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. 

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 

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 

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 

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 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules 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 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 

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 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
69080 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

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 

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. 

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 

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 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules 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 

■ 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 

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 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: 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 

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. 

ADDRESSES: 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, 

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. 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS