[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 87 (Tuesday, May 6, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24662-24666]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-11708]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Telecommunications Industry Liaison Unit; Agency Information
Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request
ACTION: Notice of information collection under review; implementation
of Section 104(d) of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement
Act.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval is being sought for
the information collection listed below. This proposed information
collection was previously published on April 10, 1996, in the Federal
Register and allowed 60 days for public comment. A summary of these
comments are included at the end of this notice.
The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for
public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until
June 5, 1997. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR
1320.10. Written comments and suggestions regarding the estimated
public burden and associated response time, should be directed to the
Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Attention: Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington,
D.C., 20503. Additionally, comments may be submitted to OMB via
facsimile to 202-395-7285.
Comments may also be submitted to the Department of Justice (DOJ),
Justice Management Division, Information Management and Security Staff,
Attention: Department Clearance Officer, Suite 850, 1001 G Street,
N.W., Washington, D.C., 20530. Additionally, comments may be submitted
to DOJ via fascimile to 202-514-1534.
The purpose of this notice is to request written comments and
suggestions from the public, including telecommunications carriers, and
affected agencies should address one or more of the following points:
(1) evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of
the proposed collection of information, including the validity of
methodology and assumptions used;
(3) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and
(4) minimize the burden of collection of information on those who
are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology (e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses.)
Overview of this Information Collection:
(1) Type of Information Collection: NEW COLLECTION: The type of
information acquired is required to be furnished by law in terms of a
carrier statement, as set forth in subsection 104(d) of the
Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) (Pub. L. 103-
414, 47 U.S.C. 1001-1010). A template, which is not mandatory, has been
developed through the consultative process with the telecommunications
industry to facilitate submission of the telecommunications carrier
statements.
[[Page 24663]]
Such information is quantitative and qualitative data necessary to
identify any systems or services of a telecommunications carrier that
do not have the capacity to accommodate simultaneously the number of
interceptions, pen registers, and trap and trace devices as specified
in the final capacity notice to subsection 104(a) of CALEA.
(2) The title of the information collection: ``Telecommunications
Carrier Statement.''
(3) The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of
the Department sponsoring the collections; Form number: None. Sponsored
by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), United States Department
of Justice.
(4) Who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief
abstract; BUSINESS OR OTHER FOR PROFIT: Telecommunications carrier, as
defined in CALEA subsection 102(8), will respond.
The collected data will be used in conjunction with law enforcement
priorities and other factors to determine the telecommunications
carriers that may be eligible for cost reimbursement according to
section 104.
The amount and type of information collected will be minimized to
ensure that the submission of this data by telecommunications carriers
will not be burdensome nor unreasonable. Each telecommunications
carrier will submit a statement identifying any of its systems or
services that do not have the capacity to accommodate simultaneously
the number of interceptions, pen registers, and trap and trace devices
as set forth in the final capacity notice.
Based on consultation with industry, information solicited to
specifically identify such systems and services that cannot meet the
estimated capacity requirements will include: Common Language Location
Identifier (CLLI) code or equivalent identifier, switch model or other
system or service type, and the city and state where the system or
service is located. Unique information required for wireline systems
and services would include the host CLLI code if the system or service
is a remote and the county name(s) that the system or service serves.
Unique information required for wireless systems and services would
include the Metropolitan or Rural Service Area number(s), or the
Metropolitan or Basic Trading Area number(s) served by the system or
service.
Confidentiality regarding the data received from the
telecommunications carriers will be protected by statute, regulation,
and through non-disclosure agreements as necessary.
(5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount
of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The FBI
estimates that there are approximately three-thousand four-hundred
ninety-seven (3,497) telecommunications carriers, with approximately
twenty-three thousand (23,000) unique systems or services, that will be
affected by this collection of information. The total amount of time
required to complete the Telecommunications Carrier Statement will
vary, depending upon the total number of systems and services that the
telecommunications carrier deploys that provide a customer or
subscriber with the ability to originate, terminate, or direct
communications. The time required to read and prepare information, for
one system or service is estimated at 10 minutes. There is also an
associated startup time per carrier that is estimated at 2 hours. This
startup time consists of reading the Telecommunications Carrier
Statement and determining data sources.
(6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated
with the collection is 10,904 hours. These estimates were derived from
close consultation with industry.
Public comment on this proposed information collection is strongly
encouraged.
Summary of Comments to the 60-Day Notice
Based on industry comments and to conform with the Second Notice of
Capacity that was published in the Federal Register on January 16,
1997, the Telecommunications Carrier Statement Template has been
changed to:
(a) Remove the capacity field. This information is no longer
required because estimates of actual and maximum capacity requirements
are being provided by geographical location in Appendices sections A
through D of the Second Notice of Capacity.
(b) Associate the county(s) field to be unique information required
for wireline systems and services only.
Pacific Telesis Group (PTG)
PTG is concerned that the startup time does not include
time required to evaluate the Final Notice of Capacity Requirements
itself and match up switch capability with law enforcement needs. This
is necessary before the template can be populated, and the time does
not appear to be included in current estimates of hours required to
complete the survey.
Response: CALEA, SEC. 104, (d) CARRIER STATEMENT states in part
that, ``Within 180 days after the publication by the Attorney General
of a notice of capacity requirements pursuant to subsection (a) or (c),
a telecommunications carrier shall submit to the Attorney General a
statement identifying any of its systems or services that do not have
the capacity to accommodate.'' The PRA Carrier Statement estimates the
hour burden for startup time to read the Telecommunications Carrier
Statement and determine data sources. It was never intended to include
time to evaluate the Final Notice of Capacity.
PTG contends that it is extraordinarily difficult to
determine the county for each prefix served by a switch. The difficulty
escalates further for those switches located near county boundaries and
which include prefixes that serve multiple counties. The work to make
these identifications would be administratively burdensome and labor
intensive, and would certainly exceed the ten-minute parameter utilized
by TILU. PTG would support a change to the provision of information
regarding county in which a switch resides, rather than counties served
by each prefix within a switch.
Response: While we agree that county information does not reside in
the traditional engineering and planning database, i.e., Local Switch
Demand and Facility (LSD&F) database, this information is available in
other databases such as E911 and Wirecenter Map Information. Also,
software is available that provides information on wirecenter serving
areas. One of the RBOCs stated on an ECSP Subcommittee conference call
that they were able to extract county information from their E911
database. The mechanized Telecommunications Carrier Statement Template
allows for the import of data from a database and provides instructions
for dealing with imports from multiple databases.
United States Telephone Association (USTA)
USTA recommends that the final review and public comment
period be provided on this notice following the final promulgation of
the Final Notice of Capacity requirements and Cost Recovery Procedures.
Since the carrier statement is intended to respond to a notice of
capacity requirements, responding to item 3c (``capacity'') is
problematic. In short, the ability of carriers to complete column 3c,
and the burden imposed by column 3c is directly related to the
definition of
[[Page 24664]]
capacity in the Final Notice of Capacity requirements.
Response: CALEA, SEC. 104, (d) CARRIER STATEMENT states in part
that, ``Within 180 days after the publication by the Attorney General
of a notice of capacity requirements pursuant to subsection (a) or (c),
a telecommunications carrier shall submit to the Attorney General a
statement identifying any of its systems or services that do not have
the capacity to accommodate * * *.'' This PRA Carrier Statement
requires a minimum of 90 days for comment (one 60 day comment period
and the current 30 day comment period). If the PRA Carrier Statement
was deferred until after the issuance of the Final Notice of Capacity,
the template would be unavailable for most of the 180 days.
Furthermore, template item 3c (``capacity'') has been removed from the
Telecommunications Carrier Statement Template.
USTA believes that the template should apply to switches
alone.
Response: The ``Equipment Type,'' item 3b, is intended for listing
equipment that the carrier believes does not have the capacity to
accommodate simultaneously the number of interceptions, pen registers,
and trap and trace devices as specified in the Final Notice of Capacity
to subsection 104(a) of CALEA. As stated in CALEA, SEC. 104, (d)
CARRIER STATEMENT ``Within 180 days after the publication by the
Attorney General of a Notice of Capacity requirements pursuant to
subsection (a) or (c), a telecommunications carrier shall submit to the
Attorney General a statement identifying any of its systems or services
that do not have the capacity to accommodate * * *.'' The
telecommunications carrier may need to identify any element in their
network or other network (i.e., Service Control Point, Voice Mail
System) that provides call identifying information or call content as
identified in CALEA Section 103.
USTA is not convinced that the burden imposed on carriers,
especially small companies, by completing the template will be
manageable as is implied in the notice [of Information Collection].
Given the lack of certain key definitions and terms upon which the
template is based (e.g., capacity, service), this burden in fact could
be significant.
Response: The concern about burden is based on lack of definitions
such as capacity and service. The request for capacity information has
been removed from the Telecommunications Carrier Statement Template.
With regard to services, CALEA, SEC. 104, (d) CARRIER STATEMENT states
in part that, ``Within 180 days after the publication by the Attorney
General of a notice of capacity requirements pursuant to subsection (a)
or (c), a telecommunications carrier shall submit to the Attorney
General a statement identifying any of its systems or services that do
not have the capacity to accommodate * * *''. The telecommunications
carrier may need to identify any element in their network or other
network (i.e., Service Control Point, Voice Mail System) that provides
call identifying information or call content as identified in CALEA
Section 103.
CALEA requires carriers to be in compliance with the Act's
capabilities requirements by October 1998. However, carriers are given
three years following the publication of the Final Notice of Capacity
in which to comply with the capacity requirements. USTA understands
that TILU considers the operative deadline for compliance with the Act
therefore is contingent on capacity requirements deadline, not the
capabilities requirements deadline. USTA seeks final clarification of
this issue.
Response: The FBI has no statutory authority to countermand the
intentions of the Congress, and it has no authority to waive the
statutory compliance dates specified in CALEA. There is, however, a
provision and mechanism under CALEA, grounded in the principle of
reasonableness, that offers relief to telecommunications carriers where
there is a prospect that the capability assistance compliance deadline
cannot be met. Section 107 of CALEA permits telecommunications carriers
to seek an extension(s) of time from the FCC in order to achieve
compliance with the assistance capability requirements under
circumstances where a carrier can show that compliance with those
requirements is not reasonably achievable through the application of
available technology during the compliance period specified in Section
111. The Commission may grant such an extension after consultation with
the Attorney General in those cases where such an extension is
reasonably warranted. Since CALEA was enacted, it is generally
understood that various carriers and manufacturers have moved at
different paces in pursuing CALEA capability solutions. Given this,
there is support for the perspective that CALEA's provisions, which
contain mechanisms for reasonable treatment and compliance date
extensions in special cases, should be utilized as enacted.
BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc.
BellSouth is unable to estimate the amount of time
required to complete a carrier statement which seeks data concerning
the capacity of a system or service that is not a switch with a CLLI
code.
Response: The ``Equipment Type'', item 3b, is intended for listing
equipment that the carrier believes does not have the capacity to
accommodate simultaneously the number of interceptions, pen registers,
and trap and trace devices as specified in the Final Notice of Capacity
to subsection 104(a) of CALEA. As stated in CALEA, SEC. 104, (d)
CARRIER STATEMENT ``Within 180 days after the publication by the
Attorney General of a Notice of Capacity requirements pursuant to
subsection (a) or (c), a telecommunications carrier shall submit to the
Attorney General a statement identifying any of its systems or services
that do not have a capacity to accommodate * * *.'' The
telecommunications carrier may need to identify any element in their
network or other network (i.e., Service Control Point, Voice Mail
System) that provides call identifying information or call content as
identified in CALEA Section 103.
Ameritech
Although the Notice states that carriers should provide
information identifying ``systems and services'', the FBI should
acknowledge that carriers will be providing information only regarding
their switches. More importantly however, although the FBI's Electronic
Surveillance Interface Document lists different services which the FBI
views as subject to CALEA, the generic requirements [industry standard]
currently being finalized, focus exclusively on building `wiretap
capability' within the switch.
Response: The ``Equipment Type'', item 3b, is intended for listing
equipment that the carrier believes does not have the capacity to
accommodate simultaneously the number of interceptions, pen registers,
and trap and trace devices as specified in the Final Notice of Capacity
to subsection 104(a) of CALEA. As stated in CALEA, SEC. 104, (d)
CARRIER STATEMENT ``Within 180 days after the publication by the
Attorney General of a Notice of Capacity requirements pursuant to
subsection (a) or (c), a telecommunications carrier shall submit to the
Attorney General a statement identifying any of its systems or services
that do not have the capacity to accommodate * * *.'' The
[[Page 24665]]
telecommunications carrier may need to identify any element in their
network or other network (i.e., Service Control Point, Voice Mail
System) that does not have the capacity to accommodate the call
identifying information or call content as identified in CALEA Section
103.
Ameritech points out that the ``capacity'' of the switch
has yet to be defined by the FBI.
Response: Law enforcement has defined capacity in the Second Notice
of Capacity by geographic area as required in CALEA. The switch
capacity is not required in the Telecommunications Carrier Statement.
Therefore, template item 3c (``capacity'') has been removed from the
Telecommunications Carrier Statement Template.
SBC Communications Inc.
The estimate of time required to prepare the
Telecommunications Carrier Statement, whether using template or not, is
potentially understated. It is in the estimation of capacity that most
of the work involved in the preparation of a Telecommunications Carrier
Statement will occur, not in the preparation of the form itself. SBC
estimates that it spent a minimum of 64 hours working on the Initial
Capacity Notice developing data that will be used in filling out the
Telecommunications Carrier Statement * * *.
Response: The PRA Carrier Statement estimates the hour burden for
startup time to read the Telecommunications Carrier Statement and
determine data sources. It was never intended to include time to
evaluate the Final Notice of Capacity. The hour burden estimates were
developed through the consultative process with the ECSP Committee. One
of the assumptions was that most of the data could be obtained from the
Local Switch Demand and Facilities (LSD&F) database or its equivalent.
The concern that most of the work will involve capacity estimation will
be eliminated because item 3c (``capacity'') has been removed from the
Telecommunications Carrier Statement Template.
Serving areas extend far beyond the location of the switch
or other facility and are not kept by county in the ordinary course of
business.
Response: While we agree that county information does not reside in
the traditional engineering and planning database (e.g., LSD&F), this
information is available in other databases such as E911 and Wirecenter
Map Information. Also, software is available that provides information
on wirecenter serving areas. One of the RBOCs stated on an ECSP
Subcommittee conference call that they were able to extract county
information from their E911 database. The mechanized Telecommunications
Carrier Statement Template allows for the import of data from a
database and provides instructions for dealing with imports from
multiple databases.
Concern was expressed about capacity requirements being
stated based upon the conditions at the time of collection and that
over time the requirements would change. SBC stated that ongoing
collection and validation of data to determine capacity would exceed
the time estimates in the Carrier Statement Notice.
Response: The Second Notice of Capacity issues estimated actual and
maximum capacity requirements in actual numbers. A change in the
requirements would only occur on the issuance of a new Notice of
Capacity, which would require a response.
MFS Communications Company, Inc.
MFS states, ``It is not clear that the information sought
will be comprehensive or very useful to the FBI in fulfilling its
notice requirements under CALEA for three major reasons'' that are
listed.
First, the FBI's survey of existing switches and telecommunications
capacity will likely capture only a minority of telecommunications
carriers and will provide a distorted view of the industry. With the
enactment of the Telecommunications Act, a number of new firms--like
MFS--can be expected to enter or greatly expand their operations in the
telecommunications market over the next four years. Obviously, those
new entrants' capacity and networks, particularly those entrants who
have not yet entered the market, will not be included. The
Telecommunications Act also permits carriers to enter local telephone
markets as resellers of local service capacity (e.g., AT&T buys
capacity from NYNEX and resells it as local service). The impact of
such resale activities on an aggregate estimate of capacity are
unclear.
Second, CALEA includes only public telecommunications networks, and
excludes private networks. So long as the definition of private
networks is unclear, firms can minimize their CALEA reporting
requirements and obligations if they unilaterally classify facilities
as ``private network'' facilities. Often there is not a crisp
distinction between public and private telecommunications networks and
services, so there is a strong possibility that the survey will include
a mismatch of services. There are many firms, such as shared tenant
services (STS) providers that provide telephone service to the tenants
of a building or campus and it is not clear whether the capacity of
such offerings should be included.
Third, CALEA excludes information services. Again, a firm's CALEA
obligations can be minimized to the extent that it unilaterally
classifies its activities as information services. So long as the
precise scope of information and telecommunications services is not
defined, some firms will report capacity that others would not.
Response: As stated in CALEA, SEC. 104, (d) CARRIER STATEMENT
``Within 180 days after the publication by the Attorney General of a
Notice of Capacity requirements pursuant to subsection (a) or (c), a
telecommunications carrier shall submit to the Attorney General a
statement identifying any of its systems or services that do not have
the capacity to accommodate simultaneously the number of interceptions,
pen registers, and trap and trace devices set forth in the notice under
such subsection.'' The Telecommunications Carrier Statement Template is
not a survey and is not mandatory. The Telecommunications Carrier
Statement Template was developed through the consultative process with
industry representatives to facilitate submission of the Carrier
Statement. The information requested will be used by law enforcement in
conjunction with law enforcement priorities and other factors to
determine the specific equipment, facilities, and services that require
immediate modification.
In the Second Notice of Capacity, law enforcement provided a notice
of estimated capacity requirements by geographic area and has selected
counties as the appropriate basis for expressing capacity requirements
for telecommunications carriers offering local exchange service (i.e.,
wireline carriers). Appendix A of the Second Notice of Capacity lists
all actual and maximum capacity requirements by county. These
requirements represent the simultaneous number of call-content
interceptions and wireline interceptions of call-identifying
information for each county in the United States and its territories.
Wireline carriers may ascertain the actual and maximum capacity
requirements that will affect them by looking up in Appendix A the
county (or counties) for which they offer local exchange service.
Law enforcement's county capacity requirements are based on
historical interception data and represent its interception needs
anywhere in the county. The county requirements apply to all existing
and any future wireline
[[Page 24666]]
carriers offering local exchange service in each county, regardless of
equipment type used or customer base.
CALEA applies to all telecommunications carriers as defined in
section 102(8). Notices will eventually be issued covering all
telecommunications carriers. However, the Second Notice of Capacity and
its associated Final Notice of Capacity should be viewed as a first
phase application to telecommunications carriers offering services that
are of most immediate concern to law enforcement--that is, those
telecommunications carriers offering local exchange service and certain
commercial mobile radio services, specifically cellular service and
personal communications service (PCS).
The exclusion from the notice of certain telecommunications
carriers that have services deployed currently or anticipate deploying
services in the near term does not exempt them from obligations under
CALEA.
The hour burden depends on how each carrier interprets the
meaning of capacity.
Response: The Second Notice of Capacity provides capacity
requirements based on geographic area and states the estimated actual
and maximum capacity numbers and not a percentage. Also, item 3c
(``capacity'') has been removed from the Telecommunications Carrier
Statement Template and therefore should not impact the estimated hour
burden to respondents.
Synacom Technology, Inc.
Synacom states, ``Law enforcement should provide some
guidance as to which features and services should be accessible and
then determine the capacity required for each feature and service. This
is to prevent overbuilding the intercept capacity.'' Also, ``The
information requested is largely unnecessary, because its resolution is
not adequate to accurately measure compliance with neither the CALEA
capability requirements nor the capacity notice.''
Response: The Telecommunications Carrier Statement Template was
developed through the consultative process with industry
representatives. The information requested will be used by law
enforcement in conjunction with law enforcement priorities and other
factors to determine the specific equipment, facilities, and services
that require immediate modification.
Synacom also states, ``* * * the burden to gather the
required information is much more difficult to gather as it requires
technical expertise to evaluate whether the systems of the
telecommunications service provider collectively provide the required
access for each of several independent features and services.''
Response: The Telecommunications Carrier Statement Template was
simplified to its present form through the consultative process with
the telecommunications industry. The telecommunications carriers need
only list systems and services that do not meet the requirements of
CALEA subsection 104(d). If any system or service does not meet the
requirements of CALEA subsection 104(d), it must be reported.
Synacom states that, ``There should be a `jurisdiction'
column instead of the `county', `city', and `state' columns.'' Also,
``the `MSA, RSA, MTA, or BTA' field is largely irrelevant.''
Response: In the Second Notice of Capacity, law enforcement
provides a notice of estimated capacity requirements by geographical
area and has selected counties and market as the appropriate basis for
expressing capacity requirements for telecommunications carriers
offering local exchange service. Appendix A of the Second Notice of
Capacity lists all estimated actual and maximum capacity requirements
by county. The selection of county as a means to define law enforcement
requirements takes into consideration, by its very nature, a
longstanding territorial location that is unchanged, well documented,
is understandable to both law enforcement and industry, and takes into
consideration a specific law enforcement jurisdiction. These
requirements represent the simultaneous number of call-content
interceptions and wireline interceptions of call-identifying
information for each county in the United States and its territories.
Wireline carriers may ascertain the estimated actual and maximum
capacity requirements that will affect them by looking up in Appendix A
the county (or counties) or Appendices B, C, D for which they offer
local exchange service.
Law enforcement's county or market capacity requirements are based
on historical interception data and represent its interception needs
anywhere in the county or market. The county or market requirements
apply to all existing and any future wireline carriers offering local
exchange service in each county, regardless of equipment type used or
customer base.
For wireless carriers, individual county boundaries were not
considered to be feasible geographic designations for identifying
capacity requirements. Instead, law enforcement determined that the
wireless market service area would be the most appropriate geographic
designations. Although these areas comprise sets of counties, the use
of such market service areas best takes into account the greatest
inherent mobility of wireless subscribers. What is most important is
that historical information on wireless interceptions could only be
associated with market service areas.
Therefore, the county(s) field of the Telecommunications Carrier
Statement Template is information required for wireline systems and
services only.
Dated: April 30, 1997.
Robert B. Briggs,
Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice.
[FR Doc. 97-11708 Filed 5-5-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-02-M
