Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act

Federal RegisterSep 24, 1999

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 22, 24, and 64

[CC Docket No. 97-213, FCC 99-230]

Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document adopts technical requirements for wireline,

cellular, and broadband Personal Communications Services (PCS) carriers

to comply with the assistance capability requirements prescribed by the

Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (CALEA, or

the Act). Specifically, the Commission requires that all capabilities

of J-STD-025 (interim standard) and six of nine ``punch list''

capabilities requested by the Department of Justice (DoJ)/Federal

Bureau of Investigation (FBI) be implemented by wireline, cellular, and

broadband PCS carriers.

DATES: Effective December 23, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rodney Small, Office of Engineering

and Technology, (202) 418-2452; internet: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Third

Report and Order (Third R&O) adopted August 26, 1999, and released

August 31, 1999. The full text of this Commission decision is available

for inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC

Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC,

and also may be purchased from the Commission's duplication contractor,

International Transcription Service, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th

Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.

Summary of Third R&O

1. CALEA, enacted in October 1994, was intended to preserve the

ability of law enforcement officials to conduct electronic surveillance

effectively and efficiently in the face of rapid advances in

telecommunications technology. In enacting this statute, however,

Congress recognized the need to protect privacy interests within the

context of court-authorized electronic surveillance. Thus, in defining

the terms and requirements of the Act, Congress sought to balance three

important policies: (1) To preserve a narrowly focused capability for

law enforcement agencies to carry out properly authorized intercepts;

(2) to protect privacy in the face of increasingly powerful and

personally revealing technologies; and (3) to avoid impeding the

development of new communications services and technologies.

2. Section 103 of CALEA establishes four general ``assistance

capability requirements'' that carriers must meet to achieve compliance

with CALEA. Specifically, section 103 requires a telecommunications

carrier to ensure that its equipment, facilities, and services are

capable of:

(1) Isolating and enabling the government, pursuant to a lawful

authorization, to intercept all wire and electronic communications;

(2) Providing to the government access to call-identifying

information that is ``reasonably available'' to the carrier;

(3) Delivering to the government call content and call-identifying

information in an acceptable form and at a remote location; and,

(4) Facilitating government access unobtrusively and in a manner

that protects privacy and security.

3. CALEA does not specify how these four requirements are to be

met, but section 107(a) specifies a ``safe harbor'' provision, whereby

carriers and manufacturers are deemed CALEA-compliant if they meet

publicly available standards adopted by industry. Between 1995 and

1997, Subcommittee TR45.2 of the Telecommunications Industry

Association (TIA) developed an interim standard, J-STD-025, to serve as

a safe harbor for wireline, cellular, and broadband PCS carriers and

manufacturers under section 107(a). That standard defines services and

features required by wireline, cellular, and broadband PCS carriers to

support lawfully authorized electronic surveillance, and specifies

interfaces necessary to deliver intercepted communications and call-

identifying information to a law enforcement agency (LEA). However, two

parties filed petitions for rulemaking with the Commission, pursuant to

section 107(b) of CALEA, contending that the interim standard was

either overinclusive or underinclusive. Specifically, DoJ/FBI argue

that the interim standard does not satisfy CALEA requirements because

it fails to include the nine essential punch list capabilities, and the

Center for Democracy and Technology argues that the standard is

overinclusive because it includes packet-mode communications and

location information.

4. The Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making (Further NPRM), 63 FR

63639, November 16, 1998, in this proceeding addressed these alleged

deficiencies in the interim standard. In the Further NPRM, the

Commission stated that it did not intend to reexamine any of the

uncontested technical requirements of the interim standard, but would

make determinations only regarding whether the 11 disputed capabilities

met the assistance capability requirements specified in section 103 of

CALEA.

5. The Further NPRM tentatively concluded that the provision by

carriers to LEAs of location information and five punch list

capabilities is necessary to meet the assistance capability

requirements under section 103(a). Those five punch list capabilities

are subject-initiated conference calls; party hold, join, drop on

conference calls; subject-initiated dialing and signaling information;

timing information; and dialed digit extraction (post-cut-through

digits). The Further NPRM also tentatively concluded that the provision

by carriers to LEAs of three punch list capabilities is not necessary

to meet the assistance capability requirements under section 103(a).

Those capabilities are surveillance status messages, continuity check

tones, and feature status messages. Finally, the Further NPRM requested

comment on the remaining punch list item--in-band and out-of-band

signaling--and packet-mode communications issues.

6. The Commission emphasized in the Further NPRM that it was

directed by the Act to take into account five factors that must be

considered under section 107(b) of CALEA. Those factors are: (1)

Meeting the assistance capability requirements of section 103 by cost-

effective methods; (2) protecting the privacy and security of

communications

[[Page 51711]]

not authorized to be intercepted; (3) minimizing the cost of CALEA

compliance on residential ratepayers; (4) serving the policy of the

United States to encourage the provision of new technologies and

services to the public; and, (5) providing a reasonable time and

conditions for CALEA compliance.

7. The Commission also tentatively concluded in the Further NPRM

that, if any additional technical requirements were adopted, they could

be most efficiently implemented by permitting TIA to modify J-STD-025

in accord with the Commission's determinations. The Commission stated

that although TIA may have to undertake additional work to implement

those additional requirements, TIA has the experience and resources to

develop technical specifications and implement CALEA's requirements

most rapidly. Finally, with respect to those additional requirements,

the Further NPRM stated that the Commission would set a deadline for

carrier compliance later than the June 30, 2000 CALEA compliance

deadline specified in the Memorandum Opinion and Order in this

proceeding.

8. In the Third R&O, the Commission found no need to reexamine the

entire interim standard. The Commission stated that no deficiencies in

the interim standard were identified other than with respect to

location information, packet-mode communications, and the punch list.

