69090 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

because these aspects of the submission 

are consistent with section 110 of the 

CAA. EPA will address those portions of 

North Carolina’s infrastructure SIP 

submission not acted upon through this 

notice in a separate action. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable federal regulations. 

See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely approves state law as 

meeting federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the North Carolina SIP is 

not approved to apply on any Indian 

reservation land or in any other area 

where EPA or an Indian tribe has 

demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rule does not have tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), nor will it impose substantial 

direct costs on tribal governments or 

preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Lead, and Recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: November 7, 2014. 

V. Anne Heard, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2014–27504 Filed 11–19–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2013–0772; FRL–9919–09– 

Region 4] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; North Carolina; 

Inspection and Maintenance Program 

Updates 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revisions submitted by the State of 

North Carolina, through the North 

Carolina Department of Environment 

and Natural Resources on January 31, 

2008, May 24, 2010, October 11, 2013, 

and February 11, 2014, pertaining to 

rules for changes for the North Carolina 

Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) 

program. Specifically, these SIP 

revisions update the North Carolina I/M 

program as well as repeal one rule from 

the federally-approved SIP. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before December 22, 

2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2013–0772, 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–2013– 

0772,’’ 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–2013– 

0772. 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 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules 69091 

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: 

Nacosta Ward, 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) 562–9140. 

Ms. Ward can be reached via electronic 

mail at ward.nacosta@epa.gov. For 

information regarding the I/M program, 

contact Ms. Amanetta Somerville, Air 

Quality Modeling and Transportation 

Section, at the same address above. 

Telephone number: (404) 562–9025; 

email address: somerville.amanetta@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For 

additional information see the 

associated direct final rule which is 

published in the Rules Section of this 

Federal Register. A detailed rationale 

for the approval is set forth in the direct 

final rule. If no relevant adverse 

comments are received in response to 

this rule by December 22, 2014, no 

further activity is contemplated. If EPA 

receives relevant adverse comments by 

December 22, 2014, the direct final rule 

will be withdrawn and all relevant 

adverse comments received during the 

public comment period will be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period 

on this action. Any parties interested in 

commenting on this document must do 

so by December 22, 2014. 

Dated: October 23, 2014. 

V. Anne Heard, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2014–27027 Filed 11–19–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 54 

[WC Docket No. 10–90; DA 14–1499] 

Proposed Methodology for Connect 

America High-Cost Universal Service 

Support Recipients To Measure and 

Report Speed and Latency 

Performance to Fixed Locations 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Wireline Competition Bureau, the 

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 

and the Office of Engineering and 

Technology seek to further develop the 

record on how compliance with speed 

obligations should be determined for 

recipients of high-cost support that 

deploy broadband networks to serve 

fixed locations. 

DATES: Comments due December 22, 

2014. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may file 

comments on or before December 22, 

2014. All pleadings are to reference WC 

Docket No. 10–90. Comments may be 

filed using the Commission’s Electronic 

Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by 

filing paper copies, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the Internet by 

accessing the ECFS: http://

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. 

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

one copy of each filing. 

• People with Disabilities: To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (Braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice), (202) 

418–0432 (tty). 

For detailed instructions for submitting 

comments and additional information 

on the rulemaking process, see the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alexander Minard, Wireline 

Competition Bureau at (202) 418–7400 

or TTY (202) 418–0484. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Wireline Competition 

Bureau’s Public Notice (Notice) in WC 

Docket No. 10–90; DA 14–1499, released 

October 16, 2014. The complete text of 

this document is available for 

inspection and copying during normal 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th 

Street SW., Room CY–A257, 

Washington, DC 20554. The document 

may also be purchased from the 

Commission’s duplicating contractor, 

Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th 

Street SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554, telephone (800) 

378–3160 or (202) 863–2893, facsimile 

(202) 863–2898, or via Internet at 

http://www.bcpiweb.com. 

I. Introduction 

1. In this document, the Wireline 

Competition Bureau, the Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau, and the 

Office of Engineering and Technology 

(together, the Bureaus) seek to further 

develop the record on how compliance 

with speed (also referred to as 

bandwidth) obligations should be 

determined for recipients of high-cost 

support that deploy broadband 

networks to serve fixed locations. In 

addition, the Bureaus seek comment on 

whether the same testing methodologies 

adopted for price cap carriers accepting 

model-based Phase II support should be 

applied to other recipients of support to 

serve fixed locations, such as rate-ofreturn providers and those that are 

awarded Connect America support 

through a competitive bidding process. 

Finally, the Bureaus seek comment on 

the circumstances that would trigger an 

audit of the speed and latency metrics. 

II. Measuring Compliance With Service 

Obligations 

A. Speed Performance Measurement 

2. The record received in response to 

the 2011 USF/ICC Transformation Order 

and Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, 76 FR 73830, November 

29, 2011 and 76 FR 78384, December 16, 

2011, on the methodology to be 

implemented for testing compliance 

with service obligations was not well 

developed. The Bureaus now seek to 

refresh the record on the methodology 

to be used for demonstrating 

compliance with the speed obligation 

for ETCs that receive high cost support 

to deploy broadband networks to fixed 

locations. Should internal network 

management system (NMS) tools be 

used to measure speed performance? 

Alternatively, should external 

measurement tools such as Speedtest/

Ookla or Network Diagnostic Tests 

(NDT) by M-Labs? Are there better and 

more reliable methods of measuring 

speed? 

3. Internal NMS tools vary among 

providers. How can the Commission 

ensure that internal NMS tool 

measurements are valid? Will such tools 

account for multiple transmission 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS