Quiero saber acerca de...

68436

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 229 / Thursday, December 2, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1

contends that the intent of Question 36
in Attachment A/International Section 214, which asks whether the Applicant will serve any sectors of U.S. critical infrastructure, is unclear. C&B notes that this question could be interpreted in different ways and asks the Commission to provide clarity as to the meaning of serve to appropriately narrow the scope of the question. We modify the question to be consistent between the Attachments to use the phrase provide services to, which includes situations where the applicant provides service to, has customers in, or participates in the market in certain sectors of U.S. critical infrastructure. We also note that if applicants are unsure whether or to what extent they believe they are providing service to a critical infrastructure sector, applicants should provide an explanatory note in their answers to the Standard Questions explaining to the Committee why they responded in a particular way.
2. Proposed Services Checklist 43. We will not modify the list of services in the Reference Question section in Attachments A/International Section 214, B/International Section 214
Assignment or Transfer, and F/Common Carrier Wireless or Earth Station PDR, but will rename this list to clarify the information targeted by this question.
Attachments A/International Section 214, B/International Section 214
Assignment or Transfer, and F/Common Carrier Wireless or Earth Station PDR as proposed included an Applicant Services Portfolio Checklist and Reference Questions section designed to gather detailed information regarding the types of telecommunication services applicants intend to provide. Applicants indicate with a checkmark the types of services and technologies they intend to offer. C&B contends that some of the named proposed services are not services such as TDM or are too generic such as video or email.
C&B therefore suggests we revise the proposed services checklist to add specificity and eliminate redundancies, or remove it altogether. Although we agree with C&B that not all items included on this list are strictly services, we find that the list will be useful to the Committee, which has a specific interest in knowing if the applicant will provide any of the items in the checklist, including certain technologies and types of network infrastructure. To address any confusion as to what the list includes, we will rename the list from Proposed Services to Proposed Services/Technologies/Network Infrastructure. We do not believe applicants will be unduly burdened in
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:00 Dec 01, 2021

Jkt 256001

determining how to fill out the checklist, and, as we have discussed, we encourage applicants to explain to the Committee how they interpreted a particular question in providing their response.
3. Reference Questions 44. We do not agree that the Reference Questions and Questions 35 in Attachments A/International Section 214 and B/International Section 214 Assignment or Transfer and 38 in Attachment F/Common Carrier Wireless or Earth Station PDR are duplicative, but we provide clarification regarding the information sought by each question. MLB believes that the Reference Questions are duplicative of an earlier question that seeks information concerning the manner in which applicants will deliver services to their customers. Specifically, MLB
argues that Reference Question 1 in Attachments A/International Section 214 and B/International Section 214
Assignment or Transfer, as proposed, is nearly the same as Question 35
regarding delivery of services. MLB also asserts that the Reference Questions ask for network infrastructure information that would have already been provided in response to Question 32b in Section V. MLB advises omitting the Reference Questions altogether, suggesting they are redundant and needlessly expend the resources of applicants and the Committee. Although Question 35 and Reference Question 1 appear to be similar, the Committee indicate that they are in fact meant to seek different, albeit related, information. Importantly, Committee staff states that Question 35
is intended to obtain a general description of the services to be provided, whereas the Reference Questions are intended to obtain finer technical detail on the way services are or will be provided with specific reference to each service selected in the services checklist table. Similarly, we find that Question 32b is intended to obtain a more general description of the Applicants network, whereas the Reference Questions are structured to obtain specific technical details, such as equipment models and software update plans. We give deference to the Committee on their need for this information to inform their national security and law enforcement review.
Accordingly, we will retain these separate questions but revise Question 35 now Question 36 in Attachment A/
International Section 214 to indicate that this question seeks a general description of the manner in which services will be delivered to customers.
To the extent that an applicant believes
PO 00000

Frm 00048

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

that its responses to questions are the same, it can cross-reference its responses as directed in the Standard Questions instructions.
4. Use of Interconnecting Carriers and Peering Relationships 45. We decline to make any changes to questions concerning interconnecting carriers or peering relationships.
Questions 33 in Attachment B/
International Section 214 Assignment or Transfer, 41 in Attachment C/
Submarine Cable Application, and 42 in Attachment D/Submarine Cable Assignment or Transfer ask whether the Proposed Authorization Holders or Applicants use interconnecting carriers and/or peering relationships, and ask the Applicants to provide details and list the carriers with whom they have these relationships.
USTelecom argues that these questions are misguided because it is unclear as to how this information is useful to the determination of a submarine cables public interest, nor does it evince a clear understanding of what interconnecting carriers do or what peering relationships mean in this case.
USTelecom contends that this is particularly true because these questions seek this information only from the Applicants, not anyone who will purchase the capacity on the system, which for some cables will represent the bulk, if not all, of the traffic carried. These types of relationships are relevant to the Committees national security and law enforcement analysis of the application, even if they do not reach everyone who may use the submarine cable. With regard to CTIAs argument that rather than require a comprehensive, detailed list of peering and interconnection relationships . . . the question should allow sufficient flexibility for parties to determine the level of detail they are able and expected to provide, we believe that the Standard Questions do provide applicants with flexibility in how they choose to describe peering relationships, and thus do not need to be changed or eliminated.
I. National Security/Law Enforcement Questions 46. We do not make any changes to the questions related to an applicants national security and law enforcement obligations. Question 19 in Attachments A/International Section 214 and B/
International Section 214 Assignment or Transfer asks whether the applicant, if required by law, regulation, or license condition, would report certain named incidents immediately upon discovery.
USTelecom asks what the effect of a
E:FRFM02DER1.SGM

02DER1