Safety Zone; Sabine River, Orange, TX

• Published date: 23 June 2021
• Citation: 86 FR 32846
• Record Number: 2021-12870
• Section: Proposed rules
• Court: Coast Guard

32846

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 23, 2021 / Proposed Rules

(e) Dual jobs. In some situations an

employee is employed in dual jobs, as,

for example, where a maintenance

person in a hotel also works as a server.

In such a situation if the employee

customarily and regularly receives at

least $30 a month in tips for the

employee’s work as a server, the

employee is engaged in a tipped

occupation only when employed as a

server. The employee is employed in

two occupations, and no tip credit can

be taken for the employee’s hours of

employment in the occupation of

maintenance person.

(f) Engaged in a tipped occupation.

An employee is engaged in a tipped

occupation when the employee

performs work that is part of the tipped

occupation. An employer may only take

a tip credit for work performed by a

tipped employee that is part of the

employee’s tipped occupation.

(1) Work that is part of the tipped

occupation. Any work performed by the

tipped employee that produces tips is

part of the tipped occupation. Work that

directly supports tip-producing work is

also work that is part of the tipped

occupation provided it is not performed

for a substantial amount of time.

(i) Tip-producing work. Any work for

which tipped employees receive tips is

tip-producing work. A server’s tip-

producing work includes waiting tables;

a bartender’s tip-producing work

includes making and serving drinks and

talking to customers; a nail technician’s

tip-producing work includes performing

manicures and pedicures.

(ii) Directly supports. Work that

directly supports tip-producing work is

also part of the tipped occupation

provided that it is not performed for a

substantial amount of time. Work that

directly supports the work for which

employees receive tips is work that

assists a tipped employee to perform the

work for which the employee receives

tips. Work performed by a server that

directly supports the tip-producing

work includes, for example, preparing

items for tables so that the servers can

more easily access them when serving

customers or cleaning the tables to

prepare for the next customers. Work

that directly supports the work of a

bartender would include slicing and

pitting fruit for drinks so that the

garnishes are more readily available to

bartenders as they mix and prepare

drinks for customers. Work that directly

supports the work of a nail technician

would include cleaning all the pedicure

baths between customers so that the nail

technicians can begin customers’

pedicures without waiting.

(iii) Substantial amount of time. An

employer can take a tip credit for the

time a tipped employee spends

performing work that is not tip-

producing, but directly supports tip-

producing work, provided that the

employee does not perform that work

for a substantial amount of time. For the

purposes of this section, an employee

has performed work for a substantial

amount of time if:

(A) For any workweek, the directly

supporting work exceeds 20 percent of

the hours worked during the employee’s

workweek. If a tipped employee spends

more than 20 percent of the workweek

on directly supporting work, the

employer cannot take a tip credit for any

time that exceeds 20 percent of the

workweek; or

(B) For any continuous period of time,

the directly supporting work exceeds 30

minutes. If a tipped employee performs

directly supporting work for a

continuous period of time that exceeds

30 minutes, the employer cannot take a

tip credit for any of that continuous

period of time.

(2) Work that is not part of the tipped

occupation. Work that is not part of the

tipped occupation is any work that does

not generate tips and does not directly

support tip-producing work. If a tipped

employee is required to perform work

that is not part of the employee’s tipped

occupation, the employer may not take

a tip credit for that time. For example,

preparing food or cleaning the bathroom

is not part of a server’s occupation.

Preparing food or cleaning the dining

room is not part of a bartender’s

occupation. Ordering supplies for the

nail salon is not part of a nail

technician’s occupation.

Jessica Looman,

Principal Deputy Administrator, Wage and

Hour Division.

[FR Doc. 2021–13262 Filed 6–21–21; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–27–P

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG–2021–0416]

RIN 1625–AA00

Safety Zone; Sabine River, Orange, TX

AGENCY

: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION

: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY

: The Coast Guard is proposing

to establish a temporary safety zone for

certain navigable waters of the Sabine

River, extending the entire width of the

river, adjacent to the public boat ramp

located in Orange, TX. The safety zone

is necessary to protect persons and

vessels from hazards associated with a

high-speed boat race competition in

Orange, TX. Entry of vessels or persons

into this zone would be prohibited

unless authorized by the Captain of the

Port Marine Safety Unit Port Arthur or

a designated representative. We invite

your comments on this proposed

rulemaking.

DATES

: Comments and related material

must be received by the Coast Guard on

or before July 8, 2021.

ADDRESSES

: You may submit comments

identified by docket number USCG–

2021–0416 using the Federal

eRulemaking Portal at https://

www.regulations.gov. See the ‘‘Public

Participation and Request for

Comments’’ portion of the

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section for

further instructions on submitting

comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

: If

you have questions about this proposed

rulemaking, call or email Mr. Scott

Whalen, Marine Safety Unit Port Arthur,

U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 409–719–

5086, email Scott.K.Whalen@uscg.mil.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

DHS Department of Homeland Security

FR Federal Register

NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking

§ Section

U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal

Basis

On April 29, 2021, the Coast Guard

published a temporary safety zone to

protect persons and vessels from the

hazards associated with high speed boat

races in Orange, TX (86 FR 22610). That

event was cancelled due to weather. On

May 19, 2021 the City of Orange, TX

notified the Coast Guard that they

rescheduled the races for September 18

and 19, 2021, in the same location,

adjacent to the public boat ramp in

Orange, TX. The Captain of the Port Port

Arthur (COTP) has determined that

potential hazards associated with high

speed boat races would be a safety

concern for spectator craft and vessels

in the vicinity of these race events.

The purpose of this rulemaking is to

ensure the safety of vessels and the

navigable waters of the Sabine River

adjacent to the public boat ramp in

Orange, TX before, during, and after the

scheduled event. The Coast Guard is

proposing this rulemaking under

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:39 Jun 22, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23JNP1.SGM 23JNP1

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

32847

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 23, 2021 / Proposed Rules

authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously

33 U.S.C. 1231).

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

The COTP is proposing to establish a

safety zone from 7:30 a.m. on September

18, 2021 through 6 p.m. on September

19, 2021. The safety zone would be

enforced from 7:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. on

both the 18th and the 19th. The safety

zone would cover all navigable waters

of the Sabine River, extending the entire

width of the river, adjacent to the public

boat ramp located in Orange, TX

bounded to the north by the Orange

Public Wharf and latitude 30°05′50″ N

and to the south at latitude 30°05′33″ N.

The duration of the safety zone is

intended to protect participants,

spectators, and other persons and

vessels, in the navigable waters of the

Sabine River during high-speed boat

races and will include breaks and

opportunity for vessels to transit

through the regulated area.

No vessel or person will be permitted

to enter the safety zone without

obtaining permission from the COTP or

a designated representative. They will

be available on VHF–FM or by

telephone.

The COTP or a designated

representative may prohibit or control

the movement of all vessels in the zone.

The COTP or a designated

representative may terminate the

operation of any vessel at any time it is

deemed necessary for the protection of

life or property. The COTP or a

designated representative may terminate

enforcement of the safety zone at the

conclusion of the event.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

We developed this proposed rule after

considering numerous statutes and

Executive orders related to rulemaking.

Below we summarize our analyses

based on a number of these statutes and

Executive orders, and we discuss First

Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

direct agencies to assess the costs and

benefits of available regulatory

alternatives and, if regulation is

necessary, to select regulatory

approaches that maximize net benefits.

This NPRM has not been designated a

‘‘significant regulatory action,’’ under

Executive Order 12866. Accordingly,

the NPRM has not been reviewed by the

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB).

This regulatory action determination

is based on the proposed size, location

and duration of the rule. The safety zone

will encompass a less than half-mile

stretch of the Sabine River for 10.5-

hours on each of two days. The Coast

Guard will notify the public by issuing

Local Notice to Mariners (LNM), and/or

Marine Safety Information Bulletin

(MSIB) and Broadcast Notice to

Mariners via VHF–FM radio and the

rule will allow vessels to seek

permission to enter the zone during

scheduled breaks.

