Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

48522

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
4. The Bureau proposed in the Reimbursement Process PN requiring applicants to identify in their application for each location site: 1
Where covered communications equipment or services are located e.g., address, longitude and latitude, etc.
and documentation supporting the acquisition/existence of such covered equipment or services; and 2 the itemized cost estimates, taken from the Catalog where applicable, that are associated with the removal, replacement, and disposal of covered equipment and services at each site.
Several commenters argued that requiring specific information about equipment at the application stage is burdensome on small carriers and some carriers may not have access to the information. The Rural Wireless Broadband Coalition recommended that instead of requiring such information at the application stage, the Application Request for Funding Allocation should, after the equipment is removed, populate a field for the make, model, and number of units for the removed equipment.
5. The Bureau declines to modify the proposed site-specific information collected. The identification and tracking of site-specific information on covered and replacement communications and services, as well as on cost estimates, helps to ensure funds are spent for the purpose intended and protects against waste, fraud, and abuse.
This information assists in determining program eligibility for the removal, replacement, and disposal of Huawei Technologies Company Huawei and ZTE Corporation ZTE equipment or services obtained on or before June 30, 2020, and facilitates the assessment of applicants cost estimates for allocation purposes. The Bureau acknowledges that requiring site-specific information is more burdensome than a selfcertification requirement. Including the more detailed site-specific information, however, will ensure that the Reimbursement Program Fund Administrator will be able to properly allocate the $1.895 billion and will limit the risk that incorrect estimates unnecessarily deplete the Reimbursement Program to the detriment of other applicants.
Additionally, any increased costs associated with preparing applications that include site-specific information are potentially eligible for Reimbursement Program support, decreasing the financial burden on applicants when preparing applications.
The Bureau, therefore, concludes that the benefits of the site-specific filing
VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:07 Aug 30, 2021

Jkt 253001

requirement outweigh any burden on the carriers. The Bureau recognizes, however, that the information provided is made in good faith and that all information provided . . . is true and correct to the best of Applicants knowledge, based on the prior exercise of reasonable due diligence, at the time the application is filed. The Bureau will provide a process for participants to file modifications to their applications if more accurate information subsequently becomes available.
6. Additional Requested Form Changes. Several commenters sought changes or clarifications to the proposed information fields included in the Application Request for Funding Allocation. Nokia proposed changes to the questions concerning the use of Open Radio Access Network Open RAN technology interface standards by applicants. Specifically, Nokia requested that the fields indicating that applicants selected Open RAN solutions be removed because the fields show a preference for Open RAN. The Bureau disagrees. These questions are merely intended to help the Commission track technology choices by providers and do not suggest or otherwise encourage an applicant to select a particular technology solution. Accordingly, the Bureau fails to see how these questions show a preference for certain types of network architecture and decline to remove these questions.
7. Mavenir Systems, Inc. Mavenir separately requested several changes to the proposed information fields.
Specifically, Mavenir requested that the Bureau strikes the use of O RAN to avoid confusion between Open RAN
generally and the O RAN Alliance, that it specifies an applicant is using fronthaul Radio Access Network and Core Network, and that the Bureau specifies that an applicant is compliant with ORAN Alliance 7.2 fronthaul standards rather than the more generally stated ORAN Alliance standards.
Additionally, Mavenir suggested two additions to the information fields inquiring whether applicants are using equipment or service compliant with the 3GPP X2 standard and other 3GPP
open interfaces, and if so, whether there is an associated fee to make the equipment interoperable or open. To reduce confusion, the Bureau removes the general ORAN question that was in item 51 on the proposed Application Request for Funding Allocation.
Additionally, the Bureau modifies items 53 and 54 to ask applicants if the equipment or service is compliant with ORAN Alliance standards, such as O
RAN Alliance 7.2 fronthaul standards.
While the ORAN Alliance 7.2

PO 00000

Frm 00040

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

fronthaul standard is currently a leading standard, work continues on this developing standard, and updates continue to be published. For example, on June 29, 2021, after Mavenir and others filed their comments, the ORAN
Alliance published a Third White Paper, ORAN Minimum Viable Plan and Acceleration towards Commercialization. In the Third White Paper, the ORAN Alliance wrote that future ORAN releases will extend the Minimum Viable Plan with new features and functionalities as these inputs and priorities evolve. The Bureau wants to ensure the information collected on the Application Request for Funding Allocation addresses whether the equipment is compatible with any future standards that are adopted as the ORAN Alliance continues its work.
Finally, the Bureau includes the two questions regarding 3GPP X2 standard and open interfaces because these questions are helpful in analyzing technology trends.
8. ADTRAN, Inc. ADTRAN
suggested incorporating a country of origin line item into the Application Request for Funding Allocation, which would support a buy American policy. Specifically, ADTRAN requests for the Application Request for Funding Allocation to include a question about the replacement equipment manufacturers country of origin.
ADTRAN argued that such information collection would be consistent with the Open RAN-related line items. The Bureau finds that including a country of origin question on the Application Request for Funding Allocation will further help the Commission track and analyze technology trends without increasing the overall burden on applicants. Accordingly, the Bureau will modify the Application Request for Funding Allocation to include a question about the replacement equipment manufacturers country of origin.
9. The Rural Wireless Association RWA requested clarifications and additions to the FCC Form 5640
Application Request for Funding Allocation. In particular, RWA argued that form changes were necessary because the Commission had yet to address whether there would be further prioritization within the three levels prioritized by Congress in the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act of 2019 Secure Networks Act. In the 2021 Supply Chain Order, 86 FR
46995, August 23, 2021, July 13, 2021, the Commission rejected RWAs request to provide additional sub-prioritization categories outside of the scheme advanced by Congress. Thus, the Bureau
E:FRFM31AUR1.SGM

31AUR1