Since section 107(b) requires the Commission to resolve specific

disputes raised by petition regarding alleged deficiencies in the

industry standard, the Commission declined to consider other aspects of

that standard not challenged in this proceeding. Moreover, by focusing

only on those specific technical issues properly raised before it, the

Commission stated that it will achieve greater efficiency and will

permit telecommunications manufacturers and carriers to deploy CALEA

solutions on a more expedited basis. Accordingly, the Commission found

that wireline, cellular, and broadband PCS carriers must comply with

all uncontested requirements of the interim standard by June 30, 2000.

9. In the Third R&O, the Commission decided that location

information must be provided to law enforcement under CALEA's

assistance capability requirements for ``call-identifying

information.'' CALEA defines call-identifying information as ``dialing

or signaling information that identifies the origin, direction,

destination, or termination of each communication generated or received

by a subscriber by means of any equipment, facility, or service of a

telecommunications carrier.'' The Third R&O concluded that location

information identifies the ``origin'' or ``destination'' of a

communication and thus is covered by CALEA. The Third R&O, however, did

not adopt a location tracking capability. Rather, it permitted LEAs

that have the proper legal authorization to receive from wireline,

cellular, and broadband PCS carriers only the location of a cell site

at the beginning and termination of a mobile call.

10. With respect to a packet-mode capability, the Third R&O decided

that no specific technical requirement should be adopted because the

approach taken to packet-switching technology in J-STD-025 raises

significant privacy concerns, and the record is not sufficiently

developed to support proposing any particular technical requirement for

packet-mode communications. Under J-STD-025, LEAs would be provided

with both call-identifying information and call content even in cases

where a LEA is authorized only to receive call-identifying information

(i.e., under a pen register). Accordingly, the Third R&O invited TIA to

study CALEA solutions for packet-mode technology and report to the

Commission by September 30, 2000 on steps that can be taken, including

amendments to J-STD-025, that will better address privacy concerns. In

the interim, the Third R&O permitted packet-mode communications,

including call-identifying information and call content, to be

delivered to LEAs under the interim standard. Further, the Third R&O

required that packet-mode communications be delivered to LEAs under the

interim standard no later than September 30, 2001.

11. With respect to the nine punch list items, the Third R&O added

to J-STD-025 the five items that were proposed in the Further NPRM as

capabilities mandated by CALEA, and excluded from the final industry

standard the three items that the Further NPRM tentatively found were

not capabilities mandated by CALEA. The Further NPRM also added to J-

STD-025 the item on which the Commission requested comment.

12. Specifically, the following punch list items were included in

the final industry standard:

(1) Content of subject-initiated conference calls--Would enable law

enforcement to access the content of conference calls supported by the

subject's service (including the call content of parties on hold).

13. The Third R&O found that CALEA permits law enforcement to

access the content of subject-initiated conference calls. With

appropriate lawful authorization, the LEA is entitled to ``all wire and

electronic communications carried by the carrier within a service area

to or from equipment, facilities, or services of a subscriber.'' When a

subject is a participant in a conference call using facilities that

have been placed under surveillance pursuant to a court order, the

Third R&O concluded that CALEA requires delivery to law enforcement of

all portions of a call to the extent the carrier's system architecture

permits. However, as the Commission noted in the Further NPRM,

different carriers provide conference calling features in various ways

and not all carriers' system architecture is the same. Conference

calling features include various types of multi-party calls, such as

three-way calling where a bridge is established in the subscriber's

serving switch, as well as ``meet me'' or conference bridge services

where a bridge is established at a remote switch of another carrier. In

the case of the latter type of bridge calls, when the subject

terminates his circuit connection to the conference call, the

communication between other participants no longer is to or from the

subscriber's equipment, facilities, and services, and may no longer

even be carried by the carrier within a service area to or from the

subscriber of the carrier. The Third R&O concluded that it is not

reasonable in such circumstances to require the carrier to provide the

communications of other parties continuing on the conference call

because to do so would not be a cost-effective method of implementing

the conference call intercept and may not protect the privacy and

security of communications not authorized to be intercepted.

Finally, the Third R&O concluded that the anticipated costs to

carriers of adding a conference call capability are not so exorbitant

as to require automatic exclusion of the capability. In percentage

terms, based on revenue data submitted by five manufacturers, these

costs would be 4% of the core J-STD-025 and 9% of the total punch list.

(2) Party hold, join, drop on conference calls--Messages would be

sent to law enforcement that identify the active parties of a call.

Specifically, on a conference call, these messages would indicate

whether a party is on hold, has joined or has been dropped from the

conference call.

14. The Third R&O concluded that party hold/join/drop information

falls within CALEA's definition of ``call-

[[Page 51712]]

identifying information'' because it is ``signaling information that

identifies the origin, direction, destination, or termination of each

communication generated or received'' by the subscriber. Party join

information appears to identify the origin of a communication; party

drop, the termination of a communication; and party hold, the temporary

origin, temporary termination, or re-direction of a communication. This

capability also appears to be necessary to enable law enforcement to

isolate call-identifying and content information because, without it, a

LEA would be unable to determine who is talking to whom, and, more

accurately, to focus on the subject's role in the conversation.

Further, the important privacy objectives set forth by CALEA are

enhanced if law enforcement can better ascertain and isolate

communications involving the subject from those involving only innocent

third parties.

15. Finally, the Third R&O concluded that party hold/join/drop

information is reasonably available to the carrier in those cases where

the carrier's facilities, equipment or services are involved in

providing the service, and that the anticipated costs to carriers of

adding this capability are not so exorbitant as to require automatic

exclusion of the capability. In percentage terms, based on the

manufacturers' aggregate revenue estimates, these costs would be 7% of

the core J-STD-025 and 15% of the total punch list. To the extent that

customer premises equipment (CPE) is used to provide party hold/join/

drop information, the Third R&O concluded that such information is not

reasonably available to the LEA since no network signal would be

generated.

(3) Subject-initiated dialing and signaling information--Access to

all dialing and signaling information available from the subject would

inform law enforcement of a subject's use of features (such as the use

of flash-hook and other feature keys).

16. The Third R&O concluded that subject-initiated dialing and

signaling information fits within the definition of call-identifying

information contained in section 102(2) of CALEA. Call-forwarding

signaling information identifies the direction and destination of a

call, and call-waiting signaling information identifies the origin and

termination of each communication. The Third R&O also concluded that

access to subject-initiated dialing and signaling information may be

necessary in order for the LEA to isolate and correlate call-

identifying and call content information. Knowing what features a

subject is using will ensure that the LEA receives information ``in a

manner that allows it to be associated with the communication to which

it pertains.'' For example, without knowing that a subject has switched

over to a call on call-waiting, the LEA may not be able to associate

the call-identifying information with the call content to which it

pertains and thus could be more likely to mistake one call for another.

Finally, the Third R&O concluded that the anticipated costs to carriers

of adding this capability are not so exorbitant as to require automatic

exclusion of the capability. In percentage terms, based on the

manufacturers' aggregate revenue estimates, these costs would be 4% of

the core J/STD-025 and 8% of the total punch list. To the extent CPE is

used to perform the signaling and no network signal is generated, that

information is not reasonably available to a carrier, and thus, is not

required to be provided.

(4) In-band and out-of-band signaling (notification message)--A

message would be sent to law enforcement whenever a subject's service

sends a tone or other network message to the subject or associate

(e.g., notification that a line is ringing or busy, call waiting

signal).

17. The Third R&O stated that modern networks are capable of using

many types of in-band and out-of band signals. Certain types of

signals, such as ringing and busy signals, clearly fall within the

scope of call-identifying information because they indicate information

about the termination of a call. Other types of signals, however, may

simply be used by carriers for supervision or control of certain

functions and features of the network and do not trigger any audible or

visual message to the subscriber and, thus, would not be call-

identifying information. The Third R&O thus concluded that in-band and

out-of-band signals that are generated at the intercept access point

(IAP) toward the subscriber (e.g., call waiting or stutter dial tone)

and that are being used for call processing purposes are call

identifying information that is reasonably available to the carrier.

Other signals that provide call identifying information (e.g., busy,

fast busy, audible ringing tone), although generated elsewhere in the

carrier's network, pass through the IAP on their way to the subject

even if they are not used for call processing and can be made available

without excessive modifications to the network and thus are reasonably

available to the carrier. Finally, the Third R&O concluded that the

anticipated costs to carriers of adding this capability are not so

exorbitant as to require automatic exclusion of the capability. In

percentage terms, based on the manufacturers' aggregate revenue

estimates, these costs would be 6% of the core J-STD-025 and 14% of the

total punch list. To the extent CPE is used to perform the signaling

and no network signal is generated, that information is not reasonably

available to a carrier, and thus, is not required to be provided.

(5) Timing information--Information would be sent to a LEA

permitting it to correlate call-identifying information with the call

content of a communications interception.

18. The Third R&O concluded that a timing information requirement

is an assistance capability requirement of section 103 of CALEA. First,

the Third R&O found that time stamping is call-identifying information

as defined in section 102(2) of CALEA. This information is needed to

distinguish among several calls occurring at approximately the same

time. In other words, time stamp information is needed to identify

``the origin, direction, destination, or termination'' of any given

call and, thus, fits within the statutory definition of section 102(2).

Second, the Third R&O found that delivery of time stamp information to

the LEA must, pursuant to section 103(a)(2), be provided in such a

timely manner to allow that information ``to be associated with the

communication to which it pertains.'' Finally, the Third R&O found that

the anticipated costs to carriers of adding this capability are not so

exorbitant as to require automatic exclusion of the capability. In

percentage terms, based on the manufacturers' aggregate revenue

estimates, these costs would be 2% of the core J-STD-025 and 5% of the

total punch list.

(6) Dialed digit extraction--A carrier would provide to a LEA on

the call data channel any digits dialed by the subject after connecting

to another carrier's service.

19. The Third R&O found that some digits dialed by a subject after

connecting to a carrier other than the originating carrier are call-

identifying information. While a subject may dial digits after the

initial call set-up that are not call-identifying--e.g., a bank account

number to access his/her bank statement--some digits dialed after

connecting to an interexchange carrier identify the ``origin,

direction, destination or termination'' of communications. With respect

[[Page 51713]]

whether this call-identifying information is ``reasonably available''

to the originating carrier, under the interim standard's definition of

``reasonably available call-identifying information'' it would not be,

because call-identifying information is ``reasonably available'' only

if it is present at an IAP for call processing purposes. However, the

Third R&O found that this definition should be modified. Specifically,

the Third R&O found that if call-identifying information is present at

an IAP and can be made available without the carrier being unduly

burdened with network modifications, that information should be deemed

``reasonably available.'' The record indicates that digits dialed by a

subject after connecting to another carrier can be obtained from the

originating carrier without that carrier being unduly burdened with

network modifications.

20. Additionally, the Third R&O noted that there appears to be a

consensus that LEAs should be permitted to obtain in some fashion

digits dialed by the subject after connecting to another carrier's

service. The Personal Communications Industry Association, Ameritech,

and BellSouth have proposed alternative methods of extracting such

digits, and these methods would minimize the expense to originating

carriers. However, each alternative method would shift the cost burden

to LEAs, and each would also raise significant privacy concerns.

21. Accordingly, the Third R&O found that adopting the Further NPRM

proposal rather than one of the three alternatives suggested in the

comments will best balance the directives of section 107(b) of CALEA

that the capability requirements of section 103 be met by cost-

effective methods and that the privacy and security of communications

not authorized to be intercepted be protected. The Third R&O noted that

the manufacturers' revenue data indicate that the cost of a dialed

digit extraction capability would exceed the cost of any other punch

list capability. In percentage terms, based on the manufacturers'

aggregate revenue estimates, this cost would be 13% of the core interim

standard and 29% of the total punch list. Based on the manufacturers'

wireless revenue estimates, this cost would be 17% of the core J-STD-

025 and 26% of the total punch list. However, in balancing these costs

against other statutory requirements, the Third R&O found them not to

be so exorbitant as to require automatic exclusion of the capability.

Further, it is unclear whether any of the alternative methods proposed

would be significantly less expensive; rather, they would simply shift

the cost burden from carriers to LEAs.

22. The following punch list items were excluded from the final

industry standard:

(1) Surveillance status--This capability would require the carrier

to send a message to law enforcement to verify that a wiretap has been

established and is still functioning correctly.

23. The Third R&O concluded that providing surveillance status

information does not constitute a technical requirement necessary for

meeting CALEA's assistance capability requirements. Although CALEA

requires carriers to ensure that authorized wiretaps can be performed

in an expeditious manner--and the Third R&O found that a surveillance

status message could assist carriers and law enforcement in determining

the status of such wiretaps--the Third R&O also found that this feature

does not fall within any of the assistance capability requirements

expressly set forth in CALEA. This feature does not appear to be call-

identifying information as defined by CALEA, since the information that

such a feature would provide would not identify ``the origin,

direction, destination, or termination of each communication.'' The

FBI's contrary interpretation is that this feature fits within CALEA's

requirement that a carrier ``shall ensure'' that its system is capable

of meeting the section 103(a) requirements. The Third R&O noted,

however, that the plain language of the Act--``a telecommunications

carrier shall ensure that its equipment, facilities, or services * * *

are capable of'' intercepting communications and allowing law

enforcement access to call identifying information--appears to mandate

compliance with the assistance capability requirements but not to

require that such capability be proven or verified on a continual

basis.

(2) Continuity check tone (C-tone)--Electronic signal that would

alert law enforcement if the facility used for delivery of call content

interception has failed or lost continuity.

24. The Third R&O concluded that providing a C-tone does not

constitute a CALEA technical requirement. As with the case of

surveillance status, above, the Third R&O found that this feature could

assist law enforcement to determine the status of a wiretap, but it

does not fit within the assistance capability requirements expressly

set forth in CALEA because the information such a feature would provide

would not identify ``the origin, direction, destination, or termination

of each communication.'' Nor does it appear to be required under

section 103(a)(1), since it is not a wire or electronic communications

carried on a carrier's system. The plain language of the statute

mandates compliance with the capability requirements of section 103(a),

but does not require that such capability be proven or verified on a

continual basis. Ensuring that a wiretap is operational can be done in

either a technical or non-technical manner, and section 103(a) does not

include ``ensurance'' itself as a capability. Thus, the Third R&O

concluded that the continuity tone punch list item is not an assistance

capability requirement under section 103.

(3) Feature status--Would affirmatively notify law enforcement

when, for the facilities under surveillance, specific subscription-

based calling services are added or deleted, even when the subject

modifies capabilities remotely through another phone or through an

operator.

25. The Third R&O concluded that provision of feature status

messages does not constitute a CALEA technical requirement. As with the

cases of surveillance status messages and continuity tones, the Third

R&O found that feature status messages could be useful to an LEA, but

that provision of these messages from a carrier to an LEA does not fit

within the assistance capability requirements expressly set forth in

CALEA. First, Third R&O stated that it is clear that feature status

messages do not constitute call-identifying information because they do

not pertain to the actual placement or receipt of calls. Further,

feature status messages do not appear to be necessary to intercept

either wire or electronic communications carried on a carrier's system.

Rather, they would simply aid an LEA in determining how much capacity

is required to implement and maintain effective electronic surveillance

of a target facility, information that could be useful in assuring that

an interception is fully effectuated and the intercepted material

delivered as authorized. However, the information that would be

provided by feature status messages can be provided by other means,

such as a subpoena to the carrier. In any event, the plain language of

the Act appears to mandate compliance with the assistance capability

requirements, but does not appear to require carriers to implement any

specific quality control capabilities to assist law enforcement.

[[Page 51714]]

26. Finally, the Third R&O found that the new required capabilities

can be most efficiently implemented by permitting TIA Subcommittee 45.2

to make the modifications. LEAs, carriers, and manufacturers are voting

members of the Subcommittee, and the Subcommittee has the experience

and resources in place to resolve these issues quickly. Regarding the

specific timing requirements, Third R&O found that seven months; i.e.,

by March 30, 2000, is a reasonable period of time for TIA to complete

the necessary changes to J-STD-025. Commission staff will closely

monitor the development of the revised standard, but will not

participate directly so that the Commission can maintain its

impartiality in the event of disputes relative to the revised standard.

27. The Third R&O specified that wireline, cellular, and broadband

PCS carriers make the six punch list capabilities available to LEAs in

the same timeframe as packet-mode communications; i.e., by September

30, 2001. Relative to implementation of the core J-STD-025, this will

provide carriers an additional 15 months to implement these

capabilities. Because manufacturers have had development of these

capabilities under consideration for several years, the Third R&O found

that this additional time will prove sufficient for the development

process to be completed and for carriers to implement these

capabilities.

Ordering Clauses

28. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to sections 1, 4,

229, 301, 303, and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,

and 107(b) of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, 47

U.S.C. 151, 154, 229, 301, 303, 332, and 1006(b), the Third Report and

Order and the rules specified herein are adopted.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

29. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(RFA),1 an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)

was incorporated in the Further NPRM.2 The Commission sought

written public comments on the proposals in the Further NPRM, including

the IRFA. This Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to

the RFA.3

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

\1\ See 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq., has

been amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996,

Public Law 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of the

CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996 (SBREFA).

\2\ 63 FR 63639, November 16, 1998, 13 FCC Rcd 22632 (1998).

\3\ See 5 U.S.C. 604.

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

(A) Need for and Purpose of This Action

30. The Third Report and Order responds to the legislative mandate

contained in the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act,

Public Law 103-414, 108 Stat. 4279 (1994) (codified as amended in

sections of 18 U.S.C. and 47 U.S.C.). The Commission, in compliance

with 47 U.S.C. 229, promulgates rules in the Third Report and Order to

ensure the prompt implementation of section 103 of CALEA. In enacting

CALEA, Congress sought to balance three key policies with CALEA: ``(1)

To preserve a narrowly focused capability for law enforcement agencies

to carry out properly authorized intercepts; (2) to protect privacy in

the face of increasingly powerful and personally revealing

technologies; and (3) to avoid impeding the development of new

communications services and technologies.''

31. The rules adopted in this Third Report and Order implement

Congress's goal to balance the three key policies enumerated above. The

objective of the rules is to implement as quickly and effectively as

possible the national telecommunications policy for wireline, cellular,

and broadband PCS telecommunications carriers to support the lawful

electronic surveillance needs of law enforcement agencies.

(B) Summary of the Issues Raised by Public Comments Made in Response to

the IRFA

32. Summary of Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA). In

the Further NPRM, the Commission performed an IRFA and asked for

comments that specifically addressed issues raised in the IRFA. No

parties filed comments directly in response to the IRFA. In response to

non-IFRA comments to the Further NPRM, we have modified several of the

Commission's proposals, particularly regarding packet switching,

conference call content, in-band and out-of-band signaling, and timing

information, as discussed above.

This Third Report and Order

33. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where

feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be

affected by the action taken.4 The RFA generally defines the

term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small

business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental

jurisdiction.'' 5 In addition, the term ``small business''

has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the

Small Business Act.6 A small business concern is one that:

(1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its

field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria

established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).7 A

small organization is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which

is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.''

8 Nationwide, as of 1992, there were approximately 275,801

small organizations.9 And finally, ``small governmental

jurisdiction'' generally means ``governments of cities, counties,

towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts,

with a population of less than 50,000.'' 10 As of 1992,

there were approximately 85,006 such jurisdictions in the United

States.11 This number includes 38,978 counties, cities, and

towns; of these, 37,566, or 96 percent, have populations of fewer than

50,000.12 The United States Bureau of the Census (Census

Bureau) estimates that this ratio is approximately accurate for all

governmental entities. Thus, of the 85,006 governmental entities, we

estimate that 81,600 (91 percent) are small entities. We further

describe and estimate the number of small business concerns that may be

affected by the actions taken in the Third Report and Order.

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

\4\ 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3).

\5\ Id. 601(6).

\6\ 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition

of ``small business concern'' in 15 U.S.C. 632). Pursuant to the

RFA, the statutory definition of a small business applies ``unless

an agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the

Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public

comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are

appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such

definition(s) in the Federal Register.'' 5 U.S.C. 601(3).

\7\ Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632.

\8\ 5 U.S.C. 601(4).

\9\ 1992 Economic Census, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Table 6

(special tabulation of data under contract to Office of Advocacy of

the U.S. Small Business Administration).

\10\ 5 U.S.C. 601(5).

\11\ U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, ``1992 Census

of Governments.''

\12\ Id.

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

34. As noted, under the Small Business Act, a ``small business

concern'' is one that: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is

not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) meets any additional

criteria established by the SBA.13 The SBA has defined a

small business for Standard Industrial

[[Page 51715]]

Classification (SIC) categories 4812 (Radiotelephone Communications)

and 4813 (Telephone Communications, Except Radiotelephone) to be small

entities when they have no more than 1,500 employees.14 We

first discuss the number of small telecommunications entities falling

within these SIC categories, then attempt to refine further those

estimates to correspond with the categories of telecommunications

companies that are commonly used under our rules.

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

\13\ 15 U.S.C. 632. See, e.g., Brown Transport Truckload, Inc.

v. Southern Wipers, Inc., 176 B.R. 82 (N.D. Ga. 1994).

\14\ 13 CFR 121.201.

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

35. Total Number of Telecommunications Entities Affected. The

Census Bureau reports that, at the end of 1992, there were 3,497 firms

engaged in providing telephone services, as defined therein, for at

least one year.15 This number contains a variety of

different categories of entities, including local exchange carriers,

interexchange carriers, competitive access providers, cellular

carriers, mobile service carriers, operator service providers, pay

telephone operators, PCS providers, covered SMR providers, and

resellers. It seems certain that some of those 3,497 telephone service

firms may not qualify as small entities or small incumbent LECs because

they are not ``independently owned and operated.'' 16 For

example, a PCS provider that is affiliated with an interexchange

carrier having more than 1,500 employees would not meet the definition

of a small business. It seems reasonable to conclude, therefore, that

fewer than 3,497 telephone service firms are small entity telephone

service firms or small incumbent LECs that may be affected by the

actions taken in this Third Report and Order.

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

\15\ United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,

1992 Census of Transportation, Communications, and Utilities:

Establishment and Firm Size, at Firm Size 1-123 (1995) (``1992

Census'').

\16\ 15 U.S.C. 632(a)(1).

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

36. The most reliable source of current information regarding the

total numbers of common carrier and related providers nationwide,

including the numbers of commercial wireless entities, appears to be

data the Commission publishes annually in its Carrier Locator report,

derived from filings made in connection with the Telecommunications

Relay Service (TRS).17 According to data in the most recent

report, there are 3,604 interstate carriers.18 These

include, inter alia, local exchange carriers, wireline carriers and

service providers, interexchange carriers, competitive access

providers, operator service providers, pay telephone operators,

providers of telephone toll service, providers of telephone exchange

service, and resellers.

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

\17\ FCC, Carrier Locator: Interstate Service Providers, Figure

1 (Jan. 1999) (Carrier Locator). See also 47 CFR 64.601-.608.

\18\ Carrier Locator at Fig. 1.

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

37. We have included small incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs)

in this RFA analysis. As noted above, a ``small business'' under the

RFA is one that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small business size

standard (e.g., a telephone communications business having 1,500 or

fewer employees), and ``is not dominant in its field of operation.''

19 The SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA

purposes, small incumbent LECs are not dominant in their field of

operation because any such dominance is not ``national'' in

scope.20 We have therefore included small incumbent LECs in

this RFA analysis, although we emphasize that this RFA action has no

effect on FCC analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts.

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

\19\ 5 U.S.C. 601(3).

\20\ Letter from Jere W. Glover, Chief Counsel for Advocacy,

SBA, to William E. Kennard, Chairman, FCC (May 27, 1999). The Small

Business Act contains a definition of ``small business concern,''

which the RFA incorporates into its own definition of ``small

business.'' See 15 U.S.C. 632(a) (Small Business Act); 5 U.S.C.

601(3) (RFA). SBA regulations interpret ``small business concern''

to include the concept of dominance on a national basis. 13 CFR

121.102(b). Since 1996, out of an abundance of caution, the

Commission has included small incumbent LECs in its regulatory

flexibility analyses. Implementation of the Local Competition

Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket, 96-98,

First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15499 (1996), 61 FR 45476, August

29, 1996.

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

38. Wireline Carriers and Service Providers (SIC 4813). The Census

Bureau reports that there were 2,321 telephone communications companies

other than radiotelephone companies in operation for at least one year

at the end of 1992.21 All but 26 of the 2,321 non-

radiotelephone companies listed by the Census Bureau were reported to

have fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, even if all 26 of those

companies had more than 1,500 employees, there would still be 2,295

non-radiotelephone companies that might qualify as small entities or

small incumbent LECs. Although it seems certain that some of these

carriers are not independently owned and operated, we are unable at

this time to estimate with greater precision the number of wireline

carriers and service providers that would qualify as small business

concerns under SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that there

are fewer than 2,295 small entity telephone communications companies

other than radiotelephone companies that may be affected by the actions

taken in this Third Report and Order.

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

\21\ 1992 Census, supra, at Firm Size 1-123.

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

39. Local Exchange Carriers, Interexchange Carriers, Competitive

Access Providers, and Resellers. Neither the Commission nor SBA has

developed a definition of small LECs, interexchange carriers (IXCs),

competitive access providers (CAPs), or resellers. The closest

applicable definition for these carrier-types under SBA rules is for

telephone communications companies other than radiotelephone (wireless)

companies.22 The most reliable source of information

regarding the number of these carriers nationwide of which we are aware

appears to be the data that we collect annually in connection with the

TRS.23 According to our most recent data, there are 1,410

LECs, 151 IXCs, 129 CAPs, and 351 resellers.24 Although it

seems certain that some of these carriers are not independently owned

and operated, or have more than 1,500 employees, we are unable at this

time to estimate with greater precision the number of these carriers

that would qualify as small business concerns under SBA's definition.

Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 1,410 small entity

LECs or small incumbent LECs, 151 IXCs, 129 CAPs, and 351 resellers

that may be affected by the actions taken in the Third Report and

Order.

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

\22\ 13 CFR 121.210, SIC Code 4813.

\23\ See 47 CFR 64.601 et seq.; Carrier Locator at Fig. 1.

\24\ Carrier Locator at Fig. 1. The total for resellers includes

both toll resellers and local resellers. The TRS category for CAPs

also includes competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs) (total of

129 for both).

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

40. Wireless Carriers (SIC 4812). The Census Bureau reports that

there were 1,176 radiotelephone (wireless) companies in operation for

at least one year at the end of 1992, of which 1,164 had fewer than

1,000 employees.25 Even if all of the remaining 12 companies

had more than 1,500 employees, there would still be 1,164

radiotelephone companies that might qualify as small entities if they

are independently owned are operated. Although it seems certain that

some of these carriers are not independently owned and operated, we are

unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of

radiotelephone carriers and service providers that would qualify as

small business concerns under SBA's definition. Consequently, we

estimate that there are fewer than 1,164 small

[[Page 51716]]

entity radiotelephone companies that may be affected by the actions

taken in this Third Report and Order.

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

\25\ United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,

1992 Census of Transportation, Communications, and Utilities:

Establishment and Firm Size, at Firm Size 1-123 (1995) (``1992

Census'').

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

41. Cellular, PCS, SMR and Other Mobile Service Providers. In an

effort to further refine our calculation of the number of

radiotelephone companies that may be affected by the actions taken in

this Second Report and Order, we consider the data that we collect

annually in connection with the TRS for the subcategories Wireless

Telephony (which includes PCS, Cellular, and SMR) and Other Mobile

Service Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a

definition of small entities specifically applicable to these broad

subcategories, so we will utilize the closest applicable definition

under SBA rules, which is for radiotelephone communications

companies.26 According to our most recent TRS data, 732

companies reported that they are engaged in the provision of Wireless

Telephony services and 23 companies reported that they are engaged in

the provision of Other Mobile Services.27 Although it seems

certain that some of these carriers are not independently owned and

operated, or have more than 1,500 employees, we are unable at this time

to estimate with greater precision the number of Wireless Telephony

Providers and Other Mobile Service Providers, except as described

below, that would qualify as small business concerns under SBA's

definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 732

small entity Wireless Telephony Providers and fewer than 23 small

entity Other Mobile Service Providers that might be affected by the

actions taken in this Second Report and Order.

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

\26\ Id. To the extent that the Commission has adopted

definitions for small entities in connection with the auction of

particular wireless licenses, we discuss those definitions below.

\27\ Carrier Locator at Fig. 1.

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

42. Broadband PCS Licensees. The broadband PCS spectrum is divided

into six frequency blocks designated A through F, and the Commission

has held auctions for each block. The Commission defined ``small

business'' for Blocks C and F as an entity that has average gross

revenues of not more than $40 million in the three previous calendar

years.28 These regulations defining ``small business'' in

the context of broadband PCS auctions have been approved by

SBA.29 No small businesses within the SBA-approved

definition bid successfully for licenses in Blocks A and B. There have

been 237 winning bidders that qualified as small entities in the four

auctions that have been held for licenses in Blocks C, D, E and F, all

of which may be affected by the actions taken in this Second Report and

Order.

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

\28\ 47 CFR 24.720(b)(1).

\29\ Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications

Act--Competitive Bidding, PP Docket No. 93-253, Fifth Report and

Order, 9 FCC Rcd 5532 (1994), 59 FR 37566, July 22, 1994.

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

43. Cellular Licensees. According to the Bureau of the Census, only

twelve radiotelephone firms from a total of 1,178 such firms which

operated during 1992 had 1,000 or more employees. Therefore, even if

all twelve of these firms were cellular telephone companies, nearly all

cellular carriers were small businesses under the SBA's definition. In

addition, we note that there are 1,758 cellular licenses; however, a

cellular licensee may own several licenses. In addition, according to

the most recent Carrier Locator data, 732 carriers reported that they

were engaged in the provision of either cellular service or PCS

services, which are placed together in the data. We do not have data

specifying the number of these carriers that are not independently

owned and operated or have more than 1,500 employees, and thus are

unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of

cellular service carriers that would qualify as small business concerns

under the SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are

fewer than 732 small cellular service carriers that may be affected by

the actions taken in this Second Report and Order.

(D) Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other

Compliance Requirements

44. No reporting and recordkeeping requirements are imposed on

telecommunications carriers, thus burdens on carriers, including small

carriers, are not increased as a result of actions taken herein.

Telecommunications carriers, including small carriers, will have to

upgrade their network facilities to provide to law enforcement the

assistance capability requirements adopted herein. Although compliance

with the technical requirements will impose costs on carriers, the

record was not sufficient to analyze thoroughly the costs to carriers,

including small carriers.

(E) Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small

Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered

45. The need for the regulations adopted herein is mandated by

Federal legislation. In the final regulations, we affirm our proposals

in the Further NPRM to establish regulations for wireline, cellular,

and broadband PCS telecommunications carriers. Costs to

telecommunications carriers will be mitigated in several ways. For

example, the final regulations will require telecommunications

carrier's to make available to law enforcement call identifying

information when it can be done without unduly burdening the carrier

with network modifications, thus allowing cost to be a consideration in

determining whether the information is reasonably available to the

carrier and can be provided to law enforcement . Thus, compliance with

the assistance capability requirements of CALEA will be reasonable for

all carriers, including small carriers. Also, under CALEA some carriers

will be able to request reimbursement from the Department of Justice

for network upgrades to comply with the technical requirements adopted

herein, and others may be able to defer network upgrades to their

normal business cycle under a plan being developed by the Department of

Justice.

Report to Congress

46. The Commission will send a copy of this FRFA, along with this

Third Report and Order, in a report to Congress pursuant to the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C.

801(a)(1)(A). In addition, the Commission will send a copy of this

Third Report and Order, including the FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for

Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

List of Subjects

47 CFR Part 22

Public mobile services.

47 CFR Part 24

Personal communications services.

47 CFR Part 64

Miscellaneous rules relating to common carriers.

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

Rule Changes

For the reasons discussed in the preamble parts 22, 24 and 64 of

the Code of Federal Regulations is revised as follows:

PART 22--PUBLIC MOBILE SERVICES

1. The authority citation for part 22 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 222, 303, 309 and 332.

2. Part 22 is amended to add subpart J to read as follows:

[[Page 51717]]

Subpart J--Required New Capabilities Pursuant to the Communications

Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA)

Sec.

22.1100 Purpose.

22.1101 Scope.

22.1102 Definitions.

22.1103 Capabilities that must be provided by a cellular

telecommunications carrier.

Sec. 22.1100 Purpose.

Pursuant to the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act

(CALEA), Public Law 103-414, 108 Stat. 4279 (1994) (codified as amended

in sections of 18 U.S.C. and 47 U.S.C.), this subpart contains rules

that require a cellular telecommunications carrier to implement certain

capabilities to ensure law enforcement access to authorized

communications or call-identifying information.

Sec. 22.1101 Scope.

The definitions included in this subpart shall be used solely for

the purpose of implementing CALEA requirements.

Sec. 22.1102 Definitions.

Call identifying information. Call identifying information means

dialing or signaling information that identifies the origin, direction,

destination, or termination of each communication generated or received

by a subscriber by means of any equipment, facility, or service of a

telecommunications carrier. Call identifying information is

``reasonably available'' to a carrier if it is present at an intercept

access point and can be made available without the carrier being unduly

burdened with network modifications.

Collection function. The location where lawfully authorized

intercepted communications and call-identifying information is

collected by a law enforcement agency (LEA).

Content of subject-initiated conference calls. Capability that

permits a LEA to monitor the content of conversations by all parties

connected via a conference call when the facilities under surveillance

maintain a circuit connection to the call.

Dialed digit extraction. Capability that permits a LEA to receive

on the call data channel digits dialed by a subject when a call is

connected to another carrier's service for processing and routing.

In-band and out-of-band signaling. Capability that permits a LEA to

be informed when a network message that provides call identifying

information (e.g., ringing, busy, call waiting signal, message light)

is generated or sent by the IAP switch to a subject using the

facilities under surveillance. Excludes signals generated by customer

premises equipment when no network signal is generated.

Intercept Access Point (IAP). Intercept access point is a point

within a carrier's system where some of the communications or call-

identifying information of an intercept subject's equipment,

facilities, and services are accessed.

J-STD-025. The interim standard developed by the Telecommunications

Industry Association and the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry

Solutions for wireline, cellular, and broadband PCS carriers. This

standard defines services and features to support lawfully authorized

electronic surveillance, and specifies interfaces necessary to deliver

intercepted communications and call-identifying information to a LEA.

LEA. Law enforcement agency; e.g., the Federal Bureau of

Investigation or a local police department.

Party hold, join, drop on conference calls. Capability that permits

a LEA to identify the parties to a conference call conversation at all

times.

Subject-initiated dialing and signaling information. Capability

that permits a LEA to be informed when a subject using the facilities

under surveillance uses services that provide call identifying

information, such as call forwarding, call waiting, call hold, and

three-way calling. Excludes signals generated by customer premises

equipment when no network signal is generated.

Timing information. Capability that permits a LEA to associate

call-identifying information with the content of a call. A call-

identifying message must be sent from the carrier's IAP to the LEA's

Collection Function within eight seconds of receipt of that message by

the IAP at least 95% of the time, and with the call event time-stamped

to an accuracy of at least 200 milliseconds.

Sec. 22.1103 Capabilities that must be provided by a cellular

telecommunications carrier.

(a) Except as provided under paragraph (b) of this section, as of

June 30, 2000, a cellular telecommunications carrier shall provide to a

LEA the assistance capability requirements of CALEA, see 47 U.S.C.

1002. A carrier may satisfy these requirements by complying with

publicly available technical requirements or standards adopted by an

industry association or standard-setting organization, such as J-STD-

025.

(b) As of September 30, 2001, a cellular telecommunications carrier

shall provide to a LEA communications and call-identifying information

transported by packet-mode communications and the following

capabilities:

(1) Content of subject-initiated conference calls;

(2) Party hold, join, drop on conference calls;

(3) Subject-initiated dialing and signaling information ;

(4) In-band and out-of-band signaling;

(5) Timing information;

(6) Dialed digit extraction.

PART 24--PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES

3. The authority citation for part 24 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303, 309 and 332.

4. Part 24 is amended to add subpart J to read as follows:

Subpart J--Required New Capabilities Pursuant to the Communications

Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA)

Sec.

24.900 Purpose.

24.901 Scope.

24.902 Definitions.

24.903 Capabilities that must be provided by a broadcast PCS

telecommunications carrier.

Sec. 24.900 Purpose.

Pursuant to the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act

(CALEA), Public Law 103-414, 108 Stat. 4279 (1994) (codified as amended

in sections of 18 U.S.C. and 47 U.S.C.), this subpart contains rules

that require a broadband PCS telecommunications carrier to implement

certain capabilities to ensure law enforcement access to authorized

communications or call-identifying information.

Sec. 24.901 Scope.

The definitions included in this subpart shall be used solely for

the purpose of implementing CALEA requirements.

Sec. 24.902 Definitions.

Call identifying information. Call identifying information means

dialing or signaling information that identifies the origin, direction,

destination, or termination of each communication generated or received

by a subscriber by means of any equipment, facility, or service of a

telecommunications carrier. Call identifying information is

``reasonably available'' to a carrier if it is present at an intercept

access point and can be made available without the

[[Page 51718]]

carrier being unduly burdened with network modifications.

Collection function. The location where lawfully authorized

intercepted communications and call-identifying information is

collected by a law enforcement agency (LEA).

Content of subject-initiated conference calls. Capability that

permits a LEA to monitor the content of conversations by all parties

connected via a conference call when the facilities under surveillance

maintain a circuit connection to the call.

Dialed digit extraction. Capability that permits a LEA to receive

on the call data channel a digits dialed by a subject after a call is

connected to another carrier's service for processing and routing.

IAP. Intercept access point is a point within a carrier's system

where some of the communications or call-identifying information of an

intercept subject's equipment, facilities, and services are accessed.

In-band and out-of-band signaling. Capability that permits a LEA to

be informed when a network message that provides call identifying

information (e.g., ringing, busy, call waiting signal, message light)

is generated or sent by the IAP switch to a subject using the

facilities under surveillance. Excludes signals generated by customer

premises equipment when no network signal is generated.

J-STD-025. The interim standard developed by the Telecommunications

Industry Association and the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry

Solutions for wireline, cellular, and broadband PCS carriers. This

standard defines services and features to support lawfully authorized

electronic surveillance, and specifies interfaces necessary to deliver

intercepted communications and call-identifying information to a LEA.

LEA. Law enforcement agency; e.g., the Federal Bureau of

Investigation or a local police department.

Party hold, join, drop on conference calls. Capability that permits

a LEA to identify the parties to a conference call conversation at all

times.

Subject-initiated dialing and signaling information. Capability

that permits a LEA to be informed when a subject using the facilities

under surveillance uses services that provide call identifying

information, such as call forwarding, call waiting, call hold, and

three-way calling. Excludes signals generated by customer premises

equipment when no network signal is generated.

Timing information. Capability that permits a LEA to associate

call-identifying information with the content of a call. A call-

identifying message must be sent from the carrier's IAP to the LEA's

Collection Function within eight seconds of receipt of that message by

the IAP at least 95% of the time, and with the call event time-stamped

to an accuracy of at least 200 milliseconds.

Sec. 24.903 Capabilities that must be provided by a broadband PCS

telecommunications carrier.

(a) Except as provided under paragraph (b) of this section, as of

June 30, 2000, a cellular telecommunications carrier shall provide to a

LEA the assistance capability requirements of CALEA, see 47 U.S.C.

1002. A carrier may satisfy these requirements by complying with

publicly available technical requirements or standards adopted by an

industry association or standard-setting organization, such as J-STD-

025.

(b) As of September 30, 2001, a cellular telecommunications carrier

shall provide to a LEA communications and call-identifying information

transported by packet-mode communications and the following

capabilities:

(1) Content of subject-initiated conference calls;

(2) Party hold, join, drop on conference calls;

(3) Subject-initiated dialing and signaling information ;

(4) In-band and out-of-band signaling;

(5) Timing information;

(6) Dialed digit extraction.

PART 64--MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS

5. The authority citation for part 64 is amended to read as

follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 201, 202, 205, 218-220, and 332

unless otherwise noted. Interpret or apply sections 201, 218, 225,

226, 227, 229, 332, 48 Stat. 1070, as amended. 47 U.S.C. 201-204,

208, 225, 226, 227, 229, 332, 501 and 503 unless otherwise noted.

6. Part 64 is amended to add Subpart W to read as follows:

Subpart W--Required New Capabilities Pursuant to the Communications

Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA)

Sec.

64.2200 Purpose.

64.2201 Scope.

64.2202 Definitions.

64.2203 Capabilities that must be provided by a wireline

telecommunications carrier.

Sec. 64.2200 Purpose.

Pursuant to the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act

(CALEA), Public Law 103-414, 108 Stat. 4279 (1994) (codified as amended

in sections of 18 U.S.C. and 47 U.S.C.), this subpart contains rules

that require a wireline telecommunications carrier to implement certain

capabilities to ensure law enforcement access to authorized

communications or call-identifying information.

Sec. 64.2201 Scope.

The definitions included in this subpart shall be used solely for

the purpose of implementing CALEA requirements.

Sec. 64.2202 Definitions.