B. Impact on Small Entities

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of

1980, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended,

requires Federal agencies to consider

the potential impact of regulations on

small entities during rulemaking. The

term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises small

businesses, not-for-profit organizations

that are independently owned and

operated and are not dominant in their

fields, and governmental jurisdictions

with populations of less than 50,000.

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C.

605(b) that this proposed rule would not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

While some owners or operators of

vessels intending to transit the

temporary safety zone may be small

entities, for the reasons stated in section

IV.A above, this proposed rule would

not have a significant economic impact

on any vessel owner or operator.

If you think that your business,

organization, or governmental

jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity

and that this rule would have a

significant economic impact on it,

please submit a comment (see

ADDRESSES

) explaining why you think it

qualifies and how and to what degree

this rule would economically affect it.

Under section 213(a) of the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121),

we want to assist small entities in

understanding this proposed rule. If the

rule would affect your small business,

organization, or governmental

jurisdiction and you have questions

concerning its provisions or options for

compliance, please call or email the

person listed in the

FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT

section. The Coast

Guard will not retaliate against small

entities that question or complain about

this proposed rule or any policy or

action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

This proposed rule would not call for

a new collection of information under

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(44 U.S.C. 3501–3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal

Governments

A rule has implications for federalism

under Executive Order 13132

(Federalism), if it has a substantial

direct effect on the States, on the

relationship between the National

Government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government. We have analyzed

this proposed rule under that Order and

have determined that it is consistent

with the fundamental federalism

principles and preemption requirements

described in Executive Order 13132.

Also, this proposed rule does not have

tribal implications under Executive

Order 13175 (Consultation and

Coordination with Indian Tribal

Governments) because it would not

have a substantial direct effect on one or

more Indian tribes, on the relationship

between the Federal Government and

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities between the

Federal Government and Indian tribes.

If you believe this proposed rule has

implications for federalism or Indian

tribes, please call or email the person

listed in the

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT

section.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires

Federal agencies to assess the effects of

their discretionary regulatory actions. In

particular, the Act addresses actions

that may result in the expenditure by a

State, local, or tribal government, in the

aggregate, or by the private sector of

$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or

more in any one year. Though this

proposed rule would not result in such

an expenditure, we do discuss the

effects of this rule elsewhere in this

preamble.

F. Environment

We have analyzed this proposed rule

under Department of Homeland

Security Directive 023–01, Rev. 1,

associated implementing instructions,

and Environmental Planning

COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which

guide the Coast Guard in complying

with the National Environmental Policy

Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and

have made a preliminary determination

that this action is one of a category of

actions that do not individually or

cumulatively have a significant effect on

the human environment. This proposed

rule involves a safety zone that would

last 8 hours on each of two days and

that would prohibit entry on less than

a half-mile stretch of the Sabine River in

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:39 Jun 22, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23JNP1.SGM 23JNP1

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

32848

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 23, 2021 / Proposed Rules

Orange, TX. Normally such actions are

categorically excluded from further

review under paragraph L60(a) of

Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction

Manual 023–01–001–01, Rev. 1. A

preliminary Record of Environmental

Consideration supporting this

determination is available in the docket.

For instructions on locating the docket,

see the

ADDRESSES

section of this

preamble. We seek any comments or

information that may lead to the

discovery of a significant environmental

impact from this proposed rule.

G. Protest Activities

The Coast Guard respects the First

Amendment rights of protesters.

Protesters are asked to call or email the

person listed in the

FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT

section to

coordinate protest activities so that your

message can be received without

jeopardizing the safety or security of

people, places, or vessels.

V. Public Participation and Request for

Comments

We view public participation as

essential to effective rulemaking, and

will consider all comments and material

received during the comment period.

Your comment can help shape the

outcome of this rulemaking. If you

submit a comment, please include the

docket number for this rulemaking,

indicate the specific section of this

document to which each comment

applies, and provide a reason for each

suggestion or recommendation.

We encourage you to submit

comments through the Federal

eRulemaking Portal at https://

www.regulations.gov. If your material

cannot be submitted using https://

www.regulations.gov, call or email the

person in the

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT

section of this document for

alternate instructions.

