Office of Justice Programs; Bureau of Justice Assistance; Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Office of Justice Programs; Bureau of Justice Assistance; Agency

Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request

AGENCY: Office of Justice Programs, Justice.

ACTION: Notice of information collection under review; implementation

of section 104(d) of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement

Act.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval is being sought for

the information collection listed below. This proposed information

collection was previously published on April 10, 1996, in the Federal

Register and allowed 60 days for public comment. A summary of these

comments are included at the end of this notice.

The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for

public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until (30

days from the date of this notice). This process is conducted in

accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10. Written comments and suggestions

regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time,

should be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Department of Justice

Desk Officer, Washington, D.C., 20503. Additionally, comments may be

submitted to OMB via facsimile to 202-395-7285.

Comments may also be submitted to the Department of Justice (DOJ),

Justice Management Division, Information Management and Security Staff,

Attention: Department Clearance Officer, Suite 850, 1001 G Street,

N.W., Washington, D.C., 20530. Additionally, comments may be submitted

to DOJ via facsimile to 202-514-1534.

The purpose of this notice is to request written comments and

suggestions from the public, including telecommunications carriers, and

affected agencies should address one or more of the following points:

(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is

necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency,

including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of

the proposed collection of information, including the validity of

methodology and assumptions used;

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to

be collected; and

(4) Minimize the burden of collection of information on those who

are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated,

electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or

other forms of information technology (e.g., permitting electronic

submission of responses.)

Overview of this Information Collection

91) Type of Information Collection: NEW COLLECTION: The type of

information acquired is required to be furnished by law in terms of a

carrier statement, as set forth in subsection 104(d) of the

Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) (Public Law

103-414, 47 U.S.C. 1001-1010). The template, which is not mandatory,

has been developed through the consultative process with the

telecommunications industry to facilitate submission of the

telecommunications carrier statements. Such information is quantitative

and qualitative data necessary to identify any systems or services of a

telecommunications carrier that do not have the capacity to accommodate

simultaneously the number of interceptions, pen registers, and trap and

trace devices as specified in the final capacity notice to subsection

104(a) of CALEA.

(2) The title of the information collection: ``Telecommunications

Carrier Statement.''

(3) The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of

the Department sponsoring the collections; Form number: None. Sponsored

by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), United States Department

of Justice.

(4) Who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief

abstract;

[[Page 20033]]

BUSINESS OR OTHER FOR PROFIT: Telecommunications carriers, as defined

in CALEA subsection 102(8), will respond.

The collected data will be used in conjunction with law enforcement

priorities and other factors to determine the telecommunications

carriers that may be eligible for cost reimbursement according to

section 104.

The amount and type of information collected will be minimized to

ensure that the submission of this data by telecommunications carriers

will not be burdensome nor unreasonable. Each telecommunications

carrier will submit a statement identifying any of its systems or

services that do not have the capacity to accommodate simultaneously

the number of interceptions, pen registers, and trap and trace devices

as set forth in the final capacity notice.

Based on consultation with industry, information solicited to

specifically identify such systems and services that cannot meet the

estimated capacity requirements will include: Common Language Location

Identifier (CLLI) code or equivalent identifier, switch model or other

system or service type, and the city and state where the system or

service is located. Unique information required for wireline systems

and services would include the host CLLI code if the system or service

is a remote and the county name(s) that the system or service serves.

Unique information required for wireless systems and services would

include the Metropolitan or Rural Service Area number(s), or the

Metropolitan or Basic Trading Area number(s) served by the system or

service.

Confidentiality regarding the data received from the

telecommunications carriers will be protected by statute, regulation,

and through non-disclosure agreements as necessary.

(5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount

of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The FBI

estimates that there are approximately three-thousand four-hundred

ninety-seven (3,497) telecommunications carriers, with approximately

twenty-three thousand (23,000) unique systems or services, that will be

affected by this collection of information. The total amount of time

required to complete the Telecommunications Carrier Statement will

vary, depending upon the total number of systems and services that the

telecommunications carrier deploys that provide a customer or

subscriber with the ability to originate, terminate, or direct

communications. The time required to read and prepare information, for

one system or service is estimated at 10 minutes. There is also an

associated startup time per carrier that is estimated at 2 hours. This

startup time consists of reading the Telecommunications Carrier

Statement and determining data sources.

(6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated

with the collection is 10,904 hours. These estimates were derived from

close consultation with industry.

Public comment on this proposed information collection is strongly

encouraged.

Summary of Comments to the 60-Day Notice

Based on industry comments and to conform with the Second Notice of

Capacity that was published in the Federal Register on January 16,

1997, the Telecommunications Carrier Statement Template has been

changed to:

(a) Remove the capacity field. This information is no longer

required because estimates of actual and maximum capacity requirements

are being provided by geographical location in Appendices sections A

through D of the Second Notice of Capacity.

(b) Associate the county(s) field to be unique information required

for wireline systems and services only.

Pacific Telesis Group (PTG)

PTG is concerned that the startup time does not include

time required to evaluate the Final Notice of Capacity Requirements

itself and match up switch capability with law enforcement needs. This

is necessary before the template can be populated, and the time does

not appear to be included in current estimates of hours required to

complete the survey.

Response

CALEA, SEC. 104, (d) CARRIER STATEMENT states in part that,

``Within 180 days after the publication by the Attorney General of a

notice of capacity requirements pursuant to subsection (a) or (c), a

telecommunications carrier shall submit to the Attorney General a

statement identifying any of its systems or services that do not have

the capacity to accommodate. . . .'' The PRA Carrier Statement

estimates the hour burden for startup time to read the

Telecommunications Carrier Statement and determine data sources. It was

never intended to include time to evaluate the Final Notice of

Capacity.

PTG contends that it is extraordinarily difficult to

determine the county for each prefix served by a switch. The difficulty

escalates further for those switches located near county boundaries and

which include prefixes that serve multiple counties. The work to make

these identifications would be administratively burdensome and labor

intensive, and would certainly exceed the ten-minute parameter utilized

by TILU. PTG would support a change to the provision of information

regarding county in which a switch resides, rather than counties served

by each prefix within a switch.

Response

While we agree that county information does not reside in the

traditional engineering and planning database, i.e., Local Switch

Demand and Facility (LSD&F) database, this information is available in

other databases such as E911 and Wirecenter Map Information. Also,

software is available that provides information on wirecenter serving

areas. One of the RBOCs stated on an ECSP Subcommittee conference call

that they were able to extract county information from their E911

database. The mechanized Telecommunications Carrier Statement Template

allows for the import of data from a database and provides instructions

for dealing with imports from multiple databases.

United States Telephone Association (USTA)

USTA recommends that the final review and public comment

period be provided on this notice following the final promulgation of

the Final Notice of Capacity requirements and Cost Recovery Procedures.

Since the carrier statement is intended to respond to a notice of

capacity requirements, responding to item 3c (``capacity'') is

problematic. In short, the ability of carriers to complete column 3c,

and the burden imposed by column 3c is directly related to the

definition of capacity in the Final Notice of Capacity requirements.

Response

CALEA, SEC. 104, (d) CARRIER STATEMENT states in part that,

``Within 180 days after the publication by the Attorney General of a

notice of capacity requirements pursuant to subsection (a) or (c), a

telecommunications carrier shall submit to the Attorney General a

statement identifying any of its systems or services that do not have

the capacity to accommodate. * * *'' This PRA Carrier Statement

requires a minimum of 90 days for comment (one 60 day comment period

and the current 30 day comment period). If the PRA Carrier Statement

[[Page 20034]]

was deferred until after the issuance of the Final Notice of Capacity,

the template would be unavailable for most of the 180 days.

Furthermore, template item 3c (``capacity'') has been removed from the

Telecommunications Carrier Statement Template.

USTA believes that the template should apply to switches

alone.

Response

The ``Equipment Type'', item 3b, is intended for listing equipment

that the carrier believes does not have the capacity to accommodate

simultaneously the number of interceptions, pen registers, and trap and

trace devices as specified in the Final Notice of Capacity to

subsection 104(a) of CALEA. As stated in CALEA, SEC. 104, (d) CARRIER

STATEMENT ``Within 180 days after the publication by the Attorney

General of a Notice of Capacity requirements pursuant to subsection (a)

or (c), a telecommunications carrier shall submit to the Attorney

General a statement identifying any of its systems or services that do

not have the capacity to accommodate. * * *'' The telecommunications

carrier may need to identify any element in their network or other

network (i.e., Service Control Point, Voice Mail System) that provides

call identifying information or call content as identified in CALEA

Section 103.

USTA is not convinced that the burden imposed on carriers,

especially small companies, by completing the template will be

manageable as is implied in the notice [of Information Collection].

Given the lack of certain key definitions and terms upon which the

template is based (e.g., capacity, service), this burden in fact could

be significant.

Response

The concern about burden is based on lack of definitions such as

capacity and service. The request for capacity information has been

removed from the Telecommunications Carrier Statement Template. With

regard to services, CALEA, SEC. 104, (d) CARRIER STATEMENT states in

part that, ``Within 180 days after the publication by the Attorney

General of a notice of capacity requirements pursuant to subsection (a)

or (c), a telecommunications carrier shall submit to the Attorney

General a statement identifying any of its systems or services that do

not have the capacity to accommodate. * * *'' The telecommunications

carrier may need to identify any element in their network or other

network (i.e., Service Control Point, Voice Mail System) that provides

call identifying information or call content as identified in CALEA

Section 103.

CALEA requires carriers to be in compliance with the Act's

capabilities requirements by October 1998. However, carriers are given

three years following the publication of the Final Notice of Capacity

in which to comply with the capacity requirements. USTA understands

that TILU considers the operative deadline for compliance with the Act

therefore is contingent on capacity requirements deadline, not the

capabilities requirements deadline. USTA seeks final clarification of

this issue.

Response

The FBI has no statutory authority to countermand the intentions of

the Congress, and it has no authority to waive the statutory compliance

dates specified in CALEA. There is, however, a provision and mechanism

under CALEA, grounded in the principle of reasonableness, that offers

relief to telecommunications carriers where there is a prospect that

the capability assistance compliance deadline cannot be met. Section

107 of CALEA permits telecommunications carriers to seek an

extension(s) of time from the FCC in order to achieve compliance with

the assistance capability requirements under circumstances where a

carrier can show that compliance with those requirements is not

reasonably achievable through the application of available technology

during the compliance period specified in Section 111. The Commission

may grant such an extension after consultation with the Attorney

General in those cases where such an extension is reasonably warranted.

Since CALEA was enacted, it is generally understood that various

carriers and manufacturers have moved at different paces in pursuing

CALEA capability solutions. Given this, there is support for the

perspective that CALEA's provisions, which contain mechanisms for

reasonable treatment and compliance date extensions in special cases,

should be utilized as enacted.

BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc.

BellSouth is unable to estimate the amount of time

required to complete a carrier statement which seeks data concerning

the capacity of a system or service that is not a switch with a CLLI

code.

Response

The ``Equipment Type'', item 3b, is intended for listing equipment

that the carrier believes does not have the capacity to accommodate

simultaneously the number of interceptions, pen registers, and trap and

trace devices as specified in the Final Notice of Capacity to

subsection 104(a) of CALEA. As stated in CALEA, SEC. 104, (d) CARRIER

STATEMENT ``Within 180 days after the publication by the Attorney

General of a Notice of Capacity requirements pursuant to subsection (a)

or (c), a telecommunications carrier shall submit to the Attorney

General a statement identifying any of its systems or services that do

not have the capacity to accommodate * * *.'' The telecommunications

carrier may need to identify any element in their network or other

network (i.e., Service Control Point, Voice Mail System) that provides

call identifying information or call content as identified in CALEA

Section 103.

Ameritech

Although the Notice states that carriers should provide

information identifying ``systems and services'', the FBI should

acknowledge that carriers will be providing information only regarding

their switches. More importantly however, although the FBI's Electronic

Surveillance Interface Document lists different services which the FBI

views as subject to CALEA, the generic requirements [industry standard]

currently being finalized, focus exclusively on building ``wiretap

capability'' within the switch.

Response

The ``Equipment Type'', item 3b, is intended for listing equipment

that the carrier believes does not have the capacity to accommodate

simultaneously the number of interceptions, pen registers, and trap and

trace devices as specified in the Final Notice of Capacity to

subsection 104(a) of CALEA. As stated in CALEA, SEC. 104, (d) CARRIER

STATEMENT ``Within 180 days after the publication by the Attorney

General of a Notice of Capacity requirements pursuant to subsection (a)

or (c), a telecommunications carrier shall submit to the Attorney

General a statement identifying any of its systems or services that do

not have the capacity to accommodate * * *.'' The telecommunications

carrier may need to identify any element in their network or other

network (i.e., Service Control Point, Voice Mail System) that does not

have the capacity to accommodate the call identifying information or

call content as identified in CALEA Section 103.

[[Page 20035]]

Ameritech points out that the ``capacity'' of the switch

has yet to be defined by the FBI.

Response

Law enforcement has defined capacity in the Second Notice of

Capacity by geographic area as required in CALEA. The switch capacity

is not required in the Telecommunications Carrier Statement. Therefore,

template item 3c (``capacity'') has been removed from the

Telecommunications Carrier Statement Template.

SBC Communications Inc.

The estimate of time required to prepare the

Telecommunications Carrier Statement, whether using template or not, is

potentially understated. It is in the estimation of capacity that most

of the work involved in the preparation of a Telecommunications Carrier

Statement will occur, not in the preparation of the form itself. SBC

estimates that it spent a minimum of 64 hours working on the Initial

Capacity Notice developing data that will be used in filling out the

Telecommunications Carrier Statement * * *

Response

The PRA Carrier Statement estimates the hour burden for startup

time to read the Telecommunications Carrier Statement and determine

data sources. It was never intended to include time to evaluate the

Final Notice of Capacity. The hour burden estimates were developed

through the consultative process with the ECSP Committee. One of the

assumptions was that most of the data could be obtained from the Local

Switch Demand and Facilities (LSD&F) database or its equivalent. The

concern that most of the work will involve capacity estimation will be

eliminated because item 3c (``capacity'') has been removed from the

Telecommunications Carrier Statement Template.

Serving areas extend far beyond the location of the switch

or other facility and are not kept by county in the ordinary course of

business.

Response

While we agree that county information does not reside in the

traditional engineering and planning database (e.g., LSD&F), this

information is available in other databases such as E911 and Wirecenter

Map Information. Also, software is available that provides information

on wirecenter serving areas. One of the RBOCs stated on an ECSP

Subcommittee conference call that they were able to extract county

information from their E911 database. The mechanized Telecommunications

Carrier Statement Template allows for the import of data from a

database and provides instructions for dealing with imports from

multiple databases.

Concern was expressed about capacity requirements being

stated based upon the conditions at the time of collection and that

over time the requirements would change. SBC stated that ongoing

collection and validation of data to determine capacity would exceed

the time estimates in the Carrier Statement Notice.

Response

The Second Notice of Capacity issues estimated actual and maximum

capacity requirements in actual numbers. A change in the requirements

would only occur on the issuance of a new Notice of Capacity, which

would require a response.

MFS Communications Company, Inc

MFS states, ``It is not clear that the information sought

will be comprehensive or very useful to the FBI in fulfilling its

notice requirements under CALEA for three major reasons'' that are

listed.

First, the FBI's survey of existing switches and telecommunications

capacity will likely capture only a minority of telecommunications

carriers and will provide a distorted view of the industry. With the

enactment of the Telecommunications Act, a number of new firms--like

MFS--can be expected to enter or greatly expand their operations in the

telecommunications market over the next four years. Obviously, those

new entrants' capacity and networks, particularly those entrants who

have not yet entered the market, will not be included. The

Telecommunications Act also permits carriers to enter local telephone

markets as resellers of local service capacity (e.g., AT&T buys

capacity from NYNEX and resells it as local service). The impact of

such resale activities on an aggregate estimate of capacity are

unclear.

Second, CALEA includes only public telecommunications networks, and

excludes private networks. So long as the definition of private

networks is unclear, firms can minimize their CALEA reporting

requirements and obligations if they unilaterally classify facilities

as ``private network'' facilities. Often there is not a crisp

distinction between public and private telecommunications networks and

services, so there is a strong possibility that the survey will include

a mismatch of services. There are many firms, such as shared tenant

services (STS) providers that provide telephone service to the tenants

of a building or campus and it is not clear whether the capacity of

such offerings should be included.

Third, CALEA excludes information services. Again, a firm's CALEA

obligations can be minimized to the extent that it unilaterally

classifies its activities as information services. So long as the

precise scope of information and telecommunications services is not

defined, some firms will report capacity that others would not.

Response

As stated in CALEA, SEC. 104, (d) CARRIER STATEMENT ``Within 180

days after the publication by the Attorney General of a Notice of

Capacity requirements pursuant to subsection (a) or (c), a

telecommunications carrier shall submit to the Attorney General a

statement identifying any of its systems or services that do not have

the capacity to accommodate simultaneously the number of interceptions,

pen registers, and trap and trace devices set forth in the notice under

such subsection.'' The Telecommunications Carrier Statement Template is

not a survey and is not mandatory. The Telecommunications Carrier

Statement Template was developed through the consultative process with

industry representatives to facilitate submission of the Carrier

Statement. The information requested will be used by law enforcement in

conjunction with law enforcement priorities and other factors to

determine the specific equipment, facilities, and services that require

immediate modification.

In the Second Notice of Capacity, law enforcement provided a notice

of estimated capacity requirements by geographic area and has selected

counties as the appropriate basis for expressing capacity requirements

for telecommunications carriers offering local exchange service (i.e.,

wireline carriers). Appendix A of the Second Notice of Capacity lists

all actual and maximum capacity requirements by county. These

requirements represent the simultaneous number of call-content

interceptions and wireline interceptions of call-identifying

information for each county in the United States and its territories.

Wireline carriers may ascertain the actual and maximum capacity

requirements that will affect them by looking up in Appendix A the

county (or counties) for which they offer local exchange service.

Law enforcement's county capacity requirements are based on

historical interception data and represent its interception needs

anywhere in the county. The county requirements apply to all existing

and any future wireline

[[Page 20036]]

carriers offering local exchange service in each county, regardless of

equipment type used or customer base.

CALEA applies to all telecommunications carriers as defined in

section 102(8). Notices will eventually be issued covering all

telecommunications carriers. However, the Second Notice of Capacity and

its associated Final Notice of Capacity should be viewed as a first

phase application to telecommunications carriers offering services that

are of most immediate concern to law enforcement--that is, those

telecommunications carriers offering local exchange service and certain

commercial mobile radio services, specifically cellular service and

personal communications service (PCS).

The exclusion from the notice of certain telecommunications

carriers that have services deployed currently or anticipate deploying

services in the near term does not exempt them from obligations under

CALEA.

The hour burden depends on how each carrier interprets the

meaning of capacity.

Response

The Second Notice of Capacity provides capacity requirements based

on geographic area and states the estimated actual and maximum capacity

numbers and not a percentage. Also, item 3c (``capacity'') has been

removed from the Telecommunications Carrier Statement Template and

therefore should not impact the estimated hour burden to respondents.

Synacom Technology, Inc.

Synacom states, ``Law enforcement should provide some

guidance as to which features and services should be accessible and

then determine the capacity required for each feature and service. This

is to prevent over building the intercept capacity.'' Also, ``The

information requested is largely unnecessary, because its resolution is

not adequate to accurately measure compliance with neither the CALEA

capability requirements nor the capacity notice.''

Response

The Telecommunications Carrier Statement Template was developed

through the consultative process with industry representatives. The

information requested will be used by law enforcement in conjunction

with law enforcement priorities and other factors to determine the

specific equipment, facilities, and services that require immediate

modification.

Synacom also states, ``* * * the burden to gather the

required information is much more difficult to gather as it requires

technical expertise to evaluate whether the systems of the

telecommunications service provider collectively provide the required

access for each of several independent features and services.''

Response

The Carrier Statement Template was simplified to its present form

through the consultative process with the telecommunications industry.

The telecommunications carriers need only list systems and services

that do not meet the requirements of CALEA subsection 104(d). If any

system or service does not meet the requirements of CALEA subsection

104(d), it must be reported.

Synicom states that, ``There should be a `jurisdiction'

column instead of the `county', `city', and `state' columns.'' Also,

``the `MSA, RSA, MTA, or BTA' field is largely irrelevan.t''

Response

In the Second Notice of Capacity, law enforcement provides a notice

of estimated capacity requirements by geographical area and has

selected counties and market as the appropriate basis for expressing

capacity requirements for telecommunications carriers offering local

exchange service. Appendix A of the Second Notice of Capacity lists all

estimated actual and maximum capacity requirements by county. The

selection of county as a means of define law enforcement requirements

takes into consideration, by its very nature, a long standing

territorial location that is unchanged, well documented, is

understandable to both law enforcement and industry, and takes into

consideration a specific law enforcement jurisdiction. These

requirements represent the simultaneous number of call-content

interceptions and wireline interceptions of call-identifying

information for each county in the United States and its territories.

Wireline carriers may ascertain the estimated actual and maximum

capacity requirements that will affect them by looking up in Appendix A

the county (or counties) or Appendices B, C, D for which they offer

local exchange service.

Law enforcement's county or market capacity requirements are based

on historical interception data and represent its interception needs

anywhere in the county or market. The county or market requirements

apply to all existing and any future wireline carriers offering local

exchange service in each county, regardless of equipment type used or

customer base.

For wireless carriers, individuals county boundaries were not

considered to be feasible geographic designations for identifying

capacity requirements. Instead, law enforcement determined that the

wireless market service area would be the most appropriate geographic

designations. Although these areas comprise sets of counties, the use

of such market service areas best takes into account the greatest

inherent mobility of wireless subscribers. What is most important is

that historical information on wireless interceptions could only be

associated with market service areas.

Therefore, the county(s) field to the Telecommunications Carrier

Statement Template is information required for wireline systems and

services only.

Dated: April 21, 1997.

Robert B. Briggs,

Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice.

[FR Doc. 97-10625 Filed 4-23-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-02-M