Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 144 / Friday, July 30, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 40957 

184See 2 U.S.C. 1501. 

185Calculated using growth in the Gross Domestic 

Product deflator from 1995 to 2019. Bureau of 

Economic Analysis. Table 1.1.9. Implicit Price 

Deflators for Gross Domestic Product. 

186See 2 U.S.C. 1532(a)(4). 

187According to the Bureau of Economic 

Analysis, 2020 GDP was $20.9 trillion. https://

www.bea.gov/sites/default/files/2021-04/gdp1q21_

adv.pdf. 

VI. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (UMRA) 184 requires agencies to 

prepare a written statement for rules 

with a Federal mandate that may result 

in increased expenditures by state, 

local, and tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$165 million ($100 million in 1995 

dollars adjusted for inflation) or more in 

at least one year.185 This statement 

must: (1) Identify the authorizing 

legislation; (2) present the estimated 

costs and benefits of the rule and, to the 

extent that such estimates are feasible 

and relevant, its estimated effects on the 

national economy; (3) summarize and 

evaluate state, local, and tribal 

government input; and (4) identify 

reasonable alternatives and select, or 

explain the non-selection, of the least 

costly, most cost-effective, or least 

burdensome alternative. 

Authorizing Legislation 

This final rule is issued pursuant to 

the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 

U.S.C. 201–219. 

Assessment of Costs and Benefits 

For purposes of UMRA, this 

rescission is not expected to result in 

increased expenditures by the private 

sector or by state, local, and tribal 

governments of $165 million or more in 

at least one year. As discussed earlier, 

the Department believes that the 

rescission will not result in substantial 

costs for the regulated community 

because most courts apply a vertical 

joint employment analysis different 

from the analysis in the Joint Employer 

Rule and have not adopted the Rule’s 

analysis. More detailed analysis of 

impacts appears above. 

UMRA requires agencies to estimate 

the effect of a regulation on the national 

economy if such estimates are 

reasonably feasible and the effect is 

relevant and material.186 However, OMB 

guidance on this requirement notes that 

such macroeconomic effects tend to be 

measurable in nationwide econometric 

models only if the economic effect of 

the regulation reaches 0.25 percent to 

0.5 percent of Gross Domestic Product 

(GDP), or in the range of $52.3 billion 

to $104.7 billion (using 2020 GDP).187 A 

regulation with a smaller aggregate 

effect is not likely to have a measurable 

effect in macroeconomic terms, unless it 

is highly focused on a particular 

geographic region or economic sector, 

which is not the case with this rule. 

Given OMB’s guidance, the Department 

has determined that a full 

macroeconomic analysis is not likely to 

show that these costs would have any 

measurable effect. 

VII. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The Department has (1) reviewed this 

rescission in accordance with Executive 

Order 13132 regarding federalism and 

(2) determined that it does not have 

federalism implications. The rescission 

would not have substantial direct effects 

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. 

VIII. Executive Order 13175, Indian 

Tribal Governments 

This rescission would not have 

substantial direct effects 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. 

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 791 

Wages. 

PART 791—[REMOVED AND 

RESERVED] 

■ For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, and under the authority of the 

FLSA, 29 U.S.C. 201–219, the 

Department removes and reserves 29 

CFR part 791. 

Jessica Looman, 

Principal Deputy Administrator, Wage and 

Hour Division. 

[FR Doc. 2021–15316 Filed 7–29–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–27–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[Docket No. USCG–2020–0034] 

RIN 1625–AA09 

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; 

Chicago River, Chicago, IL 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is revising 

the operating schedule that governs the 

Amtrak Railroad Bridge, mile 3.77, 

across the South Branch of the Chicago 

River, at Chicago, Illinois to be operated 

remotely and establish an intermediate 

opening position. 

DATES: This rule is effective August 30, 

2021. 

ADDRESSES: To view documents 

mentioned in this preamble as being 

available in the docket, go to https://

www.regulations.gov. Type USCG– 

2020–0034 in the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and 

click ‘‘SEARCH.’’ Click on Open Docket 

Folder on the line associated with this 

rule. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this 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 

LWD Low Water Datum based on IGLD85 

NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(Advance, Supplemental) 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

§ Section 

TD Temporary Deviation with Request for 

comments 

U.S.C. United States Code 

II. Background Information and 

Regulatory History 

On April 8, 2020 the Coast Guard 

published a TD in the Federal Register 

(85 FR 19659) to test the proposed rule 

and allow mariners to provide 

comments from June 1, 2020 through 

September 1, 2020. We received one 

unrelated comment. 

On May 4, 2021, the Coast Guard 

published a NPRM in the Federal 

Register (86 FR 23639). There we stated 

why we issued the NPRM, and invited 

comments on proposed regulatory 

action. During the comment period that 

ended on June 3, 2021, we received zero 

(0) comments. 

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule 

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule 

under authority 33 U.S.C. 499. 

The Amtrak Railroad Bridge, mile 

3.77, over the South Branch of the 

Chicago River provides a vertical 

clearance of 10 feet in the down 

position and 65 feet in the open position 

above LWD and a horizontal clearance 

of 156 feet. The bridge crosses the river 

on a slight skew on an ‘‘S’’ curve in the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
40958 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 144 / Friday, July 30, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

river requiring longer vessels to use 

most of the horizontal clearance for 

maneuvering. The South Branch of the 

Chicago River is part of a network of 

waterways that allow vessels to travel 

from Chicago, IL to New Orleans, LA. 

Cook County described the Chicago 

River as the 5th largest port in the 

United States, hosting commercial 

vessels over 300 tons, recreational 

power and sailing vessels, several 

passenger vessels, water taxies, paddle 

boats and various paddle craft. Most 

vessels can pass under all of the bridges 

in the Chicago metropolitan area 

without an opening, with the exception 

of the Amtrak Bridge. During an average 

weekday, 150,000 commuters travel 

over the Amtrak Bridge. 

In accordance with general bridge 

regulations a drawbridge must open 

promptly and fully when signaled to 

open. Lifting the bridge to 65 feet for 

every vessel when most vessels only 

need an additional 10 feet of clearance 

increases the delay experienced by all 

modes of transportation. 

The Amtrak Bridge has been operating 

remotely for several years without any 

concerns for the mariners. 

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes 

and the Final Rule 

We received one comment to the TD 

that was unrelated to the bridge or 

proposed regulatory action. We did not 

receive any comments to the NPRM, and 

do not intend to change anything from 

the published NPRM. 

V. Discussion of Final Rule 

The Coast Guard is including in the 

regulations that the AMTRAK Bridge is 

authorized to operate remotely. 

The Coast Guard is authorizing the 

bridge to open to an intermediate 

position that will provide a vertical 

clearance of 34 feet above LWD. A 

yellow light at the center of the bridge, 

visible to vessels approaching the bridge 

from both upriver and downriver sides 

will verify the bridge has met the 

intermediate height. At any time a 

vessel with greater air draft can radio 

the drawtender and request a full 

opening. This rule is expected to 

increase bridge availability to all users 

by 50%. 

VII. Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this 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 protesters. 

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 rule has not been designated a 

‘‘significant regulatory action,’’ under 

Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it 

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 without changing 

the bridge schedule and it keeps the 

maximum advertised clearance 

available for vessels as needed. 

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 received no comments 

from the Small Business Administration 

on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies 

under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will 

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 V. A above, this rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on any vessel owner or operator. 

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 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. 

Small businesses may send comments 

on the actions of Federal employees 

who enforce, or otherwise determine 

compliance with, Federal regulations to 

the Small Business and Agriculture 

Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman 

and the Regional Small Business 

Regulatory Fairness Boards. The 

Ombudsman evaluates these actions 

annually and rates each agency’s 

responsiveness to small business. If you 

wish to comment on actions by 

employees of the Coast Guard, call 1– 

888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). The 

Coast Guard will not retaliate against 

small entities that question or complain 

about this rule or any policy or action 

of the Coast Guard. 

C. Collection of Information 

This rule calls for no new collection 

of information under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501– 

3520). 

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal 

Government 

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 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 rule does not have tribal 

implications under Executive Order 

13175, Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments, 

because it does 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. 

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 rule 

will not result in such an expenditure, 

we do discuss the effects of this rule 

elsewhere in this preamble. 

F. Environment 

We have analyzed this 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 144 / Friday, July 30, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 40959 

the human environment. This rule 

promulgates the operating regulations or 

procedures for drawbridges and is 

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 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. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 

Bridges. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 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; 

and Department of Homeland Security 

Delegation No. 0170.1. 

§ 117.391 [Amended] 

■ 2. Amend § 117.391 by revising 

paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 117.391 Chicago River. 

* * * * * 

(d) The Amtrak Bridge, mile 3.77, is 

authorized to operate remotely and open 

to the intermediate position on signal, 

unless a request for a full opening is 

received by the drawtender. The bridge 

is required to operate a marine radio. 

* * * * * 

M.J. Johnston, 

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

Ninth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2021–15986 Filed 7–29–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2018–0601; FRL–8689–02– 

R9] 

Air Plan Revision; Limited Approval 

and Limited Disapproval; California; 

Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management 

District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is finalizing the limited 

approval and limited disapproval of a 

revision to the Yolo-Solano Air Quality 

Management District (YSAQMD) 

portion of the California State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). This 

revision concerns emissions of volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs) from solvent 

cleaning and degreasing operations. 

Under the authority of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA or the Act), this action 

simultaneously approves a local rule 

that regulates these emission sources 

and directs California to correct rule 

deficiencies. 

DATES: This rule will be effective on 

August 30, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket No. 

EPA–R09–OAR–2018–0601. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the https://www.regulations.gov 

website. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available through https://

www.regulations.gov, or please contact 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section for 

additional availability information. If 

you need assistance in a language other 

than English or if you are a person with 

disabilities who needs a reasonable 

accommodation at no cost to you, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Arnold Lazarus, EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 

94105. By phone: (415) 972–3024 or by 

email at lazarus.arnold@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Proposed Action 

II. Public Comments and the EPA’s Response 

III. EPA Action 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Proposed Action 

On February 25, 2021 (86 FR 11480), 

the EPA proposed a limited approval 

and limited disapproval of the following 

rule that was submitted for 

incorporation into the California SIP. 

Local agency Rule # Rule title Revised Submitted 

YSAQMD ......................................................... 2.31 Solvent Cleaning and Degreasing ................. 04/12/2017 08/09/2017 

We proposed a limited approval 

because we determined that this rule 

improves the SIP and is largely 

consistent with the relevant CAA 

requirements. We simultaneously 

proposed a limited disapproval because 

the following rule provision conflicts 

with section 110 and part D of the Act. 

The provision at section 110.6 of the 

rule exempts solvent degreasing 

operations that are subject to National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants (NESHAP) requirements at 40 

CFR part 63 Subpart T regulating 

halogenated solvent cleaning. 

CAA Section 182(b)(2) (‘‘Reasonably 

available control technology’’) states: 

‘‘The State shall submit a revision to the 

applicable implementation plan to 

include provisions to require the 

implementation of reasonably available 

control technology . . . .’’ While the 

YSAQMD has been delegated the 

authority to enforce the requirements in 

40 CFR 63 Subpart T, this type of 

delegation of authority to a district or 

state does not place those requirements 

or its emission limitations into the SIP. 

Thus, this rule fails to implement RACT 

for halogenated solvent cleaning in an 

enforceable SIP regulation. Our 

proposed action contains more 

information on the basis for this 

rulemaking and on our evaluation of the 

submittal. 

II. Public Comments and the EPA’s 

Response 

The EPA’s proposed action provided 

a 30-day public comment period. During 

this period, we received one comment 

that was supportive of the proposed 

action. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1