40388 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

4Our Unified Agenda of Regulatory and 

Deregulatory Actions is available on Reginfo.gov 

and can be accessed at https://www.reginfo.gov/ 

public/do/eAgendaMain. 

The total comment count reflects 

electronic submissions through the 

eRulemaking portals at the Office of the 

Federal Register and Regulations.gov, as 

well as emailed, mailed, and faxed 

comments. We did not make 181 

comments available. These 181 

comments were submitted after the 

comment period closed; included 

personally identifiable information or 

profanity; were unrelated to the 

rulemaking subject matter; or were 

submitted by individuals commenting 

in their capacity as Social Security 

Administration (SSA) employees. 

The Office of Management and Budget 

conducted 11 listening sessions under 

the authority of Executive Order (E.O.) 

12866 during December 2020 and 

January 2021 for interested 

stakeholders, many of whom also 

provided thoughtful and relevant 

comments during the NPRM comment 

period. We appreciate all the 

commenters who provided thoughtful 

feedback on their analysis of, and 

concerns about, the proposed rule. 

Withdrawal of the Proposed Rule 

After considering the submitted 

comments and further feedback 

provided in the listening sessions, we 

are withdrawing the proposed rule, 

Rules Regarding the Frequency and 

Notice of Continuing Disability Reviews 

(84 FR 63588, November 18, 2019) (RIN 

0960–AI27). We noted our intent to 

withdraw the proposed rule in our 

Spring 2021 Unified Agenda of 

Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions.4

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program Nos. 96.001, Social Security 

Disability Insurance; 96.002, Social Security 

Retirement Insurance; 96.004, Social Security 

Survivors Insurance; 96.006, Supplemental 

Security Income). 

List of Subjects 

20 CFR Part 404 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Blind, Disability benefits, 

Old-age, Survivors and Disability 

insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Social security. 

20 CFR Part 416 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Social security, 

Supplemental Security Income (SSI). 

The Acting Commissioner of the 

Social Security Administration, Kilolo 

Kijakazi, having reviewed and approved 

this document, is delegating the 

authority to electronically sign this 

document to Faye I. Lipsky, who is the 

primary Federal Register Liaison for 

SSA, for purposes of publication in the 

Federal Register. 

Faye I. Lipsky, 

Federal Register Liaison, Office of Legislation 

and Congressional Affairs, Social Security 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2021–15896 Filed 7–27–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[Docket No. USCG–2021–0332] 

RIN 1625–AA09 

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; 

Indiana Harbor Canal, East Chicago, IN 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

modify the operating schedule that 

governs the Indianapolis Boulevard 

Bridge, mile 2.59, over the Indiana 

Harbor Canal at East Chicago, IN. 

Indiana Department of Transportation, 

the owner and operator of the bridge, 

has requested to stop continual 

drawtender service to the bridge due to 

a lack of openings. We invite your 

comments on this proposed rulemaking. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must reach the Coast Guard on or before 

September 27, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2021–0332 using Federal e-Rulemaking 

Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. 

See the ‘‘Public Participation and 

Request for Comments’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below for instructions on submitting 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this proposed 

rule, call or email If you have questions 

on this proposed rule, call or email: Mr. 

Lee D. Soule, Bridge Management 

Specialist, Ninth Coast Guard District; 

telephone 216–902–6085, email 

Lee.D.Soule@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Table of Abbreviations 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

DHS Department of Homeland Security FR 

Federal Register 

IGLD85 International Great Lakes Datum of 

1985 INDOT Indiana Department of 

Transportation 

LWD Low Water Datum based on IGLD85 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(Advance, Supplemental) 

§ Section USACE United States Army Corps 

of Engineers 

U.S.C. United States Code 

USEPA United States Environmental 

Protection Agency 

II. Background, Purpose and Legal 

Basis 

The Indianapolis Boulevard Bridge, 

mile 2.59, over the Indiana Harbor Canal 

is a double leaf bascule bridge that 

provides a horizontal clearance of 68- 

feet and a vertical clearance of 12-feet in 

the closed position with an unlimited 

vertical clearance in the open position. 

The Indianapolis Boulevard Bridge, 

mile 2.59, over the Indiana Harbor Canal 

is required to open on signal and there 

are no previous rulemakings for this 

bridge to discuss. The Indiana Harbor 

Canal is a 3-mile long commercial 

waterway that serves several industries 

near the city of East Chicago, Indiana 

including the largest integrated 

steelmaking facility in North America 

and the 1,400 acre Whiting Refinery that 

includes the former 1889 Standard Oil 

of Indiana refinery at the head of 

navigation. The Indianapolis Boulevard 

Bridge, mile 2.59, over the Indiana 

Harbor Canal is the last drawbridge 

before the head of navigation; once the 

1889 Standard Oil of Indiana refinery 

was torn down the bridge lost its 

purpose for regular openings and the 

waterway silted in around the bridge 

preventing vessels from approaching. 

Approximately thirty years after the 

removal of the refinery the USEPA and 

USACE partnered to remove polluted 

sediments form the waterway and 

established a contaminated dredge 

spoils area above the bridge. The EPA 

and USACE contracted dredging 

company is working a few weeks each 

season and is the only commercial 

vessel requesting the bridge to open. 

There are no records of recreational 

vessels using the Indiana Harbor Canal. 

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule 

The only vessel that has requested an 

opening at the Indianapolis Boulevard 

Bridge, mile 2.59, over the Indiana 

Harbor Canal in thirty years has been 

the dredging contractor, and their work 

schedule is limited to a few weeks a 

year due to migratory wildlife concerns 

in the summer and ice formation in the 

winter. INDOT has agreed that a 

drawtender will be assigned to the 

bridge to accommodate vessel traffic if 

a 12-hour advance notice is provided. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Proposed Rules 40389 

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 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 ability that vessels can 

still transit the bridge given advanced 

notice. 

B. Impact on Small Entities 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(RFA), 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 bridge 

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 contact 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 call for no 

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 contact 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 will not result in such an 

expenditure, we do discuss the effects of 

this proposed rule elsewhere in this 

preamble. 

F. Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Department of Homeland 

Security Management Directive 023–01, 

Rev.1, associated implementing 

instructions, and Environmental 

Planning Policy COMDTINST 5090.1 

(series), which guide the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f). The 

Coast Guard has determined 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 

promulgates the operating regulations or 

procedures for drawbridges. Normally 

such actions are categorically excluded 

from further review, under paragraph 

L49, of Chapter 3, Table3–1 of the U.S. 

Coast Guard Environmental Planning 

Implementation Procedures. 

Neither a Record of Environmental 

Consideration nor a Memorandum for 

the Record are required for this 

proposed rule. 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 contact 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, contact the person 

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this document for 

alternate instructions. 

We accept anonymous comments. All 

comments received will be posted 

without change to https://

www.regulations.gov and 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). 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
40390 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

Documents mentioned in this NPRM 

as being available in this docket and all 

public comments, will be in our online 

docket at https://www.regulations.gov 

and can be viewed by following that 

website’s instructions. Additionally, 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 117 

Bridges. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows: 

PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE 

OPERATION REGULATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 117 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05–1; 

DHS Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. In § 117.400 add paragraph (c) to 

read as follows: 

§ 117.400 Indiana Harbor Canal. 

* * * * * 

(c). The Indianapolis Boulevard 

Bridge, mile 2.59, at East Chicago, shall 

open on signal if at least twelve hours’ 

notice is given. 

M.J. Johnston, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

Ninth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2021–15488 Filed 7–27–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket Number USCG–2021–0531] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone; Monongahela River Mile 

96.0 to Mile 97.0, Maidsville, WV 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing 

to establish a temporary safety zone for 

mile 96.0 to mile 97.0 of the 

Monongahela River. This action is 

necessary to provide for the safety of the 

life on these navigable water near 

Maidsville, WV during a pipe and 

diffuser underwater installation from 

August 23, 2021 through August 25, 

2021. This proposed rulemaking would 

prohibit persons and vessels from 

entering the safety zone unless 

authorized by the Captain of the Port 

Pittsburgh (COTP) 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 August 12, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2021–0531 using the Federal Decision 

Making 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 MST3 

Matthew Izso, Marine Safety Unit 

Pittsburgh, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 

412–221–0807, email Matthew.R.Izso@

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 July 6, 2021, the Brayman 

Construction Corporation notified the 

Coast Guard that it will be conducting 

an underwater pipe and diffuser 

installation for Longview Power from 6 

a.m. to 9 p.m. on August 23, 2021 

through August 25, 2021. The 

installation will take place at mile 96.5 

on the Monongahela River near 

Maidsville, WV. Hazards associated 

with proposed operations present a 

hazard to navigation. The COTP 

Pittsburgh has determined that potential 

hazards associated with the installation 

work would be a safety concern for 

anyone transiting the river. 

The purpose of this rulemaking is to 

ensure the safety of vessels and the 

navigable waters before, during, and 

after the scheduled installation activity. 

The Coast Guard is proposing this 

rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. 

70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). 

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule 

The COTP Pittsburgh is proposing to 

establish a safety zone from 6 a.m. to 9 

p.m. on August 23, 2021 through August 

25, 2021. The safety zone would cover 

all navigable waters from mile 96.0 to 

mile 97.0 on the Monongahela River 

near Maidsville, WV. The duration of 

the zone is intended to ensure the safety 

of vessels and these navigable waters 

before, during, and after the scheduled 

intallation project. No vessel or person 

would be permitted to enter the safety 

zone without obtaining permission from 

the COTP Pittsburgh or a designated 

representative. The regulatory text we 

are proposing appears at the end of this 

document. 

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 size, location, and 

duration of the safety zone. The safety 

zone will impact a 1-mile stretch of the 

Monongahela River for 3 days. 

Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue 

a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via 

VHF–FM marine channel 16 about the 

zone, and the rulemaking would allow 

vessels to seek permission to enter the 

zone. 

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 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS