Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 70113 

TABLE 1—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES—Continued 

Facility Address Waste description 

6. Reopener: (A) If, any time after disposal of the delisted waste, John Deere possesses or is otherwise made aware of any environmental data (including but not limited to leachate data or 

groundwater monitoring data) or any other relevant data to the delisted waste indicating that any 

constituent is at a concentration in the leachate higher than the specified delisting concentration, 

then John Deere must report such data, in writing, to the Chief, Waste Remediation and Permits 

Branch, U.S. EPA Region 7, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa KS 66219 within 10 days of first 

possessing or being made aware of that data. (B) Based on the information described in paragraph (A) and any other information received from any source, the Regional Administrator, EPA 

Region 7, will make a preliminary determination as to whether the reported information requires 

Agency action to protect human health or the environment. Further action may include suspending, or revoking the exclusion, or other appropriate response necessary to protect human 

health and the environment. (C) If the Regional Administrator determines that the reported information does require Agency action, the Regional Administrator will notify John Deere in writing 

of the actions the Regional Administrator believes are necessary to protect human health and 

the environment. The notice shall include a statement of the proposed action and a statement 

providing John Deere with an opportunity to present information as to why the proposed Agency 

action is not necessary or to suggest an alternative action. John Deere shall have 30 days from 

the date of the Regional Administrator’s notice to present the information. (D) If after 30 days 

John Deere presents no further information or after a review of any submitted information, the 

Regional Administrator will issue a final written determination describing the Agency actions that 

are necessary to protect human health or the environment. Any required action described in the 

Regional Administrator’s determination shall become effective immediately, unless the Regional 

Administrator provides otherwise. 

7. Notification Requirements: John Deere must do the following before transporting the delisted 

waste: (A) Provide a one-time written notification to any state Regulatory Agency to which or 

through which it will transport the delisted waste described above for disposal, 60 days before 

beginning such activities (B) Update the one-time written notification if it ships the delisted waste 

into a different disposal facility. Failure to provide this notification will result in a violation of the 

delisting petition and a possible revocation of the decision. 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–27780 Filed 11–24–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Chapter I 

[WC Docket No. 10–90; DA 14–1569] 

Connect America Fund 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Wireline Competition Bureau adopts a 

specific methodology for calculating 

reasonable comparability benchmarks 

for fixed broadband services. The 

methodology the Commission adopts 

today establishes reasonable 

comparability broadband benchmarks 

that vary, depending on the supported 

service’s download and upload 

bandwidths and usage allowance. 

DATES: Effective December 26, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Suzanne Yelen, Telecommunications 

Access Policy Division, Wireline 

Competition Bureau at (202) 418–0626 

or TTY (202) 418–0484. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Wireline Competition 

Bureau’s Report and Order in WC 

Docket No. 10–90; DA 14–1569, released 

October 29, 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. (BCPI), 445 

12th Street SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554, telephone (800) 

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

(202) 863–2898, or via the Internet at 

http://www.bcpiweb.com. It is also 

available on the Commission’s Web site 

at https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/ 

attachmatch/DA-14-1569A1.pdf. 

I. Introduction 

1. In this Report and Order (Order), 

the Wireline Competition Bureau 

(Bureau) adopts a specific methodology 

for calculating reasonable comparability 

benchmarks for fixed broadband 

services. In the USF/ICC Transformation 

Order, 76 FR 73830, November 29, 2011, 

the Commission required that as a 

condition of receiving high-cost 

support, eligible telecommunications 

carriers (ETCs) must offer voice and 

broadband services in supported areas 

at rates that are reasonably comparable 

to rates for similar services in urban 

areas. The methodology we adopt today 

establishes reasonable comparability 

broadband benchmarks that vary, 

depending on the supported service’s 

download and upload bandwidths and 

usage allowance. This approach 

recognizes that ETCs may choose to 

meet their broadband performance 

obligation with a service offering that 

exceeds the minimum requirements in 

one or more respects. The approach also 

is sufficiently flexible to account for any 

changes that the Commission may adopt 

regarding the required minimum 

performance characteristics. 

