[Federal Register: January 14, 1997 (Volume 62, Number 9)]
[Notices]
[Page 1902-1911]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Return to the EPIC Wiretap Page