45702 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 228 

[EPA–R06–OW–2014–0234; FRL–9914–59– 

Region 6] 

Ocean Dumping: Cancellation and 

Modification of Final Site Designations 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) today cancels the final 

designation of two Ocean Dredged 

Material Disposal Sites (ODMDSs) 

located in the Gulf of Mexico near the 

Houma Navigational Canal (HNC) and 

near the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet 

(MRGO) Canal, Louisiana. Both sites are 

EPA-approved ocean dumping sites for 

the disposal of suitable dredged 

material. This final action is being taken 

because there is no clear future need for 

the sites. Additionally, EPA is 

modifying the period of use, use 

restriction, and name of the Homeport 

Project ODMDS located in the Gulf of 

Mexico offshore of Port Aransas, Texas. 

DATES: This Final Rule is effective on 

September 5, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA established a 

docket for this action under Docket No. 

EPA–R06–OW–2014–0234. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Publicly available docket materials 

are available electronically through 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jessica Franks, Ph.D., Marine and 

Coastal Section (6WQ–EC), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, 

Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, telephone 

(214) 665–8335, fax number (214) 665– 

6689; email address franks.jessica@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Potentially Affected Persons 

II. Background 

III. Final Action 

IV. Responses to Comments 

V. Administrative Review 

1. Executive Order 12886 

2. Paperwork Reduction Act 

3. Regulatory Flexibility Act, as Amended 

by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

5. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

6. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

7. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

8. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use Compliance With 

Administrative Procedure Act 

9. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

10. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low Income 

Populations 

I. Potentially Affected Persons 

Persons potentially affected by this 

action include those who seek or might 

seek permits or approval by EPA to 

dispose of dredged material into ocean 

waters pursuant to the Marine 

Protection Research and Sanctuaries 

Act, 33 U.S.C. 1401 et seq. The Final 

Rule would be relevant to persons, 

including organizations and government 

bodies seeking to dispose of dredged 

material in ocean waters offshore of 

Terrebonne, Louisiana, the Mississippi 

River Gulf Outlet Canal, Louisiana, and 

Corpus Christi, Texas. Currently, the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) 

and other persons with permits to use 

designated sites offshore Terrebonne, 

Louisiana, the Mississippi River Gulf 

Outlet Canal, Louisiana, and Corpus 

Christi, Texas would be most impacted 

by this final action. Potentially affected 

categories and persons include: 

Category Examples of potentially regulated persons 

Federal government ................................... USACE Civil Works and O & M projects; other Federal agencies, including the Department of Defense. 

Industry and general public ....................... Port authorities, marinas and harbors, shipyards and marine repair facilities, berth owners. 

State, local and tribal governments ........... Governments owning and/or responsible for ports, harbors, and/or berths, Government agencies requiring disposal of dredged material associated with public works projects. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding persons likely to 

be affected by this action. For any 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular entity, please 

refer to the contact person listed in the 

preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. 

II. Background 

Section 102(c) of the Marine 

Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries 

Act (MPRSA) of 1972, as amended, 33 

U.S.C. 1401 et seq., gives the 

Administrator of EPA the authority to 

designate sites where ocean disposal 

may be permitted. On October 1, 1986, 

the Administrator delegated the 

authority to designate ocean disposal 

sites to the Regional Administrator of 

the Region in which the sites are 

located. These cancellations and 

modification are being made pursuant to 

that authority. 

The EPA Ocean Dumping Regulations 

promulgated under MPRSA (40 CFR 

Chapter I, Subchapter H, § 228.11) state 

that modifications in disposal site use 

which involve withdrawal of disposal 

sites from use or permanent changes in 

the total specified quantities or types of 

wastes permitted to be discharged to a 

specific disposal site will be made by 

promulgation in this part 228. These site 

cancellations and modification of types 

of wastes permitted to be discharged to 

a specific disposal site are being 

published as final rulemaking in 

accordance with § 228.11(a) of the 

Ocean Dumping Regulations, which 

permits the withdrawal of designated 

disposal sites from use or changes in the 

total specified quantities or types of 

wastes permitted to be discharged to a 

specific disposal site based upon 

changed circumstances concerning use 

of the site. 

III. Final Action 

The final cancellation of the 

designations of these sites is needed as 

a housekeeping measure. In essence, 

these ODMDSs either are no longer a 

suitable disposal option or have no 

foreseeable need. The Houma ODMDS is 

now partially occupied by the Houma 

Navigational Canal. The U. S. Corps of 

Engineers has re-aligned the Cat Island 

Pass portion of the HNC several times 

since the construction of this federal 

navigation channel in order to retain a 

channel segment that requires little 

maintenance dredging due to the natural 

hydrodynamics in the vicinity. This 

particular portion of the HNC Cat Island 

Pass channel is characterized by an area 

of deeper water (erosional zone) that is 

moving westwards. Once this deeper 

water erosional zone has moved far 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 45703 

enough west from the Corps’ channel 

alignment that area of the channel 

begins to shoal (becomes a depositional 

zone). To avoid increased maintenance 

dredging costs, the Corps re-aligns this 

portion of the channel westwards to 

‘‘keep up’’ with the deeper water zone 

as it continues to migrate westwards. 

The Houma ODMDS is located on the 

west side of this channel, and the 

deeper water zone has migrated into the 

ODMDS boundaries. The Houma 

ODMDS has not been used for more 

than twenty (20) years. Instead, dredged 

material from the HNC has been used 

beneficially under section 404 of the 

Clean Water Act on the two (2) single 

point discharge (SPD) sites located 

within the ODMDS. It is the Corps 

intention to continue this practice. As 

such, this type of placement is excluded 

by definition from regulation by 

MPRSA. De-designation of the Houma 

ODMDS will allow the Corps to expand 

the beneficial use of dredged material 

for the creation of durable islands for 

seasonal bird nesting areas regulated 

under section 404 of the Clean Water 

Act. 

The Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet 

(MRGO) ODMDS is no longer needed. 

On June 5, 2008 the Assistant Secretary 

of the Army for Civil Works forwarded 

the Final MRGO Deep-Draft Deauthorization Report to Congress 

officially de-authorizing the MRGO from 

the Gulf Intercoastal Water Way (GIWW) 

to the Gulf of Mexico as a federal 

navigation project. The report also 

authorized the construction of a rock 

closure structure across MRGO which 

was completed in late July 2009. 

The modification of the period of use 

and use restriction on the Homeport 

Project ODMDS is needed to change the 

use of the site to include suitable 

dredged material from the greater 

Corpus Christi, Texas vicinity over an 

indefinite period of time. The Homeport 

Project ODMDS was designated to 

provide a disposal area for placement of 

suitable construction dredge material 

from the U.S. Navy’s Homeport Project 

at Corpus Christi/Ingleside, Texas. The 

Homeport Project never materialized 

and therefore, the ODMDS was never 

used. Use of the ODMDS was limited to 

suitable dredged material from the 

Homeport Project over a 50 year period. 

There is a need for placement of 

construction dredged material from the 

Corpus Christi Channel Channel 

Improvement Project (CIP) as described 

in the Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (FEIS) for the Corpus Christi 

Ship Channel Channel Improvements 

Project Corpus Christi and Nueces Bays 

Nueces and San Patricio Counties, 

Texas published in April 2003. Based 

on the FEIS, suitable dredged material 

will be placed beneficially in the 

location of the Homeport Project 

ODMDS under section 404 of the Clean 

Water Act (CWA). CWA section 404 has 

jurisdiction in the Territorial Sea or 

coastal waters from the baseline to three 

(3) nautical miles seaward. Because the 

Homeport Project ODMDS is located 

beyond the boundary of the Territorial 

Sea and in the open ocean, the CWA 

section 404 does not have jurisdiction. 

As a result there is a need to change the 

use restriction placed on the Homeport 

Project ODMDS to include suitable 

dredged material from the greater 

Corpus Christi, Texas vicinity. Since 

dredged material placement at this 

ODMDS is expected to be an on-going 

process over many years, the period of 

use is being changed to continuing use. 

EPA is also changing the name of the 

Homeport Project ODMDS to Corpus 

Christi New Work ODMDS. The current 

name is no longer applicable since it 

was the name of the project at the time 

the ODMDS was designated. 

IV. Responses to Comments 

The proposed rule was published in 

the Federal Register on April 21, 2014, 

as docket number EPA–R06–OW–2014– 

0234. The comment period closed on 

June 5, 2014. The EPA received two 

comments on the proposed rule from 

two entities. These comments are 

responded to here. 

1. Request for Geographic Coordinates 

NOAA asked for the geographic 

coordinates for the two ODMDS being 

cancelled. The Houma Navigation 

Channel ODMDS is bounded by the 

following coordinates (North American 

Datum from 1927): 29°05′22.3′′ N., 

90°34′43′′ W.; 29°02′17.8′′ N., 

90°34′28.4′′ W.; 29°02′12.6′′ N., 

90°35′27.8′′ W.; 29°05′30.8′′ N., 

90°35′27.8′′ W. 

The Mississippi River Gulf Outlet 

ODMDS is bounded by the following 

coordinates (North American Datum 

from 1927): 29°32′35′′ N., 89°12′38′′ W.; 

29°29′21′′ N., 89°08′00′′ W.; 29°24′51′′ 

N., 88°59′23′′ W.; 29°24′28′′ N., 

88°59′39′′ W.; 29°28′59′′ N., 89°08′19′′ 

W.; 29°32′15′′ N., 89°12′57′′ W. 

2. Comment Regarding NHPA Section 

106 Consultation 

The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma 

requested to be a consulting party under 

Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act for the portion of the 

project in Louisiana under Section 106. 

The cancellation of the Houma 

ODMDS and Mississippi River Gulf 

Outlet ODMDS do not have the 

potential to effect historic resources 

listed on or eligible for listing on the 

National Register. Cancelation of these 

sites by this Notice does not authorize 

any action or ground disturbance 

activities which would have the 

potential to effect resources. Therefore, 

Section 106 review is not necessary for 

this action. 

V. Administrative Review 

1. Executive Order 12866 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993) EPA must 

determine whether the regulatory action 

is ‘significant,’’ and therefore subject to 

office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) review and other requirements of 

the Executive Order. The Order defines 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as one 

that is likely to lead to a rule that may: 

(a) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more, or 

adversely affect in a material way, the 

economy, a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local or Tribal governments or 

communities; 

(b) Create a serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(c) Materially alter the budgetary 

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, 

or loan programs, or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof: Or 

(d) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the Executive Order. 

This final rule should have minimal 

impact on State, local, or Tribal 

governments or communities. 

Consequently, EPA has determined that 

this final rule is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order 12866. 

2. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq., is intended to 

minimize the reporting and 

recordkeeping burden on the regulated 

community, as well as to minimize the 

cost of Federal information collection 

and dissemination. In general, the Act 

requires that information requests and 

record-keeping requirements affecting 

ten or more non-Federal respondents be 

approved by OMB. Since the final rule 

would not establish or modify any 

information or recordkeeping 

requirements, but only clarifies existing 

requirements, it is not subject to the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
45704 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

3. Regulatory Flexibility Act, as 

Amended by the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

This final rule will not impose any 

requirements on small entities. The 

modification of the Homeport Project 

ODMDS broadens the use of the site 

providing an additional option for 

dredged material placement in the 

Corpus Christi, Texas vicinity. The 

removal of the Houma ODMDS will 

allow for the beneficial use of dredged 

material under CWA Section 404 for the 

creation of bird islands. The closing of 

the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet 

Navigation Channel was mandated by 

Congress and therefore the associated 

ODMDS is no longer needed. 

For these reasons, the Regional 

Administrator certifies, pursuant to 

section 605(b) of the RFA, that the final 

rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This final rule contains no Federal 

mandates under the provisions of Title 

II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (UMRA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–4) for State, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector that 

may result in estimated costs of $100 

million or more in any year. It imposes 

no new enforceable duty on any State, 

local or tribal governments or the 

private sector nor does it contain any 

regulatory requirements that might 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

government entities. Thus, the 

requirements of section 203 of the 

UMRA do not apply to this final rule. 

5. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), requires EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications. ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ are defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ 

This final rule does not have 

federalism implications. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. 

6. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

Tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have Tribal 

implications.’’ This final rule does not 

have Tribal implications, as defined in 

Executive Order 13175. 

7. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

This Executive Order (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: 

(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant’’ as defined under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

EPA has reason to believe may have a 

disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

EPA must evaluate the environmental 

health or safety effects of the planned 

rule on children, and explain why the 

planned regulation is preferable to other 

potentially effective and reasonably 

feasible alternatives considered by EPA. 

This final rule is not subject to the 

Executive Order because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, and because 

EPA does not have reason to believe the 

environmental health or safety risks 

addressed by this action present a 

disproportionate risk to children. 

8. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use Compliance With 

Administrative Procedure Act 

This final rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May 

22, 2001)) because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

9. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. This final rule does not 

involve technical standards. Therefore, 

EPA is not considering the use of any 

voluntary consensus standards. 

10. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and Low 

Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629) 

directs Federal agencies to determine 

whether the Final Rule would have a 

disproportionate adverse impact on 

minority or low-income population 

groups within the project area. The 

Final Rule would not significantly affect 

any low-income or minority population. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 228 

Environmental protection, Water 

pollution control. 

Dated: July 18, 2014. 

Samuel Coleman, 

Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

In consideration of the foregoing, EPA 

amends part 228, chapter I of title 40 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations as 

follows: 

PART 228—CRITERIA FOR THE 

MANAGEMENT OF DISPOSAL SITES 

FOR OCEAN DUMPING 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 228 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1412 and 1418. 

■ 2. Section 228.15 is amended by: 

■ a. Removing and reserving paragraphs 

(j)(1) and (j)(4); 

■ b. Revising paragraph (j)(16) 

introductory text; and 

■ c. Revising paragraphs (j)(16)(v) and 

(j)(16)(vi). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 228.15 Dumping sites designated on a 

final basis. 

* * * * * 

(j) * * * 

(16) Corpus Christi New Work 

ODMDS, Corpus Christi, Texas. 

* * * * * 

(v) Period of Use: Continuing use. 

(vi) Restrictions: Disposal shall be 

limited to suitable dredged material 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 45705 

from the greater Corpus Christi, Texas 

vicinity. Disposal shall comply with 

conditions set forth in the most recent 

approved Site Management and 

Monitoring Plan. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–18619 Filed 8–5–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 54 

[WC Docket Nos. 10–90, 14–58; FCC 14– 

98] 

Connect America Fund, ETC Annual 

Reports and Certifications 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) finalizes decisions to use 

on a limited scale Connect America 

funding for rural broadband 

experiments in price cap areas that will 

deploy new, robust broadband to 

consumers. The Commission will use 

these rural broadband experiments to 

explore how to structure the Phase II 

competitive bidding process in price 

cap areas and to gather valuable 

information about interest in deploying 

next generation networks in high-cost 

areas. 

DATES: Effective September 5, 2014, 

except for the application process and 

reporting requirements that contain new 

or modified information collection 

requirements that will not be effective 

until approved by the Office of 

Management and Budget. The 

Commission will publish a document in 

the Federal Register announcing OMB 

approval. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alexander Minard, Wireline 

Competition Bureau, (202) 418–7400 or 

TTY: (202) 418–0484. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Report 

and Order in WC Docket Nos. 10–90, 

14–58; FCC 14–98, adopted on July 11, 

2014 and released on July 14, 2014. The 

full text of this document, including all 

appendices, is available for public 

inspection during regular business 

hours in the FCC Reference Center, 

Room CY–A257, 445 12th Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. Or at the 

following Internet address: http://

transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_

Business/2014/db0714/FCC-14- 

98A1.pdf. The Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) that 

was adopted concurrently with the 

Report and Order will be published 

elsewhere in the Federal Register. 

