[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 185 (Friday, September 24, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51710-51719]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-24896]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 22, 24, and 64
[CC Docket No. 97-213, FCC 99-230]
Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document adopts technical requirements for wireline,
cellular, and broadband Personal Communications Services (PCS) carriers
to comply with the assistance capability requirements prescribed by the
Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (CALEA, or
the Act). Specifically, the Commission requires that all capabilities
of J-STD-025 (interim standard) and six of nine ``punch list''
capabilities requested by the Department of Justice (DoJ)/Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI) be implemented by wireline, cellular, and
broadband PCS carriers.
DATES: Effective December 23, 1999.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rodney Small, Office of Engineering
and Technology, (202) 418-2452; internet: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Third
Report and Order (Third R&O) adopted August 26, 1999, and released
August 31, 1999. The full text of this Commission decision is available
for inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC
Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC,
and also may be purchased from the Commission's duplication contractor,
International Transcription Service, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th
Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.
Summary of Third R&O
1. CALEA, enacted in October 1994, was intended to preserve the
ability of law enforcement officials to conduct electronic surveillance
effectively and efficiently in the face of rapid advances in
telecommunications technology. In enacting this statute, however,
Congress recognized the need to protect privacy interests within the
context of court-authorized electronic surveillance. Thus, in defining
the terms and requirements of the Act, Congress sought to balance three
important policies: (1) To preserve a narrowly focused capability for
law enforcement agencies to carry out properly authorized intercepts;
(2) to protect privacy in the face of increasingly powerful and
personally revealing technologies; and (3) to avoid impeding the
development of new communications services and technologies.
2. Section 103 of CALEA establishes four general ``assistance
capability requirements'' that carriers must meet to achieve compliance
with CALEA. Specifically, section 103 requires a telecommunications
carrier to ensure that its equipment, facilities, and services are
capable of:
(1) Isolating and enabling the government, pursuant to a lawful
authorization, to intercept all wire and electronic communications;
(2) Providing to the government access to call-identifying
information that is ``reasonably available'' to the carrier;
(3) Delivering to the government call content and call-identifying
information in an acceptable form and at a remote location; and,
(4) Facilitating government access unobtrusively and in a manner
that protects privacy and security.
3. CALEA does not specify how these four requirements are to be
met, but section 107(a) specifies a ``safe harbor'' provision, whereby
carriers and manufacturers are deemed CALEA-compliant if they meet
publicly available standards adopted by industry. Between 1995 and
1997, Subcommittee TR45.2 of the Telecommunications Industry
Association (TIA) developed an interim standard, J-STD-025, to serve as
a safe harbor for wireline, cellular, and broadband PCS carriers and
manufacturers under section 107(a). That standard defines services and
features required by wireline, cellular, and broadband PCS carriers to
support lawfully authorized electronic surveillance, and specifies
interfaces necessary to deliver intercepted communications and call-
identifying information to a law enforcement agency (LEA). However, two
parties filed petitions for rulemaking with the Commission, pursuant to
section 107(b) of CALEA, contending that the interim standard was
either overinclusive or underinclusive. Specifically, DoJ/FBI argue
that the interim standard does not satisfy CALEA requirements because
it fails to include the nine essential punch list capabilities, and the
Center for Democracy and Technology argues that the standard is
overinclusive because it includes packet-mode communications and
location information.
4. The Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making (Further NPRM), 63 FR
63639, November 16, 1998, in this proceeding addressed these alleged
deficiencies in the interim standard. In the Further NPRM, the
Commission stated that it did not intend to reexamine any of the
uncontested technical requirements of the interim standard, but would
make determinations only regarding whether the 11 disputed capabilities
met the assistance capability requirements specified in section 103 of
CALEA.
5. The Further NPRM tentatively concluded that the provision by
carriers to LEAs of location information and five punch list
capabilities is necessary to meet the assistance capability
requirements under section 103(a). Those five punch list capabilities
are subject-initiated conference calls; party hold, join, drop on
conference calls; subject-initiated dialing and signaling information;
timing information; and dialed digit extraction (post-cut-through
digits). The Further NPRM also tentatively concluded that the provision
by carriers to LEAs of three punch list capabilities is not necessary
to meet the assistance capability requirements under section 103(a).
Those capabilities are surveillance status messages, continuity check
tones, and feature status messages. Finally, the Further NPRM requested
comment on the remaining punch list item--in-band and out-of-band
signaling--and packet-mode communications issues.
6. The Commission emphasized in the Further NPRM that it was
directed by the Act to take into account five factors that must be
considered under section 107(b) of CALEA. Those factors are: (1)
Meeting the assistance capability requirements of section 103 by cost-
effective methods; (2) protecting the privacy and security of
communications
[[Page 51711]]
not authorized to be intercepted; (3) minimizing the cost of CALEA
compliance on residential ratepayers; (4) serving the policy of the
United States to encourage the provision of new technologies and
services to the public; and, (5) providing a reasonable time and
conditions for CALEA compliance.
7. The Commission also tentatively concluded in the Further NPRM
that, if any additional technical requirements were adopted, they could
be most efficiently implemented by permitting TIA to modify J-STD-025
in accord with the Commission's determinations. The Commission stated
that although TIA may have to undertake additional work to implement
those additional requirements, TIA has the experience and resources to
develop technical specifications and implement CALEA's requirements
most rapidly. Finally, with respect to those additional requirements,
the Further NPRM stated that the Commission would set a deadline for
carrier compliance later than the June 30, 2000 CALEA compliance
deadline specified in the Memorandum Opinion and Order in this
proceeding.
8. In the Third R&O, the Commission found no need to reexamine the
entire interim standard. The Commission stated that no deficiencies in
the interim standard were identified other than with respect to
location information, packet-mode communications, and the punch list.
Since section 107(b) requires the Commission to resolve specific
disputes raised by petition regarding alleged deficiencies in the
industry standard, the Commission declined to consider other aspects of
that standard not challenged in this proceeding. Moreover, by focusing
only on those specific technical issues properly raised before it, the
Commission stated that it will achieve greater efficiency and will
permit telecommunications manufacturers and carriers to deploy CALEA
solutions on a more expedited basis. Accordingly, the Commission found
that wireline, cellular, and broadband PCS carriers must comply with
all uncontested requirements of the interim standard by June 30, 2000.
9. In the Third R&O, the Commission decided that location
information must be provided to law enforcement under CALEA's
assistance capability requirements for ``call-identifying
information.'' CALEA defines call-identifying information as ``dialing
or signaling information that identifies the origin, direction,
destination, or termination of each communication generated or received
by a subscriber by means of any equipment, facility, or service of a
telecommunications carrier.'' The Third R&O concluded that location
information identifies the ``origin'' or ``destination'' of a
communication and thus is covered by CALEA. The Third R&O, however, did
not adopt a location tracking capability. Rather, it permitted LEAs
that have the proper legal authorization to receive from wireline,
cellular, and broadband PCS carriers only the location of a cell site
at the beginning and termination of a mobile call.
10. With respect to a packet-mode capability, the Third R&O decided
that no specific technical requirement should be adopted because the
approach taken to packet-switching technology in J-STD-025 raises
significant privacy concerns, and the record is not sufficiently
developed to support proposing any particular technical requirement for
packet-mode communications. Under J-STD-025, LEAs would be provided
with both call-identifying information and call content even in cases
where a LEA is authorized only to receive call-identifying information
(i.e., under a pen register). Accordingly, the Third R&O invited TIA to
study CALEA solutions for packet-mode technology and report to the
Commission by September 30, 2000 on steps that can be taken, including
amendments to J-STD-025, that will better address privacy concerns. In
the interim, the Third R&O permitted packet-mode communications,
including call-identifying information and call content, to be
delivered to LEAs under the interim standard. Further, the Third R&O
required that packet-mode communications be delivered to LEAs under the
interim standard no later than September 30, 2001.
11. With respect to the nine punch list items, the Third R&O added
to J-STD-025 the five items that were proposed in the Further NPRM as
capabilities mandated by CALEA, and excluded from the final industry
standard the three items that the Further NPRM tentatively found were
not capabilities mandated by CALEA. The Further NPRM also added to J-
STD-025 the item on which the Commission requested comment.
12. Specifically, the following punch list items were included in
the final industry standard:
(1) Content of subject-initiated conference calls--Would enable law
enforcement to access the content of conference calls supported by the
subject's service (including the call content of parties on hold).
13. The Third R&O found that CALEA permits law enforcement to
access the content of subject-initiated conference calls. With
appropriate lawful authorization, the LEA is entitled to ``all wire and
electronic communications carried by the carrier within a service area
to or from equipment, facilities, or services of a subscriber.'' When a
subject is a participant in a conference call using facilities that
have been placed under surveillance pursuant to a court order, the
Third R&O concluded that CALEA requires delivery to law enforcement of
all portions of a call to the extent the carrier's system architecture
permits. However, as the Commission noted in the Further NPRM,
different carriers provide conference calling features in various ways
and not all carriers' system architecture is the same. Conference
calling features include various types of multi-party calls, such as
three-way calling where a bridge is established in the subscriber's
serving switch, as well as ``meet me'' or conference bridge services
where a bridge is established at a remote switch of another carrier. In
the case of the latter type of bridge calls, when the subject
terminates his circuit connection to the conference call, the
communication between other participants no longer is to or from the
subscriber's equipment, facilities, and services, and may no longer
even be carried by the carrier within a service area to or from the
subscriber of the carrier. The Third R&O concluded that it is not
reasonable in such circumstances to require the carrier to provide the
communications of other parties continuing on the conference call
because to do so would not be a cost-effective method of implementing
the conference call intercept and may not protect the privacy and
security of communications not authorized to be intercepted.
Finally, the Third R&O concluded that the anticipated costs to
carriers of adding a conference call capability are not so exorbitant
as to require automatic exclusion of the capability. In percentage
terms, based on revenue data submitted by five manufacturers, these
costs would be 4% of the core J-STD-025 and 9% of the total punch list.
(2) Party hold, join, drop on conference calls--Messages would be
sent to law enforcement that identify the active parties of a call.
Specifically, on a conference call, these messages would indicate
whether a party is on hold, has joined or has been dropped from the
conference call.
14. The Third R&O concluded that party hold/join/drop information
falls within CALEA's definition of ``call-
[[Page 51712]]
identifying information'' because it is ``signaling information that
identifies the origin, direction, destination, or termination of each
communication generated or received'' by the subscriber. Party join
information appears to identify the origin of a communication; party
drop, the termination of a communication; and party hold, the temporary
origin, temporary termination, or re-direction of a communication. This
capability also appears to be necessary to enable law enforcement to
isolate call-identifying and content information because, without it, a
LEA would be unable to determine who is talking to whom, and, more
accurately, to focus on the subject's role in the conversation.
Further, the important privacy objectives set forth by CALEA are
enhanced if law enforcement can better ascertain and isolate
communications involving the subject from those involving only innocent
third parties.
15. Finally, the Third R&O concluded that party hold/join/drop
information is reasonably available to the carrier in those cases where
the carrier's facilities, equipment or services are involved in
providing the service, and that the anticipated costs to carriers of
adding this capability are not so exorbitant as to require automatic
exclusion of the capability. In percentage terms, based on the
manufacturers' aggregate revenue estimates, these costs would be 7% of
the core J-STD-025 and 15% of the total punch list. To the extent that
customer premises equipment (CPE) is used to provide party hold/join/
drop information, the Third R&O concluded that such information is not
reasonably available to the LEA since no network signal would be
generated.
(3) Subject-initiated dialing and signaling information--Access to
all dialing and signaling information available from the subject would
inform law enforcement of a subject's use of features (such as the use
of flash-hook and other feature keys).
16. The Third R&O concluded that subject-initiated dialing and
signaling information fits within the definition of call-identifying
information contained in section 102(2) of CALEA. Call-forwarding
signaling information identifies the direction and destination of a
call, and call-waiting signaling information identifies the origin and
termination of each communication. The Third R&O also concluded that
access to subject-initiated dialing and signaling information may be
necessary in order for the LEA to isolate and correlate call-
identifying and call content information. Knowing what features a
subject is using will ensure that the LEA receives information ``in a
manner that allows it to be associated with the communication to which
it pertains.'' For example, without knowing that a subject has switched
over to a call on call-waiting, the LEA may not be able to associate
the call-identifying information with the call content to which it
pertains and thus could be more likely to mistake one call for another.
Finally, the Third R&O concluded that the anticipated costs to carriers
of adding this capability are not so exorbitant as to require automatic
exclusion of the capability. In percentage terms, based on the
manufacturers' aggregate revenue estimates, these costs would be 4% of
the core J/STD-025 and 8% of the total punch list. To the extent CPE is
used to perform the signaling and no network signal is generated, that
information is not reasonably available to a carrier, and thus, is not
required to be provided.
(4) In-band and out-of-band signaling (notification message)--A
message would be sent to law enforcement whenever a subject's service
sends a tone or other network message to the subject or associate
(e.g., notification that a line is ringing or busy, call waiting
signal).
17. The Third R&O stated that modern networks are capable of using
many types of in-band and out-of band signals. Certain types of
signals, such as ringing and busy signals, clearly fall within the
scope of call-identifying information because they indicate information
about the termination of a call. Other types of signals, however, may
simply be used by carriers for supervision or control of certain
functions and features of the network and do not trigger any audible or
visual message to the subscriber and, thus, would not be call-
identifying information. The Third R&O thus concluded that in-band and
out-of-band signals that are generated at the intercept access point
(IAP) toward the subscriber (e.g., call waiting or stutter dial tone)
and that are being used for call processing purposes are call
identifying information that is reasonably available to the carrier.
Other signals that provide call identifying information (e.g., busy,
fast busy, audible ringing tone), although generated elsewhere in the
carrier's network, pass through the IAP on their way to the subject
even if they are not used for call processing and can be made available
without excessive modifications to the network and thus are reasonably
available to the carrier. Finally, the Third R&O concluded that the
anticipated costs to carriers of adding this capability are not so
exorbitant as to require automatic exclusion of the capability. In
percentage terms, based on the manufacturers' aggregate revenue
estimates, these costs would be 6% of the core J-STD-025 and 14% of the
total punch list. To the extent CPE is used to perform the signaling
and no network signal is generated, that information is not reasonably
available to a carrier, and thus, is not required to be provided.
(5) Timing information--Information would be sent to a LEA
permitting it to correlate call-identifying information with the call
content of a communications interception.
18. The Third R&O concluded that a timing information requirement
is an assistance capability requirement of section 103 of CALEA. First,
the Third R&O found that time stamping is call-identifying information
as defined in section 102(2) of CALEA. This information is needed to
distinguish among several calls occurring at approximately the same
time. In other words, time stamp information is needed to identify
``the origin, direction, destination, or termination'' of any given
call and, thus, fits within the statutory definition of section 102(2).
Second, the Third R&O found that delivery of time stamp information to
the LEA must, pursuant to section 103(a)(2), be provided in such a
timely manner to allow that information ``to be associated with the
communication to which it pertains.'' Finally, the Third R&O found that
the anticipated costs to carriers of adding this capability are not so
exorbitant as to require automatic exclusion of the capability. In
percentage terms, based on the manufacturers' aggregate revenue
estimates, these costs would be 2% of the core J-STD-025 and 5% of the
total punch list.
(6) Dialed digit extraction--A carrier would provide to a LEA on
the call data channel any digits dialed by the subject after connecting
to another carrier's service.
19. The Third R&O found that some digits dialed by a subject after
connecting to a carrier other than the originating carrier are call-
identifying information. While a subject may dial digits after the
initial call set-up that are not call-identifying--e.g., a bank account
number to access his/her bank statement--some digits dialed after
connecting to an interexchange carrier identify the ``origin,
direction, destination or termination'' of communications. With respect
to
[[Page 51713]]
whether this call-identifying information is ``reasonably available''
to the originating carrier, under the interim standard's definition of
``reasonably available call-identifying information'' it would not be,
because call-identifying information is ``reasonably available'' only
if it is present at an IAP for call processing purposes. However, the
Third R&O found that this definition should be modified. Specifically,
the Third R&O found that if call-identifying information is present at
an IAP and can be made available without the carrier being unduly
burdened with network modifications, that information should be deemed
``reasonably available.'' The record indicates that digits dialed by a
subject after connecting to another carrier can be obtained from the
originating carrier without that carrier being unduly burdened with
network modifications.
20. Additionally, the Third R&O noted that there appears to be a
consensus that LEAs should be permitted to obtain in some fashion
digits dialed by the subject after connecting to another carrier's
service. The Personal Communications Industry Association, Ameritech,
and BellSouth have proposed alternative methods of extracting such
digits, and these methods would minimize the expense to originating
carriers. However, each alternative method would shift the cost burden
to LEAs, and each would also raise significant privacy concerns.
21. Accordingly, the Third R&O found that adopting the Further NPRM
proposal rather than one of the three alternatives suggested in the
comments will best balance the directives of section 107(b) of CALEA
that the capability requirements of section 103 be met by cost-
effective methods and that the privacy and security of communications
not authorized to be intercepted be protected. The Third R&O noted that
the manufacturers' revenue data indicate that the cost of a dialed
digit extraction capability would exceed the cost of any other punch
list capability. In percentage terms, based on the manufacturers'
aggregate revenue estimates, this cost would be 13% of the core interim
standard and 29% of the total punch list. Based on the manufacturers'
wireless revenue estimates, this cost would be 17% of the core J-STD-
025 and 26% of the total punch list. However, in balancing these costs
against other statutory requirements, the Third R&O found them not to
be so exorbitant as to require automatic exclusion of the capability.
Further, it is unclear whether any of the alternative methods proposed
would be significantly less expensive; rather, they would simply shift
the cost burden from carriers to LEAs.
22. The following punch list items were excluded from the final
industry standard:
(1) Surveillance status--This capability would require the carrier
to send a message to law enforcement to verify that a wiretap has been
established and is still functioning correctly.
23. The Third R&O concluded that providing surveillance status
information does not constitute a technical requirement necessary for
meeting CALEA's assistance capability requirements. Although CALEA
requires carriers to ensure that authorized wiretaps can be performed
in an expeditious manner--and the Third R&O found that a surveillance
status message could assist carriers and law enforcement in determining
the status of such wiretaps--the Third R&O also found that this feature
does not fall within any of the assistance capability requirements
expressly set forth in CALEA. This feature does not appear to be call-
identifying information as defined by CALEA, since the information that
such a feature would provide would not identify ``the origin,
direction, destination, or termination of each communication.'' The
FBI's contrary interpretation is that this feature fits within CALEA's
requirement that a carrier ``shall ensure'' that its system is capable
of meeting the section 103(a) requirements. The Third R&O noted,
however, that the plain language of the Act--``a telecommunications
carrier shall ensure that its equipment, facilities, or services * * *
are capable of'' intercepting communications and allowing law
enforcement access to call identifying information--appears to mandate
compliance with the assistance capability requirements but not to
require that such capability be proven or verified on a continual
basis.
(2) Continuity check tone (C-tone)--Electronic signal that would
alert law enforcement if the facility used for delivery of call content
interception has failed or lost continuity.
24. The Third R&O concluded that providing a C-tone does not
constitute a CALEA technical requirement. As with the case of
surveillance status, above, the Third R&O found that this feature could
assist law enforcement to determine the status of a wiretap, but it
does not fit within the assistance capability requirements expressly
set forth in CALEA because the information such a feature would provide
would not identify ``the origin, direction, destination, or termination
of each communication.'' Nor does it appear to be required under
section 103(a)(1), since it is not a wire or electronic communications
carried on a carrier's system. The plain language of the statute
mandates compliance with the capability requirements of section 103(a),
but does not require that such capability be proven or verified on a
continual basis. Ensuring that a wiretap is operational can be done in
either a technical or non-technical manner, and section 103(a) does not
include ``ensurance'' itself as a capability. Thus, the Third R&O
concluded that the continuity tone punch list item is not an assistance
capability requirement under section 103.
(3) Feature status--Would affirmatively notify law enforcement
when, for the facilities under surveillance, specific subscription-
based calling services are added or deleted, even when the subject
modifies capabilities remotely through another phone or through an
operator.
25. The Third R&O concluded that provision of feature status
messages does not constitute a CALEA technical requirement. As with the
cases of surveillance status messages and continuity tones, the Third
R&O found that feature status messages could be useful to an LEA, but
that provision of these messages from a carrier to an LEA does not fit
within the assistance capability requirements expressly set forth in
CALEA. First, Third R&O stated that it is clear that feature status
messages do not constitute call-identifying information because they do
not pertain to the actual placement or receipt of calls. Further,
feature status messages do not appear to be necessary to intercept
either wire or electronic communications carried on a carrier's system.
Rather, they would simply aid an LEA in determining how much capacity
is required to implement and maintain effective electronic surveillance
of a target facility, information that could be useful in assuring that
an interception is fully effectuated and the intercepted material
delivered as authorized. However, the information that would be
provided by feature status messages can be provided by other means,
such as a subpoena to the carrier. In any event, the plain language of
the Act appears to mandate compliance with the assistance capability
requirements, but does not appear to require carriers to implement any
specific quality control capabilities to assist law enforcement.
[[Page 51714]]
26. Finally, the Third R&O found that the new required capabilities
can be most efficiently implemented by permitting TIA Subcommittee 45.2
to make the modifications. LEAs, carriers, and manufacturers are voting
members of the Subcommittee, and the Subcommittee has the experience
and resources in place to resolve these issues quickly. Regarding the
specific timing requirements, Third R&O found that seven months; i.e.,
by March 30, 2000, is a reasonable period of time for TIA to complete
the necessary changes to J-STD-025. Commission staff will closely
monitor the development of the revised standard, but will not
participate directly so that the Commission can maintain its
impartiality in the event of disputes relative to the revised standard.
27. The Third R&O specified that wireline, cellular, and broadband
PCS carriers make the six punch list capabilities available to LEAs in
the same timeframe as packet-mode communications; i.e., by September
30, 2001. Relative to implementation of the core J-STD-025, this will
provide carriers an additional 15 months to implement these
capabilities. Because manufacturers have had development of these
capabilities under consideration for several years, the Third R&O found
that this additional time will prove sufficient for the development
process to be completed and for carriers to implement these
capabilities.
Ordering Clauses
28. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to sections 1, 4,
229, 301, 303, and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
and 107(b) of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, 47
U.S.C. 151, 154, 229, 301, 303, 332, and 1006(b), the Third Report and
Order and the rules specified herein are adopted.
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
29. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA),1 an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)
was incorporated in the Further NPRM.2 The Commission sought
written public comments on the proposals in the Further NPRM, including
the IRFA. This Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to
the RFA.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq., has
been amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996,
Public Law 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of the
CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (SBREFA).
\2\ 63 FR 63639, November 16, 1998, 13 FCC Rcd 22632 (1998).
\3\ See 5 U.S.C. 604.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) Need for and Purpose of This Action
30. The Third Report and Order responds to the legislative mandate
contained in the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act,
Public Law 103-414, 108 Stat. 4279 (1994) (codified as amended in
sections of 18 U.S.C. and 47 U.S.C.). The Commission, in compliance
with 47 U.S.C. 229, promulgates rules in the Third Report and Order to
ensure the prompt implementation of section 103 of CALEA. In enacting
CALEA, Congress sought to balance three key policies with CALEA: ``(1)
To preserve a narrowly focused capability for law enforcement agencies
to carry out properly authorized intercepts; (2) to protect privacy in
the face of increasingly powerful and personally revealing
technologies; and (3) to avoid impeding the development of new
communications services and technologies.''
31. The rules adopted in this Third Report and Order implement
Congress's goal to balance the three key policies enumerated above. The
objective of the rules is to implement as quickly and effectively as
possible the national telecommunications policy for wireline, cellular,
and broadband PCS telecommunications carriers to support the lawful
electronic surveillance needs of law enforcement agencies.
(B) Summary of the Issues Raised by Public Comments Made in Response to
the IRFA
32. Summary of Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA). In
the Further NPRM, the Commission performed an IRFA and asked for
comments that specifically addressed issues raised in the IRFA. No
parties filed comments directly in response to the IRFA. In response to
non-IFRA comments to the Further NPRM, we have modified several of the
Commission's proposals, particularly regarding packet switching,
conference call content, in-band and out-of-band signaling, and timing
information, as discussed above.
(C) Description and Estimates of the Number of Entities Affected by
This Third Report and Order
33. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the action taken.4 The RFA generally defines the
term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small
business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental
jurisdiction.'' 5 In addition, the term ``small business''
has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the
Small Business Act.6 A small business concern is one that:
(1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its
field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria
established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).7 A
small organization is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which
is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.''
8 Nationwide, as of 1992, there were approximately 275,801
small organizations.9 And finally, ``small governmental
jurisdiction'' generally means ``governments of cities, counties,
towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts,
with a population of less than 50,000.'' 10 As of 1992,
there were approximately 85,006 such jurisdictions in the United
States.11 This number includes 38,978 counties, cities, and
towns; of these, 37,566, or 96 percent, have populations of fewer than
50,000.12 The United States Bureau of the Census (Census
Bureau) estimates that this ratio is approximately accurate for all
governmental entities. Thus, of the 85,006 governmental entities, we
estimate that 81,600 (91 percent) are small entities. We further
describe and estimate the number of small business concerns that may be
affected by the actions taken in the Third Report and Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3).
\5\ Id. 601(6).
\6\ 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition
of ``small business concern'' in 15 U.S.C. 632). Pursuant to the
RFA, the statutory definition of a small business applies ``unless
an agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public
comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are
appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such
definition(s) in the Federal Register.'' 5 U.S.C. 601(3).
\7\ Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632.
\8\ 5 U.S.C. 601(4).
\9\ 1992 Economic Census, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Table 6
(special tabulation of data under contract to Office of Advocacy of
the U.S. Small Business Administration).
\10\ 5 U.S.C. 601(5).
\11\ U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, ``1992 Census
of Governments.''
\12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
34. As noted, under the Small Business Act, a ``small business
concern'' is one that: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is
not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) meets any additional
criteria established by the SBA.13 The SBA has defined a
small business for Standard Industrial
[[Page 51715]]
Classification (SIC) categories 4812 (Radiotelephone Communications)
and 4813 (Telephone Communications, Except Radiotelephone) to be small
entities when they have no more than 1,500 employees.14 We
first discuss the number of small telecommunications entities falling
within these SIC categories, then attempt to refine further those
estimates to correspond with the categories of telecommunications
companies that are commonly used under our rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 15 U.S.C. 632. See, e.g., Brown Transport Truckload, Inc.
v. Southern Wipers, Inc., 176 B.R. 82 (N.D. Ga. 1994).
\14\ 13 CFR 121.201.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
35. Total Number of Telecommunications Entities Affected. The
Census Bureau reports that, at the end of 1992, there were 3,497 firms
engaged in providing telephone services, as defined therein, for at
least one year.15 This number contains a variety of
different categories of entities, including local exchange carriers,
interexchange carriers, competitive access providers, cellular
carriers, mobile service carriers, operator service providers, pay
telephone operators, PCS providers, covered SMR providers, and
resellers. It seems certain that some of those 3,497 telephone service
firms may not qualify as small entities or small incumbent LECs because
they are not ``independently owned and operated.'' 16 For
example, a PCS provider that is affiliated with an interexchange
carrier having more than 1,500 employees would not meet the definition
of a small business. It seems reasonable to conclude, therefore, that
fewer than 3,497 telephone service firms are small entity telephone
service firms or small incumbent LECs that may be affected by the
actions taken in this Third Report and Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
1992 Census of Transportation, Communications, and Utilities:
Establishment and Firm Size, at Firm Size 1-123 (1995) (``1992
Census'').
\16\ 15 U.S.C. 632(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
36. The most reliable source of current information regarding the
total numbers of common carrier and related providers nationwide,
including the numbers of commercial wireless entities, appears to be
data the Commission publishes annually in its Carrier Locator report,
derived from filings made in connection with the Telecommunications
Relay Service (TRS).17 According to data in the most recent
report, there are 3,604 interstate carriers.18 These
include, inter alia, local exchange carriers, wireline carriers and
service providers, interexchange carriers, competitive access
providers, operator service providers, pay telephone operators,
providers of telephone toll service, providers of telephone exchange
service, and resellers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ FCC, Carrier Locator: Interstate Service Providers, Figure
1 (Jan. 1999) (Carrier Locator). See also 47 CFR 64.601-.608.
\18\ Carrier Locator at Fig. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
37. We have included small incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs)
in this RFA analysis. As noted above, a ``small business'' under the
RFA is one that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small business size
standard (e.g., a telephone communications business having 1,500 or
fewer employees), and ``is not dominant in its field of operation.''
19 The SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA
purposes, small incumbent LECs are not dominant in their field of
operation because any such dominance is not ``national'' in
scope.20 We have therefore included small incumbent LECs in
this RFA analysis, although we emphasize that this RFA action has no
effect on FCC analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ 5 U.S.C. 601(3).
\20\ Letter from Jere W. Glover, Chief Counsel for Advocacy,
SBA, to William E. Kennard, Chairman, FCC (May 27, 1999). The Small
Business Act contains a definition of ``small business concern,''
which the RFA incorporates into its own definition of ``small
business.'' See 15 U.S.C. 632(a) (Small Business Act); 5 U.S.C.
601(3) (RFA). SBA regulations interpret ``small business concern''
to include the concept of dominance on a national basis. 13 CFR
121.102(b). Since 1996, out of an abundance of caution, the
Commission has included small incumbent LECs in its regulatory
flexibility analyses. Implementation of the Local Competition
Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket, 96-98,
First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15499 (1996), 61 FR 45476, August
29, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
38. Wireline Carriers and Service Providers (SIC 4813). The Census
Bureau reports that there were 2,321 telephone communications companies
other than radiotelephone companies in operation for at least one year
at the end of 1992.21 All but 26 of the 2,321 non-
radiotelephone companies listed by the Census Bureau were reported to
have fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, even if all 26 of those
companies had more than 1,500 employees, there would still be 2,295
non-radiotelephone companies that might qualify as small entities or
small incumbent LECs. Although it seems certain that some of these
carriers are not independently owned and operated, we are unable at
this time to estimate with greater precision the number of wireline
carriers and service providers that would qualify as small business
concerns under SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that there
are fewer than 2,295 small entity telephone communications companies
other than radiotelephone companies that may be affected by the actions
taken in this Third Report and Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ 1992 Census, supra, at Firm Size 1-123.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
39. Local Exchange Carriers, Interexchange Carriers, Competitive
Access Providers, and Resellers. Neither the Commission nor SBA has
developed a definition of small LECs, interexchange carriers (IXCs),
competitive access providers (CAPs), or resellers. The closest
applicable definition for these carrier-types under SBA rules is for
telephone communications companies other than radiotelephone (wireless)
companies.22 The most reliable source of information
regarding the number of these carriers nationwide of which we are aware
appears to be the data that we collect annually in connection with the
TRS.23 According to our most recent data, there are 1,410
LECs, 151 IXCs, 129 CAPs, and 351 resellers.24 Although it
seems certain that some of these carriers are not independently owned
and operated, or have more than 1,500 employees, we are unable at this
time to estimate with greater precision the number of these carriers
that would qualify as small business concerns under SBA's definition.
Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 1,410 small entity
LECs or small incumbent LECs, 151 IXCs, 129 CAPs, and 351 resellers
that may be affected by the actions taken in the Third Report and
Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ 13 CFR 121.210, SIC Code 4813.
\23\ See 47 CFR 64.601 et seq.; Carrier Locator at Fig. 1.
\24\ Carrier Locator at Fig. 1. The total for resellers includes
both toll resellers and local resellers. The TRS category for CAPs
also includes competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs) (total of
129 for both).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
40. Wireless Carriers (SIC 4812). The Census Bureau reports that
there were 1,176 radiotelephone (wireless) companies in operation for
at least one year at the end of 1992, of which 1,164 had fewer than
1,000 employees.25 Even if all of the remaining 12 companies
had more than 1,500 employees, there would still be 1,164
radiotelephone companies that might qualify as small entities if they
are independently owned are operated. Although it seems certain that
some of these carriers are not independently owned and operated, we are
unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of
radiotelephone carriers and service providers that would qualify as
small business concerns under SBA's definition. Consequently, we
estimate that there are fewer than 1,164 small
[[Page 51716]]
entity radiotelephone companies that may be affected by the actions
taken in this Third Report and Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
1992 Census of Transportation, Communications, and Utilities:
Establishment and Firm Size, at Firm Size 1-123 (1995) (``1992
Census'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
41. Cellular, PCS, SMR and Other Mobile Service Providers. In an
effort to further refine our calculation of the number of
radiotelephone companies that may be affected by the actions taken in
this Second Report and Order, we consider the data that we collect
annually in connection with the TRS for the subcategories Wireless
Telephony (which includes PCS, Cellular, and SMR) and Other Mobile
Service Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a
definition of small entities specifically applicable to these broad
subcategories, so we will utilize the closest applicable definition
under SBA rules, which is for radiotelephone communications
companies.26 According to our most recent TRS data, 732
companies reported that they are engaged in the provision of Wireless
Telephony services and 23 companies reported that they are engaged in
the provision of Other Mobile Services.27 Although it seems
certain that some of these carriers are not independently owned and
operated, or have more than 1,500 employees, we are unable at this time
to estimate with greater precision the number of Wireless Telephony
Providers and Other Mobile Service Providers, except as described
below, that would qualify as small business concerns under SBA's
definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 732
small entity Wireless Telephony Providers and fewer than 23 small
entity Other Mobile Service Providers that might be affected by the
actions taken in this Second Report and Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Id. To the extent that the Commission has adopted
definitions for small entities in connection with the auction of
particular wireless licenses, we discuss those definitions below.
\27\ Carrier Locator at Fig. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
42. Broadband PCS Licensees. The broadband PCS spectrum is divided
into six frequency blocks designated A through F, and the Commission
has held auctions for each block. The Commission defined ``small
business'' for Blocks C and F as an entity that has average gross
revenues of not more than $40 million in the three previous calendar
years.28 These regulations defining ``small business'' in
the context of broadband PCS auctions have been approved by
SBA.29 No small businesses within the SBA-approved
definition bid successfully for licenses in Blocks A and B. There have
been 237 winning bidders that qualified as small entities in the four
auctions that have been held for licenses in Blocks C, D, E and F, all
of which may be affected by the actions taken in this Second Report and
Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ 47 CFR 24.720(b)(1).
\29\ Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications
Act--Competitive Bidding, PP Docket No. 93-253, Fifth Report and
Order, 9 FCC Rcd 5532 (1994), 59 FR 37566, July 22, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
43. Cellular Licensees. According to the Bureau of the Census, only
twelve radiotelephone firms from a total of 1,178 such firms which
operated during 1992 had 1,000 or more employees. Therefore, even if
all twelve of these firms were cellular telephone companies, nearly all
cellular carriers were small businesses under the SBA's definition. In
addition, we note that there are 1,758 cellular licenses; however, a
cellular licensee may own several licenses. In addition, according to
the most recent Carrier Locator data, 732 carriers reported that they
were engaged in the provision of either cellular service or PCS
services, which are placed together in the data. We do not have data
specifying the number of these carriers that are not independently
owned and operated or have more than 1,500 employees, and thus are
unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of
cellular service carriers that would qualify as small business concerns
under the SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are
fewer than 732 small cellular service carriers that may be affected by
the actions taken in this Second Report and Order.
(D) Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other
Compliance Requirements
44. No reporting and recordkeeping requirements are imposed on
telecommunications carriers, thus burdens on carriers, including small
carriers, are not increased as a result of actions taken herein.
Telecommunications carriers, including small carriers, will have to
upgrade their network facilities to provide to law enforcement the
assistance capability requirements adopted herein. Although compliance
with the technical requirements will impose costs on carriers, the
record was not sufficient to analyze thoroughly the costs to carriers,
including small carriers.
(E) Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered
45. The need for the regulations adopted herein is mandated by
Federal legislation. In the final regulations, we affirm our proposals
in the Further NPRM to establish regulations for wireline, cellular,
and broadband PCS telecommunications carriers. Costs to
telecommunications carriers will be mitigated in several ways. For
example, the final regulations will require telecommunications
carrier's to make available to law enforcement call identifying
information when it can be done without unduly burdening the carrier
with network modifications, thus allowing cost to be a consideration in
determining whether the information is reasonably available to the
carrier and can be provided to law enforcement . Thus, compliance with
the assistance capability requirements of CALEA will be reasonable for
all carriers, including small carriers. Also, under CALEA some carriers
will be able to request reimbursement from the Department of Justice
for network upgrades to comply with the technical requirements adopted
herein, and others may be able to defer network upgrades to their
normal business cycle under a plan being developed by the Department of
Justice.
Report to Congress
46. The Commission will send a copy of this FRFA, along with this
Third Report and Order, in a report to Congress pursuant to the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A). In addition, the Commission will send a copy of this
Third Report and Order, including the FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
List of Subjects
47 CFR Part 22
Public mobile services.
47 CFR Part 24
Personal communications services.
47 CFR Part 64
Miscellaneous rules relating to common carriers.
Federal Communications Commission.
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.
Rule Changes
For the reasons discussed in the preamble parts 22, 24 and 64 of
the Code of Federal Regulations is revised as follows:
PART 22--PUBLIC MOBILE SERVICES
1. The authority citation for part 22 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 222, 303, 309 and 332.
2. Part 22 is amended to add subpart J to read as follows:
[[Page 51717]]
Subpart J--Required New Capabilities Pursuant to the Communications
Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA)
Sec.
22.1100 Purpose.
22.1101 Scope.
22.1102 Definitions.
22.1103 Capabilities that must be provided by a cellular
telecommunications carrier.
Sec. 22.1100 Purpose.
Pursuant to the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act
(CALEA), Public Law 103-414, 108 Stat. 4279 (1994) (codified as amended
in sections of 18 U.S.C. and 47 U.S.C.), this subpart contains rules
that require a cellular telecommunications carrier to implement certain
capabilities to ensure law enforcement access to authorized
communications or call-identifying information.
Sec. 22.1101 Scope.
The definitions included in this subpart shall be used solely for
the purpose of implementing CALEA requirements.
Sec. 22.1102 Definitions.
Call identifying information. Call identifying information means
dialing or signaling information that identifies the origin, direction,
destination, or termination of each communication generated or received
by a subscriber by means of any equipment, facility, or service of a
telecommunications carrier. Call identifying information is
``reasonably available'' to a carrier if it is present at an intercept
access point and can be made available without the carrier being unduly
burdened with network modifications.
Collection function. The location where lawfully authorized
intercepted communications and call-identifying information is
collected by a law enforcement agency (LEA).
Content of subject-initiated conference calls. Capability that
permits a LEA to monitor the content of conversations by all parties
connected via a conference call when the facilities under surveillance
maintain a circuit connection to the call.
Dialed digit extraction. Capability that permits a LEA to receive
on the call data channel digits dialed by a subject when a call is
connected to another carrier's service for processing and routing.
In-band and out-of-band signaling. Capability that permits a LEA to
be informed when a network message that provides call identifying
information (e.g., ringing, busy, call waiting signal, message light)
is generated or sent by the IAP switch to a subject using the
facilities under surveillance. Excludes signals generated by customer
premises equipment when no network signal is generated.
Intercept Access Point (IAP). Intercept access point is a point
within a carrier's system where some of the communications or call-
identifying information of an intercept subject's equipment,
facilities, and services are accessed.
J-STD-025. The interim standard developed by the Telecommunications
Industry Association and the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry
Solutions for wireline, cellular, and broadband PCS carriers. This
standard defines services and features to support lawfully authorized
electronic surveillance, and specifies interfaces necessary to deliver
intercepted communications and call-identifying information to a LEA.
LEA. Law enforcement agency; e.g., the Federal Bureau of
Investigation or a local police department.
Party hold, join, drop on conference calls. Capability that permits
a LEA to identify the parties to a conference call conversation at all
times.
Subject-initiated dialing and signaling information. Capability
that permits a LEA to be informed when a subject using the facilities
under surveillance uses services that provide call identifying
information, such as call forwarding, call waiting, call hold, and
three-way calling. Excludes signals generated by customer premises
equipment when no network signal is generated.
Timing information. Capability that permits a LEA to associate
call-identifying information with the content of a call. A call-
identifying message must be sent from the carrier's IAP to the LEA's
Collection Function within eight seconds of receipt of that message by
the IAP at least 95% of the time, and with the call event time-stamped
to an accuracy of at least 200 milliseconds.
Sec. 22.1103 Capabilities that must be provided by a cellular
telecommunications carrier.
(a) Except as provided under paragraph (b) of this section, as of
June 30, 2000, a cellular telecommunications carrier shall provide to a
LEA the assistance capability requirements of CALEA, see 47 U.S.C.
1002. A carrier may satisfy these requirements by complying with
publicly available technical requirements or standards adopted by an
industry association or standard-setting organization, such as J-STD-
025.
(b) As of September 30, 2001, a cellular telecommunications carrier
shall provide to a LEA communications and call-identifying information
transported by packet-mode communications and the following
capabilities:
(1) Content of subject-initiated conference calls;
(2) Party hold, join, drop on conference calls;
(3) Subject-initiated dialing and signaling information ;
(4) In-band and out-of-band signaling;
(5) Timing information;
(6) Dialed digit extraction.
PART 24--PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES
3. The authority citation for part 24 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303, 309 and 332.
4. Part 24 is amended to add subpart J to read as follows:
Subpart J--Required New Capabilities Pursuant to the Communications
Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA)
Sec.
24.900 Purpose.
24.901 Scope.
24.902 Definitions.
24.903 Capabilities that must be provided by a broadcast PCS
telecommunications carrier.
Sec. 24.900 Purpose.
Pursuant to the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act
(CALEA), Public Law 103-414, 108 Stat. 4279 (1994) (codified as amended
in sections of 18 U.S.C. and 47 U.S.C.), this subpart contains rules
that require a broadband PCS telecommunications carrier to implement
certain capabilities to ensure law enforcement access to authorized
communications or call-identifying information.
Sec. 24.901 Scope.
The definitions included in this subpart shall be used solely for
the purpose of implementing CALEA requirements.
Sec. 24.902 Definitions.
Call identifying information. Call identifying information means
dialing or signaling information that identifies the origin, direction,
destination, or termination of each communication generated or received
by a subscriber by means of any equipment, facility, or service of a
telecommunications carrier. Call identifying information is
``reasonably available'' to a carrier if it is present at an intercept
access point and can be made available without the
[[Page 51718]]
carrier being unduly burdened with network modifications.
Collection function. The location where lawfully authorized
intercepted communications and call-identifying information is
collected by a law enforcement agency (LEA).
Content of subject-initiated conference calls. Capability that
permits a LEA to monitor the content of conversations by all parties
connected via a conference call when the facilities under surveillance
maintain a circuit connection to the call.
Dialed digit extraction. Capability that permits a LEA to receive
on the call data channel a digits dialed by a subject after a call is
connected to another carrier's service for processing and routing.
IAP. Intercept access point is a point within a carrier's system
where some of the communications or call-identifying information of an
intercept subject's equipment, facilities, and services are accessed.
In-band and out-of-band signaling. Capability that permits a LEA to
be informed when a network message that provides call identifying
information (e.g., ringing, busy, call waiting signal, message light)
is generated or sent by the IAP switch to a subject using the
facilities under surveillance. Excludes signals generated by customer
premises equipment when no network signal is generated.
J-STD-025. The interim standard developed by the Telecommunications
Industry Association and the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry
Solutions for wireline, cellular, and broadband PCS carriers. This
standard defines services and features to support lawfully authorized
electronic surveillance, and specifies interfaces necessary to deliver
intercepted communications and call-identifying information to a LEA.
LEA. Law enforcement agency; e.g., the Federal Bureau of
Investigation or a local police department.
Party hold, join, drop on conference calls. Capability that permits
a LEA to identify the parties to a conference call conversation at all
times.
Subject-initiated dialing and signaling information. Capability
that permits a LEA to be informed when a subject using the facilities
under surveillance uses services that provide call identifying
information, such as call forwarding, call waiting, call hold, and
three-way calling. Excludes signals generated by customer premises
equipment when no network signal is generated.
Timing information. Capability that permits a LEA to associate
call-identifying information with the content of a call. A call-
identifying message must be sent from the carrier's IAP to the LEA's
Collection Function within eight seconds of receipt of that message by
the IAP at least 95% of the time, and with the call event time-stamped
to an accuracy of at least 200 milliseconds.
Sec. 24.903 Capabilities that must be provided by a broadband PCS
telecommunications carrier.
(a) Except as provided under paragraph (b) of this section, as of
June 30, 2000, a cellular telecommunications carrier shall provide to a
LEA the assistance capability requirements of CALEA, see 47 U.S.C.
1002. A carrier may satisfy these requirements by complying with
publicly available technical requirements or standards adopted by an
industry association or standard-setting organization, such as J-STD-
025.
(b) As of September 30, 2001, a cellular telecommunications carrier
shall provide to a LEA communications and call-identifying information
transported by packet-mode communications and the following
capabilities:
(1) Content of subject-initiated conference calls;
(2) Party hold, join, drop on conference calls;
(3) Subject-initiated dialing and signaling information ;
(4) In-band and out-of-band signaling;
(5) Timing information;
(6) Dialed digit extraction.
PART 64--MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS
5. The authority citation for part 64 is amended to read as
follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 201, 202, 205, 218-220, and 332
unless otherwise noted. Interpret or apply sections 201, 218, 225,
226, 227, 229, 332, 48 Stat. 1070, as amended. 47 U.S.C. 201-204,
208, 225, 226, 227, 229, 332, 501 and 503 unless otherwise noted.
6. Part 64 is amended to add Subpart W to read as follows:
Subpart W--Required New Capabilities Pursuant to the Communications
Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA)
Sec.
64.2200 Purpose.
64.2201 Scope.
64.2202 Definitions.
64.2203 Capabilities that must be provided by a wireline
telecommunications carrier.
Sec. 64.2200 Purpose.
Pursuant to the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act
(CALEA), Public Law 103-414, 108 Stat. 4279 (1994) (codified as amended
in sections of 18 U.S.C. and 47 U.S.C.), this subpart contains rules
that require a wireline telecommunications carrier to implement certain
capabilities to ensure law enforcement access to authorized
communications or call-identifying information.
Sec. 64.2201 Scope.
The definitions included in this subpart shall be used solely for
the purpose of implementing CALEA requirements.
Sec. 64.2202 Definitions.
Call identifying information. Call identifying information means
dialing or signaling information that identifies the origin, direction,
destination, or termination of each communication generated or received
by a subscriber by means of any equipment, facility, or service of a
telecommunications carrier. Call identifying information is
``reasonably available'' to a carrier if it is present at an intercept
access point and can be made available without the carrier being unduly
burdened with network modifications.
Collection function. The location where lawfully authorized
intercepted communications and call-identifying information is
collected by a law enforcement agency (LEA).
Content of subject-initiated conference calls. Capability that
permits a LEA to monitor the content of conversations by all parties
connected via a conference call when the facilities under surveillance
maintain a circuit connection to the call.
Dialed digit extraction. Capability that permits a LEA to receive
on the call data channel a digits dialed by a subject after a call is
connected to another carrier's service for processing and routing.
IAP. Intercept access point is a point within a carrier's system
where some of the communications or call-identifying information of an
intercept subject's equipment, facilities, and services are accessed.
In-band and out-of-band signaling. Capability that permits a LEA to
be informed when a network message that provides call identifying
information (e.g., ringing, busy, call waiting signal, message light)
is generated or sent by the IAP switch to a subject using the
facilities under surveillance. Excludes signals generated by customer
premises equipment when no network signal is generated.
J-STD-025. The interim standard developed by the Telecommunications
Industry Association and the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry
[[Page 51719]]
Solutions for wireline, cellular, and broadband PCS carriers. This
standard defines services and features to support lawfully authorized
electronic surveillance, and specifies interfaces necessary to deliver
intercepted communications and call-identifying information to a LEA.
LEA. Law enforcement agency; e.g., the Federal Bureau of
Investigation or a local police department.
Party hold, join, drop on conference calls. Capability that permits
a LEA to identify the parties to a conference call conversation at all
times.
Subject-initiated dialing and signaling information. Capability
that permits a LEA to be informed when a subject using the facilities
under surveillance uses services that provide call identifying
information, such as call forwarding, call waiting, call hold, and
three-way calling. Excludes signals generated by customer premises
equipment when no network signal is generated.
Timing information. Capability that permits a LEA to associate
call-identifying information with the content of a call. A call-
identifying message must be sent from the carrier's IAP to the LEA's
Collection Function within eight seconds of receipt of that message by
the IAP at least 95% of the time, and with the call event time-stamped
to an accuracy of at least 200 milliseconds.
Sec. 64.2203 Capabilities that must be provided by a wireline
telecommunications carrier.
(a) Except as provided under paragraph (b) of this section, as of
June 30, 2000, a cellular telecommunications carrier shall provide to a
LEA the assistance capability requirements of CALEA, see 47 U.S.C.
1002. A carrier may satisfy these requirements by complying with
publicly available technical requirements or standards adopted by an
industry association or standard-setting organization, such as J-STD-
025.
(b) As of September 30, 2001, a cellular telecommunications carrier
shall provide to a LEA communications and call-identifying information
transported by packet-mode communications and the following
capabilities:
(1) Content of subject-initiated conference calls;
(2) Party hold, join, drop on conference calls;
(3) Subject-initiated dialing and signaling information ;
(4) In-band and out-of-band signaling;
(5) Timing information;
(6) Dialed digit extraction.
[FR Doc. 99-24896 Filed 9-23-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P