We accept anonymous comments.

Comments we post to https://

www.regulations.gov will include any

personal information you have

provided. For more about privacy and

submissions in response to this

document, see DHS’s eRulemaking

System of Records notice (85 FR 14226,

March 11, 2020).

Documents mentioned in this NPRM

as being available in the docket, and

public comments, will be in our online

docket at https://www.regulations.gov

and can be viewed by following that

website’s instructions. We review all

comments received, but we will only

post comments that address the topic of

the proposed rule. We may choose not

to post off-topic, inappropriate, or

duplicate comments that we receive. If

you go to the online docket and sign up

for email alerts, you will be notified

when comments are posted or a final

rule is published.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Security measures,

Waterways.

For the reasons discussed in the

preamble, the Coast Guard is proposing

to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION

AREA AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

■1. The authority citation for part 165

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR

1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5;

Department of Homeland Security Delegation

No. 0170.1.

■2. Add § 165.T08–0416 to read as

follows:

§ 165.T08–0416 Safety Zone; Sabine River,

Orange, Texas.

(a) Location. The following area is a

safety zone: All navigable waters of the

Sabine River, extending the entire width

of the river, adjacent to the public boat

ramp located in Orange, TX bounded to

the north by the Orange Public Wharf

and latitude 30°05′50″ N and to the

south at latitude 30°05′33″ N. The

duration of the safety zone is intended

to protect participants, spectators, and

other persons and vessels, in the

navigable waters of the Sabine River

during high-speed boat races and will

include breaks and opportunity for

vessels to transit through the regulated

area.

(b) Enforcement periods. This section

will be enforced from 7:30 a.m. through

6 p.m. daily on September 18, 2021 and

September 19, 2021.

(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with

the general regulations in § 165.23 of

this part, entry of vessels or persons into

this zone is prohibited unless

authorized by the Captain of the Port

Marine Safety Unit Port Arthur (COTP)

or a designated representative. They

may be contacted on VHF–FM channel

13 or 16, or by phone at by telephone

at 409–719–5070.

(2) The COTP or a designated

representative may forbid and control

the movement of all vessels in the

regulated area. When hailed or signaled

by an official patrol vessel, a vessel shall

come to an immediate stop and comply

with the directions given. Failure to do

so may result in expulsion from the

area, citation for failure to comply, or

both.

(3) The COTP or a designated

representative may terminate the event

or the operation of any vessel at any

time it is deemed necessary for the

protection of life or property.

(4) The COTP or a designated

representative will terminate

enforcement of the special local

regulations at the conclusion of the

event.

(d) Informational broadcasts. The

COTP or a designated representative

will inform the public of the effective

period for the safety zone as well as any

changes in the dates and times of

enforcement through Local Notice to

Mariners (LNMs), Broadcast Notices to

Mariners (BNMs), and/or Marine Safety

Information Bulletins (MSIBs) as

appropriate.

Dated: June 8, 2021.

Molly A. Wike,

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the

Port, Marine Safety Zone Port Arthur.

[FR Doc. 2021–12870 Filed 6–22–21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA–R09–OAR–2021–0369; FRL–10024–

69–Region 9]

Air Plan Approval; Arizona; Maricopa

County Air Quality Department

AGENCY

: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION

: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY

: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve

revisions to the Maricopa County Air

Quality Department’s (MCAQD) Rule

510 as part of the Arizona State

Implementation Plan (SIP). These rule

revisions concern revisions to the

maximum levels of ambient air

pollution for the protection of public

health and welfare. We are proposing to

approve this rule to regulate these

emissions under the Clean Air Act (CAA

or the Act). We are taking comments on

this proposal and plan to follow with a

final action.

DATES

: Comments must be received on

or before July 23, 2021.

ADDRESSES

: Submit your comments,

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09–

OAR–2021–0369 at https://

www.regulations.gov. For comments

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the

online instructions for submitting

comments. Once submitted, comments

cannot be edited or removed from

Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:39 Jun 22, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23JNP1.SGM 23JNP1

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS