[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 85 (Thursday, May 2, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21999-22008]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-10832]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 22, 24 and 64

[CC Docket No. 97-213; FCC 02-108]


Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document adopts four electronic surveillance capabilities 
for wireline, cellular, and broadband Personal Communications Services 
(``PCS'') telecommunications carriers and sets a compliance date of 
June 30, 2002 for those four capabilities, as well as two capabilities 
previously mandated by the Commission. The Commission takes this action 
under the provisions of the Communications Assistance for Law 
Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-414, 108 Stat. 4279 (1994) 
(codified as amended in scattered sections of 18 U.S.C. and 47 U.S.C. 
229, 1001-1010, 1021)). (``CALEA'') and in response to a decision 
issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit (``Court'') that vacated four Department of Justice 
(``DoJ'')/Federal Bureau of Investigation (``FBI'') ``punch list'' 
electronic surveillance capabilities mandated by the Commission's Third 
Report and Order (``Third R&O'') in this proceeding.

DATES: Effective June 3, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jamison Prime, Office of Engineering 
and Technology, (202) 418-7474, TTY (202) 418-2989, e-mail: 
[email protected] or Rodney Small, Office of Engineering and Technology, 
(202) 418-2452, TTY (202) 418-2989, e-mail [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Order 
on Remand, CC Docket No. 97-213, FCC 02-108, adopted April 5, 2002, and 
released April 11, 2002. The full text of this document is available on 
the Commission's internet site at www.fcc.gov. It is also available for 
inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC 
Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street., SW, Washington, DC 
20554. The complete text of this document may be purchased from the 
Commission's duplication contractor, Qualex International, (202) 863-
2893 voice, (202) 863-2898 Fax, [email protected] e-mail, Portals II, 
445 12th St., SW, Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554.

Summary of Order on Remand

    1. The Order on Remand adopts additional technical requirements for 
wireline, cellular, and broadband PCS carriers to comply with the 
assistance capability requirements prescribed by CALEA and sets a June 
30, 2002 compliance date for carriers to provide these capabilities. 
Section 103(a) of CALEA requires that a telecommunications carrier 
shall ensure that its equipment, facilities, or services that provide a 
customer or subscriber with the ability to originate, terminate, or 
direct communications are capable of isolating and providing to the 
government, pursuant to a lawful authorization, certain wire and 
electronic communications, including call-identifying information that 
is reasonably available to the carrier. Under section 107(a)(2) of 
CALEA (the ``safe harbor'' provision), carriers and manufacturers that 
comply with industry standards for electronic surveillance are deemed 
in compliance with their specific responsibilities under CALEA, but, if 
industry associations or standard-setting organizations fail to issue 
technical requirements or standards or if a Government agency or any 
other person believes that such requirements or standards are 
deficient, the Commission is authorized in response to a petition from 
any Government agency or person, to establish, by rule, technical 
requirements or standards. Under section 107 (b) of (CALEA) technical 
requirements or standards adopted by the Commission must meet the 
assistance capability requirements of section 103 by cost-effective 
methods; protect the privacy and security of communications not 
authorized to be intercepted; minimize the cost of such compliance on 
residential ratepayers; serve the policy of the United States to 
encourage the provision of new technologies and services to the public; 
and provide a reasonable time and conditions for compliance with and 
the transition to any new standard.
    2. In the Third R&O, 14 FCC Rcd 16794, 64 FR 51710, September 24, 
1999, the Commission required that

[[Page 22000]]

wireline, cellular, and broadband PCS carriers implement all electronic 
surveillance capabilities of the industry interim standard, J-STD-025 
(``J-Standard'') and six of nine additional capabilities requested by 
DoJ/FBI, known as the ``punch list'' capabilities. With respect to the 
six required punch list capabilities, ``dialed digit extraction'' would 
provide to law enforcement agencies (``LEAs'') those digits dialed by a 
subject after the initial call setup is completed; ``party hold/join/
drop'' would provide to LEAs information to identify the active parties 
to a conference call; ``subject-initiated dialing and signaling'' would 
provide to LEAs access to all dialing and signaling information 
available from the subject, such as the use of flash-hook and other 
feature keys; ``in-band and out-of-band signaling'' would provide to 
LEAs information about tones or other network signals and messages that 
a subject's service sends to the subject or associate, such as 
notification that a line is ringing or busy; ``subject-initiated 
conference calls'' would provide to LEAs the content of conference 
calls supported by the subject's service; and ``timing information'' 
would provide to LEAs information necessary to correlate call-
identifying information with call content.
    3. Several parties challenged the Commission's decision before the 
Court. In its August 15, 2000 Remand Decision, 227 F. 3d 450, the Court 
affirmed the Commission's findings in the Third R&O in part and vacated 
and remanded for further proceedings the Third R&O's decisions 
concerning four punch list capabilities (dialed digit extraction, party 
hold/join/drop messages, subject-initiated dialing and signaling 
information, and in-band and out-of-band signaling information).
    4. Section 102(2) of 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 J-Standard further 
interprets the key terms in this definition as follows: origin is the 
number of the party initiating the call (e.g., calling party); 
termination is the number of the party ultimately receiving a call 
(e.g., answering party); direction is the number to which a call is re-
directed or the number from which it came, either incoming or outgoing 
(e.g., redirected-to party or redirected-from party); and destination 
is the number of the party to which a call in being made (e.g., called 
party). Although the J-Standard adopts definitions that frame call-
identifying information in terms of telephone numbers, the Commission, 
in the Third R&O, found capabilities required under CALEA, in some 
cases, require carriers to disclose information that is not a telephone 
number. The Court held that CALEA is ambiguous as to precisely what 
constitutes call-identifying information and thus, what the CALEA 
requirements are. In cases where the intent of Congress is not clear, 
an agency may develop its interpretation of the statute within the 
guidelines set forth in Chevron v. National Resources Defense Counsel, 
Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), and subsequent cases.
    5. The J-Standard's definitions do not give all portions of CALEA 
full effect, and we are disinclined to interpret a statute in a manner 
that will render portions of it superfluous. The legislative history of 
CALEA does not clearly state Congress's intent with respect to the key 
terms at issue, and we think it would be implausible to read CALEA as 
providing for a more limited class of information than that which LEAs 
already receive. Nor do we find a basis for tying our interpretation of 
CALEA exclusively to a prior, separate statute, such as the Electronic 
Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (``ECPA''). In the Remand Decision, 
the Court stated that CALEA does not cross-reference or incorporate the 
definitions of pen registers and trap and trace devices in the ECPA. 
Moreover, the standards have been modified by such legislation as the 
USA PATRIOT Act, which expands the terms ``pen register'' and ``trap 
and trace device'' to include the concept of ``dialing, routing, 
addressing, or signaling information.''
    6. We are adopting a definition of ``call-identifying information'' 
that replicates the existing electronic surveillance capability 
functions, but that is also expressed in sufficiently broad terms so as 
not to be limited to a specific network technology. This analysis is 
consistent with overall purpose expressed for the Act: CALEA 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. An example of this 
approach can be found in the Court's upholding of the provision of 
antenna location information, even though this capability has no 
structural equivalent in the traditional wireline architecture. 
Similarly, we note that there are many situations in which a party 
inputs dialing information that, in itself, is not a telephone number.
    7. Although ``call-identifying information'' consists of both 
dialing and signaling information that may or may not be described in 
terms of telephone numbers, not all dialing and signaling information 
is ``call-identifying information.'' While some dialing or signaling 
information identifies the origin, direction, destination, or 
termination of a communication, other dialing or signaling 
information--such as a bank account number in a bank-by-phone system--
clearly does not. Insofar as a ringing tone or a busy signal provides 
information that is descriptive of an origin, direction, destination, 
or termination a communication, that tone or signal ``identifies'' such 
a communication for purposes of CALEA and falls within CALEA's 
definition of ``call-identifying information.'' By contrast, call 
content does not identify the origin, termination, direction, and 
destination of a communication, and thus is not ``call identifying 
information'' for purposes of CALEA. Section 102(2) of CALEA defines 
call-identifying information as ``dialing or signaling information that 
identifies the origin, direction, destination, or termination'' of each 
call or communication. Thus, the origin, direction, destination, or 
termination is identified by call-identifying information, such as the 
caller's phone number. The J-Standard's definitions are deficient to 
the extent that they claim that a phone number is itself an origin, 
direction, destination, and termination.
    8. In a simple two-way telephone call, the dialing or signaling 
information that identifies the ``origin'' of a communication is the 
calling party's telephone line (which is commonly identified by a 
telephone number). There are situations in which information other than 
a number is needed to identify the party initiating a call. For 
example, when a wireless phone is used to initiate a call, that origin 
may be identified by both the number assigned to the wireless phone and 
the location information of the antenna site to which the phone is 
connected. Because the origin pertains to a calling party, there may be 
multiple points in a telephone call scenario that give rise to 
information that identifies the origin of a communication.
    9. We conclude that a ``termination'' is a party or place at the 
end of a communication path. The J-Standard defines ``termination'' in 
terms of the ``party ultimately receiving the call.'' Common practice 
as well as the industry's own technical standards suggest a broader 
definition that recognizes that a call can ``terminate''

[[Page 22001]]

when it reaches an identifiable stopping point in the network. The J-
Standard shows a diagram where the surveillance subject (``S'') is 
connected to one party (``A''), while the other party (``B'') is on 
hold. As shown in the diagram, the communication path starting from 
party A terminates at S. However, as is also shown in the diagram, the 
communication path coming from the held party B terminates at the 
subject's switch, and not at the subject's line. This example also 
supports the proposition that a termination is not always identified by 
a telephone number because (1) a network switch is not a party in a 
call, and (2) a network switch is a point in the network with no 
directory telephone number. There can be multiple terminations within a 
single call because there are multiple points in a call at which there 
is information that identifies the called party.
    10. A ``destination'' is a party or place to which a call is being 
made. We reach this definition after considering common and technical 
dictionary definitions of the term, as well as that provided by the J-
Standard. Similarly, we agree with the J-Standard's general 
characterization of ``direction'' as a description of navigation within 
a network but reject the contention that this information is 
exclusively a telephone number. We find that the ``direction'' is, 
broadly speaking, information that identifies the path of 
communication.
    11. Thus, we are defining the relevant terms as follows: origin is 
a party initiating a call (e.g., a calling party), or a place from 
which a call is initiated; destination is a party or place to which a 
call is being made (e.g., the called party); direction is a party or 
place to which a call is re-directed or the party or place from which 
it came, either incoming or outgoing (e.g., a redirected-to party or 
redirected-from party); and termination is a party or place at the end 
of a communication path (e.g., the called or call-receiving party, or 
the switch of a party that has placed another party on hold). These 
changes distinguish between origin, destination, direction, and 
termination, and the information that identifies them; permit multiple 
origins, destinations, directions, and terminations in a call; and 
provide for terminations inside a network switch or at another point 
within a network. Moreover, this approach defines call-identifying 
information in a manner that can be converted into actual network 
capabilities, unlike the definition suggested by DoJ/FBI.
    12. Under sections 107(b)(1) and 107(b)(3) of CALEA, if the 
Commission finds that industry-established technical standards are 
deficient, it may establish standards that ``meet the assistance 
capability requirements of section 103 by cost-effective methods'' and 
``minimize the cost of such compliance on residential ratepayers.'' The 
Court was unable to find a rational connection between the facts found 
and the choice made in the Third R&O. CALEA does not define ``cost-
effective.'' One approach for determining whether something is ``cost-
effective'' that is consistent with the Court's analysis in its Remand 
Decision is to compare two or more ways of accomplishing a task and 
identifying the process that is the least expensive. This approach is 
supported by the Commission's own rules, other statutes where Congress 
has defined or described the term, as well as in other agencies' rules. 
Thus, it makes sense to consider whether a particular option is better 
than some alternative at achieving some particular regulatory 
requirement, when such a comparison is available. We first inquire 
whether we have in the record an alternative means to accomplish each 
of the punch list capabilities.
    13. When a punch list capability ``meet(s) the assistance 
capability requirements'' of CALEA, but there is no alternative means 
of accomplishing the same task, we will then consider whether the 
capability serves to minimize costs. In general, something is 
``effective'' if it accomplishes a task in an efficient manner. 
However, we will not adopt or reject a capability solely on the basis 
of a cost-benefit analysis because Congress has already made such a 
calculation when it determined the assistance capability requirements 
of CALEA. There are costs associated with CALEA, and it is clear that 
Congress anticipated that carriers would bear some of these costs. 
However, as part of our examination of whether a technical standard 
that we require under CALEA is ``cost-effective,'' we will consider the 
financial burden it places on carriers. In the case of the punch list 
capabilities, we note that several aspects of the implementation 
program significantly mitigate this burden, which serves to make 
implementation of the punch list capabilities ``cost-effective'' for 
carriers. These features include DoJ/FBI cost reimbursement programs, 
buyout agreements with manufacturers to pay for all necessary software 
upgrades, and deferral of required punch list capabilities coincident 
with routine switch upgrades. Also, five telecommunications equipment 
manufacturers have incorporated all six punch list capabilities 
required by the Third R&O into one software upgrade, and it is unclear 
whether deleting one or more of these capabilities from that upgrade 
will lessen the cost of the upgrade to those carriers that purchase 
software from manufacturers that are not covered by the DoJ/FBI buyout 
agreements. Carriers may also recover at least a portion of their CALEA 
software and hardware costs by charging to LEAs, for each electronic 
surveillance order authorized by CALEA.
    14. In considering the effect of CALEA compliance on residential 
ratepayers under section 107(b)(3) we look at the effect on residential 
wireline subscribers only. Although CALEA does not define the term 
``residential ratepayers,'' floor debate emphasized concern over 
``basic residential telephone service'' rates. Wireless 
telecommunications services such as cellular or PCS are intrinsically 
mobile services, and we have not previously attempted to describe what 
``basic residential'' service is in the wireless context, nor have we 
differentiated between residential and other classes of wireless 
service. By contrast, the concept of ``residential ratepayer'' has 
historically been used in the context of rate regulation for wireline 
telecommunication service, which traditionally differentiates rates for 
residential and business customers. Other provisions of CALEA can only 
apply to wireline telecommunications carriers, as states do not have 
authority to regulate rates for commercial mobile radio services and 
the Commission has forborne from such rate regulation under legislation 
and Commission decisions that were adopted prior to CALEA.
    15. The general approach we have taken with our analysis of ``cost-
effective'' is applicable in considering ways of minimizing the impact 
on residential ratepayers. That which is ``cost-effective'' is also 
likely to correlate to the effect on residential ratepayers, and so 
many of the factors we have previously identified will apply in this 
context. We conclude that the capabilities that we have identified--and 
the means of implementing them--do serve to minimize the cost on 
residential ratepayers. To the extent that there are costs borne by the 
carriers and passed through to customers, we note that it is likely 
that the costs would be shared by all ratepayers and, therefore, would 
be significantly diluted on an individual residential ratepayer basis. 
The fact that costs are spread across such a large base in itself 
suggests another means by which provision of these capabilities will 
minimize the effect on residential ratepayers--that the cost of CALEA 
compliance for any

[[Page 22002]]

particular residential ratepayer will be minimal.
    16. We note, however, that, even if the definition of ``residential 
taxpayers'' is broadened to include households that use wireless 
telephone service as a substitute for local wireline telephone service, 
there is no reason to believe that implementation of the punch list 
items would fail to minimize the cost on wireless residential 
ratepayers. In the Third R&O, the Commission found that five major 
telecommunications manufacturers--which account for the great majority 
of sales to wireline, cellular, and broadband PCS carriers in the 
United States--anticipated total revenues from carriers purchasing the 
four vacated punch list capabilities of about $277 million. Of this 
amount, about $159 million was anticipated in wireless revenues and 
about $117 million was anticipated in wireline revenues. While these 
figures do not include all carrier costs of implementing the four 
capabilities, in the Third R&O, we found that, relative to other cost/
revenue estimates, the manufacturers' estimates were ``the most 
detailed and reliable.'' Further the FBI's buyout and flexible 
deployment programs, coupled with manufacturers incorporating all punch 
list capabilities into one software upgrade would likely lessen costs 
to such an extent that total costs of implementing the four vacated 
capabilities nationwide would be well below $159 million to wireless 
carriers and $117 million to wireline carriers. Nonetheless, assuming 
pessimistically that those costs would eventuate and that they would be 
passed on to wireless subscribers and residential wireline ratepayers 
in full as a one-time charge, the respective charge per wireless 
subscriber and residential wireline ratepayer would average about $1.45 
and $1.20. Alternatively, if these costs to wireless and wireline 
carriers were converted to a rate increase to wireless subscribers and 
residential wireline ratepayers, the rate increase would average only 
pennies per month per subscriber/ratepayer. Accordingly, we find that 
the likely worst case cost impact of carriers implementing the four 
vacated capabilities would be minimal on both wireless subscribers and 
residential wireline taxpayers.
    17. The dialed digit extraction capability would require the 
telecommunications carrier to provide to the LEA on the call data 
channel the identity of any digits dialed by the subject after 
connecting to another carrier's service (also known as ``post-cut-
through digits''). The dialed digit extraction capability provides 
call-identifying information. Post-cut-through digits identify, under 
many circumstances, a communication's destination or a termination. For 
example, a party may dial a toll-free number to connect to a long 
distance carrier (e.g. 1-800-CALL-ATT) and subsequently enter another 
phone number to be connected to a party. That second number identifies 
a ``destination'' because it is ``a party or place to which a call is 
being made.'' If a successful connection is made, that second number 
also identifies a ``termination'' because it is the called or call-
receiving party. A subject may also dial digits that are not call-
identifying information--such as a bank account or social security 
number. However, many post-cut-through dialed digits simply route the 
call to the intended party and are, therefore, unquestionably call-
identifying information even under a narrow interpretation of that 
term.
    18. Section 103(a) of CALEA requires carriers to be capable of 
``expeditiously isolating'' wire and electronic communications and 
call-identifying information to enable LEAs to obtain this information 
``concurrently with their transmission from the subscriber's equipment, 
facility, or service. * * *'' (in the case of the interception of wire 
and electronic communications) or ``before, during, or immediately 
after the transmission of a wire or electronic communication'' (in the 
case of call-identifying information). Because of this timing 
requirement, we are rejecting the alternative of having a LEA serve the 
terminating carrier with a pen register order to obtain those dialed 
digits that were placed once a call has been cut-through from the 
originating carrier. Under such a process, the government would be 
unable to obtain call-identifying information concurrently with its 
transmission to or from a subscriber.
    19. Dialed digit extraction is a capability that is ``reasonably 
available to the carrier'' under section 103 of CALEA. The J-Standard 
defines ``reasonably available'' as information ``present at an 
Intercept Access Point for call processing purposes.'' We reject the 
limitation that the information must be present ``for call processing 
purposes'' for it to be ``available.'' We read ``reasonably'' as a 
qualifier; if information is only accessible by significantly modifying 
a network, then we do not think it is ``reasonably'' available.
    20. Section 107(b)(2) requires that any standards we require must 
``protect the privacy and security of communications not authorized to 
be intercepted.'' There currently appears to be no technology that can 
separate those post-cut-through dialed digits from other post-cut-
through dialed digits that are not call-identifying (i.e., that are 
call content). Because post-cut-through digits include call-identifying 
information, LEAs should be able to obtain this information under CALEA 
so long as they have a valid legal instrument. Although a Title III 
warrant--which would give a LEA call content--may be one such valid 
instrument, it is not up to us to decide whether it is the only one 
that could be used. Were we to conclude that a Title III warrant 
represents an alternative means of accomplishing the dialed digit 
extraction capability we would necessarily have to assume that a pen 
register does not entitle a LEA to dialed digit extraction. Such a 
decision would improperly usurp the role of the courts to decide what 
legal instrument is necessary to obtain the dialed digit information. 
Our approach is similar to the approach that we employed with respect 
to a packet-mode communications capability, which was upheld by the 
Court in the Remand Decision.
    21. Because the standards we adopt must protect the privacy and 
security of communications not authorized to be intercepted, we reject 
the proposal to allow a LEA to extract dialed digits on content 
channels using their own decoders. This alternative is not acceptable 
because it would require the LEA in every case, no matter the level of 
authorization involved, to obtain the entire content when a less 
intrusive alternative (dialed digit extraction, whereby carriers 
separate out tone information) is available. This alternative would 
also shift from carriers to LEAs responsibility for ensuring that 
interceptions are conducted in a way that protects the privacy and 
security of communications not authorized for interception as much as 
possible. Such a result would be inconsistent with section 103(a)(4) of 
CALEA, which requires carriers to protect the privacy and security of 
communications and call-identifying information not authorized to be 
intercepted.
    22. In order to respond to the appropriate legal authority, a 
carrier must have the ability to turn on and off the dialed digit 
extraction capability. We believe that a toggle feature for dialed 
digit extraction is necessary in order to protect privacy interests 
under certain circumstances, without disrupting the carrier's ability 
to provide other punch list capabilities included in the same software. 
We therefore conclude that carriers must have the equipment and 
software to

[[Page 22003]]

support a dialed digit extraction capability with a toggle feature. 
Where such a toggle feature will not be available from a carrier's 
vendor by the compliance deadline, that carrier may file a petition 
with the Commission under section 107(c), requesting an extension of 
the compliance deadline.
    23. The party hold/join/drop messages capability would permit the 
LEA to receive from the telecommunications carrier messages identifying 
the parties to a conference call at all times. The party hold message 
would be provided whenever one or more parties are placed on hold. The 
party join message would report the addition of a party to an active 
call or the reactivation of a held call. The party drop message would 
report when any party to a call is released or disconnects and the call 
continues with two or more other parties. Under our revised definitions 
of the components of call-identifying information, party hold/join/drop 
information is call-identifying information because it identifies 
changes in the origin(s) and termination(s) of each communication 
generated or received by the subject. Further, by isolating call-
identifying information in this manner, the LEA may more readily avoid 
monitoring the communications of third parties who are not privy to the 
communications involving the subject, thereby furthering privacy 
considerations. In the Third R&O, the Commission defined call-
identifying information to be ``reasonably available'' to an 
originating carrier if such information ``is present at an [Intercept 
Access Point] and can be made available without the carrier being 
unduly burdened with network modifications.'' The J-Standard 
acknowledges that the network must recognize and process party hold/
join/drop functions as part of its basic operation. Thus, we conclude 
that party hold/join/drop information is not only present at an 
Intercept Access Point but, because it is already being used by the 
carrier, satisfies the definition of ``reasonably available'' in the 
original version of the J-Standard.
    24. The subject-initiated dialing and signaling information 
capability would permit the LEA to be informed when a subject sends 
signals or digits to the network. This capability would require the 
telecommunications carrier to deliver a message to the LEA, for each 
communication initiated by the subject, informing the LEA whenever the 
subject has invoked a feature during a call, including features that 
would place a party on hold, transfer a call, forward a call, or add/
remove a party to a call. This capability constitutes call-identifying 
information because it provides information regarding the party or 
place to which a forwarded call is redirected and because it provides 
information regarding a waiting calling party. Signals such as on-hook, 
off-hook, and flash-hook signals, which are generated by a subject, are 
reasonably available to the carrier because they must be processed at 
the carrier's Intercept Access Point. DTMF signals generated by a 
subject that must be processed at the Intercept Access Point also are 
reasonably available to the carrier; however, some DTMF signals 
generated by the subject are post-cut-through digits, and those signals 
are covered under dialed digit extraction.
    25. The in-band and out-of-band signaling information capability 
would enable a telecommunications carrier to send a notification 
message to the LEA when any call-identifying network signal (e.g., 
audible ringing tone, busy, call waiting signal, message light trigger) 
is sent to a subject. For example, if someone leaves a voice mail 
message on the subject's phone, the notification to the LEA would 
indicate the type of call-identifying network signal sent to the 
subject (e.g., stutter dial tone, message light trigger). For calls the 
subject originates, a notification message would also indicate whether 
the subject ended a call when the line was ringing, busy (a busy line 
or busy trunk), or before the network could complete the call. 
Authorizing this capability for call-identifying information that is 
based on network signals that originate on carriers' own networks 
conforms with CALEA. While certain types of signals used by carriers 
for supervision or control do not trigger any audible or visual message 
to the subscriber and are therefore not call-identifying information, 
other types of signals--such as ringing and busy tones--are call-
identifying information under our revised definitions because they 
convey information about the termination of a call. For example, when a 
subject calls another party, until the called party answers the 
subject's communications path is terminated at an audible ringing tone 
generator. However, if the called party is engaged in another 
conversation and does not have call waiting, the subject's 
communications path is terminated at a busy signal generator. Thus, 
even for calls from the subject that are never answered, the fact that 
the subject hears busy or audible ringing signal provides call-
identifying information that is not provided to law enforcement via 
other means. The J-Standard is inadequate in this regard. For example, 
the fact that a call attempt does not result in a conversation because 
the line is busy or because the called party does not answer does not 
mean that no ``communication'' has taken place. In-band and out-of-band 
signals that are generated at the carrier's Intercept Access Point 
toward the subscriber are handled by the carrier and are clearly 
available to the carrier at an Intercept Access Point, and convey call-
identifying information. Because carriers already deliver this 
information to subscribers, we see no reason why it cannot also be made 
available to LEAs without significantly modifying the carrier's 
network. Thus, in-band and out-of-band signaling information is 
``reasonably available.''
    26. For each of the punch list items, Commenters have presented no 
alternative ways of obtaining all the information encompassed by this 
capability or those alternatives (in the case of dialed digit 
extraction) have deficiencies that make them unsatisfactory. Because 
there are no alternative means of accomplishing these objectives, we 
cannot engage in a cost-comparison analysis. Mechanisms such as the 
FBI's buyout and flexible deployment programs, coupled with five 
manufacturers incorporating all punch list capabilities into one 
software upgrade, will lessen software costs significantly, and 
including or not including any one of these capabilities may not 
significantly change carriers' costs. Because of these cost-mitigation 
measures, we find that it will be cost-effective to require these 
capabilities. For similar reasons, the capabilities are unlikely to 
significantly affect residential ratepayers. The aforementioned 
programs will serve to mitigate carriers' costs, which in turn will 
reduce the costs that carriers may pass on to ratepayers. Moreover, 
carriers will also be able to spread costs across a large ratepayer 
base and there is no indication that the compliance costs will be 
disproportionately borne by residential ratepayers. Although we have 
addressed privacy issues with respect to dialed digit extraction, we 
see no significant privacy issues arising from grant to LEAs of the 
remaining capabilities. No party to this proceeding challenged the 
Third R&O's decision with respect to those capabilities on privacy 
grounds, and the Court did not cite privacy as a basis for remanding to 
the Commission the Third R&O's decision with respect to that 
capability.
    27. Section 107(b)(4) of CALEA--i.e., serve the policy of the 
United States to encourage the provision of new technologies and 
services to the public--was not briefed to or addressed by the Court in 
its Remand Decision. As

[[Page 22004]]

described in the legislative history, one of the key concerns in 
enacting CALEA was ``the goal of ensuring that the telecommunications 
industry was not hindered in the rapid development and deployment of 
the new services and technologies that continue to benefit and 
revolutionize society.'' Aside from one suggestion that the cost of 
compliance would divert capital from new technology deployment, no 
commenter has argued--nor is there anything in the record to suggest--
that inclusion of the four punch list requirements would impede in any 
way the provision of new telecommunications technologies or services to 
the public or would delay in any manner the course or current pace of 
technology. Rather, the punch list requirements represent a technical 
solution that interfaces with the carriers' own network designs to 
provide LEAs with interception access and the capability to intercept 
wire and electronic communications. Additionally, as noted above, for 
the majority of switches, carriers will be permitted under the FBI's 
flexible deployment program to implement any required punch list 
capabilities coincident with routine switch upgrades. Moreover, we do 
not believe section 107(b)(4) was intended to bar a feature simply 
because it imposes costs on telecommunications companies and thereby 
might affect their other spending. The two express references to costs 
in section 107(b) (i.e., cost effectiveness and minimizing impact on 
residential ratepayers) consider cost in a relative, not an absolute, 
sense. Accordingly, we do not believe paragraph (b)(4) was intended to 
prohibit any feature because the cost might have some impact on 
telecommunications companies' other spending. Given this, we find that 
adoption of the punch list requirements is consistent with the United 
States' policy of encouraging the provision of new technologies and 
services to the public.
    28. Section 107(b)(5) of CALEA requires that the Commission 
``provide a reasonable time and conditions for compliance with and the 
transition to any new standard, including defining the obligations of 
telecommunications carriers under section 103 during any transition 
period.'' The Third R&O required that the six punch list capabilities 
be implemented by wireline, cellular, and broadband PCS carriers by 
September 30, 2001 and five telecommunications switch manufacturers 
have incorporated all of these capabilities into one software upgrade. 
In the Order in this proceeding, which suspended the September 30, 2001 
deadline for all punch list capabilities, including the two 
unchallenged capabilities (i.e., subject-initiated conference calls and 
timing information), we indicated that we anticipated establishing June 
30, 2002 as the new compliance date for all required punch list 
capabilities as we expected to address the Court's Remand Decision by 
year's end and given that the record indicates that carriers can 
implement any required changes to their software within six months of 
our decision. We find it reasonable to require wireline, cellular, and 
broadband PCS carriers to implement all punch list capabilities by June 
30, 2002, and conclude that the June 30, 2002 deadline will satisfy 
section 107(b)(5). At the initial stages of CALEA implementation, the 
Commission found that carriers could put into effect any required 
changes to their network within six months of its decision. We 
recognize that this is a more aggressive timetable than the six months 
we anticipated earlier. We believe that this accelerated compliance 
schedule is reasonable for this stage of the CALEA implementation, as 
carriers have been aware of the CALEA capabilities under consideration 
in the instant Order on Remand since October 2000. In addition, the 
record indicates that much of the software required to implement the 
punch list items has already been developed, which should significantly 
speed implementation. Finally, carriers have much greater experience in 
meeting CALEA's capability requirements than they had in 1998. 
Together, these factors make a shorter implementation timetable 
reasonable. Therefore, we are lifting the suspension of the punch list 
compliance deadline, and specifying the revised punch list compliance 
deadline as June 30, 2002.
    29. We note that carriers who are unable to comply may seek relief 
under the applicable provisions of CALEA. The Wireline Competition 
Bureau (formerly, the Common Carrier Bureau) and the Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau previously issued a Public Notice outlining 
the petitioning process for telecommunications carriers seeking relief 
under section 107(c) for an extension of the CALEA compliance deadline. 
Carriers seeking relief from the June 30, 2002 compliance date should 
follow the procedures outlined in that Public Notice. We further note 
that, in most cases, extensions that the Commission has already granted 
will apply to the capabilities we are requiring in this Order on 
Remand. As the Wireline Competition and Wireless Telecommunications 
Bureaus have previously stated: ``Unless the Commission action 
[granting an extension] specifies otherwise, the extension applies to 
all assistance capability functions, including punch list and packet-
mode capabilities, at the listed facilities.''

Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

(A) Need for and Purpose of This Action

    30. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),\1\ the 
Commission incorporated an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
(IRFA) in the Further NPRM.\2\ The Commission sought written public 
comments on the proposals in the Further NPRM, including the IRFA. In 
the Third R&O, the Commission adopted a Final Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (FRFA).\3\ As part of the instant Order on Remand, we have 
prepared this Supplemental FRFA to conform to the RFA.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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, 
Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of the 
CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996 (SBREFA).
    \2\ Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, Further 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 13 FCC Rcd 22632, 22695-703 (1998).
    \3\ Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, Third 
Report and Order, CC Docket No. 97-213, 14 FCC Rcd 16794, 16852-59 
(1999).
    \4\ See 5 U.S.C. 604.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    31. The Third R&O responded 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 this Order on Remand to ensure the prompt 
implementation of section 103 of CALEA. This action simply responds to 
an Order of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit (the ``Court'') and puts into effect rules we 
originally evaluated as part of the FRFA in the Third R&O. Also, as 
noted, we have already done a FRFA for the rules at issue in the Third 
R&O.
    32. 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

[[Page 22005]]

technologies.'' \5\ The rules adopted in this Order on Remand 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 in a manner 
that is responsive to the Court's remand of the Third R&O.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ H.R. Rep. No. 103-827, 103rd Cong., 2d Sess (1994) at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Summary of the Issues Raised by Public Comments

    33. 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. Similarly, as 
part of the pleading cycle that followed the Court's remand of the 
Third R&O, no parties filed comments directly in response to the IRFA 
or the FRFA. In response to non-RFA comments filed in this docket, the 
Commission modified several of the proposals made in the Further NPRM. 
These modifications include changes to packet switching, conference 
call content, in-band and out-of-band signaling, and timing 
information, as first discussed in the Third R&O.
    34. The Commission's effort to update the record in response to the 
Court's Remand Order resulted in additional non-RFA comments. The Rural 
Cellular Association (RCA) asserts that the costs of additional 
communications assistance capabilities would impose undue cost burdens 
on and jeopardize the efficient planning and development of facilities 
by small and rural carriers. Similarly, the National Telephone 
Cooperative Association (NTCA) claims that any regulation which 
requires carriers to deploy or upgrade facilities disproportionally 
affects small and rural carriers.

(C) Description and Estimate of the Number of Entities Affected

    35. 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.\6\ The RFA generally defines the term 
``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small 
business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental 
jurisdiction.'' \7\ In addition, the term ``small business'' has the 
same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small 
Business Act.\8\ 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).\9\ A small organization is 
generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned 
and operated and is not dominant in its field.'' \10\ Nationwide, as of 
1992, there were approximately 275,801 small organizations.\11\ 
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.'' \12\ As of 1992, there were approximately 85,006 such 
jurisdictions in the United States.\13\ This number includes 38,978 
counties, cities, and towns; of these, 37,566, or 96 percent, have 
populations of fewer than 50,000.\14\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3).
    \7\ Id., 601(6).
    \8\ 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).
    \9\ Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632.
    \10\ 5 U.S.C. 601(4).
    \11\ 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).
    \12\ 5 U.S.C. 601(5).
    \13\ U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, ``1992 Census 
of Governments.''
    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    36. The most reliable source of information regarding the total 
numbers of certain common carrier and related providers nationwide 
appears to be data the Commission publishes annually in its 
Telecommunications Provider Locator report, derived from filings made 
in connection with the Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS).\15\ 
According to data in the most recent report, there are 5,679 interstate 
service providers.\16\ These providers 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 service, 
providers of telephone exchange service, and resellers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ FCC, Common Carrier Bureau, Industry Analysis Division, 
Telecommunications Provider Locator, Tables 1-2 (November 2001) 
(Provider Locator). This report is available on-line at: http://
www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State__Link/Locator/
locat01.pdf. See also 47 CFR 64.601 et seq.
    \16\ Provider Locator at Table 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    37. We have included small incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs) 
\17\ in this present 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.'' \18\ 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.\19\ 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See 47 U.S.C 251(h) (defining ``incumbent local exchange 
carrier'').
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 632.
    \19\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    38. 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.\20\ 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.'' \21\ For example, a 
PCS provider that is affiliated with an

[[Page 22006]]

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 Order on Remand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ United States Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1992 
Census of Transportation, Communications, and Utilities: 
Establishment of Firm Size, at Firm Size 1-123 (1995) (``1992 
Census'').
    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 632(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    39. Wireline Carriers and Service Providers. The SBA has developed 
a definition of small entities for wired telecommunications carriers. 
The Census Bureau reports that there were 2,321 such telephone 
companies in operation for at least one year at the end of 1992.\22\ 
According to the SBA's definition, such a small business telephone 
company is one employing no more than 1,500 persons.\23\ All but 26 of 
the 2,321 wireline companies listed by the Census Bureau were reported 
to have fewer than 1,000 employees. Even if all 26 of the remaining 
companies had more than 1,500 employees, there would still be 2,295 
wireline companies that might qualify as small entities. 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. 
Therefore, we estimate that fewer than 2,295 communications wireline 
companies are small entities that may be affected by these rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 1992 Census at Firm Size 1-123 (based on previous SIC 
codes).
    \23\ 13 CFR 121.201, North American Industry Classification 
System (NAICS) code 513310. The category of Telecommunications 
Resellers, NAICS code 513330 also has an associated business size 
standard of 1,500 or fewer employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    40. Local Exchange Carriers, Competitive Access Providers, 
Interexchange Carriers, Operator Service Providers, Payphone Providers, 
and Resellers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a 
specific size standard definition for small LECs, competitive access 
providers (CAPS), interexchange carriers (IXCs), operator service 
providers (OSPs), payphone providers, or resellers. The closest 
applicable size standard for these carrier-types under SBA rules is for 
wired telecommunications carriers and telecommunications resellers.\24\ 
The most reliable source of information that we know regarding the 
number of these carriers nationwide appears to be the data that we 
collect annually in connection with the TRS.\25\ According to our most 
recent data, there are 1,329 LECs, 532 CAPs, 229 IXCs, 22 OSPs, 936 
payphone providers, and 710 resellers.\26\ 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 the SBA's definition. 
Therefore, we estimate that there are fewer than 1,329 small entity 
LECs or small incumbent LECs, 532 CAPs, 229 IXCs, 22 OSPs, 936 payphone 
providers, and 710 resellers that may be affected by these rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS codes 513310 and 513330.
    \25\ See 47 CFR 64.601 et seq.; Provider Locator at Table 1.
    \26\ Provider Locator at Table 1. The total for resellers 
includes both toll resellers and local resellers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    41. Wireless Carriers. The applicable definition of a small entity 
wireless carrier is the definition under the SBA rules applicable to 
radiotelephone (wireless) companies. This provides that a small entity 
is a radiotelephone company employing no more than 1,500 persons. 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.\27\ 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. It seems certain that 
some of these carriers are not independently owned and operated. 
Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 1,164 small entity 
radiotelephone companies that may be affected by the actions taken in 
this Order on Remand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 1992 Census at Firm Size 1-123.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    42. Cellular, PCS, SMR and Other Mobile Service Providers. The most 
reliable source of current information from which we can draw an 
estimate of the number of small business commercial wireless entities 
appears to be data the Commission published annually in its Trends in 
Telephone Service report.\28\ According to the most recent Trends 
Report, 806 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision 
of cellular service, PCS services, or SMR telephony services, which are 
placed together in the data.\29\ Moreover, 323 such licensees in 
combination with their affiliates have 1,500 or fewer employees and 
thus qualify as ``small businesses'' under the above definition. Thus, 
we estimate that there are 323 or fewer small wireless service 
providers that may be affected by the rules we adopt in this 
proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Trends in Telephone Service, Common Carrier Bureau, 
Industry Analysis Division (Aug. 2001) (``Trends Report''). This 
report is available on-line at: http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/
Common__Carrier/Reports/FCC-State__Link/IAD/trend801.pdf
    \29\ Trends Report, Table 5.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(D) Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other 
Compliance Requirements.

    43. No reporting and recordkeeping requirements are imposed on 
telecommunications carriers. 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, we have examined means by which these 
costs will be minimized (such as by federal cost-reimbursement 
mechanisms and the ability of carriers to charge for the provision of 
assistance capability services). The most detailed and reliable cost 
estimates for carriers to implement the assistance capability features 
we require herein are $159 million total for wireless carriers and $117 
million for wireline carriers, including small entities. However, as 
discussed in paragraph 65, supra, we expect the actual costs borne by 
carriers to be substantially lower after the application of the cost-
minimization provisions discussed above.

(E) Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered.

    44. The need for the regulations adopted herein is mandated by 
Federal legislation. In the regulations we adopt, 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 require telecommunications carriers 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

[[Page 22007]]

with the technical requirements adopted herein, and others may defer 
network upgrades to their normal business cycle.
    45. We believe that these provisions can serve to mitigate any 
additional cost burdens that would otherwise be borne by small 
carriers. The Commission considered several alternatives advanced by 
commenters in the proceeding--including not requiring the assistance 
capabilities adopted herein--but rejected them after concluding that 
they would not meet the statutory requirements of CALEA. We note that 
the statutory mandate under CALEA requires all carriers to provide 
assistance capabilities, and this includes small entities. Thus, we 
must rely on cost-mitigation procedures to address NTCA's assertion 
that any regulation that requires carriers to deploy or upgrade 
facilities will disproportionally affect small carriers.

Report to Congress

    46. The Commission will send a copy of this Supplemental FRFA, 
along with this Order on Remand, in a report to Congress pursuant to 
the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). In addition, the 
Commission will send a copy of this Order on Remand, including this 
Supplemental FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration. A copy of this Order on Remand, including the 
Supplemental FRFA, will also be published in the Federal Register. See 
5 U.S.C. 604(b).

Ordering Clauses

    47. Authority for issuance of this Order on Remand is contained in 
sections 1, 4, 229, 301, 303, and 332 of the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended, and section 107(b) of the Communications Assistance 
for Law Enforcement Act, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 229, 301, 303, 332, and 
1006(b).
    48. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, 
Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Order on 
Remand, including the Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Parts 22, 24 and 64

    Communications common carriers.

    Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.

Rules Changes

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 22, 24 and 64 as follows:

PART 22--MOBILE SERVICES

    1. The authority citation in part 22 continues to read:

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

    2. Section 22.1102 is amended by adding definitions in alphabetical 
order to read as follows:


Sec. 22.1102  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Destination. A party or place to which a call is being made (e.g., 
the called party).
* * * * *
    Direction. A party or place to which a call is re-directed or the 
party or place from which it came, either incoming or outgoing (e.g., a 
redirected-to party or redirected-from party).
* * * * *
    Origin. A party initiating a call (e.g., a calling party), or a 
place from which a call is initiated.
* * * * *
    Termination. A party or place at the end of a communication path 
(e.g. the called or call-receiving party, or the switch of a party that 
has placed another party on hold).
* * * * *
    3. Section 22.1103 is amended by revising paragraph (b) and adding 
paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec. 22.1103  Capabilities that must be provided by a cellular 
telecommunications carrier.

* * * * *
    (b) As of November 19, 2001, a cellular telecommunications carrier 
shall provide to a LEA communications and call-identifying information 
transported by packet-mode communications.
    (c) As of June 30, 2002, a cellular telecommunications carrier 
shall provide to a LEA 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, with a toggle feature that can 
activate/deactivate this capability.

PART 24--PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES

    4. The authority citation in part 24 continues to read as follows:

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

    5. Section 24.902 is amended by adding definitions in alphabetical 
order to read as follows:


Sec. 24.902  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Destination. A party or place to which a call is being made (e.g., 
the called party).
* * * * *
    Direction. A party or place to which a call is re-directed or the 
party or place from which it came, either incoming or outgoing (e.g., a 
redirected-to party or redirected-from party).
* * * * *
    Origin. A party initiating a call (e.g., a calling party), or a 
place from which a call is initiated.
* * * * *
    Termination. A party or place at the end of a communication path 
(e.g. the called or call-receiving party, or the switch of a party that 
has placed another party on hold).
* * * * *

    6. Section 24.903 is amended by revising paragraph (b) and adding 
paragraph (c) to read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (b) As of November 19, 2001, a broadband PCS telecommunications 
carrier shall provide to a LEA communications and call-identifying 
information transported by packet-mode communications.
    (c) As of June 30, 2002, a broadband PCS telecommunications carrier 
shall provide to a LEA 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, with a toggle feature that can 
activate/deactivate this capability.

PART 64--MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS

    7. The authority citation for part 64 is revised 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.

[[Page 22008]]


    8. Section 64.2202 is amended by adding definitions in alphabetical 
order to read as follows:


Sec. 64.2202  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Destination. A party or place to which a call is being made (e.g., 
the called party).
* * * * *
    Direction. A party or place to which a call is re-directed or the 
party or place from which it came, either incoming or outgoing (e.g., a 
redirected-to party or redirected-from party).
* * * * *
    Origin. A party initiating a call (e.g., a calling party), or a 
place from which a call is initiated.
* * * * *
    Termination. A party or place at the end of a communication path 
(e.g. the called or call-receiving party, or the switch of a party that 
has placed another party on hold).
* * * * *

    9. Section 64.2203 is amended by revising paragraph (b) and adding 
paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec. 64.2203  Capabilities that must be provided by a wireline 
telecommunications carrier.

* * * * *
    (b) As of November 19, 2001, a wireline telecommunications carrier 
shall provide to a LEA communications and call-identifying information 
transported by packet-mode communications.
    (c) As of June 30, 2002, a wireline telecommunications carrier 
shall provide to a LEA 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, with a toggle feature that can 
activate/deactivate this capability.

[FR Doc. 02-10832 Filed 5-1-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P