2. The Bureau notes that because they 

are announcing the methodology late in 

the calendar year, the results for 2014 

are illustrative and to inform parties that 

are potentially interested in bidding on 

Connect America funding for rural 

broadband experiments in the weeks 

ahead. The Bureau also will take into 

account the benchmarks published 

below when adjudicating Connect 

America Phase II challenges. The 

Bureau plans to announce the 2015 

reasonable comparability benchmarks 

for fixed broadband services when the 

Bureau completes our analysis of the 


wreier-aviles on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
70114 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

data collected in the annual urban rate 

survey. The Bureau also waives on our 

own motion implementation of the 

reasonable comparability benchmarks 

for Alaska carriers for 2015 to allow 

further time to determine whether an 

alternative methodology should be 

adopted for Alaska. 

II. Discussion 

3. The Bureau now adopts a 

methodology that will be used annually 

to develop reasonable comparability 

benchmarks for fixed broadband 

services offered to residential and small 

business customers, using the data from 

the annual urban rate survey. The 

Bureau adopts its proposal to use a 

weighted linear regression to estimate 

the mean rate for a specific set of service 

characteristics and then to add two 

standard deviations to this mean to 

determine the benchmark for services 

meeting those defined service 

characteristics. Because broadband 

service has multiple characteristics (i.e., 

download and upload bandwidth, usage 

allowance) that may affect its price, a 

regression is the most straightforward 

approach to developing an average 

urban rate that appropriately takes into 

account those varying service 

characteristics. The Bureau will 

annually develop an average urban rate 

through a regression approach, using 

data collected from the annual survey, 

and then determine reasonable 

comparability benchmarks that are two 

standard deviations above the average. 

4. The Bureau adopts the Rural 

Associations’ proposal to develop a 

single regression using a broader sample 

of observations, ranging in download 

speeds from 2 to 40 Mbps. Given that 

these benchmarks will be applicable to 

winning bidders in the rural broadband 

experiments, and those ETCs will be 

offering fixed broadband service to 

residential and small business locations 

significantly faster than the current 4/1 

Mbps minimum, the Bureau concludes 

that it makes sense to include higher 

speed observations in the calculation. In 

addition, the Bureau calculates separate 

standard deviations for service offerings 

in the vicinity of 4/1 Mbps using 

observations where the download speed 

ranged from 2 up to 8 Mbps, and for 

services that exceed 8 Mbps 

downstream using observations with 

download speeds from 8 to 25 Mbps. 

The Bureau did so because they found 

that the standard deviation of rate 

differences from the average of services 

in the 8 to 25 Mbps range was higher 

than the standard deviation for services 

in the lower speed tier. The Bureau 

concludes that calculating two different 

standard deviations for the lower speed 

service and the higher speed service 

effectively addresses the Rural 

Associations’ concern that these 

services are differentiated products. The 

Bureau incorporates this approach into 

the benchmark equations provided 

below. 

5. In any given year, providers will 

need to determine the appropriate 

reasonable comparability benchmark 

based on the characteristics of the 

specific service offered to residential 

and small business customers that they 

are relying upon to meet their 

broadband performance obligations. To 

determine the applicable benchmark for 

a given service using the 2014 data, 

where a service is defined by its 

download, upload, and usage 

allowance, a provider would use 

equations developed based on the 

weighted regression methodology. For 

2014, the equations are as follows: 

For services with download speeds 

greater than or equal to 4 Mbps and less 

than or equal to 8 Mbps, the equation 

is 

Benchmark = 69.5015 + 

0.839703*DOWNLOAD + 

1.44127*UPLOAD¥ 1710.68*K 

For services with download speeds 

greater than 8 Mbps but less than or 

equal to 25 Mbps, the equation is 

Benchmark = 75.6095 + 

0.839703*DOWNLOAD + 

1.44127*UPLOAD¥ 1710.68*K 

6. In each equation, the variables 

DOWNLOAD and UPLOAD must be 

entered in units of Mbps. The variable 

K equals zero (0) if the service has an 

‘‘Unlimited’’ monthly usage allowance, 

and the variable K equals (1/USAGE 

ALLOWANCE) if the usage allowance is 

not unlimited. The variable USAGE 

ALLOWANCE must be entered in the 

units of GB per month. Calculated 

benchmarks should be rounded up to 

the nearest cent. Examples of 

benchmark calculations for 2014 are 

provided below. 

Upload 

speed/ 

download 

speed 

Usage 

allowance 

Reasonable 

comparability 

benchmark 

4/1 Mbps ..... 100 GB ...... $57.20 

4/1 Mbps ..... Unlimited ... 74.31 

10/1 Mbps ... 100 GB ...... 68.35 

10/1 Mbps ... 250 GB ...... 78.61 

10/1 Mbps ... Unlimited ... 85.45 

25/5 Mbps ... 250 GB ...... 96.97 

25/5 Mbps ... Unlimited ... 103.81 

7. To facilitate these calculations, the 

Bureau will post an Excel file and 

online tool in which providers can plug 

in the relevant variables to determine 

the benchmark for specific service 

characteristics at http://www.fcc.gov/

encyclopedia/urban-rate-survey-data. 

8. Temporary Waiver of Benchmarks 

for Alaska. On our own motion, the 

Bureau waives implementation of the 

reasonable comparability benchmarks 

for Alaska carriers for 2015 to allow 

further time to study this issue and 

determine whether an alternative 

methodology should be adopted for 

Alaska. The Bureau notes that the 

Commission has already relaxed the 

broadband public interest standards for 

carriers providing fixed broadband that 

rely upon satellite backhaul and has 

held that capacity requirements that 

generally apply will not apply to this 

subset of providers. The Bureau will 

consider in a future Public Notice 

whether and how to tailor our 

methodology to the unique 

circumstances of Alaska. 

9. Effect on the Connect America 

Phase II Challenge Process. In the Phase 

II Service Obligations Order, 78 FR 

70881, November 27, 2013, the Bureau 

adopted an interim presumption for 

rates to use in the Phase II challenge 

process, pending the publication of 

these reasonable comparability 

benchmarks. For situations where the 

potential competitor does not offer fixed 

wireline service in urban areas or does 

not serve an area where the incumbent 

itself offers broadband, the Bureau 

adopted interim benchmarks of $37 for 

voice service and $60 for broadband 

service to determine whether that 

competitor was offering reasonably 

comparable rates. The Bureau 

recognizes that challengers may have 

relied on the $60 interim figure in 

preparing their challenges, but note that 

parties replying to those challenges are 

free to present evidence that takes into 

account these announced benchmarks. 

For example, a price cap carrier may 

have been able to make a prima facie 

challenge that a potential competitor’s 

price is over $60, but that competitor 

may now respond that its particular 

speed/usage combination is in fact 

reasonably comparable because it meets 

a benchmark the Bureau adopts. The 

Bureau will consider the totality of the 

evidence in adjudicating these Phase II 

challenges. 

III. Procedural Matters 

1. Paperwork Reduction Analysis 

10. The Report and Order does not 

contain information collection 

requirements required by the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104– 

13. 


wreier-aviles on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 70115 

2. Congressional Review Act 

11. The Commission will not submit 

this Report and Order pursuant to the 

Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 

801(a)(1)(A) because the Commission 

has not yet defined the specific 

requirements associated with the 

standard adopted in this Report and 

Order. The Commission anticipates that 

when it does adopt the specific 

requirements applying the standard in 

this Report and Order, it will make all 

submissions required by the 

Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 

801(a)(1)(A). 

IV. Ordering Clause 

12. Accordingly, it is ordered that, 

pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 5(c), 201(b), 

214, and 254 of the Communications 

Act of 1934, as amended, and section 

706 of the Telecommunications Act of 

1996, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 155(c), 

201(b), 214, 254, 1302, sections 0.91 and 

0.291 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 

0.91, 0.291, and the delegations of 

authority in paragraph 113 of the USF/ 

ICC Transformation Order, FCC 11–161, 

this Report and Order is adopted, 

effective thirty (30) days after 

publication of the text or summary 

thereof in the Federal Register. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Alexander A. Minard, 

Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Access 

Policy Division Wireline Competition Bureau. 

[FR Doc. 2014–27883 Filed 11–24–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 541 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2014–0082] 

Final Theft Data; Motor Vehicle Theft 

Prevention Standard 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation. 

ACTION: Publication of 2012 final theft 

data. 

SUMMARY: This document publishes the 

final data on thefts of model year (MY) 

2012 passenger motor vehicles that 

occurred in calendar year (CY) 2012. 

The final 2012 theft data indicated an 

increase in the vehicle theft rate 

experienced in CY/MY 2012. The final 

theft rate for MY 2012 passenger 

vehicles stolen in calendar year 2012 is 

1.1294 thefts per thousand vehicles, an 

increase of 14.21 percent from the rate 

of 0.9889 thefts per thousand in 2011. 

Publication of these data fulfills 

NHTSA’s statutory obligation to 

periodically obtain accurate and timely 

theft data and publish the information 

for review and comment. 

DATES: Effective date: November 25, 

2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Deborah Mazyck, Office of International 

Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer 

Programs, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. 

Mazyck’s telephone number is (202) 

366–4139. Her fax number is (202) 493– 

2990. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NHTSA 

administers a program for reducing 

motor vehicle theft. The central feature 

of this program is the Federal Motor 

Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, 49 

CFR Part 541. The standard specifies 

performance requirements for inscribing 

and affixing vehicle identification 

numbers (VINs) onto certain major 

original equipment and replacement 

parts of high-theft lines of passenger 

motor vehicles. 

The agency is required by 49 U.S.C. 

33104(b)(4) to periodically obtain, from 

the most reliable source, accurate and 

timely theft data and publish the data 

for review and comment. To fulfill this 

statutory mandate, NHTSA has 

published theft data annually beginning 

with MYs 1983/84. Continuing to fulfill 

the section 33104(b)(4) mandate, this 

document reports the final theft data for 

CY 2012, the most recent calendar year 

for which data are available. 

In calculating the 2012 theft rates, 

NHTSA followed the same procedures it 

used in calculating the MY 2011 theft 

rates. (For 2011 theft data calculations, 

see 79 FR 7090.) As in all previous 

reports, NHTSA’s data were based on 

information provided to NHTSA by the 

National Crime Information Center 

(NCIC) of the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation. The NCIC is a government 

system that receives vehicle theft 

information from nearly 23,000 criminal 

justice agencies and other law 

enforcement authorities throughout the 

United States. The NCIC data also 

include reported thefts of self-insured 

and uninsured vehicles, not all of which 

are reported to other data sources. 

The 2012 theft rate for each vehicle 

line was calculated by dividing the 

number of reported thefts of MY 2012 

vehicles of that line stolen during 

calendar year 2012 by the total number 

of vehicles in that line manufactured for 

MY 2012, as reported to the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA). 

The final 2012 theft data show a slight 

increase in the vehicle theft rate when 

compared to the theft rate experienced 

in CY/MY 2011. The final theft rate for 

MY 2012 passenger vehicles stolen in 

calendar year 2012 increased to 1.1294 

thefts per thousand vehicles produced, 

an increase of 14.21 percent from the 

rate of 0.9889 thefts per thousand 

vehicles experienced by MY 2011 

vehicles in CY 2011. A similar 

increasing trend in vehicle thefts was 

reported in the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation’s (FBI) 2012 Uniform 

Crime Report showing a 0.6% increase 

in motor vehicle thefts (automobiles, 

trucks, buses and other vehicles) from 

2011 to 2012. Historically, the data has 

shown an overall decreasing trend in 

theft rates since CY 1993, with periods 

of increase from one year to the next. 

The agency welcomed public comment 

on the cause for the slight increase, but 

none were received. 

For MY 2012 vehicles, out of a total 

of 211 vehicle lines, nine lines had a 

theft rate higher than 3.5826 per 

thousand vehicles, the established 

median theft rate for MYs 1990/1991. 

(See 59 FR 12400, March 16, 1994). Of 

the nine vehicle lines with a theft rate 

higher than 3.5826, eight are passenger 

car lines, one is a multipurpose 

passenger vehicle line, and none are 

light-duty truck lines. 


wreier-aviles on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES