Implementation of Section 104 of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Implementation of Section 104 of the Communications Assistance

for Law Enforcement Act

AGENCY: Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

ACTION: Second Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FBI is providing a second notification of the requirements

for actual and maximum capacity of communication interceptions, pen

register and trap and trace device-based interceptions that

telecommunications carriers may be required to conduct to support law

enforcement's electronic surveillance needs, as mandated in section 104

of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA). On

October 16, 1995, the FBI published an Initial Notice for comment

(60FR53643); and on November 9, 1995, the comment period was extended

until January 16, 1996. After reviewing the comments received, the FBI

is issuing this Second Notice for comment.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before February 13,

1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted in triplicate to the

Telecommunications Industry Liaison Unit (TILU), Federal Bureau of

Investigation, P.O. Box 220450, Chantilly, VA 20153-0450.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Contact TILU at (800) 551-0336. Please refer to your question as a

capacity notice question. Because the appendices referred to in this

Notice are voluminous, they are not contained herein but are available

in a public reading room located at Federal Bureau of Investigation

Headquarters, 935 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20535. To

review the appendices, interested parties should contact Ms. Eloise Lee

at FBI Headquarters, telephone number (202) 324-3476, to schedule an

appointment (48 hours in advance).

I. Background

A. Purpose of CALEA

On October 25, 1994, President Clinton signed into law the

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

103-414, 47 U.S.C. 1001-1010). Its objective is to make clear a

telecommunications carrier's duty to cooperate in the interception of

communications for law enforcement purposes. (For purposes of this

notice, the word ``interception'' refers to the interception of both

call-content and call-identifying information.) CALEA was enacted to

preserve law enforcement's ability, pursuant to court order or other

lawful authorization, to access call-content and call-identifying (pen

registers and trap and trace) information in an ever-changing

telecommunications environment.

In 1968 when Congress statutorily authorized court-ordered

electronic surveillance, there were no technological limitations on the

number of interceptions that could be conducted. However, the onset of

new and advanced technologies has begun to erode the ability of the

telecommunications industry to support law enforcement's interception

needs. To preserve communications interception as a vital investigative

tool, the Congress determined that technological solutions must be

employed necessitating greater levels of assistance from

telecommunications carriers.

The intent of CALEA is to define and clarify the level of technical

assistance required from telecommunications carriers. CALEA does not

alter or expand law enforcement's fundamental statutory authority to

conduct interceptions. It simply seeks to ensure that after law

enforcement obtains legal authority, telecommunications carriers will

have the necessary technical ability to fulfill their statutory

obligation to accommodate requests for assistance.

B. Capacity Notice Mandate

Because many future interceptions will be fulfilled through

equipment controlled by telecommunications carriers, CALEA obligates

the Attorney General to provide carriers with information they will

need (a) to be capable of accommodating the actual number of

simultaneous interceptions law enforcement might conduct as of October

25, 1998, and (b) to size and design their networks to accommodate the

maximum number of simultaneous interceptions that law enforcement might

conduct after October 25, 1998. (Although actual and maximum capacity

determinations represent estimates for October 25, 1998, and

thereafter, telecommunications carrier compliance with capacity

requirements is, by terms of CALEA, required by 3 years after issuance

of the Final Notice.) These two information elements are referred to in

CALEA as ``actual'' and ``maximum'' capacity requirements. In

accordance with section 104 of CALEA, the FBI, which has been delegated

CALEA implementation responsibilities from the Attorney General, must

provide notice of law enforcement's future actual and maximum capacity

requirements. The statute defines these requirements as follows:

For actual capacity: The actual number of communication

interceptions, pen registers, and trap and trace devices, representing

a portion of the maximum capacity, that the Attorney General estimates

that government agencies authorized to conduct electronic surveillance

may conduct and use simultaneously by the date that is 4 years after

the date of enactment of CALEA.

For maximum capacity: The maximum capacity required to accommodate

all of the communication interceptions, pen registers, and trap and

trace devices that the Attorney General estimates that government

agencies authorized to conduct electronic surveillance may conduct and

use simultaneously after the date that is 4 years after the date of

enactment of CALEA.

Although CALEA requires the Attorney General to estimate the actual

number of communication

[[Page 1903]]

interceptions, pen registers and trap and trace devices that may be

required simultaneously as of October 25, 1998 and thereafter, the

estimates are not a reflection of the number of interceptions expected

to occur. Indeed, law enforcement has no estimate or expectations about

how many interceptions will occur. The number of interceptions that

actually occur will be determined by authorized law enforcement

investigations at the time.

Under CALEA, telecommunications carriers are required to have an

actual capacity available for immediate use 3 years after issuance of a

Final Notice. Maximum capacity, on the other hand, is a capacity level

that telecommunications carriers must be able to accommodate

``expeditiously'' if law enforcement's needs increase in the future.

The time frame for ``expeditious'' expansion to maximum capacity was

not specified in CALEA. However, law enforcement typically maintains

ongoing liaison with telecommunications carriers serving their areas.

Such liaison facilitates the needed technical capability and capacity

to be prearranged, thereby ensuring that the interception can begin as

soon as the legal authorization is received. Such liaison is critical

because electronic surveillance interceptions are by their very nature

time sensitive. Law enforcement considers five business days from

receipt of a court order by a telecommunications carrier to be a

reasonable period of time to allow for incremental expansion up to the

maximum capacity on an as-needed basis. This time frame is based on the

time typically involved under existing procedures used by law

enforcement and telecommunications carriers to make technical

arrangements.

The term ``expeditious,'' as used herein, applies to section 104

capacity requirements regarding incremental expansion up to the maximum

capacity. It should not be confused with ``expeditious access'' to

call-content and call-identifying information as used in section 103 of

CALEA, which pertains to the assistance capability requirements.

Law enforcement has interpreted the maximum capacity chiefly as a

requirement that telecommunications carriers will follow to size a

capacity ceiling. This ceiling is intended to provide

telecommunications carriers with a stable framework for cost-

effectively designing future capacity into their networks. It also

would provide room for accommodating future interception-related

``worst-case scenarios.'' Establishing the maximum capacity will allow

telecommunications carriers to assist law enforcement during serious,

unpredictable emergencies requiring unusual levels of interception.

Consistent with CALEA, this Second Notice identifies the number of

simultaneous interceptions that a telecommunications carrier should be

able to accommodate in a given geographic area as of the date that is

three years after the date of the Final Notice of Capacity and

thereafter. An interception relates to accessing and delivering all

communications (call-content) and/or call-identifying information

associated with the telecommunications service of the subject specified

in a court order or lawful authorization. The telecommunications

service targeted for interception includes all of the services and

features associated with the subject's wireline/wireless telephone

number, or as otherwise specified in the court order or lawful

authorization.

For a call content-based interception, a carrier is responsible for

accessing and delivering all communications and call-identifying

information supported by the subject's telecommunications service,

regardless of the advanced services or features to which the subject

subscribes (e.g., a redirected call through call forwarding); and

notwithstanding that the subject may be engaged in more than one

communication (e.g., a subject is engaged in a voice telephone call and

simultaneously sends a fax or data transmission; a subject is engaged

with several (different) parties in a conference call and

simultaneously communicates with a non-conferenced party).

For an interception of call-identifying information, a carrier is

responsible for accessing and delivering all call-identifying

information related to the communications caused to be generated or

received by the subject, regardless of the advanced services or

features to which the subject subscribes and notwithstanding that the

subject may be engaged in more than one simultaneous communication. The

fact that a subject utilizes advanced services and features as part of

his/her telecommunications service or is capable of sending or

receiving more than one communication simultaneous does not mean that

carrier access and delivery of each constitutes a separate

interception. Consequently, telecommunications carriers need to ensure

that, regardless of their solutions (which may be varied), the solution

permits access and delivery of all the communications and call-

identifying information for each interception. Because of this

circumstance, and because CALEA forbids the government from dictating

solutions, law enforcement will be available to consult with carriers

as they develop solutions and apply the capacity requirements to their

particular solutions.

In some instances a telecommunications carrier may be able to meet

the assistance capability requirements without modifying its equipment,

facilities, or services. As a practical matter, conventional methods of

effectuating interceptions of call-content and call-identifying

information, such as loop extender technologies, may meet the

requirements of CALEA for some subjects of court-ordered interceptions,

depending on the types of services and features, etc., to which the

subject subscribes. Telecommunications carriers that presently meet

these requirements under the circumstances described above will be in

compliance until the equipment, facility, or service is replaced or

significantly upgraded or otherwise undergoes major modification.

Furthermore, telecommunications carriers that cannot meet the

assistance capability requirements may still be considered to be in

compliance if the Government does not provide cost recovery for

modifications to equipment, facilities, and services installed or

deployed on or before January 1, 1995. Such carriers will also be in

compliance with CALEA until such time as they significantly upgrade or

replace or otherwise undergo major modification to equipment,

facilities, or services.

C. Initial Notice of Capacity

On October 16, 1995, law enforcement's proposed future actual and

maximum capacity requirements were presented in an Initial Notice

published in the Federal Register as mandated by section 104 of CALEA.

Comments on the Initial Notice were accepted through January 16, 1996.

The Initial Notice and the comments on it are summarized in section V

of this notice.

D. Second Notice of Capacity

Since the release of the Initial Notice, law enforcement has

consulted with telecommunications industry representatives, privacy

advocates, and other interested parties to receive feedback on the

method used to express future actual and maximum capacity requirements.

This consultative process has helped law enforcement understand the

challenges facing the industry and others in appling the capacity

requirements. After deliberation, law enforcement concluded that it

should

[[Page 1904]]

issue a Second Notice for comment in order to refine its original

approach.

After the instant comment period closes, a complete record will be

delineated and a Final Notice will be issued that fulfills the

obligations of the Attorney General under section 104(a)(1) of CALEA.

Telecommunications carriers will have 180 days after publication of the

Final Notice in the Federal Register to submit a Carrier Statement as

mandated by section 104(d) to the Government identifying any of its

systems or services that do not have the capacity to accommodate law

enforcement's requirements (see section IV infra).

CALEA applies to all telecommunications carriers as defined in

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

telecommunications carriers. However, this Second Notice and its

associated Final Notice should be viewed as a first phase applicable to

telecommunications carriers offering services that are of most

immediate concern to law enforcement--that is, those telecommunications

carriers offering local exchange services and certain commercial mobile

radio services, specifically cellular service and personal

communications service (PCS). (For the purpose of this notice, PCS is

considered a service operating in the licensed portion of the 2 GHz

band of the electromagnetic spectrum, from 1850 MHZ to 1990 MHZ.

Telecommunications carriers offering local exchange services are

referred to hereafter in this notice as ``wireline'' carriers, and

telecommunications carriers offering cellular and PCS services are

referred to as ``wireless'' carriers.

The exclusion from this notice of certain other telecommunications

carriers that have services deployed currently or anticipate deploying

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

under CALEA. Law enforcement will consult with these other

telecommunications carriers before subsequent Notices are issued and

applicable capacity requirements are established. Law enforcement also

looks forward to consulting with these other telecommunications

carriers to develop a reasonable method for characterizing capacity

requirements.

II. Methodology for Projecting Capacity Requirements

A. Overview

The CALEA mandate set forth in section 104 obligates the Attorney

General to estimate future interception capacity requirements and marks

the first time that (a) information has been required to be provided to

telecommunications carriers in order for them to design future networks

with reference to the amount of potential future interception activity

that may occur, and (b) the entire law enforcement community has been

required to project its collective future potential needs for

interception. This new circumstance has generated legitimate concern in

the law enforcement community, because telephone technology

historically placed no constraints on the number of court-ordered

interceptions that could be effected. If not implemented carefully, an

under-scoping of capacity requirements under CALEA could have the

unintended effect of restricting the technical ability to conduct

interceptions authorized in court orders. If future interception needs

are understated, law enforcement's investigative abilities will be

hampered and, more important, public safety will be jeopardized.

Capacity provisions were included in CALEA to ensure that law

enforcement's future interception needs can be met in a way that will

not be unduly burdensome for telecommunications carriers. These

provisions also present a means for telecommunications carriers to

better understand the nature and extent of their existing statutory

obligations to accommodate law enforcement's interception needs. (Since

law enforcement requirements for all types of interceptions are a

function of authorized investigations, the estimated number that may be

conducted cannot be zero since that would imply that there is a county

or market service area where an interception could not be conducted.

See section G ``Establishing Threshold Capacity Requirements'' for

further discussion on how minimum capacities are estimated.) To derive

capacity requirements that would meet law enforcement's future

interception needs without being unduly burdensome, law enforcement

used a rigorous methodology. The objective was to ensure that law

enforcement's future capacity requirements would (a) be based on

historical interception activity, (b) ensure that public safety is not

compromised, (c) provide telecommunications carriers with a degree of

certainty regarding law enforcement's needs over a reasonable period of

time, (d) be based on the geographic areas affected, and (e) not

dictate a solution to the industry.

The methodology consisted of these steps:

Collecting information on historical interception

activity.

Determining geographic areas for identifying capacity

requirements.

Deriving a basis for determining capacity requirements for

wireline carriers.

Deriving a basis for determining capacity requirements for

wireless carriers.

Deriving growth factors for projecting future capacity

requirements from historical information.

Establishing threshold capacity requirements.

B. Collecting Information on Historical Interception Activity

To comply with CALEA's mandate to project future capacity needs,

law enforcement believed it was essential to first establish a

historical baseline of interception activity from which future

interception needs could be projected. This effort entailed a detailed

review and analysis of the available information on recent federal,

state, and local law enforcement interceptions throughout the United

States. Such information had never before been collected in a single

repository. Amassing this detailed and extremely sensitive information

required an unprecedented and time-consuming effort. It involved

identifying sources from which accurate information could be retrieved

efficiently. The information required included the numbers of all types

of interceptions (communications, pen register, and trap and trace)

performed by federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies, in

terms of the actual number of telephone lines intercepted at each

locality. (For purposes of this notice, the work ``line'' refers to the

transmission path from a subscriber's terminal to the network via a

wireline or wireless medium.)

The Wiretap Report, published annually by the Administrative Office

of the United States Courts, was a valuable source of historical

information on criminal Title III (call-content) court orders; however,

it did not identify the actual number of interception lines associated

with each court order or, more important, the vastly greater number of

lines associated with call-identifying interceptions (pen register and

trap and trace) that have been performed by all law enforcement

agencies. Even though law enforcement used information on the number of

court orders reported in the Wiretap Report for forecasting purposes as

described subsequently in this section, the report does not contain the

necessary line-related information needed to identify the level of past

[[Page 1905]]

interceptions for establishing a historical baseline of activity.

To obtain line-related information regarding past simultaneous

interceptions, records of interception activity were acquired from

telecommunications carriers, law enforcement officials, and what was

most important, from the federal and state Clerks of Court offices (the

official repositories for all interception court orders) through a

survey.

The objective of the survey effort was to determine the numbers of

all types of interceptions (communications, pen register, and trap and

trace) conducted between January 1, 1993, and March 1, 1995, for all

geographic areas. Highly sensitive information pertaining to each

interception was collected, including interception start/end dates and

area code and exchange. The time period of January 1, 1993 to March 1,

1995 was chosen to obtain recent interception information that was

reasonably retrievable given the time constraint imposed by CALEA with

regard to publishing a Notice of Capacity.

Approximately 1,500 telecommunications carriers, representing

nearly all wireline and cellular telephone companies (as of March

1995), were requested to provide information that would identify where

and how many interceptions had occurred within their networks during

the period surveyed. Records were submitted by approximately 66 percent

of the telecommunications carriers surveyed. To ensure receipt of

information from a comprehensive representation of the

telecommunications industry, law enforcement worked closely with

telecommunications carriers serving large markets or unique geographic

areas. Such carriers included the Regional Bell Operating Companies

(RBOCs), GTE, and the largest providers of cellular service.

Sensitive interception records maintained under seal within the

Clerks of Court offices were acquired through two separate efforts.

Federal court order information was collected under special court

orders directing the unsealing of this information for the limited

purpose of issuing capacity notices required under section 104 of

CALEA. State and local law enforcement records were collected with the

assistance of the offices of the State Attorney Generals and District

Attorneys or state wide prosecutors. This effort resulted in the

collection of information on all federal law enforcement interception

activity for the period surveyed and information on interceptions by

state and local law enforcement from most states. (Some states' laws do

not authorize the conduct of all types of interceptions, e.g., call-

conduct interceptions, and other states do not maintain retrievable

records of all historical interception activity.)

C. Determining Geographic Areas for Identifying Capacity Requirements

Section 104(a)(2)(B) of CALEA requires law enforcement to identify,

to the maximum extent practicable, the capacity needed at ``specific

geographic locations.'' In addressing this mandate, law enforcement

decided that using point-specific sites, such as switch locations, city

blocks, or neighborhoods, would not be appropriate because it would not

properly take into account movement in criminal activity and could lead

to the compromise of sensitive investigations. Also, law enforcement

believed that any geographic designation used should not be subject to

frequent change, should relate to discernible and officially recognized

geographic territorial boundaries, and should be commonly understood by

the affected parties.

It was also considered essential that the geographic designations

be ones that (a) historically have not been affected by regulatory

changes in the telecommunications marketplace, (b) would allow

flexibility for telecommunications carriers in developing solutions,

and (c) would not be affected by changes in the configurations of

telecommunications networks.

Law enforcement concluded that, for wireline carriers, county

boundaries or their equivalent best met the criteria above and should

be used to define the geographic locations for projecting future

capacity requirements. (For purposes of this notice, the term

``county'' includes boroughs and parishes, as well as the District of

Columbia and a few independent cities in Missouri, Maryland, Nevada,

and Virginia that are not part of any county. U.S. territories such as

American Samoa, Guam, the Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S.

Virgin Islands are treated similarly.) Further, using the geographic

designation of a county in this way was deemed appropriate because it

is used by both telecommunications carriers and law enforcement.

Telecommunications carriers pay county taxes and fees and are affected

by county regulations. Likewise, law enforcement's legal territorial

jurisdictions frequently are drawn based on county boundaries, and

resources for law enforcement are often allocated on a county basis.

For wireless carriers, individual county boundaries were not

considered to be a feasible geographic designation for identifying

capacity requirements. Instead, law enforcement determined that

wireless market service areas--Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs),

Rural Service Areas (RSAs), Major Trading Areas (MTAs), and Basic

Trading Areas (BTAs)--would be the most appropriate geographic

designations. Although wireless market service areas comprise sets of

counties, the use of such market service areas best takes into account

the greater inherent mobility of wireless subscribers. Furthermore,

what is most important is that historical information on wireless

interceptions could only be associated with market service areas.

The approach selected--using counties for wireline carriers and

market service areas for wireless carriers--was also responsive to

comments on the Initial Notice urging that the two types of

telecommunications carriers be treated separately; thus, different

geographic designations should appropriately apply.

D. Deriving a Basis for Determining Capacity Requirements for Wireline

Carriers

Having established the county as the appropriate geographic area

for identifying capacity requirements for wireline carriers, law

enforcement had to decide on a basis for determining capacity

requirements for each county. Section 104(a)(2)(A) of CALEA stated that

the capacity requirements could be based on type of equipment, type of

service, number of subscribers, type or size of carrier, or nature of

service area, but allowed the use of ``any other measure.'' Law

enforcement chose to use the historical interception activity

associated with telecommunications equipment located within a county as

the most logical basis for making determinations about projected

capacity requirements in a county.

Each wireline interception reported during the historical period

surveyed (January 1, 1993, to March 1, 1995) was associated with a

telecommunications switch, based on its area code and exchange

(frequently referred to as its ``NPA/NXX code'') as found in the April

1995 version of the Local Exchange Routing Guide (LERG) published by

Bellcore. The LERG contains information on the switching systems and

exchanges of wireline carriers and is considered to be an authoritative

source in the telecommunications industry. Thereafter,

telecommunications switches were

[[Page 1906]]

associated to counties by using the vertical and horizontal coordinates

marking the switch's physical location.

CALEA also required that capacity requirements be expressed in

terms of ``simultaneous'' interceptions. Law enforcement chose to

consider interceptions occurring on the same day, rather than at

exactly the same moment, as being simultaneous. This time frame was

logical from a law enforcement perspective, because interception court

orders are authorized for a certain number of days as opposed to some

other unit of time Additionally, the time frame of 1 day was compatible

with the historical data that was recorded only by days.

The daily interception activity of each switch in a county was

examined, and the single day with the most interceptions during the

period surveyed was used to identify the switch's highest number of

simultaneous interceptions. Thereafter, the highest number of

simultaneous interceptions identified for each switch in the country

was totaled to produce a historical baseline for the county. Law

enforcement believed that this approach provided a reasonable

representation of past interception needs for the geographic area

during the period surveyed. This approach also avoided the problems

that would be inherent in trying to specify capacity requirements for

interceptions on a site-specific or equipment-specific basis because of

the fluid nature of interceptions conducted over time and because of

changes in equipment and the services that they support. After

determining the county's historical baseline, law enforcement sought to

establish an appropriate means of utilizing that activity as a basis

for projecting future capacity requirements. In the Initial Notice,

capacity requirements were expressed as a percentage of the engineered

capacity of equipment, facilities, and services. It was thought that in

so doing, some flexibility would be beneficial to carriers in

addressing the capacity requirements. Comments on the Initial Notice,

however, questioned the meaning of engineered capacity and recommended

that capacity requirements be expressed as fixed numbers rather than as

percentages. In response, law enforcement re-examined this issue and

found that using fixed numbers for each county would be a clear way to

express capacity requirements without tying them to the constantly

changing components of the telecommunications network.

E. Deriving a Basis for Determining Capacity Requirements for Wireless

Carriers

Having established the market service area as the appropriate

geographic area for identifying future capacity requirements for

wireless carriers, law enforcement had to decide on a basis for

determining capacity requirements for each market. Each cellular

interception reported during the period surveyed (January 1, 1993 to

March 1, 1995) was associated with a cellular market service area using

the August 1995 version of the Cibernet database, which contains

information on roaming and billing arrangements for cellular networks

and is considered to be an authoritative source in the

telecommunications industry. Thereafter, the single day with the most

interceptions during the period surveyed was identified and used to

establish the historical baseline for the market service area.

Due to the similarities between cellular and PCS, law enforcement

used the historical interception activity of cellular carriers to

develop projections of future capacity requirements for PCS carriers.

Cellular markets are defined by MSAs and RSAs, and PCS markets are

defined by MTAs and BTAs. Historical cellular interception activity was

mapped to a PCS market service area. Again, the single day with the

most interceptions during the period surveyed was identified and used

to ascribe to it a historical baseline for the market service area.

To be responsive to comments on the Initial Notice objecting to the

use of percentages of engineered capacity, law enforcement found that

using numbers rather than percentages was also an appropriate means by

which to express capacity requirements for wireless carriers.

F. Deriving Growth Factors for Projecting Future Capacity Requirements

From Historical Information

Section 104 of CALEA requires the Attorney General to project

future requirements for actual and maximum capacity. As discussed

previously in this notice, law enforcement derived a baseline for these

estimates from the historical interception activity in geographic areas

defined as counties for wireline carriers and market service areas for

wireless carriers during the period surveyed. To project future

capacity requirements, growth factors were developed and applied to the

historical information.

As noted, comments on the Initial Notice recommended that capacity

requirements be stated separately for wireline and wireless carriers.

In response, law enforcement created new formulas based on a revised

set of growth factors that took account of this distinction.

1. Formulas

As discussed below, four growth factors are used in this Second

Notice in formulating future capacity requirements: Awireline,

Awireless, Mwireline, and Mwireless. The ``A'' factors

were applied to historical interception activity to estimate future

actual capacity requirements as of October 1998, the ``M'' factors were

used to estimate future maximum capacity requirements.

The formulas are as follows:

Wireline: Future Actual Capacity Requirement in a County Equals The

Historical Interception Activity in the County Multiplied by

Awireline.

Future Maximum Capacity Requirement in a County Equals The Future

Actual Capacity Requirement in the County Multiplied by Mwireline.

Wireless: Future Actual Capacity Requirement in a Market Service

Area Equals The Historical Interception Activity in the Market Service

Area Multiplied by Awireless.

Future Maximum Capacity Requirement in a Market Service Area Equals

The Future Actual Capacity Requirement in the Market Service Area

Multiplied by Mwireless.

All the resulting requirements for future actual and maximum

capacity were rounded up to the next whole number.

2. Growth Factors

The growth factors used herein were derived solely from analysis

related to the historical interception information. Three sources of

historical information were deemed to provide relevant information to

be considered as growth factors: (a) the number of court orders for

call-content interceptions which was obtained from the Wiretap Reports

published by the Administrative Office of United States Courts for the

time period 1980 through 1995; (b) the number of court orders for call-

identifying information from pen register and trap and trace devices,

which was obtained from reports published by the Department of Justice

documenting pen register and trap and trace usage by DOJ agencies for

the time period 1987 through 1995; and (c) the historical baseline

number of call-content interceptions and interceptions of call-

identifying information, which was obtained from the survey of law

enforcement and industry for the time

[[Page 1907]]

period January 1, 1993 through March 1, 1995.

To project the future numerical level of court orders, statistical

and analytical methods were applied to the historical interception

information. It should be understood that the projections for the

number of potential future court orders do not mean that they are the

numbers of orders that law enforcement will in fact perform in these

years or intends to perform. Rather, they are part of a statistical

method used to derive growth factors that would be useful ultimately in

calculating future actual and maximum capacity requirements.

A commonly-used analytical tool for projections, known as Best-Fit-

Line analysis, was used to track the number of court orders over time

and then to project the number into the future. As discussed below,

projections were made for call-content court orders for wireline and

wireless for the year 1998 and the year 2004. The projections were also

made for the vastly greater number of pen register and trap and trace

court orders for wireline and wireless for the year 1998 and the year

2004. Composite growth figures for wireline and wireless interceptions

were then calculated by weighting the court order projections by the

relative number of call-content interceptions and interceptions of

call-identifying information during the period survey. The resulting

Awireline and Awireless growth factors were based on the 1998

projections. The Mwireline and M wireless growth factors were

based on the 2004 projections. The year 1998 was selected to comply

with the statutory language of CALEA requiring law enforcement to

estimate actual capacity requirements by that time. The year 2004 was

selected because it provided a 10 year period after the passage of

CALEA, a period that was considered reasonable for projecting maximum

capacity requirements. It was also considered to be a rational period

for constituting a stable capacity ceiling and a design guide.

The value derived for Awireline is 1.259; the value derived

for Awireless is 1.707; the value derived for Mwireline is

1.303; and the value derived for Mwireless is 1.621. These growth

factors can also be translated into, and understood in terms of, annual

growth rates for capacity requirements. For wireline, if computed

annually, growth rates are 5.92 percent for the period from 1994

through 1998, and 4.55 percent for the period from 1998 through 2004.

For wireless, if computed annually, growth rates are 14.30 percent and

8.38 percent respectively, for the same time periods. Of relevance in

determining the differences in growth rates are the expectations of

overall business growth for wireline and wireless telephone services.

Market projections for wireline show a steady rate of 3.5 percent

annual increase, while wireless annual growth is projected to be 12.0

percent during each of the next 10 years.

(For more information on how the growth factors were derived, refer to

Appendix E which is available in the FBI's reading room.)

G. Establishing Threshold Capacity Requirements

In its review of historical interception activity, law enforcement

recognized that numerous counties and market service areas had no

interception activity during the time period surveyed. Under the

methodology described above, these counties and market service areas

would have future actual and maximum capacity requirements equal to

zero. However, the establishment of future capacity requirements of

zero would not provide even a minimal growth flexibility and would

largely undermine the intent of CALEA, which is to preserve law

enforcement's ability to conduct some level of interceptions.

Additionally, it is possible that law enforcement may have conducted

interceptions in some of these areas before or after the period

surveyed, and it may well have to do so again. History has shown that

criminal activity or exigent circumstances can occur anywhere.

Therefore, law enforcement must be capable of conducting a number of

interceptions in all areas. Consequently, threshold future capacity

requirements were developed for counties and market service areas that

otherwise would have had a capacity requirement of zero under the above

methodology.

For wireline telephone service offered in counties, law enforcement

examined the distribution of historical interception activity and found

that many counties had no interceptions, and many others had only one

interception. To avoid having counties with no future capacity

requirement, law enforcement decided to treat counties with zero

historical interceptions as if they had one interception. Hence, when

the growth factors were applied, it produced a future actual capacity

requirement of two simultaneous interceptions and a future maximum

capacity requirement of three simultaneous interceptions.

For the wireless market service areas, law enforcement took a

similar approach. Here, too, it found that many market service areas

had no interceptions during the time period surveyed. Law enforcement

chose to treat these market service areas as if they had one

interception. Hence, when the growth factors for wireless carriers were

applied to these market service areas, the result was a future actual

capacity requirement of two simultaneous interceptions and a future

maximum capacity requirement of four simultaneous interceptions.

III. Statement of Capacity Requirements

A. Capacity Requirements for Wireline Carriers

Law enforcement is providing notice for the estimated number of

communication interceptions, pen register and trap and trace device-

based interceptions that may be conducted simultaneously in a given

geographic area and has selected counties as the appropriate geographic

basis for expressing capacity requirements for telecommunications

carriers offering local exchange service (ie., wireline carriers).

Appendix A lists all actual and maximum estimates by county. (Appendix

A is available in the FBI's reading room for review.) These estimates

represent the number of simultaneous call-content interceptions and

interceptions of call-identifying information for each county in the

United States and its territories. Wireline carriers may ascertain the

actual and maximum estimates that will affect them by looking up in

Appendix A the county (or counties) for which they offer local exchange

service. Capacity requirements based on final estimates will remain in

effect for all telecommunications carriers providing wireline service

to these areas until such time as the Attorney General publishes a

notice of any necessary increase in maximum capacity pursuant to

section 104(c) of CALEA.

County capacity requirements represent the estimated number of all

types of interceptions that may be conducted simultaneously anywhere

within the county. When effective, the county capacity requirements

apply to all existing and any future wireline carriers offering local

exchange service in each county, regardless of the type of equipment

used or the customer base. Law enforcement recognizes that some

carriers may seek further clarification on applying the county capacity

requirements based on the configurations of their networks and their

recommended solutions. Section 103(b) of CALEA forbids law enforcement

from requiring any specific design of equipment, facilities, services,

features or systems. Because individual carriers configure their

networks differently, and may pursue different

[[Page 1908]]

solutions, the Telecommunications Industry Liaison Unit of the FBI will

be available to discuss the application of these capacity requirements

to a specific telecommunications carrier's network upon request.

B. Capacity Requirements for Wireless Carriers

Law enforcement is providing notice for the estimated number of

communication interceptions, pen register and trap and trace device-

based interceptions that may be conducted simultaneously in a given

geographic area and has selected market service areas-- MSAs, RSAs,

MTAs, and BTAs--as the appropriate geographic basis for expressing

actual and maximum capacity requirements for telecommunications

carriers offering wireless services, specifically those providing

cellular and PCS service (i.e., wireless carriers). Appendix B lists

all actual and maximum estimates for MSAs and RSAs; Appendix C lists

all actual and maximum estimates for MTAs; and Appendix D lists all the

actual and maximum estimates BTAs. (Appendices B, C, D are available in

the FBI's reading room for review.) These estimates represent the

number of simultaneous call-content interceptions and interceptions of

call-identifying information for each market service area. Capacity

requirements based on final estimates will remain in effect for all

wireless carriers providing service to these areas until such time as

the Attorney General publishes a notice of any necessary increases in

maximum capacity pursuant to section 104(c) of CALEA.

In all cases, the statement of interception capacity for a wireless

market service area reflects law enforcement's estimated number of

interceptions that may be conducted simultaneously anywhere in the

service area. Law enforcement must be capable of conducting

interceptions at any time, regardless of the location of a subject's

mobile telephone device within the service area. When effective, the

market service area capacity requirements apply to all existing and any

future telecommunications carrier offering wireless service in each

market. Law enforcement recognizes that some carriers may seek further

clarification about how to apply the market service area requirements

based on the configurations of their networks. Section 103(b) of CALEA

forbids law enforcement from requiring any specific design of

equipment, facilities, services, features or systems. Because

individual carriers configure their networks differently, and may

pursue different solutions, the Telecommunications Industry Liaison

Unit of the FBI will be available to discuss the application of these

capacity requirements to a specific telecommunications carrier's

network upon request.

IV. Related Issues

A. Carrier Statement

Section 104(d) of CALEA requires that within 180 days after the

publication of a Final Notice pursuant to subsections 104(a) or 104(c),

a telecommunications carrier shall submit a statement identifying any

of its systems or services that do not have the capacity to accommodate

simultaneously the number of call-content interceptions and

interceptions of call-identifying information set forth in the notice.

The information in the Carrier Statement will be used, in conjunction

with law enforcement priorities and other factors, to determine the

telecommunications carrier that may be eligible for cost reimbursement

according to section 104.

A Telecommunications Carrier Statement Template has been developed

with the assistance of the telecommunications industry to facilitate

submission of the Carrier Statement. The template is not mandatory, but

law enforcement encourages industry to use the template when

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

capacity to accommodate simultaneously the number of call-content

interceptions and interceptions of call-identifying information set

forth in the Final Notice. A diskette containing the template will be

provided by TILU on request by telecommunications carriers.

The information to be solicited will include the following: 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 will include the host CLLI code if the

system or service is a remote, and the county or counties served by the

system or service. Unique information required for wireless systems and

services will include the MSA or RSA market service area number(s), or

the MTA or BTA market trading area number(s) served by the system or

service.

The confidentiality of the data received from the

telecommunications carriers will be protected by the appropriate

statute, regulation, or nondisclosure agreements.

After reviewing the Carrier Statements, the Attorney General may,

subject to the availability of appropriations, agree to reimburse a

carrier for costs directly associated with modifications to attain

capacity requirements in accordance with the final rules on cost

recovery. Decisions to enter into cost reimbursement agreements will be

based on law enforcement prioritization factors.

On April 10, 1996, the Carrier Statement Notice was published in

the Federal Register for comment under the Paperwork Reduction Act

(PRA). A sixty day comment period ensued ending on June 10, 1996. The

Carrier Statement Notice is subject to the approval of the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) under the auspices of the PRA. A Second

Carrier Statement Notice for comment is currently being prepared for

publication in the Federal Register. This comment period will consist

of thirty days. At the conclusion of the comment period, OMB will issue

a clearance number which will be published in the Final Notice of

Capacity.

B. Cost Recovery Rules

CALEA authorizes the appropriation of $500 million for FY 1995

through FY 1998 for reimbursing telecommunications carriers for certain

reasonable costs directly associated with achieving CALEA compliance.

Section 109(e) directs the Attorney General to establish regulations,

after notice and comment, for determining such reasonable costs and

establishing the procedures whereby telecommunications carriers may

seek reimbursement. In accordance with the section 109(e) mandate, the

proposed rule was published in the Federal Register, 61 FR 21396, on

May 10, 1996.

As authorized by section 109, and on execution of a cooperative

agreement, it was proposed that a telecommunications carrier be

reimbursed for the following: (1) All reasonable plant costs directly

associated with the modifications performed by the carrier in

connection with equipment, facilities, and services installed or

deployed on or before January 1, 1995, in order to comply with section

103; (2) additional reasonable plant costs directly associated with

making the requirements in section 103 reasonably achievable with

respect to equipment, facilities, or services installed or deployed

after January 1, 1995; and (3) reasonable plant costs directly

associated with modifications of any telecommunications carriers'

systems or services, as identified in the Carrier Statement, that do

not have the capacity to accommodate simultaneously the number of call-

[[Page 1909]]

content interceptions and interceptions of call-identifying information

set forth in the Final Notice(s).

V. The Initial Notice of Capacity

A. Statement of Capacity Requirements in the Initial Notice

The capacity requirements presented in the Initial Notice were

expressed as percentages of engineered capacity and were reported by

category of historical interception activity levels, with each

geographic area being assigned to one of three categories: I, II, and

III.

Category I included the few densely populated areas that

historically have had high levels of interception activity. Category II

included other densely populated areas and some suburban areas where

interception activity had been moderate. Category III covered all other

geographic areas. All telecommunications carriers would have been

required to meet the minimum requirements established for Category III.

In addition, they were to be notified of those geographic areas within

the areas they serve that fall in Categories I or II.

The percentages of engineered capacity applied to the equipment,

facilities, and services that provide a customer or subscriber with the

ability to originate, terminate, or direct communications. The purpose

of using percentages was to account for the dynamic nature and

diversity of the telecommunications industry.

This approach yielded the following projections of actual and

maximum capacity requirements: for Category I, 0.5 percent for actual,

1 percent for maximum; for Category II, 0.25 percent for actual, 0.5

percent for maximum; for Category III, 0.05 percent for actual, 0.25

percent for maximum.

B. Discussion of Comments on the Initial Notice of Capacity

On October 16, 1995, law enforcement's proposed future actual and

maximum capacity requirements were presented in an Initial Notice

published in the Federal Register as mandated by section 104 of CALEA.

Comments on the Initial Notice were accepted through January 16, 1996.

Fifty-one parties consisting of individuals, companies, and industry

associations submitted comments. The following issues were identified

from the comments received in response to the Initial Notice of

Capacity.

1. The Use of Percentages in Lieu of Fixed Numbers

In the Initial Notice, capacity requirements were expressed as

percentages of engineered capacity. Twenty-one comments were received

on the use of percentages in lieu of fixed numbers. Eighteen of the

comments indicated that law enforcement should use specific numbers

instead of percentages for expressing its actual and maximum capacity

needs and the percentages should be translated into specific numbers

for each area, or for each switch before a Final Notice is issued. Two

of the comments noted that supplying actual capacity figures would not

require disclosure of sensitive information to the public. One comment

stated that percentages would unnecessarily complicate the

implementation and enforcement of CALEA. One comment stated that

percentages do not meet the intent of CALEA.

After consideration of the aforementioned comments, law enforcement

has concluded that capacity requirements for wireline and wirless

carriers will be expressed as fixed numbers rather than as percentages.

2. Engineered Capacity

Twenty comments were received on law enforcement's expression of

actual and maximum capacity requirements as a percentage of the

``engineered capacity'' of the equipment, facilities, or services that

provide a customer or subscriber with the ability to originate,

terminate, or direct communications. Ten of the comments stated that

the definition of engineered capacity was too vague and needed to be

clarified. Six of the comments stated that engineered capacity applied

to land line facilities only and needed to be clarified for wireless

carriers. Two of the comments supported the use of ``installed lines''

as the measure of capacity. One comment preferred the use of voice

channels as a measurement of engineered capacity for wireless systems.

One comment stated that the definition of engineered capacity must be

tailored to each industry segment.

In response to the aforementioned comments and from comments on the

issue of percentages, law enforcement chose to use fixed numbers as the

expression of its capacity needs and thus, the use of terms such as

``engineered capacity'' no longer have any relevance.

3. Geographic Categories

In the Initial Notice, capacity requirements were stated by

category of historical interception levels with each geographic area

being assigned to one of three categories: I, II, or III. Nineteen

comments were received on enforcement's use of geographic

categorization to state its capacity requirements. Nine of the comments

stated that the notice did not indicate which geographic areas fell

into a particular category and that further clarification was needed on

the basis for determining categories. One of the comments noted that

geographic designations were irrelevant in a wireless environment. Four

of the comments remarked that counties did not necessarily correspond

to a particular switch service area. One comment stated that geographic

areas should be clearly defined and reasonably small. One comment

requested clarification on determining capacity when geographic areas

overlapped categories. Three comments stated that rural and remote

areas should be classified as having Category III (lowest level)

requirements.

Law enforcement considered the comments and has concluded that it

will no longer use categories for stating capacity requirements.

Instead, specific geographic locations to include counties for wireline

carriers and market service areas for wireless carriers will be used

for stating capacity requirements.

4. The Issuance of Separate Capacity Requirements to the Wireless

Industry

Four comments were received on the application of the capacity

requirements to the wireless industry. Two of the comments recommended

that the wireline and wireless industry segments be treated separately

for the purpose of issuing capacity requirements. For example, it was

suggested that the geographic divisions proposed in the Initial Notice

were based on a wireline central office architecture, which was

inappropriate given the network structures for wireless carriers.

Furthermore, two of the comments requested clarification as to how

wireless carriers were expected to calculate capacity for their

systems.

After consideration of the comments, law enforcement has concluded

that separate capacity requirements will be established for wireless

carriers.

5. Capacity Requirements in Areas With No Interception History

Three comments were received requesting that the notice address

areas that lacked interception history. One comment stated that if

there was no prior interception history, the capacity number should be

zero while another comment suggested that a fourth category should be

created for areas with sparse populations. One comment requested that

law enforcement clarify whether areas with no interception

[[Page 1910]]

history should be required to provide capability without specific

capacity.

In its review of historical interception activity, law enforcement

recognized that numerous geographic areas had not conducted

interceptions during the time period surveyed, January 1, 1993 to March

1, 1995. However, law enforcement also recognized that interceptions

may have occurred in these geographic areas before or after the time

period surveyed and may well occur again in the future. Because history

has shown that criminal activity and exigent circumstances can occur

anywhere at any time, it is essential that the ability to conduct some

level of interception exists in all geographic areas. Therefore,

minimum capacity requirements were established for those areas that did

not exhibit interception activity during the period surveyed.

6. Application of Capacity Requirements to Other Technologies

Nine comments were received on the application of the capacity

requirements to other services, such as mobile satellite, Cellular

Digital Packet Data (CDPD), Electronic Messaging, and Special Mobile

Radio (SMR) systems. Four of the comments noted that the Initial Notice

of Capacity lacked any discussion of data services and advanced

services, such as CDPD, and that further clarification was needed on

how to calculate capacity requirements for such services. One comment

stated that the Initial Notice was too general to measure the potential

impact on mobile satellite services. Four of the comments requested

clarification as to how the capacity requirements would apply to SMR

carriers in the manner specified.

In response to the aforementioned comments, law enforcement is

issuing a Notice of Capacity applicable to carriers that offer services

of the most immediate concern; those carriers offering local exchange

services and certain commercial mobile radio services, specifically

cellular and PCS services. Before issuing Notices applicable to

carriers other than these, law enforcement will consult with such

carriers in order to assess whether the expression of capacity

requirements herein has any applicability to the way their services are

offered.

7. Interface Recommendations

Seven comments were received on law enforcement's interface

recommendations. Two of the comments requested that interface

recommendations be defined. Two comments stated that telecommunications

carriers needed another opportunity to comment once the interface

recommendations were made available because the interface

recommendations document was considered to be a prerequisite to

compliance. One comment noted that capacity requirements should include

delivery channels. One comment stated that the Initial Notice did not

define the capability to which the capacity requirements applied.

Law enforcement is mandated by section 104 of CALEA to issue

notices of actual and maximum capacity requirements. The Notice

pertains solely to the fulfillment of this CALEA statutory mandate.

Although law enforcement recognizes the importance of the comments

regarding the interface and the capability requirements, such issues

are not within the purview of the Capacity Notice.

8. Definition of Expeditious

One comment was received on the definition of expeditious as used

in section 104 of CALEA regarding the expeditious expansion to maximum

capacity. The comment requested that the term ``expeditiously

increase'' be explained. The comment also requested clarification to

determine the level of effort expected from telecommunications carriers

and what times of day would be required to effectuate interceptions.

In response to the comment to define ``expeditious expansion to

maximum capacity,'' law enforcement considers five business days from

receipt of a court order by a telecommunications carrier from a duly

authorized law enforcement official, to be a reasonable amount of time

to allow for incremental expansion up to the maximum capacity. The

level of effort (and the time of day) required from telecommunications

carriers to effectuate interceptions will be dependent on CALEA

solutions and times specified in electronic surveillance court orders.

9. Definition of Simultaneous

One comment was received on the definition of simultaneous

interception. The comment stated that the Initial Notice did not

adequately define the term ``simultaneous surveillance'' so that switch

capacity could be calculated.

As described in the methodology section of the instant notice, law

enforcement considers interceptions occurring on the same day to be

simultaneous.

10. How Surveillances Were Calculated

Two comments were received requesting clarification on how

surveillances were calculated. One comment stated that law enforcement

should clarify if multiple wiretap orders on the same target from

different law enforcement agencies each accounted for one unit of

capacity. One comment asked for clarification as to whether

interception of a conference call with many multiple parties could be

counted as multiple interceptions.

In calculating surveillance numbers, law enforcement considered

every line specified in an electronic surveillance-related court as one

unit of capacity. This unit of capacity does not include the services

and features (such as a conference call with multiple parties) an

investigative subject may activate.

11. Separate Requirements for Communications (Call-Content), Pen

Registers, and Trap and Traces and Inclusion of National Security

Interceptions

Four comments were received on the issue of releasing separate

requirements for communications, pen register, and trap and trace

interceptions. Two comments stated that clarification was needed to

ensure that all lawful interception requirements were covered and that

the requirements were the aggregate of communications, pen register,

and trap and trace interceptions. One comment stated that the notice

should include all surveillance types, both criminal and national

security. One comment supported the notion that capacity requirements

should be separated by communications, pen register, and trap and trace

interceptions.

Law enforcement chose not to issue capacity requirements by

surveillance type due to the unpredictable nature of the types of

surveillances that may be needed for a particular investigation.

Additionally, law enforcement will not issue capacity requirements for

interceptions associated with national security surveillances in an

unclassified document.

12. Relationship Between Notices of Capacity and the Carrier Statement

The comment received on the Carrier Statement requested

clarification to assess the relationship between the Notice and the

Carrier Statement.

In response to the aforementioned comment, Carrier Statement issues

have been reviewed in section IV.A of this Second Notice.

13. Historical Baseline of Interception Activity

Eleven comments were received on the historical baseline of

interception activity that law enforcement used to calculate its

capacity requirements. Six

[[Page 1911]]

of the comments requested that the underlying data be made available.

One comment noted that the capacity requirements must be consistent

with historical information provided to law enforcement. Two comments

requested that law enforcement compare law enforcement data to carrier

data and that the two data sources be reconciled. One of the comments

urged that the capacity requirements be established for actual numbers

of simultaneous interceptions for the central office and that those

numbers be based on data and information supplied by the carriers.

Another comment stated that the capacity requirements should be based

on historical activity.

As stated in the methodology section of this notice, law

enforcement has based the capacity requirements on the historical

baseline of interception activity for specific geographic areas, and

included reasonable growth factors to establish capacity levels for the

future. Historical baselines are provided in the appendices of the

Second Notice.

14. Methodology

Eight comments were received questioning the methodology used for

determining capacity requirements. Specifically, the comments asked law

enforcement to explain its methodology and justify how actual and

maximum capacity requirements were determined.

In response to these comments, a methodology section included as

part of the Second Notice describes that means by which capacity

requirements were determined.

15. Funding and Cost Impact

Fifteen comments were received on the issues of funding and cost

impact. Three of the comments requested clarification on the cost

impact of complying with CALEA if Congress did not appropriate funding.

Two comments requested that law enforcement provide an equitable

distribution plan for fund disbursement, while another suggested that

law enforcement provide a reasonable assessment of the level of funding

that was available for upgrades. Ten of the comments addressed the

costs associated with compliance.

Issues pertaining to cost recovery and funding are not the subject

or intent of this Notice. Detailed information on funding and cost

recovery issues is provided in the proposed cost recovery rules that

were published in the Federal Register, 61 FR 21396, on May 10, 1996. A

summary of these rules is included in section IV.B of the Second

Notice.

16. Impact on Small Carriers

Three comments were received on the effect that CALEA may have on

small telephone companies. In particular, the comments indicated that

high implementation costs might make compliance difficult to achieve.

In addition, the comments stated that unnecessarily high capacity

requirements might stifle the advancement of new and emerging

telecommunications technologies in rural markets.

Law enforcement recognizes that many small carriers provide service

to geographic areas that historically have had minimal or no electronic

surveillance activity. The capacity requirements stated in this notice

are based on the historical interception activity for a given area. In

order for law enforcement to effectively respond to future incidents of

unusual and unexpected criminality, minimum capacity requirements have

been established for areas with no history of interceptions.

In response to the comment regarding the effect of capacity

requirements on new and emerging technologies, law enforcement also

recognizes that CALEA prohibits law enforcement from specifying the

design of equipment, facilities, features, or systems, or adoption of

any equipment, facility, service or feature by a telecommunications

carrier.

17. Manufacturers' Concern

Three comments were received expressing manufacturers' concerns

with the capacity requirements. One of the comments noted that the

Initial Notice might require capacity expansion beyond current

manufacturers' capabilities. One comment stated that SMR manufacturers

might not have the products required for SMR carriers to comply with

the capacity requirements. One comment stated that equipment should be

designed only from the perspective of the worst case scenario.

Law enforcement has provided capacity estimates in this Second

Notice that can be used by manufacturers in designing and developing

CALEA-compliant solutions for wireline and wireless (cellular and PCS)

technologies. Other technologies, such as SMR, will be addressed in

subsequent Notices of Capacity.

18. Definitions of Installed or Deployed and Significant Upgrade

One comment requested clarification on the terms ``installed'' or

``deployed'', inquiring as to whether equipment ordered before January

1, 1995, but not delivered until after January 1, 1995, would be

considered installed or deployed. Another comment stated the term

significant upgrade must be clearly defined.

The terms installed or deployed and significant upgrade pertain to

the assistance capability requirements and, therefore, are not within

the purview of the Notices on Capacity. (It should be noted that the

definition of installed or deployed was included in the proposed cost

recovery rules published in the Federal Register, 61 FR 21396, on May

10, 1996.)

Louis J. Freeh,

Director, FBI.

[FR Doc. 97-318 Filed 1-13-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-02-M