FR 2021-02323

The document in question, a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking by the U.S. Coast Guard, details a plan to establish a temporary safety zone in Corpus Christi Bay and the Corpus Christi Ship Channel during an airshow scheduled from April 29, 2021, to May 2, 2021. The targeted area is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and people on the navigable waters during the hours of 11:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. each day of the event. The rule proposes restrictions on access to the zone, requiring authorization from the Captain of the Port or a designated representative to enter.

General Summary

The primary intent of this proposed rule is to safeguard navigation and people during an airshow event in Corpus Christi. The establishment of a safety zone means no vessels or individuals would be allowed in the designated waters without explicit permission during specified hours. This measure is intended to mitigate potential hazards related to the airshow activities.

Significant Issues or Concerns

One notable concern is the lack of detail regarding emergency response protocols within the safety zone. Having comprehensive measures in place to manage potential emergencies is crucial for effective implementation of any safety zone. While the document indicates coordination efforts with maritime traffic, it does not clarify how emergencies within the zone will be handled.

For someone unfamiliar with nautical terminology, the delineation of the zonal boundaries using specific coordinates might be challenging to interpret. A clearer explanation could ensure broader public understanding.

The document claims the proposed rule would not significantly affect small entities but fails to provide substantial data or analysis to back this assertion. Given the potential disruption to local businesses and maritime activities, a more detailed economic impact assessment should be included.

Public Impact

Generally, the public may perceive this rule in various ways. For those involved in local maritime activities, the restrictions could mean an interruption of usual operations, although they can request entry permission. The Coast Guard promises to facilitate this by issuing public broadcasts, although it remains unclear how consistently these measures will be applied.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

Local Businesses and Maritime Operators: Businesses that rely on transport or operations within the affected waters may face disruptions. The absence of detailed compensation or alternative navigation arrangements could pose economic challenges for certain entities. The call for public comment is crucial as it offers these stakeholders an opportunity to highlight their concerns and seek clarifications.

Environmental Concerns: The environmental analysis section briefly mentions compliance with existing regulations but lacks precise details on what would prompt a reassessment of its preliminary determination regarding environmental impact. Stakeholders concerned with environmental protection may find this aspect insufficiently addressed.

General Public and Entertainment Seekers: For the general public and those attending the airshow, the safety zone ensures a structured and safer event experience. However, the broad implications of such temporary measures might raise questions about access and transportation around the event location.

In conclusion, while the proposed rule is sound in its intent to safeguard the airshow participants and the public, it could benefit from enhanced communication on certain aspects, such as emergency preparedness, environmental impact considerations, and economic implications for small entities. Public engagement through comments is not just welcomed but necessary to identify and potentially mitigate adverse impacts.

The document from the Federal Register discusses a proposed rule by the Coast Guard to establish a temporary safety zone in Corpus Christi Bay. This proposal ensures safe conditions during an airshow. An important aspect of this document is the mention of potential financial implications associated with the rule.

The primary financial reference in the document is the citation of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, which mandates federal agencies to assess the potential costs of their regulatory actions on state, local, or tribal governments and the private sector. The document mentions that this Act addresses cases where such regulatory actions may result in an expenditure of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any single year.

In this proposed rule, it is indicated that such high expenditures are not expected. However, the lack of detailed analysis or data to support this statement raises questions, especially since there are issues concerning the economic impact on small entities and businesses potentially affected by the safety zone. The document provides an overview that the rule would not significantly impact small entity economics, yet doesn't delve into precise calculations or potential cost estimates to support this claim.

Another aspect to consider is whether any financial compensations or alternative arrangements will be provided for businesses or vessels affected by the implementation of the safety zone. The document does not address these points, leaving a gap in understanding the complete financial impact of the proposed rule. This absence of specific financial impact data related to the regulation, alongside the open question of compensation or mitigation for affected parties, points to areas that could benefit from further elaboration.

Moreover, the environmental analysis briefly mentions a preliminary determination of no significant impact, providing a foundational base for evaluating economic outcomes. However, the document does not clearly specify what kind of evidence or comments might influence a financial re-evaluation of this determination, indicating an area where transparency could be improved to offer stakeholders a clearer picture of the economic considerations involved.

In summary, while the document states there are no significant financial burdens anticipated, the lack of detailed economic analysis or corrective measures for affected entities suggests areas where further information could clarify the full financial implications of the proposed rule.