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 tipproducing 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 tipproducing, but directly supports tipproducing 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 23, 2021 / Proposed Rules 32847 

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 


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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS