Security Zone, John Joseph Moakley United States Courthouse, Boston, MA, 69078-69082 [2014-27160]

Download as PDF 69078 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules adequate guidance, but I look forward to comments on whether it is adequate enough. rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Appendix 4—Concurring Statement of CFTC Commissioner Sharon Y. Bowen This is a proposal that, I am concerned, will neither provide the clarity industry is seeking regarding the treatment of embedded volumetric options nor the safeguards that Congress intended when it passed the DoddFrank Wall Street Reform and Customer Protection Act. I do not oppose the Commission’s trying to better tailor our regulations to address concerns of end-users. In fact, I commend the Chairman and my fellow Commissioners for trying to address the issues that have arisen from our existing guidance and rules on embedded volumetric options. After many meetings with stakeholders and much analysis of this subject, I am convinced that the Commission should address concerns that industry has raised regarding the treatment of embedded volumetric options. However, the proposed interpretation may not resolve the issues industry has raised. Options, even physical options, have never been interpreted by the Commission to be forward contracts. They lack the central characteristic that is critical to being a forward contract under the Commodity Exchange Act: A binding obligation to deliver at some time in the future. The history on this is clear, if there is no binding obligation to deliver, there is no forward contract. The seventh factor was intended, essentially, as a ‘‘safe-harbor’’ provision. Notwithstanding the fact there is no obligation to make or take delivery for the optional portion of the specified commodity, the seventh factor was designed to allow a party’s transaction to receive the forward exclusion if that party can demonstrate that it determined the specified, optional amount was necessary based upon commercial and physical factors, and exercised the option based upon those factors. In other words, this seventh factor was designed to allow embedded volumetric options to receive the forward contract exclusion treatment where their exercise was driven largely by external commercial and physical factors central to the party’s commercial business, but largely beyond the control of the party. Through its conduct then, the party was demonstrating its intent to be ‘‘bound’’ to exercise the option if its estimate, based on the factors it used, proved to be accurate. The Commission was trying to distinguish such a situation from a situation where the party enters into the embedded volumetric option intending to exercise the volumetric option based upon whether, at the time of exercise, it still makes economic sense to use the option. In other words, it was trying to distinguish a situation where the motivation for exercising the option was primarily or substantially based on price. In the latter case, the embedded volumetric option is hard to distinguish, in usage, from any other commodity option. There is no demonstration in the party’s course of conduct that it intended to be ‘‘bound’’ to exercise the option at all. While this test is far from perfect, and I can see the difficulty industry would have in VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:19 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 administering it, the Commission was clearly trying to find a rationale for allowing some volumetric optionality that was consistent with the Commission’s historic treatment of forward contracts, while avoiding completely erasing the line between options and futures on the one hand, and cash and forward contracts on the other. This current proposal, however, in possibly broadening the universe of options that would fit within the seventh factor, seems to depart from that rationale, and in doing so, loses that vital element of demonstrating the parties intended to be ‘‘bound’’ in some sense to exercise the option and consequently that the option was similar, in usage, to a forward contract. Without that, it is not clear to me how such an option can be considered consistent with a forward contract. If it cannot be considered at least similar to a forward contract, I am not sure how a party would determine that embedding such an option in a forward contract would not undermine its nature as a forward contract and thus fail the first factor of the seven-factor test. There is nothing in the Commodity Exchange Act or Dodd-Frank that contemplates options can be deemed forward contracts simply by being associated with a forward contract. In fact, the opposite seems true: Congress specifically determined that commodity options are swaps and removed the Commission’s ability to provide exemptions from the definition of swap. Interestingly though, Congress did maintain the Commission’s authority to determine how swaps that are commodity options should be regulated since Congress did not repeal the Commission’s plenary authority over options, including options that are swaps. It was that plenary authority that the Commission utilized to exempt trade options from most of the regulations applicable to swaps in April 2012. It is that authority that the Commission should use here to address embedded volumetric options. By seeking to broaden an exclusion for volumetric options embedded in forward contracts, the proposed interpretation does try to achieve a goal that industry apparently wants—they would like these options to be outside the Commission’s jurisdiction rather than just exempted from regulation. However, history has shown that as the circle of exclusion widens for industry, too often the circle of protection narrows for investors and consumers. In 1993, one Commissioner cast the lone dissenting vote against exempting over-thecounter energy derivatives from Commission regulation. She argued that exempting energy derivatives from regulation would set a dangerous precedent and would leave the public unprotected. Today’s proposal seems to go farther. It excludes embedded volumetric options from the Commission’s authority. Whereas with an exemption, there is the ability to later tailor it to fit the precise needs of the market and the public, there is no turning back from an exclusion. Congress said, quite clearly, that commodity options are swaps, not forwards. Embedded volumetric options should be exempted as options, not excluded as PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 forwards. I know many in industry have spoken for the need for further clarity regarding the regulation of embedded volumetric options. I don’t know what clarity is achieved by trying to call something what it is not. If it looks like an option, is used like an option, and works like an option, it is most likely, an option. I think the objective of providing for clear regulatory treatment of embedded volumetric options will be far easier to implement, and far more complete, if done through fixing the trade option exemption. Regardless, this proposal is the vehicle before the Commission at present. I want us to get this interpretation right, and therefore support getting public comment on these changes. I do not believe we should contemplate such a significant change to our jurisdiction without receiving the public’s views on it first. I invite all interested stakeholders to respond to this proposal and look forward to reviewing their comments. [FR Doc. 2014–27285 Filed 11–19–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6351–01–P; 8011–01–P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG–2014–0246] RIN 1625–AA87 Security Zone, John Joseph Moakley United States Courthouse, Boston, MA Coast Guard, DHS. Notice of proposed rulemaking. AGENCY: ACTION: The United States Coast Guard proposes to establish a permanent security zone within Sector Boston’s Captain of the Port (COTP) Zone on the waters in the vicinity of John Joseph Moakley United States Courthouse, Boston, MA. Enforcement of this permanent security zone during high profile court proceedings at the Moakley Courthouse is necessary to protect people, property, and the port of Boston from subversive acts. DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before December 22, 2014. Requests for public meetings must be received by the Coast Guard on or before December 1, 2014. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG– 2014–0246 using any one of the following methods: (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. (2) Fax: 202–493–2251. (3) Mail or Delivery: Docket Management Facility (M–30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\20NOP1.SGM 20NOP1 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590–0001. Deliveries accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. The telephone number is 202– 366–9329. See the ‘‘Public Participation and Request for Comments’’ portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for further instructions on submitting comments. To avoid duplication, please use only one of these three methods. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed rule, call or email Mr. Mark Cutter, Coast Guard Sector Boston Waterways Management Division, telephone 617– 223–4000, email Mark.E.Cutter@ uscg.mil. If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202–366–9826. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Acronyms DHS Department of Homeland Security CFR Code of Federal Regulations COTP Captain of the Port FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS A. Public Participation and Request for Comments We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted without change to http:// www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. 1. Submitting Comments If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG–2014–0246), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online at http:// www.regulations.gov, or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online via www.regulations.gov, it will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:19 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission. To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number (USCG–2014–0246) in the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click ‘‘SEARCH.’’ Click on ‘‘Submit a Comment’’ on the line associated with this rulemaking. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change the rule based on your comments. 2. Viewing Comments and Documents To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number (USCG–2014–0246) in the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click ‘‘SEARCH.’’ Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12–140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. 3. Privacy Act Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316). 4. Public Meeting We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one, using one of the methods specified under ADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register. B. Regulatory History and Information In previous years, the U.S. Coast Guard has received requests from PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 69079 federal and state law enforcement agencies to establish a temporary security zone in the vicinity of the John Joseph Moakley United States Courthouse on a case-by-case basis to facilitate the security and safety of persons and property during high profile court proceedings. The Coast Guard now proposes to create a permanent rule that will create a permanent security zone in the vicinity of the courthouse to be enforced on a case-by-case basis at the discretion of the COTP. C. Basis and Purpose The legal basis for this rule is 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Public Law 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to establish security zones. The John Joseph Moakley United States Courthouse houses the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, and the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts. Consequently, high profile events and court proceedings, such as the ongoing prosecution related to the Boston Marathon bombing, often take place at the Moakley Courthouse, resulting in a heightened security posture. With this in mind, the Captain of the Port, Sector Boston, has determined that a security zone is necessary to better protect and secure persons and property during high profile court proceedings and events. Establishing a security zone on an ad hoc basis is administratively cumbersome and reduces the opportunity for public participation in the development of the rule. Thus, to lessen administrative overhead and to maximize public participation, this rule proposes to establish a security zone near the courthouse that will remain in effect permanently but will be enforced only when deemed necessary by the COTP. This permanent security zone will be published in Title 33 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 165. D. Discussion of Rule For the reasons explained above, the COTP Boston proposes to establish a security zone encompassing all U.S. navigable waters, from surface to bottom, within five hundred (500) yards of the John Joseph Moakley United States Courthouse (Moakley Courthouse) in Boston, MA and following any natural waterside seawall E:\FR\FM\20NOP1.SGM 20NOP1 69080 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules based on these statutes or executive orders. configuration enclosed by a line connecting the following points: Latitude Longitude 42°21′15″ N 71°02′54″ W; Bounded by the curvature of the seawall, thence to 71°02′27″ W; thence to 71°02′17″ W; thence to 71°02′54″ W; Bounded by the curvature of the seawall, thence to 71°03′01″ W; thence to point of origin. 42°21′13″ N 42°21′25″ N 42°21′32″ N rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 42°21′18″ N While this proposed security zone is being enforced, no person or vessel may enter or remain in it without the permission of the COTP. However, the COTP proposes to grant standing permission to enter the security zone to any vessel that goes no faster than that speed necessary to maintain a safe course, unless otherwise required by Navigation Rules and as long as such vessels remain beyond two hundred and fifty (250) yards of the Moakley Courthouse. Under certain circumstances and depending on security needs of a given situation, the COTP may predetermine before an enforcement period begins to make these standing conditions of entry less restrictive. Regardless of the conditions of entry, any person or vessel permitted to enter the security zone must comply with the directions and orders of the COTP or the COTP’s representative while said person or vessel is within the five-hundred (500) yard zone. To obtain the permissions required by this proposed regulation, individuals may reach the COTP or the COTP’s representative via VHF channel 16 or 617–223–5757 (Sector Boston Command Center) to obtain permission. This proposed security zone will be in effect permanently but will only be enforced when deemed necessary by the COTP. Anyone, including members of federal or state law enforcement agencies, may request that this security zone be enforced. The COTP will notify the public of the enforcement of this security zone by publishing a Notice of Enforcement (NOE) in the Federal Register and via the other means listed in 33 CFR 165.7. Such notifications will include the date and times of enforcement, along with any predetermined conditions of entry. E. Regulatory Analyses We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:19 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 1. Regulatory Planning and Review This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under these Orders. The Coast Guard expects minimal adverse impact on mariners from this security zone’s enforcement for the following reasons. First, the security zone is expected to be enforced only a few weeks at a time and on only a few occasions per year. Second, the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe steerageway, within five hundred (500) yards of the Moakley Courthouse closely mirrors the City of Boston’s six (6) knots speed restrictions for Boston Inner Harbor. Third, the Coast Guard designed the security zone to have as minimal geographical application as possible and will permit traffic in the Fort Point Channel via law enforcement vessel escort. While water taxis servicing the Harbor Dock on the premises of the Moakley Courthouse may be impacted during an enforcement period, such impact should be minimal as the Harbor Dock at the courthouse will likely be shutdown during high profile events, and if not, the COTP is expected to permit vessels to enter via law enforcement vessel escort. Though the regular schedule commuter ferries that service Rowes Wharf will also have to transit through the two hundred and fifty (250) yard security zone, it is expected that the COTP will authorize them permission to transit through upon initial notification to the COTP or the designated on-scene representative. Fourth, mariners may pass through the security zone with authorization from the COTP or the designated on-scene representative. Finally, as mentioned previously, the Coast Guard will provide advance notification to the public anytime it intends to enforce the security zone. Such notification will be made in advance through an NOE published in the Federal Register and also through the local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners. 2. Impact on Small Entities The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended, PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 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. REGULATORY PLANNING AND REVIEW section, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have 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. 3. Assistance for Small Entities 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, above. 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. 4. Collection of Information This proposed rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). 5. Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on 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 determined that it does not have implications for federalism. 6. 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 E:\FR\FM\20NOP1.SGM 20NOP1 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels. 7. 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 expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble. 8. Taking of Private Property This proposed rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. 9. Civil Justice Reform This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. 10. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 11. Indian Tribal Governments This proposed 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. 12. Energy Effects This proposed rule is not a ‘‘Significant energy action’’ under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:19 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 13. Technical Standards This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. 14. 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 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action may be one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves the establishment of a security zone and thus, may be categorically excluded from further review under paragraph (34)(g) of Figure 2–1 of the Commandant Instruction. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination will be 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. 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 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. ■ 2. Add § 165.120 to read as follows: § 165.120 Security Zone; John Joseph Moakley United States Courthouse, Boston, MA. (a) Location. This security zone encompasses all U.S. navigable waters, from surface to bottom, within five hundred (500) yards of the John Joseph Moakley United States Courthouse (Moakley Courthouse) in Boston, MA, and following any natural waterside seawall configuration enclosed by a line connecting the following points from: 42°21′15″ N, 71°02′54″ W bounded by PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 69081 the curvature of the seawall; thence to 42°21′13″ N, 71°02′27″ W; thence to 42°21′25″ N, 71°02′17″ W; thence to 42°21′32″ N, 71°02′54″ W bounded by the curvature of the seawall; thence to 42°21′18″ N, 71°03′01″ W; thence to point of origin. (b) Regulations. While this security zone is being enforced, the following regulations, along with those contained in 33 CFR 165.33, apply: (1) No person or vessel may enter or remain in this security zone without the permission of the Captain of the Port (COTP), Sector Boston. However, the COTP hereby grants vessels permission to enter this security zone as long as such vessels remain beyond two hundred and fifty (250) yards of the Moakley Courthouse and as long as such vessels go no faster than that speed necessary to maintain a safe course, unless otherwise required by the Navigation Rules. Under certain circumstances and depending on security needs of a given situation, the COTP may predetermine before an enforcement period begins to make these entry conditions less restrictive. (2) Although vessels have permission to enter the security zone under the conditions mentioned in the preceding paragraph, no person or vessel may come within two hundred and fifty (250) yards of the Moakley Courthouse under any conditions unless given express permission from the COTP or the COTP’s designated representative. As mentioned in the preceding paragraph, the COTP may chose before an enforcement period begins to make this entry condition less restrictive. In other words, the COTP may predetermine that vessels allowed to conditionally enter the security zone may come closer to the courthouse than the two hundred and fifty (250) yards mentioned above. (3) Any person or vessel permitted to enter the security zone shall comply with the directions and orders of the COTP or the COTP’s representative. Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashing lights, or other means, the operator of a vessel within the zone shall proceed as directed. Any person or vessel within the security zone shall exit the zone when directed by the COTP or the COTP’s representative. (4) To obtain permissions required by this regulation, individuals may reach the COTP or the COTP’s representative via VHF channel 16 or 617–223–5757 (Sector Boston Command Center) to obtain permission. (5) Penalties. Those who violate this section are subject to the penalties set E:\FR\FM\20NOP1.SGM 20NOP1 69082 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules forth in 33 U.S.C. 1232 and 50 U.S.C. 192. (c) Effective and enforcement period. This security zone is in effect permanently but will only be enforced when deemed necessary by the COTP. Anyone, including members of federal or state law enforcement agencies, may request that this security zone be enforced. (d) Notification. The COTP will notify the public of the enforcement of this security zone by publishing a Notice of Enforcement (NOE) in the Federal Register and via the other means listed in 33 CFR 165.7. Such notifications will include the date and times of enforcement, along with any predetermined conditions of entry. (e) COTP representative. The COTP’s representative may be any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer or any Federal, state, or local law enforcement officer who has been designated by the COTP to act on the COTP’s behalf. The COTP’s representative may be on a Coast Guard vessel, a Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel, a state or local law enforcement vessel, or a location on shore. Dated: November 5, 2014. J.C. O’Connor III, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Boston. [FR Doc. 2014–27160 Filed 11–19–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110–04–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R04–OAR–2014–0444; FRL–9919–49– Region 4] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; North Carolina Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve the July 20, 2012, State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission, provided by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NC DENR), Division of Air Quality (NCDAQ) for inclusion into the North Carolina SIP. This proposal pertains to the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) infrastructure requirements for the 2008 Lead national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The CAA requires rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:19 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 that each state adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by EPA, which is commonly referred to as an ‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP. NCDAQ certified that the North Carolina SIP contains provisions that ensure the 2008 Lead NAAQS is implemented, enforced, and maintained in North Carolina (hereafter referred to as an ‘‘infrastructure SIP submission’’). With the exception of provisions pertaining to prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permitting and state boards requirements, EPA is proposing to determine that North Carolina’s infrastructure SIP submission, provided to EPA on July 20, 2012, addresses the required infrastructure elements for the 2008 Lead NAAQS. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before December 22, 2014. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– OAR–2014–0444, by one of the following methods: 1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. Email: R4–RDS@epa.gov. 3. Fax: (404) 562–9019. 4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2014– 0444,’’ Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office’s normal hours of operation. The Regional Office’s official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2014– 0444. EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov or email, ADDRESSES: PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http:// www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., 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 either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office’s official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zuri Farngalo, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. The telephone number is (404) 562–9152. Mr. Farngalo can be reached via electronic mail at farngalo.zuri@ epa.gov. E:\FR\FM\20NOP1.SGM 20NOP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 224 (Thursday, November 20, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 69078-69082]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27160]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2014-0246]
RIN 1625-AA87


Security Zone, John Joseph Moakley United States Courthouse, 
Boston, MA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The United States Coast Guard proposes to establish a 
permanent security zone within Sector Boston's Captain of the Port 
(COTP) Zone on the waters in the vicinity of John Joseph Moakley United 
States Courthouse, Boston, MA. Enforcement of this permanent security 
zone during high profile court proceedings at the Moakley Courthouse is 
necessary to protect people, property, and the port of Boston from 
subversive acts.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast 
Guard on or before December 22, 2014.
    Requests for public meetings must be received by the Coast Guard on 
or before December 1, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2014-0246 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax: 202-493-2251.
    (3) Mail or Delivery: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. 
Department of Transportation, West

[[Page 69079]]

Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Deliveries accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 
p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. The telephone 
number is 202-366-9329.
    See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion 
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for further instructions 
on submitting comments. To avoid duplication, please use only one of 
these three methods.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed 
rule, call or email Mr. Mark Cutter, Coast Guard Sector Boston 
Waterways Management Division, telephone 617-223-4000, email 
Mark.E.Cutter@uscg.mil. If you have questions on viewing the docket, 
call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-
366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting 
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted 
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any 
personal information you have provided.

1. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this 
rulemaking (USCG-2014-0246), indicate the specific section of this 
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each 
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material 
online at http://www.regulations.gov, or by fax, mail, or hand 
delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a 
comment online via www.regulations.gov, it will be considered received 
by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you 
fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered as 
having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the 
Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and 
a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body 
of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions 
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, 
type the docket number (USCG-2014-0246) in the ``SEARCH'' box and click 
``SEARCH.'' Click on ``Submit a Comment'' on the line associated with 
this rulemaking.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them 
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for 
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would 
like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, 
self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and 
material received during the comment period and may change the rule 
based on your comments.

2. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble 
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, 
type the docket number (USCG-2014-0246) in the ``SEARCH'' box and click 
``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with 
this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in 
Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation 
West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, 
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays.

3. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any 
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or 
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, 
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice 
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the 
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

4. Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a 
request for one, using one of the methods specified under ADDRESSES. 
Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be beneficial. If 
we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a 
time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

B. Regulatory History and Information

    In previous years, the U.S. Coast Guard has received requests from 
federal and state law enforcement agencies to establish a temporary 
security zone in the vicinity of the John Joseph Moakley United States 
Courthouse on a case-by-case basis to facilitate the security and 
safety of persons and property during high profile court proceedings. 
The Coast Guard now proposes to create a permanent rule that will 
create a permanent security zone in the vicinity of the courthouse to 
be enforced on a case-by-case basis at the discretion of the COTP.

C. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for this rule is 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 
701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 
160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; and Department of Homeland 
Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast 
Guard to establish security zones.
    The John Joseph Moakley United States Courthouse houses the United 
States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, the United States 
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, and the United States 
Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts. Consequently, high 
profile events and court proceedings, such as the ongoing prosecution 
related to the Boston Marathon bombing, often take place at the Moakley 
Courthouse, resulting in a heightened security posture. With this in 
mind, the Captain of the Port, Sector Boston, has determined that a 
security zone is necessary to better protect and secure persons and 
property during high profile court proceedings and events.
    Establishing a security zone on an ad hoc basis is administratively 
cumbersome and reduces the opportunity for public participation in the 
development of the rule. Thus, to lessen administrative overhead and to 
maximize public participation, this rule proposes to establish a 
security zone near the courthouse that will remain in effect 
permanently but will be enforced only when deemed necessary by the 
COTP. This permanent security zone will be published in Title 33 Code 
of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 165.

D. Discussion of Rule

    For the reasons explained above, the COTP Boston proposes to 
establish a security zone encompassing all U.S. navigable waters, from 
surface to bottom, within five hundred (500) yards of the John Joseph 
Moakley United States Courthouse (Moakley Courthouse) in Boston, MA and 
following any natural waterside seawall

[[Page 69080]]

configuration enclosed by a line connecting the following points:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Latitude                             Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
42[deg]21'15'' N....................  71[deg]02'54'' W; Bounded by the
                                       curvature of the seawall, thence
                                       to
42[deg]21'13'' N....................  71[deg]02'27'' W; thence to
42[deg]21'25'' N....................  71[deg]02'17'' W; thence to
42[deg]21'32'' N....................  71[deg]02'54'' W; Bounded by the
                                       curvature of the seawall, thence
                                       to
42[deg]21'18'' N....................  71[deg]03'01'' W; thence to point
                                       of origin.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While this proposed security zone is being enforced, no person or 
vessel may enter or remain in it without the permission of the COTP. 
However, the COTP proposes to grant standing permission to enter the 
security zone to any vessel that goes no faster than that speed 
necessary to maintain a safe course, unless otherwise required by 
Navigation Rules and as long as such vessels remain beyond two hundred 
and fifty (250) yards of the Moakley Courthouse. Under certain 
circumstances and depending on security needs of a given situation, the 
COTP may predetermine before an enforcement period begins to make these 
standing conditions of entry less restrictive.
    Regardless of the conditions of entry, any person or vessel 
permitted to enter the security zone must comply with the directions 
and orders of the COTP or the COTP's representative while said person 
or vessel is within the five-hundred (500) yard zone. To obtain the 
permissions required by this proposed regulation, individuals may reach 
the COTP or the COTP's representative via VHF channel 16 or 617-223-
5757 (Sector Boston Command Center) to obtain permission.
    This proposed security zone will be in effect permanently but will 
only be enforced when deemed necessary by the COTP. Anyone, including 
members of federal or state law enforcement agencies, may request that 
this security zone be enforced. The COTP will notify the public of the 
enforcement of this security zone by publishing a Notice of Enforcement 
(NOE) in the Federal Register and via the other means listed in 33 CFR 
165.7. Such notifications will include the date and times of 
enforcement, along with any pre-determined conditions of entry.

E. 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 or executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under 
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 
as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and 
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential 
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or 
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and 
Budget has not reviewed it under these Orders.
    The Coast Guard expects minimal adverse impact on mariners from 
this security zone's enforcement for the following reasons. First, the 
security zone is expected to be enforced only a few weeks at a time and 
on only a few occasions per year. Second, the minimum speed necessary 
to maintain a safe steerageway, within five hundred (500) yards of the 
Moakley Courthouse closely mirrors the City of Boston's six (6) knots 
speed restrictions for Boston Inner Harbor. Third, the Coast Guard 
designed the security zone to have as minimal geographical application 
as possible and will permit traffic in the Fort Point Channel via law 
enforcement vessel escort. While water taxis servicing the Harbor Dock 
on the premises of the Moakley Courthouse may be impacted during an 
enforcement period, such impact should be minimal as the Harbor Dock at 
the courthouse will likely be shutdown during high profile events, and 
if not, the COTP is expected to permit vessels to enter via law 
enforcement vessel escort. Though the regular schedule commuter ferries 
that service Rowes Wharf will also have to transit through the two 
hundred and fifty (250) yard security zone, it is expected that the 
COTP will authorize them permission to transit through upon initial 
notification to the COTP or the designated on-scene representative. 
Fourth, mariners may pass through the security zone with authorization 
from the COTP or the designated on-scene representative. Finally, as 
mentioned previously, the Coast Guard will provide advance notification 
to the public anytime it intends to enforce the security zone. Such 
notification will be made in advance through an NOE published in the 
Federal Register and also through the local Notice to Mariners and 
Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

2. 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. REGULATORY PLANNING AND REVIEW section, the Coast Guard 
certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule would not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental 
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have 
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.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    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, 
above. 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.

4. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule will not call for a new collection of 
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, 
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on 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 
determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

6. 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

[[Page 69081]]

jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.

7. 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 expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this proposed 
rule elsewhere in this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule will not cause a taking of private property or 
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, 
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected 
Property Rights.

9. Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize 
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

10. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, 
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not 
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may 
disproportionately affect children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed 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.

12. Energy Effects

    This proposed rule is not a ``Significant energy action'' under 
Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we 
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. 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 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and 
have made a preliminary determination that this action may be one of a 
category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a 
significant effect on the human environment.
    This proposed rule involves the establishment of a security zone 
and thus, may be categorically excluded from further review under 
paragraph (34)(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A 
preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting this 
determination will be 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.

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 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; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 
50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. 
L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security 
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.120 to read as follows:


Sec.  165.120  Security Zone; John Joseph Moakley United States 
Courthouse, Boston, MA.

    (a) Location. This security zone encompasses all U.S. navigable 
waters, from surface to bottom, within five hundred (500) yards of the 
John Joseph Moakley United States Courthouse (Moakley Courthouse) in 
Boston, MA, and following any natural waterside seawall configuration 
enclosed by a line connecting the following points from: 42[deg]21'15'' 
N, 71[deg]02'54'' W bounded by the curvature of the seawall; thence to 
42[deg]21'13'' N, 71[deg]02'27'' W; thence to 42[deg]21'25'' N, 
71[deg]02'17'' W; thence to 42[deg]21'32'' N, 71[deg]02'54'' W bounded 
by the curvature of the seawall; thence to 42[deg]21'18'' N, 
71[deg]03'01'' W; thence to point of origin.
    (b) Regulations. While this security zone is being enforced, the 
following regulations, along with those contained in 33 CFR 165.33, 
apply:
    (1) No person or vessel may enter or remain in this security zone 
without the permission of the Captain of the Port (COTP), Sector 
Boston. However, the COTP hereby grants vessels permission to enter 
this security zone as long as such vessels remain beyond two hundred 
and fifty (250) yards of the Moakley Courthouse and as long as such 
vessels go no faster than that speed necessary to maintain a safe 
course, unless otherwise required by the Navigation Rules. Under 
certain circumstances and depending on security needs of a given 
situation, the COTP may predetermine before an enforcement period 
begins to make these entry conditions less restrictive.
    (2) Although vessels have permission to enter the security zone 
under the conditions mentioned in the preceding paragraph, no person or 
vessel may come within two hundred and fifty (250) yards of the Moakley 
Courthouse under any conditions unless given express permission from 
the COTP or the COTP's designated representative. As mentioned in the 
preceding paragraph, the COTP may chose before an enforcement period 
begins to make this entry condition less restrictive. In other words, 
the COTP may predetermine that vessels allowed to conditionally enter 
the security zone may come closer to the courthouse than the two 
hundred and fifty (250) yards mentioned above.
    (3) Any person or vessel permitted to enter the security zone shall 
comply with the directions and orders of the COTP or the COTP's 
representative. Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel by 
siren, radio, flashing lights, or other means, the operator of a vessel 
within the zone shall proceed as directed. Any person or vessel within 
the security zone shall exit the zone when directed by the COTP or the 
COTP's representative.
    (4) To obtain permissions required by this regulation, individuals 
may reach the COTP or the COTP's representative via VHF channel 16 or 
617-223-5757 (Sector Boston Command Center) to obtain permission.
    (5) Penalties. Those who violate this section are subject to the 
penalties set

[[Page 69082]]

forth in 33 U.S.C. 1232 and 50 U.S.C. 192.
    (c) Effective and enforcement period. This security zone is in 
effect permanently but will only be enforced when deemed necessary by 
the COTP. Anyone, including members of federal or state law enforcement 
agencies, may request that this security zone be enforced.
    (d) Notification. The COTP will notify the public of the 
enforcement of this security zone by publishing a Notice of Enforcement 
(NOE) in the Federal Register and via the other means listed in 33 CFR 
165.7. Such notifications will include the date and times of 
enforcement, along with any pre-determined conditions of entry.
    (e) COTP representative. The COTP's representative may be any Coast 
Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer or any Federal, state, or 
local law enforcement officer who has been designated by the COTP to 
act on the COTP's behalf. The COTP's representative may be on a Coast 
Guard vessel, a Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel, a state or local law 
enforcement vessel, or a location on shore.

    Dated: November 5, 2014.
J.C. O'Connor III,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Boston.
[FR Doc. 2014-27160 Filed 11-19-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P