse the general public, and the vagueness of some enforcement aspects may create challenges in practical application. Local businesses, especially those not classified as small entities, might find the lack of economic impact analysis concerning. Overall, a more detailed, transparent, and easily understandable document would serve both the public and specific stakeholders more effectively, ensuring the success and smooth operation of the event while maintaining safety.

The document in question is a proposed rule by the Coast Guard to establish a temporary special local regulation for the Gasparilla Marine Parade in Tampa, Florida. The main financial reference within the text mentions the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, which necessitates federal agencies to evaluate the effects of their regulatory actions, specifically those actions that could lead to expenditures by state, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more in any given year.

Summary of Financial Reference

The mention of $100,000,000 serves as a benchmark for evaluating whether the proposed rule could impose significant financial burdens. The particular context here is to assure that the rule does not trigger the requirements of significant financial impact as outlined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Essentially, this figure is used to quantify the level at which regulatory actions become financially burdensome under the Act’s guidelines.

Relation to Identified Issues

The document does not provide a detailed break-down or justification of budgetary implications. While it mentions the threshold of $100,000,000, it lacks a detailed analysis or explanation as to why the proposed rule would not reach this financial impact level. This could lead to issues related to potentially overlooking significant economic consequences, especially for local businesses and stakeholders. Without specific financial data or analysis, stakeholders are presented with an incomplete picture regarding potential economic impacts.

The document could also improve clarity and transparency by providing a plain language supplement that explains financial considerations in a manner more accessible to those potentially affected by the rule. For example, it should specify whether any analysis has been conducted to ascertain that implementation costs fall well below the $100,000,000 mark, particularly given the scope and scale of the event and regulatory requirements.

Conclusion

In essence, the financial reference extracted from the document serves as a parameter for regulatory impact but does not delve into sufficient detail. The lack of comprehensive financial analysis leaves room for speculation about the actual economic impact on affected parties, especially smaller entities that may not fit into the designated categories mentioned. To address these gaps, the Coast Guard could provide additional analysis or details in future documents to ensure all economic impacts are thoroughly assessed and communicated.