I. Introduction 

1. Today the Commission takes 

further steps to implement the Connect 

America Fund to advance the 

deployment of voice and broadbandcapable networks in rural, high-cost 

areas, including extremely high-cost 

areas, while ensuring that rural 

Americans benefit from the historic 

technology transitions that are 

transforming our nation’s 

communications services. The 

Commission finalizes decisions to use 

on a limited scale Connect America 

funding for rural broadband 

experiments in price cap areas that will 

deploy new, robust broadband to 

consumers. The Report and Order 

(Order) establishes a budget for these 

experiments and an objective, clear cut 

methodology for selecting winning 

applications, building on the record 

from the Tech Transitions FNPRM, 79 

FR 11366, February 28, 2014. The 

Commission describes the application 

process and announces that formal 

applications must be submitted by 90 

days from release of the Order. The 

Commission will use these rural 

broadband experiments to explore how 

to structure the Phase II competitive 

bidding process in price cap areas and 

to gather valuable information about 

interest in deploying next generation 

networks in high-cost areas. 

II. Discussion 

2. The Commission explained in the 

Tech Transitions Order, 79 FR 11327, 

February 28, 2014, that it must ‘‘ensure 

that all Americans benefit from the 

technology transitions, and that it gains 

data on the impact of technology 

transitions in rural areas, including 

Tribal lands, where residential 

consumers, small businesses and anchor 

institutions, including schools, libraries 

and health care providers, may not have 

access to advanced broadband services.’’ 

In the Order, the Commission adopts 

certain parameters and requirements for 

the rural broadband experiments that 

will assist us with accomplishing these 

goals. The Commission expects these 

experiments to provide critical 

information regarding which and what 

types of parties are willing to build 

networks that will deliver services that 

exceed our current performance 

standards for an amount of money equal 

to or less than the support amounts 

calculated by the adopted Phase II 

Connect America Cost Model. In 

addition to gathering information 

relevant to broader questions implicated 

by technology transitions, the 

Commission expects these experiments 

also will inform key decisions that the 

Commission will be making in the 

coming months regarding the Connect 

America Fund. The experiments will 

not delay implementation of Connect 

America Phase II or further reforms for 

rate-of-return carriers. The Commission 

still expects to implement the offer of 

model-based support to price cap 

carriers in the coming months, and it 

will resolve how the Connect America 

Fund will address the challenges of 

providing service to the most remote, 

difficult to serve areas of the country. In 

addition, in the coming months, the 

Commission expects to be considering 

near-term reforms for rate-of-return 

carriers, based on the record it will 

shortly receive in response to the recent 

Connect America Fund FNPRM, 79 FR 

39196, July 9, 2014, while it continues 

to develop a Connect America Fund for 

those carriers. 

3. The Commission adopts a budget of 

$100 million for funding experiments in 

price cap areas focused on bringing 

robust, scalable broadband networks to 

residential and small business locations 

in rural communities that are not served 

by an unsubsidized competitor that 

offers voice and Internet access 

delivering at least 3 Mbps downstream/ 

768 kbps upstream. As explained in 

detail below, the funding will be 

available to serve locations in both highcost and extremely high-cost areas, 

thereby advancing our implementation 

of both Phase II and the Remote Areas 

Fund. The Commission also determines 

the objective methodology for selecting 

projects among the applications it 

receives for the experiments. Given the 

manner in which the Commission has 

structured the budget and the selection 

criteria, it believes that it will be able to 

fund a range of diverse projects 

throughout the country. Finally, the 

Commission outlines the conditions that 

entities participating in the experiments 

must meet in order to continue to 

receive such support, including specific 

eligibility, build-out and accountability 

requirements, and establish the 

measures to ensure compliance with 

these conditions. 

4. In the Technology Transitions 

Order, the Commission noted our desire 

to work cooperatively with other 

governmental entities to advance our 

shared objectives of ensuring access to 

broadband services. The Commission 

noted that it was ‘‘particularly 

interested in how States, localities, 

Tribal governments, and other nonfederal governmental bodies can 

provide assistance, through matching 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES