83 FR 46449 - Safety Zone; Chicago Harbor, Navy Pier Southeast, Chicago, IL

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 178 (September 13, 2018)

Page Range		46449-46451
FR Document		2018-19934

The Coast Guard proposes to reduce the size of the Navy Pier Southeast Safety Zone within the Chicago Harbor. This action is necessary to alleviate congestion near the Chicago Lock during regularly scheduled fireworks events. The current safety zone encompasses part of the lock restricting vessels during events. This proposed rulemaking would still prohibit persons and vessels from entering the safety zone, but would allow the lock to remain in full operation during the fireworks display. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

Federal Register, Volume 83 Issue 178 (Thursday, September 13, 2018)

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 178 (Thursday, September 13, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46449-46451]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19934]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2018-0713]
RIN 1625-AA00


Safety Zone; Chicago Harbor, Navy Pier Southeast, Chicago, IL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to reduce the size of the Navy Pier 
Southeast Safety Zone within the Chicago Harbor. This action is 
necessary to alleviate congestion near the Chicago Lock during 
regularly scheduled fireworks events. The current safety zone 
encompasses part of the lock restricting vessels during events. This 
proposed rulemaking would still prohibit persons and vessels from 
entering the safety zone, but would allow the lock to remain in full 
operation during the fireworks display. We invite your comments on this 
proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast 
Guard on or before October 15, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2018-0713 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://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 rule, 
call or email LT John Ramos, Waterways Management Division, Marine 
Safety Unit Chicago, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (630) 986-2155, email 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    The Coast Guard regularly enforces the Safety Zone; Chicago Harbor, 
Navy Pier Southeast, Chicago, IL listed in 33 CFR 165.931 for weekly 
fireworks events during the boating season. The

[[Page 46450]]

current safety zone encompasses all waters of Lake Michigan within 
Chicago Harbor bounded by coordinates beginning at 41[deg]53'26.5'' N, 
087[deg]35'26.5'' W; then south to 41[deg]53'7.6'' N, 087[deg]35'26.3'' 
W; then west to 41[deg]53'7.6'' N, 087[deg]36'23.2'' W; then north to 
41[deg]53'26.5'' N, 087[deg]36'24.6'' W; then east back to the point of 
origin (NAD 83).
    The purpose of this proposed rulemaking is to reduce the size of 
the pre-existing safety zone to reduce congestion near the Chicago 
Lock. This safety zone will help ensure the safety of vessels and the 
navigable waters near the fireworks barge before, during, and after the 
scheduled events and alleviate congestion issues around the Chicago 
Lock. The proposed rule would not significantly change the regulatory 
language found in 33 CFR 165.931. The change would only reduce the size 
of the safety zone and update the coordinates found in 33 CFR 165.931 
(a).

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP proposes to reduce the established safety zone outlined in 
33 CFR 165.931. The current safety zone encompasses all waters of Lake 
Michigan within Chicago Harbor bounded by coordinates beginning at 
41[deg]53'26.5'' N, 087[deg]35'26.5'' W; then south to 41[deg]53'7.6'' 
N, 087[deg]35'26.3'' W; then west to 41[deg]53'7.6'' N, 
087[deg]36'23.2'' W; then north to 41[deg]53'26.5'' N, 
087[deg]36'24.6'' W; then east back to the point of origin (NAD 83).
    The newly proposed safety zone would ensure a safe distance for 
spectators. It would encompasses all waters of Lake Michigan within 
Chicago Harbor bounded by coordinates beginning at 41[deg]53'23.74'' N, 
087[deg]35'35.70'' W; then south to 41[deg]53'3.95'' N, 
087[deg]35'35.11'' W; then west to 41[deg]53'3.48'' N, 
087[deg]36'8.52'' W; then north to 41[deg]53'23.30'' N, 
087[deg]36'9.08'' W; then east back to the point of origin (NAD 83).

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. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control 
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. 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), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt 
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action 
because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, 
will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the 
budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel 
legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be 
relatively small and will be enforced intermittently only for a short 
period of time. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still 
transit through the safety zones when permitted by the Captain of the 
Port.

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 
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 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 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 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 Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction 
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42

[[Page 46451]]

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 enforced intermittently. 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. 01. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration 
supporting this determination is available in the docket where 
indicated under ADDRESSES. 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 http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be 
submitted using http://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 http://www.regulations.gov and will include any 
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the 
docket, visit http://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice.
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, 
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://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 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes 
to amend 33 CFR part 165.931 as follows:

PART 165: REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-
1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 
0170.1.

0
2. Amend Sec.  165.931 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  165.931  Safety Zone, Chicago Harbor, Navy Pier Southeast, 
Chicago, IL.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: The waters of 
Lake Michigan within Chicago Harbor bounded by coordinates beginning at 
41[deg]53'23.74'' N, 087[deg]35'35.70'' W; then south to 
41[deg]53'3.95'' N, 087[deg]35'35.11'' W; then west to 41[deg]53'3.48'' 
N, 087[deg]36'8.52'' W; then north to 41[deg]53'23.30'' N, 
087[deg]36'9.08'' W; then east back to the point of origin (NAD 83).
* * * * *

    Dated: August 16, 2018.
Thomas J. Stuhlreyer,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan.
[FR Doc. 2018-19934 Filed 9-12-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 178 / Thursday, September 13, 2018 / Proposed Rules 46449

new safety and effectiveness § 814.20(b)(3) is required for only a DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
information learned about the device supplement submitted for new SECURITY
from ongoing or completed studies that indications for use of the device,
may reasonably affect an evaluation of significant changes in the performance Coast Guard
the safety or effectiveness of the device or design specifications, circuits,
or that may reasonably affect the components, ingredients, principles of 33 CFR Part 165
statement of contraindications, operation, or physical layout of the [Docket Number USCG–2018–0713]
warnings, precautions, and adverse device, or when otherwise required by
reactions in the draft labeling. The RIN 1625–AA00
FDA. The applicant shall submit a PMA
update report shall be consistent with supplement in electronic format and
the data reporting provisions of the Safety Zone; Chicago Harbor, Navy
shall include information relevant to the Pier Southeast, Chicago, IL
protocol. The applicant shall submit any proposed changes in the device. A PMA
update report in electronic format and AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
supplement shall include a separate
shall include in the report the number ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
section that identifies each change for
assigned by FDA to the PMA. These
updates are considered to be which approval is being requested and
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to
amendments to the PMA. The time explains the reason for each such reduce the size of the Navy Pier
frame for review of a PMA will not be change. The applicant shall submit Southeast Safety Zone within the
extended due to the submission of an additional information, if requested by Chicago Harbor. This action is necessary
update report unless the update is a FDA, in electronic format. The time to alleviate congestion near the Chicago
major amendment under § 814.37(c)(1). frames for review of, and FDA action on, Lock during regularly scheduled
The applicant shall submit these a PMA supplement are the same as fireworks events. The current safety
reports— those provided in § 814.40 for a PMA. zone encompasses part of the lock
* * * * * * * * * * restricting vessels during events. This
(f) If a color additive subject to section ■ 10. Amend § 814.104 by revising
proposed rulemaking would still
721 of the Federal Food, Drug, and prohibit persons and vessels from
paragraphs (d) introductory text and
Cosmetic Act is used in or on the device entering the safety zone, but would
(d)(1) and (2) to read as follows:
and has not previously been listed for allow the lock to remain in full
such use, then, in lieu of submitting a § 814.104 Original applications. operation during the fireworks display.
color additive petition under part 71 of We invite your comments on this
* * * * *
this chapter, at the option of the proposed rulemaking.
applicant, the information required to (d) Address for submissions and DATES: Comments and related material
be submitted under part 71 may be correspondence. All original HDEs, must be received by the Coast Guard on
submitted as part of the PMA. When amendments and supplements, as well or before October 15, 2018.
submitted as part of the PMA, the as any correspondence relating to an ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
information shall be submitted in HDE, must be provided in electronic identified by docket number USCG–
electronic format. A PMA for a device format. These materials must be sent or 2018–0713 using the Federal
that contains a color additive that is delivered to one of the following: eRulemaking Portal at http://
subject to section 721 of the Federal (1) For devices regulated by the www.regulations.gov. See the ‘‘Public
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act will not Center for Devices and Radiological Participation and Request for
be approved until the color additive is Health, send it to the current address Comments’’ portion of the
listed for use in or on the device. found on the website https:// SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for
* * * * * www.fda.gov/cdrhsubmissionaddress. further instructions on submitting
(h) * * * comments.
(1) For devices regulated by the (2) For devices regulated by the
Center for Biologics Evaluation and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
Center for Devices and Radiological
Research, send it to the current address you have questions about this rule, call
Health, send it to the current address
displayed on the website https:// or email LT John Ramos, Waterways
displayed on the website http://
www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/ Management Division, Marine Safety
www.fda.gov/cdrhsubmissionaddress.
OfficeofMedicalProductsandTobacco/ Unit Chicago, U.S. Coast Guard;
(2) For devices regulated by the
CBER/ucm385240.htm. telephone (630) 986–2155, email D09-
Center for Biologics Evaluation and
DG-MSUChicago-Waterways@uscg.mil.
Research, send it to the current address * * * * *
displayed on the website https:// SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Dated: September 7, 2018.
www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/ I. Table of Abbreviations
OfficeofMedicalProductsandTobacco/ Scott Gottlieb,
Commissioner of Food and Drugs. CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CBER/ucm385240.htm.
DHS Department of Homeland Security
* * * * * [FR Doc. 2018–19865 Filed 9–12–18; 8:45 am]
FR Federal Register
■ 9. Amend § 814.39 by revising BILLING CODE 4164–01–P NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
paragraph (c)(1) to read as follows: § Section
U.S.C. United States Code
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS

§ 814.39 PMA supplements.
* * * * * II. Background, Purpose, and Legal
(c)(1) All procedures and actions that Basis
apply to an application under § 814.20 The Coast Guard regularly enforces
also apply to PMA supplements except the Safety Zone; Chicago Harbor, Navy
that the information required in a Pier Southeast, Chicago, IL listed in 33
supplement is limited to that needed to CFR 165.931 for weekly fireworks
support the change. A summary under events during the boating season. The

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:19 Sep 12, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13SEP1.SGM 13SEP1

46450 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 178 / Thursday, September 13, 2018 / Proposed Rules

current safety zone encompasses all to control regulatory costs through a CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will
waters of Lake Michigan within Chicago budgeting process. This NPRM has not not retaliate against small entities that
Harbor bounded by coordinates been designated a ‘‘significant question or complain about this
beginning at 41°53′26.5″ N, 087°35′26.5″ regulatory action,’’ under Executive proposed rule or any policy or action of
W; then south to 41°53′7.6″ N, Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM the Coast Guard.
087°35′26.3″ W; then west to 41°53′7.6″ has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and C. Collection of Information
N, 087°36′23.2″ W; then north to
41°53′26.5″ N, 087°36′24.6″ W; then east pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt This proposed rule would not call for
back to the point of origin (NAD 83). from the requirements of Executive a new collection of information under
The purpose of this proposed Order 13771. the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
rulemaking is to reduce the size of the We conclude that this rule is not a (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520).
pre-existing safety zone to reduce significant regulatory action because we
D. Federalism and Indian Tribal
congestion near the Chicago Lock. This anticipate that it will have minimal
Governments
safety zone will help ensure the safety impact on the economy, will not
of vessels and the navigable waters near interfere with other agencies, will not A rule has implications for federalism
the fireworks barge before, during, and adversely alter the budget of any grant under Executive Order 13132,
after the scheduled events and alleviate or loan recipients, and will not raise any federalism, if it has a substantial direct
congestion issues around the Chicago novel legal or policy issues. The safety effect on the States, on the relationship
Lock. The proposed rule would not zone created by this rule will be between the national government and
significantly change the regulatory relatively small and will be enforced the States, or on the distribution of
language found in 33 CFR 165.931. The intermittently only for a short period of power and responsibilities among the
change would only reduce the size of time. Under certain conditions, various levels of government. We have
the safety zone and update the moreover, vessels may still transit analyzed this proposed rule under that
coordinates found in 33 CFR 165.931 through the safety zones when Order and have determined that it is
(a). permitted by the Captain of the Port. consistent with the fundamental
federalism principles and preemption
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule B. Impact on Small Entities
requirements described in Executive
The COTP proposes to reduce the The Regulatory Flexibility Act of Order 13132.
established safety zone outlined in 33 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended, Also, this proposed rule does not have
CFR 165.931. The current safety zone requires Federal agencies to consider tribal implications under Executive
encompasses all waters of Lake the potential impact of regulations on Order 13175, Consultation and
Michigan within Chicago Harbor small entities during rulemaking. The Coordination with Indian Tribal
bounded by coordinates beginning at term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises small Governments, because it would not have
41°53′26.5″ N, 087°35′26.5″ W; then businesses, not-for-profit organizations a substantial direct effect on one or
south to 41°53′7.6″ N, 087°35′26.3″ W; that are independently owned and more Indian tribes, on the relationship
then west to 41°53′7.6″ N, 087°36′23.2″ operated and are not dominant in their between the Federal Government and
W; then north to 41°53′26.5″ N, fields, and governmental jurisdictions Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
087°36′24.6″ W; then east back to the with populations of less than 50,000. power and responsibilities between the
point of origin (NAD 83). The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. Federal Government and Indian tribes.
The newly proposed safety zone 605(b) that this proposed rule would not If you believe this proposed rule has
would ensure a safe distance for have a significant economic impact on implications for federalism or Indian
spectators. It would encompasses all a substantial number of small entities. tribes, please contact the person listed
waters of Lake Michigan within Chicago While some owners or operators of in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
Harbor bounded by coordinates vessels intending to transit the safety CONTACT section.
beginning at 41°53′23.74″ N, zone may be small entities, for the
reasons stated in section IV.A above, E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
087°35′35.70″ W; then south to
41°53′3.95″ N, 087°35′35.11″ W; then this proposed rule would not have a The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
west to 41°53′3.48″ N, 087°36′8.52″ W; significant economic impact on any of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires
then north to 41°53′23.30″ N, vessel owner or operator. Federal agencies to assess the effects of
087°36′9.08″ W; then east back to the If you think that your business, their discretionary regulatory actions. In
point of origin (NAD 83). organization, or governmental particular, the Act addresses actions
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity that may result in the expenditure by a
IV. Regulatory Analyses and that this rule would have a State, local, or tribal government, in the
We developed this proposed rule after significant economic impact on it, aggregate, or by the private sector of
considering numerous statutes and please submit a comment (see $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or
Executive Orders related to rulemaking. ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it more in any one year. Though this
Below we summarize our analyses qualifies and how and to what degree proposed rule would not result in such
based on a number of these statutes and this rule would economically affect it. an expenditure, we do discuss the
Executive Orders and we discuss First Under section 213(a) of the Small effects of this rule elsewhere in this
Amendment rights of protestors. Business Regulatory Enforcement preamble.
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121),
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS

A. Regulatory Planning and Review we want to assist small entities in F. Environment
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 understanding this proposed rule. If the We have analyzed this proposed rule
direct agencies to assess the costs and rule would affect your small business, under Department of Homeland
benefits of available regulatory organization, or governmental Security Management Directive 023–01
alternatives and, if regulation is jurisdiction and you have questions and Commandant Instruction
necessary, to select regulatory concerning its provisions or options for M16475.lD, which guide the Coast
approaches that maximize net benefits. compliance, please contact the person Guard in complying with the National
Executive Order 13771 directs agencies listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:19 Sep 12, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13SEP1.SGM 13SEP1

Document Created: 2018-09-13 01:01:46
Document Modified: 2018-09-13 01:01:46

Category		Regulatory Information
Collection		Federal Register
sudoc Class		AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106:
Publisher		Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
Section		Proposed Rules
Action		Notice of proposed rulemaking.
Dates		Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before October 15, 2018.
Contact		If you have questions about this rule, call or email LT John Ramos, Waterways Management Division, Marine Safety Unit Chicago, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (630) 986-2155, email [email protected]
FR Citation		83 FR 46449
RIN Number		1625-AA00
CFR Associated		Harbors; Marine Safety; Navigation (water); Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements; Security Measures and Waterways

83 FR 46449 - Safety Zone; Chicago Harbor, Navy Pier Southeast, Chicago, IL

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITYCoast Guard

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 178 (September 13, 2018)

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard