Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of ) ) Petition for the Extension of the Compliance ) Date under Section 107 of the ) Communications Assistance for ) Law Enforcement Act by ) AT&T Wireless Services, Inc., ) Lucent Technologies, Inc., and Ericsson Inc.; PrimeCo ) Personal Communications, L.P.; Powertel, Inc.; United ) States Telephone Association; Ameritech Operating ) Companies and Ameritech Mobile Communications; ) AirTouch Paging, Inc.; AirTouch Communications, Inc. and ) Motorola, Inc.; SBC Communications, Inc.; ICG Telecom ) Group, Inc.; Centennial Cellular Corp.; Comcast ) Cellular Communications, Inc.; BellSouth Corporation, ) BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., BellSouth Cellular ) Corp., BellSouth Personal Communications, Inc. and ) Bell South Wireless Data, L.P.; CommNet Cellular, ) Inc.; Metrocall, Inc.; United States Cellular Corporation; ) PageMart Wireless, Inc.; Ardis Company, Conxus Network, ) Inc., Metrocall, Inc., MobileMedia Communications, Inc. ) Motorola, Inc., PageMart Wireless, Inc., Preferred Networks, ) Inc., RAM Technologies, Inc., Real Time Strategies, Inc., ) and TekNow, Inc.; Redcom Laboratories, Inc.; Skytel ) Communications, Inc.; Iridium United States, L.P.; ) 360ß Communications Co.; Centurytel Wireless, Inc.; ) Paging Network, Inc. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted: September 10, 1998 Released: September 11, 1998
By the Commission: Commissioners Ness and Powell issuing a joint statement; Commissioner Furchtgott-Roth concurring and issuing a statement.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
II. BACKGROUND. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
III. DISCUSSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52
APPENDIX: LIST OF COMMENTERS
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order, we grant an extension until June 30, 2000, of the
deadline for complying with the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA or the
Act). In providing this extension, we grant, in part, the relief requested in the above-captioned petitions.
In issuing this Memorandum Opinion and Order, we have also considered fully the comments filed in
response to the Public Notice requesting comment on the issue of a blanket extension. As explained
below, we find that compliance with the assistance capability requirements of section 103 of CALEA
(section 103) is not reasonably achievable by any telecommunications carrier through the application of
technology that will be available within the compliance period, which CALEA set to end on October 25,
1998. Accordingly, pursuant to our authority under section 107(c) of the Act, and in the interest of
administrative efficiency, we grant an extension of CALEA's compliance deadline until June 30, 2000.
This extension applies to all telecommunications carriers which are similarly situated to the petitioners, i.e.,
those telecommunications carriers that are proposing to install or deploy, or having installed or deployed,
any equipment, facility or service prior to the effective date of section 103 for that part of the carrier's
business on which the new equipment, facility or service is used.
II. BACKGROUND
2. CALEA, enacted on October 25, 1994, was intended to preserve the ability of law enforcement
officials to conduct electronic surveillance effectively and efficiently in the face of rapid advances in
telecommunications technology. To achieve this goal, section 103 of the Act sets forth four general
assistance capability requirements with which carriers must comply. Specifically, section 103(a) requires a
telecommunications carrier to:
(a) . . .[E]nsure that its equipment, facilities, or services that provide a customer or subscriber with
the ability to originate, terminate, or direct communications are capable of--
(1) expeditiously isolating and enabling the government, pursuant to a court order or
other lawful authorization, to intercept, to the exclusion of any other communications, all wire and
electronic communications carried by the carrier within a service area to or from equipment,
facilities, or services of a subscriber of such carrier concurrently with their transmission to or from
the subscriber's equipment, facility, or service, or at such later time as may be acceptable to the
government;
(2) expeditiously isolating and enabling the government, pursuant to a court order or
other lawful authorization, to access call-identifying information that is reasonably available to the
carrier--
(A) before, during, or immediately after the transmission of a wire or
electronic communication (or at such later time as may be acceptable to the
government); and
(B) in a manner that allows it to be associated with the communication to which it
pertains, except that, with regard to information acquired solely pursuant to the
authority for pen registers and trap and trace devices (as defined in section 3127 of
title 18, United States Code), such call-identifying information shall not include
any information that may disclose the physical location of the subscriber (except
to the extent that the location may be determined from the telephone number);
(3) delivering intercepted communications and call-identifying information to the
government, pursuant to a court order or other lawful authorization, in a format such that they may be
transmitted by means of equipment, facilities, or services procured by the government to a location other
than the premises of the carrier; and
(4) facilitating authorized communications interceptions and access to call-identifying
information unobtrusively and with a minimum of interference with any subscriber's
telecommunications service and in a manner that protects--
(A) the privacy and security of communications and call-identifying information
not authorized to be intercepted; and
(B) information regarding the government's interception of communications and
access to call-identifying information.
Under section 111(b) of CALEA, the deadline for compliance with these requirements is October 25,
1998.
3. CALEA does not specify how these requirements are to be met. Rather, the Act requires
carriers, in consultation with manufacturers, to ensure that their equipment, facilities, or services can
comply with the requirements set out in section 103. Manufacturers are required to make available the
features and modifications that are necessary to comply with the capability requirements "on a reasonably
timely basis and at a reasonable cost." The Attorney General is to consult with the telecommunications
industry, users, and state utility commissions to "ensure the efficient and industry-wide implementation of
the assistance capability requirements."
4. Although CALEA does not specify technologies or standards that carriers must use to meet the
assistance capability requirements, it does contain a "safe harbor" provision, which states that a
telecommunications carrier, a manufacturer of telecommunications transmission or switching equipment, or
a provider of telecommunications support services will be deemed to be in compliance with CALEA's
assistance capability requirements if it complies with "publicly available technical requirements or
standards adopted by an industry association or standard-setting organization, or by the Commission . . .
." However, compliance with CALEA's capability requirements is still required even if a carrier chooses
not to use publicly available standards. In that case, the carrier would have to work with its equipment
suppliers to develop and deploy an alternative technical solution(s) that would meet the capability
requirements.
5. Under section 107(b) of CALEA, if technical requirements or standards are not issued, or if
any person believes any standards issued are deficient, that party may petition the Commission to establish
such requirements or standards. In so doing, the Commission is required to meet a number of conditions,
and may provide a reasonable time and conditions for compliance with any new standard. The issues
surrounding the establishment of technical standards for meeting CALEA requirements are not considered
in this Memorandum Opinion and Order, but will be addressed in a separate item we intend to issue in the
near future.
6. Additionally, pursuant to section 107(c), telecommunications carriers may petition the
Commission for an extension of the compliance deadline, and may receive such an extension ". . . if the
Commission determines that compliance with the assistance capability requirements under section 103 is
not reasonably achievable through application of technology available within the compliance period." To
date, the Commission has received petitions for extension of the CALEA compliance date based on both
sections 107(b) and 107(c), as well as our general authority in sections 4(i), 4(j) and 229(a) of the
Communications Act.
7. To fulfill the Commission's other obligations under CALEA, the Commission released a Notice
of Proposed Rule Making on October 10, 1997, proposing rules and seeking comment on a number of
issues, including criteria that could be used to extend the CALEA compliance date under section 107,
definitional issues relevant to which carriers are subject to CALEA requirements, and carriers' security
policies and procedures. Because it was not clear whether requests for extension of the compliance date
would be forthcoming, we declined at that time to propose specific rules regarding such requests. We
proposed instead to permit carriers to petition the Commission for an extension of time under section 107.
In the NPRM, we also declined to address the issue of technical capability standards because we concluded
that it would be inappropriate to address capability standards while the standards-setting process was
ongoing. We received several comments from carriers in response to the NPRM requesting that the
Commission grant a two-year blanket extension of the CALEA compliance date.
8. Since the enactment of CALEA, industry and law enforcement have been working to develop a
standard that would meet the requirements of the statute and allow carriers to fulfill their obligations under
the Act. These efforts have been concentrated almost exclusively on the technical standards required to
conduct surveillance on wireline, cellular, and personal communications services (PCS) systems; standards-
setting efforts to conduct surveillance on other telecommunications services, such as advanced paging,
specialized mobile radio, and satellite-based systems, have either not yet begun or are in their early stages.
A standard for one-way paging was recently released by the Personal Communications Industry
Association (PCIA), but it has not yet been evaluated by the law enforcement community or other parties.
9. On December 5, 1997, the Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) and Committee T1,
sponsored by the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS), announced the adoption and
joint publication of an interim industry standard, J-STD-025, Lawfully Authorized Electronic
Surveillance. J-STD-025 defines services and features to support lawfully authorized electronic
surveillance and the interfaces to deliver intercepted communications and call-identifying information to a
law enforcement agency. The stated purpose of this industry standard is to facilitate a telecommunications
service provider's compliance with the assistance capability requirements defined in CALEA. The interim
industry standard has been challenged by several parties, including law enforcement agencies, which
believe it does not address all the capabilities to which they are entitled, and organizations advocating
privacy concerns, which believe the standard includes capabilities beyond those allowed by CALEA. As
a result of the disagreement on the standards necessary to implement CALEA, the Commission has been
petitioned to establish technical standards for meeting the assistance capability requirements of section
103.
10. Despite the uncertainty surrounding J-STD-025, CALEA still requires carriers to meet the
requirements of section 103. Presumably carriers could come into compliance by developing alternative
technical solutions in cooperation with the manufacturers of their equipment. However, it appears that no
alternative technologies or solutions have been developed that would allow U.S. carriers to comply with
CALEA's section 103 capability requirements before the compliance deadline. Given these circumstances,
on March 30, 1998, AT&T Wireless Services, Inc., Lucent Technologies, Inc., and Ericsson, Inc. filed a
petition for extension of CALEA's compliance deadline under section 107(c) of the Act. In this petition,
the parties contend that a two year extension is necessary because CALEA-compliant hardware and
software will not be available by October 25, 1998. We placed the AT&T petition on Public Notice, along
with the CDT, DoJ/FBI and TIA petitions for rulemaking, on April 20, 1998, with initial comments due on
May 8, 1998, and reply comments due on May 15, 1998.
11. The Public Notice requested comment on how the Commission could quickly and efficiently
extend the compliance deadline if an extension were warranted; and whether the factors supporting an
extension apply equally to large numbers of telecommunications carriers. In that regard, we asked
commenters to address all possible actions we might take, including the issuance of an extension order for
all carriers subject to the Act's compliance date, so that we could ensure that the objectives and obligations
of CALEA would be met in a timely manner. We also requested suggestions for any other measures we
might take to streamline the process for granting extensions.
12. Since the release of the Public Notice, we have received additional petitions for extension of
the CALEA compliance date. These petitions allege that compliance with the assistance capability
requirements of section 103 is not reasonably achievable through the application of technology that will be
available before the compliance date. On May 8, 1998, along with other responsive comments, we also
received several additional petitions for extension, as well as filings which were styled as comments and
petitions for extension.
13. We note that, pursuant to the requirement in section 107(c)(2) that the Commission consult
with the Attorney General when considering the grant of an extension of time under this section, we have
conferred with the Department of Justice in preparing our decision in this matter. In addition, we have
been apprised of the Attorney General's views through the detailed comments and reply comments filed by
the FBI and the Department of Justice regarding the action the Commission should take.
III. DISCUSSION
14. The comments we received in response to the April 20 Public Notice indicate that the
telecommunications industry generally advocates an extension of CALEA's October 25, 1998 compliance
deadline, and that such an extension should apply to all entities subject to the assistance capability
requirements set forth in section 103. The telecommunications carriers that submitted comments
unanimously assert that "CALEA-compliant" technology is not currently available, and will not become
available before the compliance deadline. The Department of Justice and FBI, on the other hand,
generally argue that an industry wide extension of the CALEA compliance date is unjustified because there
is evidence that CALEA solutions will be available shortly. Below we discuss the three main issues
raised in regard to the compliance deadline: whether it would be appropriate to grant an extension; the
rationale for adopting a blanket extension, if an extension is necessary; and, the length of any such
extension.
15. Need for Extension. As noted above, section 107(c) of CALEA empowers the Commission to
grant an extension of the compliance deadline where it finds that "compliance with the assistance capability
requirements imposed under section 103 is not reasonably achievable through application of technology
available within the compliance period." The telecommunications carriers that submitted comments
assert that the record supports such a finding since no CALEA-compliant technology (whether based on J-
STD-025 or otherwise) will be available before the deadline. AT&T specifically notes that all of the
petitions received by the Commission to date seek extensions under the same justification -- "that there is
and will be no commercially available technology that will permit carrier compliance in the next two
years." USTA agrees, stating that the "hardware and software necessary to comply with the capacity
requirements of CALEA are not commercially available and will not be commercially available and
deployed by October 25, 1998."
16. Certain commenters assert that the lack of CALEA-compliant equipment is significantly due
to the fact that industry, law enforcement and privacy organizations have not agreed on a standard.
According to CTIA, the grounds for extension are clear because "CALEA-compliant technology is not
available and will not become available until the Commission resolves the dispute over the scope of a
carrier's obligations under Section 103 of CALEA." Omnipoint also notes that the "lack of final
standards has made it technically impractical and financially imprudent for manufacturers to fully develop
CALEA-compliant equipment, and equally imprudent for carriers to purchase, install and test
telecommunications equipment and software that might be rendered substandard as soon as final
specifications are promulgated." Likewise, Century argues that requiring manufacturers to move ahead
prematurely would waste valuable engineering resources, sacrifice other profit-making activity, and expose
companies to the prospect of having to create several versions of their CALEA solution. 360ß explains
that it has been told by "representatives of Motorola, Inc. - the provider of the majority of its cellular
switches, base stations and home and visiting location registers - that Motorola has not yet been able to
produce CALEA-compliant cellular equipment for sale because of controversies and delays attributable to
the development" of the interim standard. Ameritech argues that the FBI's own reports demonstrate that
no switch-based solution for CALEA compliance will be available by October 25, 1998.
17. Manufacturers echo this view. Nortel states that, although it anticipates that its switching
products will eventually provide the capabilities required by CALEA, the current deadline of October 25,
1998, will not realistically permit it to provide CALEA-compliant technology and have it deployed and
tested by carriers within the compliance deadline. Arguing that it has not sat idle, Nortel maintains that
the delay in the publication of the final FBI capacity requirements has made complying with the capability
requirements impossible under the current deadline. Similarly, Lucent and Ericsson state that they are
unable to manufacture and implement an acceptable solution which is consistent with section 103 of
CALEA. Furthermore, Lucent and Ericsson maintain that they have spent valuable time and resources
developing a solution consistent with the current interim standard, however, given the current dispute
regarding that standard, they have reached a stage in the manufacturing process in which further
development would be a waste of significant resources.
18. Bell Emergis' position is slightly different from that of other manufacturers in that it advocates
that CALEA technical standards should be broadened to allow network-based solutions either optionally or
to displace requirements from other network elements (i.e., switches). However, Bell Emergis notes that
certain CALEA functionalities can only be provided through a switch-based approach, and that it will be
taking steps to identify areas where mutual cooperation with switch vendors could ultimately lead to fully
compliant networks for all telecommunications operators deploying its product line. Nevertheless, even
Bell Emergis recognizes that "with less than 6 months remaining before the October 25, 1998, date, serious
challenges in terms of network engineering; contract negotiation; product material sourcing; installation,
turn-up and integration testing, and training remain."
19. The FBI raises three arguments in response. First, the FBI believes that the carriers'
arguments for an extension rest on the mistaken premise that "the prospect of the Commission eventually
issuing a rule that will supervene J-STD-025 has rendered the safe harbor method of compliance
'uncertain.'" Disagreeing with the validity of such an argument, the FBI notes that "even the absence of
any safe harbor does not excuse [non]compliance" with section 103. In sum, the FBI views the carriers'
argument for extension as one of a lack of standards and notes that such an excuse does not warrant an
extension under the statute.
20. Second, the FBI argues that an extension of the compliance date would interfere with law
enforcement's ability to protect the public from criminal activity. Many carriers that have commented,
however, disagree with the FBI's conclusion that an extension will hinder the efforts of law enforcement.
Telecommunications carriers state that electronic surveillance will not come to a "standstill" if carriers are
granted an extension of CALEA's compliance date because carriers will be able to "continue to provide law
enforcement with the ability to intercept telephone calls from targeted numbers, and the grant of an
extension of time will not change that fact." As explained by CTIA, "[a]ll carriers currently provide
technical assistance to law enforcement to conduct lawfully authorized wiretaps, whether digital or
analogue (sic), wireless or wireline. The vast majority of these wiretaps are carried out without
impediment."
21. Finally, the FBI argues that an extension is unnecessary because it is already undertaking
extensive discussions with the industry regarding the negotiation of forbearance agreements between the
FBI and "individual manufacturers and their customers." The FBI asserts that it will assure
manufacturers and carriers that they will not be subject to federal enforcement actions under section 108 of
CALEA in return for the manufacturers' and carriers' assurance that they will develop and use equipment
meeting the assistance capability requirements. The FBI contends that these agreements will prevent the
Commission from being "deluged" with extension petitions, and asserts that the use of its forbearance
agreements will ensure a solution fair to carriers, acceptable to law enforcement, and consistent with the
language and structure of CALEA.
22. Many industry commenters, however, disagree that the negotiation of forbearance agreements
with the FBI by each carrier is a viable alternative to an industry-wide extension of CALEA's compliance
date. For example, SBC argues that the forbearance agreements would impose on industry the FBI's own
preferred network design and configuration of services, and, therefore, would not provide much relief to
carriers who do not agree with the inclusion of these disputed standards within CALEA. Moreover,
commenters state that this approach would be administratively unworkable because each forbearance
agreement would have to be separately negotiated. GTE points out that forbearance agreements would
not assist the industry in determining the standard for CALEA compliance. Furthermore, AirTouch
argues that the use of forbearance agreements is impractical because, as even the FBI concedes, a federal
agreement does not protect carriers from enforcement actions filed by state or local law enforcement
agencies in the manner that a Commission order would. AirTouch also contends that the use of
forbearance agreements is inconsistent with CALEA because Congress expressly gave the Commission, not
the FBI, the authority to grant extensions and to determine the scope of CALEA. Noting that Congress
intended public accountability with regard to the standards-setting process to be the hallmark of CALEA,
AirTouch further argues that the use of forbearance agreements will not permit public accountability.
23. Decision. Having reviewed all of the comments concerning the issue of CALEA's impending
deadline, we find that compliance with the assistance capability requirements of section 103 of the Act is
not reasonably achievable for any telecommunications carrier through the application of technology that
will be available within the compliance period. Accordingly, pursuant to our authority under section
107(c)(3)(A) of the Act, and in the interest of administrative efficiency, we grant an extension of CALEA's
October 25, 1998, compliance date for all telecommunications carriers proposing to install or deploy, or
having installed or deployed, any equipment, facility or service prior to the effective date of section 103, for
that part of the carrier's business on which the new equipment, facility or service is used, until June 30,
2000.
24. The record before us indicates that compliance with the assistance capability requirements of
section 103 of the Act is not reasonably achievable for any telecommunications carrier through the
application of technology that will be available within the compliance period. Even Bell Emergis, for
example, which states that it is close to completing a network-based CALEA-compliant product, does not
state that it will be able to deliver CALEA-compliant equipment by October 25, 1998, alluding to "serious
challenges" that remain in meeting the deadline. We note that some vendors are developing "out-of-
switch" technologies that will provide a portion of CALEA's requirements. We also note, however, that
these solutions depend critically on the switch to provide section 103 capability requirements. If the switch
itself has not been upgraded--as manufacturers have stated will not be possible before the deadline--to
provide the required information or interconnect with the out-of-switch vendor's equipment, no CALEA
capabilities can be provided. In addition we note that none of these systems have been fully tested, either
for their ability to meet the section 103 requirements or for their ability to interconnect to carrier
networks.
25. Accordingly, we rest our conclusion that an extension is warranted under section 107(c)(2)
upon our finding that no CALEA-compliant technology is currently available or will be available in time
for carriers to meet the compliance deadline. The FBI alleges, and a handful of carriers seem to agree,
that one of the reasons why CALEA-compliant technology is not available is because manufacturers were
reluctant to develop any CALEA technology until clear standards had emerged. On this basis, the FBI
argues that the petitions for extension actually hinge upon an absence of standards, which under section
107(a)(3)(B) does not excuse non-compliance with section 103. Most carriers, however, have grounded
their requests for an extension not on the absence of an industry standard, but on the absence of
technology. These are separable issues. On the one hand, it is possible that, in the absence of an industry
standard, CALEA-compliant technology could be developed. Congress implicitly recognized this possibility
in enacting section 107(a), and concluded in section 107(a)(3)(B), as the FBI points out, that the absence of
standards does not relieve an individual carrier of the obligation to comply with CALEA. We agree with
the FBI that the lack of standards does not relieve carriers of their obligation to comply with CALEA's
capability requirements. We emphasize, however, that we are not granting an extension based on the
simple assertion that standards do not exist. Rather, our conclusion rests on the determination that,
although an industry standard has been developed, there is no technology available that will enable carriers
to implement that standard. We are also persuaded by the fact that there are no fully developed alternative
technologies or solutions that will be available by October 25, 1998, and that would allow carriers to meet
their section 103 obligations. Congress enacted section 107(c)(2) to address just such a circumstance. We
therefore find that the FBI's reliance on section 107(a)(3)(B) is misplaced, and instead focus our inquiry on
the need for an extension on the primary issue specified in the plain language of section 107(c)(2): Is
technology currently available that will allow carriers to comply with CALEA by the October 25, 1998,
compliance deadline? We have, as discussed above, concluded on the record before us that such
technology is not currently available, and this conclusion confers upon us the authority to grant relief under
section 107(c)(2). For these reasons, we reject the FBI's argument.
26. We also reject, with the support of several commenters, the FBI's assertion that an extension
of the compliance date would interfere with law enforcement's ability to protect the public from criminal
activity. We agree with AirTouch that the grant of an industry-wide extension will not mean that
electronic surveillance will come to a standstill. All carriers currently provide technical assistance to law
enforcement to conduct lawfully authorized wiretaps, and nothing in this Order should be construed as
relieving carriers of their pre-CALEA responsibilities to assist law enforcement authorities in conducting
authorized surveillance. In fact, we note that CALEA was designed to allow law enforcement to continue
its surveillance activities in the face of new digital technologies and services. However, we recognize that
no matter what action we take today, hardware and software will not be available in time to meet the
October 25, 1998, deadline. Given that fact, it is our belief that nothing we do in the instant Order will
delay the ultimate deployment of CALEA-compliant equipment; rather, this extension should serve as a
recognition that more time is needed to develop technologies that will allow the industry to meet CALEA's
section 103 requirements.
27. Finally, we reject the FBI's argument that its proposed forbearance agreements with carriers
eliminate the need for an industry-wide extension of the compliance deadline. First, such agreements do not
preclude the possibility that individual state or local law enforcement authorities may begin enforcement
proceedings against their local carrier. Thus, a carrier could still be subject to potential enforcement action
even though it had come to an agreement with the FBI/DOJ. Forbearance agreements thus represent only
a partial solution, and it is unclear how many carriers and manufacturers would be willing to risk such
exposure. Second, forbearance agreements are not the equivalent of extensions since they cannot legally
extend the compliance deadline. Rather, a forbearance agreement represents an agreement on the part of
DOJ/FBI that they will not bring section 108 enforcement actions if a carrier meets certain conditions.
The use of such agreements would in essence allow the FBI to extend the compliance date at will, which
would be inconsistent with the Act. Third, because J-STD-025 is a voluntary standard, we believe that
forcing carriers through a forbearance agreement to pledge that they will develop and use equipment
meeting J-STD-025 specifications might arguably go beyond what Congress intended, thus undermining the
use of the standard as a safe harbor, and effectively nullifying the technical flexibility Congress sought to
preserve in sections 103(b)(1) and 107(a). Such a requirement, before the Commission rules on the section
107(b) petitions for rulemaking, might also make irrelevant that separate, congressionally-authorized
proceeding. In addition, we also note that widespread use of forbearance agreements to require adherence
to J-STD-025 could further reduce manufacturers' incentives to develop alternative (non-J-STD-025)
solutions. Finally, such agreements would have to be negotiated individually, which would place a
considerable administrative burden on carriers, as well as the Government. It is also likely that with the
large number of carriers and manufacturers involved, agreements would not be reached with all affected
parties, making it likely that the Commission would still receive many petitions for extension upon which it
would have to act. For all these reasons, we do not believe that the forbearance agreement approach as
suggested by the FBI/DOJ would solve the problems identified in the petitions for extension filed with us.
28. Processing of Extension Requests. Having determined that an extension is warranted based on
the lack of available technology, we now address the issue of how the Commission can most effectively and
efficiently process petitions for extension under CALEA. Telecommunications carriers, which represent
the vast majority of commenters, urge the Commission to grant an industry-wide extension of the
compliance date because every individual petition for extension will reveal the same set of facts--a rapidly
approaching compliance deadline, a set of technical standards that have been challenged, and no
commercially available equipment that complies with CALEA's assistance capability requirements.
29. As the carriers point out, section 107(c) of CALEA provides the statutory basis for the
Commission to extend the October 25, 1998, compliance deadline. Section 107(c)(2) of the Act states that:
"The Commission may, after consultation with the Attorney General, grant an extension under this
subsection, if the Commission determines that compliance with the assistance capability requirements under
section 103 is not reasonably achievable through the application of technology available within the
compliance period." None of the commenters dispute the fact that this provision of CALEA authorizes
the Commission to grant an extension of the Act's compliance deadline. With respect to whether the
Commission may grant an extension of the deadline on an industry-wide basis, the telecommunications
carriers submitting comments argue that since it is undisputed that the Commission has the authority to
grant individual requests for extension under section 107(c) of the Act, it should also be able to grant a
more efficient omnibus extension for all telecommunications carriers. AT&T, for example, contends that
if the Commission may "act on petitions individually, it [may] act in the aggregate when the single factor
affecting compliance is the same for all carriers -- the absence of CALEA-compliant technology due to the
absence of a stable industry standard."
30. The Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation are, on the other hand,
opposed to a blanket extension of CALEA's compliance date. The FBI challenges the Commission's
statutory authority to grant such an extension, and asserts that any extension provided under section
107(c) of CALEA cannot be granted en masse, but instead must be extended to individual carriers based
upon individual petitions to the Commission. The FBI further maintains that the commenters favoring a
blanket extension have not presented sufficient evidence of an industry-wide inability to achieve compliance
with CALEA by the October 25, 1998, deadline. Rather, the FBI asserts, carriers have offered only "bare
assertions."
31. Asserting that the "clear intent of Congress" is expressed in the language and structure of
CALEA, the FBI argues that section 107(c), by its plain terms, provides for only the grant of an extension
to individual carriers on individual petitions, and even then "shall apply to only that part of the carrier's
business on which the new equipment, facility, or service is used." The FBI further argues that while
Congress "went to great lengths" to ensure that compliance within the statutory deadline "would create no
unfairness or undue burdens for individual industry participants," Congress did not "grant the Commission
or any other entity the authority to change the statutory compliance date of October 25, 1998 for the
industry as a whole." The FBI contends that the legislative history of CALEA reveals that the extension
provision allows "any company to seek from the [Commission] up to a two year extension of the
compliance date if retrofitting a particular system [would] take longer than the four years allowed for
compliance." Finally, the FBI argues that to interpret the Act in any other manner would interfere with
law enforcement's ability to "protect the public from criminal activity."
32. Decision. The Commission is committed to providing law enforcement with the tools it needs
to protect U.S. citizens, and we recognize the FBI's concern that a delay in implementing CALEA's
requirements might pose some potential risk. Nevertheless, we conclude that granting a blanket extension
is both within the Commission's authority and the most reasonable course of action under the
circumstances. Moreover, given the telecommunications industry's overwhelming consensus that
compliance is not reasonably achievable through the application of technology available within the
compliance date, we anticipate that we would be inundated with repetitive filings for extension if an
industry-wide extension was not granted. We believe that the approach we take today best preserves the
intent of Congress since we conclude that, if we were to seek additional comment on every petition for
extension of CALEA's compliance date we receive, the issues raised in those comment cycles would
unquestionably duplicate the issues raised in the comments on the above-captioned petitions, thereby
substantially and unnecessarily delaying CALEA implementation.
33. Neither section 107(c) nor its legislative history speak directly to the question of whether the
Commission must grant extensions individually or instead has the discretion to grant a blanket extension.
As the agency charged with interpreting CALEA, the Commission has the authority (and the obligation) to
fill in this legislative gap. As long as the Commission acts reasonably in doing so, its decision is entitled
to deference.
34. The Commission finds that interpreting section 107(c) to permit a blanket extension is
reasonable. The sole question under section 107(c)(2) is "whether compliance with the assistance
capability requirements under section 103 is reasonably achievable through application of technology
available within the compliance period." As discussed above, the answer to this question at this time is the
same for all telecommunications carriers -- CALEA-compliant technology will not be available to the
industry by the compliance deadline. As a result, the only difference between granting a blanket extension
under section 107(c)(2) and granting an extension for each individual carrier is the additional time and
effort required of the Commission to process and issue individual petitions for extension to each carrier.
We find it unreasonable to presume that Congress intended the Commission to inefficiently expend its
resources by individually acting on potentially thousands of duplicative filings. In fact, if we were to
attempt to consider requests for extension of the compliance deadline on an individual basis, it is almost
certain that we could not resolve all such requests prior to the October 1998 deadline. This would open
the possibility that carriers could be exposed to enforcement actions based on their inability to comply with
CALEA's requirements even though they had timely petitions for extension pending before us.
Furthermore, the more resources the Commission devotes to processing individual petitions, the less it has
remaining to resolve the still-pending rulemaking on CALEA standards and the greater the chances of
delaying the ultimate implementation of CALEA. We therefore believe that it is both reasonable and
appropriate to interpret section 107(c) so as to avoid such a waste of administrative resources and to allow
a blanket extension.
35. We reject the FBI's argument that the use of the singular in section 107(c)(2) necessarily
requires us to grant extensions on an individual, case-by-case basis. In fact, the United States Code sets up
the exact opposite presumption: Section 1, Title 1, of the United States Code states that "[i]n determining
the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise . . . words importing the
singular include and apply to several persons, parties, or things." There is nothing in the context of
section 107(c)(2) that would rebut this presumption. Indeed, the context here favors the inclusion of plural
in Congress' use of the singular. Congress, through CALEA's use of mandatory deadlines, clearly
expressed its preference for the timely deployment of CALEA-compliant technology. Reading section
107(c)(2) as requiring individual petitions for extension would, as discussed above, result in the inundation
of the Commission with petitions and would accordingly hamper the Commission's ability to resolve
expediently the "standards" issue. Thus, we find that 1 U.S.C. 1 provides us with additional support for
our conclusion that section 107(c) enables us to grant a blanket extension.
36. Although we do not deem it necessary to rest our authority to grant blanket extensions upon
sources other than section 107(c), we will nevertheless respond to arguments that we have such other
authority. A number of carriers suggest that the Commission should extend the compliance deadline
pursuant to its authority under section 107(b)(5) of the Act. For instance, CTIA and 360ß contend that
the record supports a blanket extension and that "the Commission has clear authority under section 107(b)
of CALEA to set a reasonable time for compliance after it resolves the standards dispute." CTIA
explains that where the technical standard developed by industry for compliance with section 103 is
challenged, "Congress mandated that the Commission set a reasonable time for compliance after resolution
of the dispute for carriers to meet their obligations." Given the petitions challenging the capability
standards that are currently before the Commission, CTIA maintains that "the requirements of section
107(b)(5) are triggered and a reasonable time for meeting CALEA after the Commission determines the
scope of a carrier's compliance obligations is mandated." Likewise, PrimeCo submits that a blanket
extension under section 107(b) is "within the Commission's statutory mandate 'to provide a reasonable time
and conditions for compliance with and transition to' the new standards." The FBI does not agree that
section 107(b)(5) grants the Commission the authority to extend the CALEA compliance date under the
current circumstances. Instead, the FBI maintains that the Commission's authority under section
107(b)(5) applies only in the context of a section 107(b) rulemaking petition.
37. We agree with those carriers contending that section 107(b)(5) provides the Commission with
the authority to provide carriers with a reasonable amount of time to comply with section 103 during any
transition period associated with the Commission's establishment of a standard for CALEA. However,
we also agree with the DOJ/FBI that CALEA only allows an extension of time to be granted under section
107(b) as a result of a 107(b) rulemaking proceeding. As noted previously, the Commission is not taking
any action affecting the assistance capability standards in this Memorandum Opinion and Order. Instead,
the issue of technical standards for CALEA compliance will be addressed in a separate order. Accordingly,
we find no occasion to rest our decision to grant a blanket extension upon section 107(b)(5). We
nonetheless remain committed to effectuating the swift implementation of CALEA, and will take action in
the very near future on the contested technical issues, including transition terms and conditions, addressed
in the section 107(b) petitions for rulemaking we have received. We emphasize that nothing we say in this
Memorandum Opinion and Order should be interpreted as prejudging those contested issues.
38. Telecommunications industry commenters also suggest that sections 4(i), 4(j), and 229(a) of
the Communications Act provide the Commission with additional authority to issue a blanket extension of
the CALEA compliance date. As those commenters note, section 4(i) of the Communications Act grants
the Commission the general authority to "make such rules and regulations, and issue such orders, not
inconsistent with [the Act], as may be necessary in the execution of its functions." Section 4(j) gives the
Commission further ability to "conduct its proceedings in such manner as will best conduce to the proper
dispatch of business and to the ends of justice." Similarly, section 229(a) of the Communications Act,
added by section 301 of CALEA, specifically provides that "[t]he Commission shall prescribe such rules
as are necessary to implement the requirements of" CALEA. Certain carriers contend that these broad
provisions complement the Commission's authority granted in section 107(c) of CALEA. Moreover,
these commenters assert that, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 229(a), the Commission has the authority
to determine what steps are necessary to resolve proceedings brought before it in a manner that is both fair
and reasonable.
39. The FBI disagrees with this reasoning and states that section 229(a) of the Communications
Act grants the Commission only the authority to prescribe rules that are necessary to implement the
requirements of CALEA, that section 229(a) does not give the Commission the authority to prescribe rules
that "contravene" it, and that a blanket extension would contravene the Act. Given the fact that CALEA
expressly anticipates the need for the Commission to grant an extension of CALEA's compliance date, we
do not believe that our doing so for all affected carriers (where the record supports a finding of lack of
reasonable achievability), contravenes the requirements of the Act. We find it unnecessary to decide
whether section 229(a) is an appropriate basis upon which to supplement our authority to grant a blanket
extension under the Act. That section allows us to prescribe "rules," and we are not convinced that
granting any appropriate extension under authority of section 107(c) requires an exercise of our rulemaking
authority. Sections 4(i) and 4(j), however, do supplement our 107(c) authority to grant a blanket
extension. In light of our conclusion that issuing a blanket extension order achieves the same result as
granting multiple extensions to individual carriers, and that it enables us to devote our resources to
resolving the standards issue more quickly, as Congress clearly intended, we have little trouble concluding
that our order today is "necessary in the execution of [our] functions" and "conduce[s] to the proper
dispatch of business and to the ends of justice." Thus, in the interest of conserving administrative
resources, and in an effort to ensure that the objectives and obligations of CALEA are met in a timely
manner, we conclude that we may and should grant a broad extension order based upon the authority
provided us in section 107(c)(2). Therefore, although section 107(c)(2) is a sufficient basis for our action,
that authority is supplemented by the authority found in sections 4(i) and 4(j) of the Communications Act.
40. Finally, a few carriers offered suggestions for ways that the Commission could grant
extensions if we found that we lacked the authority to issue a blanket extension. However, because we
have determined that the Commission has the authority to grant a blanket extension and that such an
extension is warranted, and because we believe doing so is in the public interest and best ensures that the
objectives and obligations of CALEA are met in a timely manner, we will not address such alternatives.
41. Length of the Extension. We have been presented with three different suggestions by industry
with respect to the length of the extension. Many carriers argue that the CALEA compliance deadline
should be extended for two years after the Commission establishes accepted compliance standards.
Some commenters urge the same result in a slightly different manner by asking us to toll the compliance
deadline during the pendency of the Commission's standards-setting rulemaking and then allow for a two
year extension to take effect. Other telecommunications carriers simply suggest that we should grant a
two year extension from the October 1998 deadline.
42. The FBI recommends that the length of any extension should be no longer than two years
measured from December 1997, when the industry published the standards incorporated in J-STD-025.
The FBI also argues that the Commission should provide that, unless new carrier-specific justifications
have arisen, the extensions be one-time extensions that include "milestones" in the design and development
process that carriers must meet during the extension period. Furthermore, the FBI recommends that the
Commission terminate these extensions if and when a compliance solution that substantially facilitates
compliance on an industry-wide basis becomes available. Finally, the FBI maintains that industry
participants should be required to consult in good faith with law enforcement during the extension period
and manufacturers should be required to develop their J-STD-025 solutions in a manner that does not
impede, and will indeed facilitate, the future addition of punch list features.
43. Decision. Pursuant to section 107(c)(3), the Commission may grant an extension for no longer
than the earlier of "(A) the date determined by the Commission as necessary for the carrier to comply with
the assistance capability requirements under section 103; or (B) the date that is two years after the date on
which the extension is granted." Thus, both extension periods suggested by the carriers--two years from
the issuance of our standards order or two years from the October 1998 deadline--fall outside our authority
under section 107(c)(3), which caps the length of any single extension at two years from the date of the
extension order. Because the dates urged by the carriers are beyond that point in time, the Commission is
without authority to grant the extensions the carriers request.
44. Of the alternatives actually available to the Commission, we conclude that an extension until
June 30, 2000, provides the necessary amount of time for telecommunications carriers to achieve CALEA
compliance. Section 107(c)(3)(A) permits the Commission to extend the compliance deadline to the date it
determines "as necessary for the carrier to comply with the assistant capability requirements under section
103." Based on the comments we have received, we determine that an extension to June 30, 2000, is
necessary for carriers to comply with section 103's requirements. We base this conclusion on a three-part
analysis.
45. First, all parties generally agree that an interim standard, J-STD-025, was adopted by the
industry in December 1997. The FBI contends that this standard is deficient because it does not support
nine additional law enforcement surveillance capabilities (the punch list), while privacy advocates take the
position that this standard includes two capabilities that would undermine the privacy interests of
telecommunications users and are not required to be provided under CALEA. Law enforcement, the
carriers and manufacturers and privacy groups, however, do not dispute any of the other features or
requirements of J-STD-025. Thus, the vast majority of the features--the "core"-- of J-STD-025 is not
opposed.
46. We note that in the near future we expect to initiate a rulemaking proceeding under section
107(b) that will adopt final technical requirements and/or standards that will allow carriers to meet the
capability requirements of section 103 of CALEA. Since final action in that proceeding is not likely to be
completed in time for carriers to meet CALEA's October 25, 1998 deadline, we will require carriers to have
installed CALEA-compliant equipment and facilities based on the core J-STD-025 standard by June 30,
2000. This is a firm deadline. If this standard is ultimately modified and new capabilities or features are
added to the core standard in the section 107(b) rulemaking, we will consider establishing a separate
deadline for upgrading carrier equipment and facilities to comply with those capabilities or features in that
proceeding pursuant to our authority under section 107(b)(5). This approach provides certainty to the
telecommunications industry in developing and installing CALEA-compliant solutions, and recognizes the
interests of law enforcement in providing effective public safety. It also seeks to allow carriers to
implement a CALEA-compliant solution sooner, rather than later, while providing the flexibility to design
modifications to the core J-STD-025 standard that can be installed in carrier equipment and facilities in
subsequent upgrades, if any such modifications are adopted in the section 107(b) rulemaking proceeding.
47. Second, all parties generally agree that it should take manufacturers approximately two years
from the date CALEA requirements are standardized to develop technology capable of complying with that
standard. In analyzing this amount of time, we rely in great measure upon the FBI's expertise on the
issue of CALEA compliance. Because J-STD-025 was adopted in December 1997, manufacturers should
be able to produce equipment that will be generally available for carriers to meet the section 103 capability
requirements by December 31, 1999.
48. Third, we agree with commenters that after a manufacturer makes CALEA-compliant
equipment and facilities based on the core J-STD-025 standard generally available, carriers require an
additional period of time to purchase, test and install such equipment and facilities throughout their
networks. Based on the record in this proceeding, we conclude that six months will provide carriers with
sufficient time to accomplish these tasks. Although USTA and TIA indicate that a 12 month installation
period for the carriers is appropriate, we believe that a six month period is both sufficient and reasonable
given the urgency of ensuring law enforcement access to CALEA's capabilities. The 12 month period is
based on the time the largest carriers would require to install a CALEA-compliant solution in all of their
switches. Not all carriers are large carriers with the same number of switches. Consequently, some carries
will be able to install CALEA-compliant solutions earlier than 12 months. Finally, the record indicates that
out-of-switch CALEA-compliant solutions are likely to be available as early as the end of calendar year
1998. These out-of-switch solutions generally work by taking information (call identifying data, for
example) provided by the switch, processing it in a separate computer, and then delivering the information
and data to the law enforcement surveillance center. As a result, some carriers may opt to install out-of-
switch solutions in lieu of switch-based solutions.
49. For these reasons, a six month period for carriers to install CALEA-compliant equipment and
facilities based on the core J-STD-025 standard appears to be the necessary time frame for compliance.
Therefore, starting with the December 31, 1999, date by which manufacturers should have CALEA
compliant equipment and facilities based on the core J-STD-025 standard generally available, and adding
six months to this date for carrier installation of equipment and facilities, we conclude that carrier
compliance with CALEA's section 103 requirements should be extended to June 30, 2000.
50. Despite our desire to facilitate the rapid implementation of CALEA compliance, our careful
review of the record leads us to conclude that we should not adopt the FBI's other conditions for granting
extensions. Although we anticipate that manufacturers and carriers will work diligently towards
developing and installing CALEA-compliant equipment and facilities by June 30, 2000, we conclude that
we cannot impose the FBI's suggested limitation that our extension will be a one-time grant, because the
plain language of section 107(c) states that carriers may petition the Commission for one or more
extensions of the deadline. Nonetheless, we fully believe that an extension until June 30, 2000 will allow
sufficient time for carriers to satisfy their obligations and that further extensions should not be necessary.
Furthermore, with respect to the FBI's request that we establish milestones for carriers during the extension
period, we note that as part of our section 107(b) rulemaking proceeding, the Commission can establish, "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." If in that proceeding we adopt a modified J-STD-025 standard and adjustments are needed in
the time or conditions (such as the "milestones" advocated by the FBI) required for carriers to comply with
CALEA's assistance capability requirements, we can make such adjustments as part of that proceeding.
51. Therefore, based on the above considerations, and pursuant to section 107(c) of the Act, we
grant an extension of CALEA's compliance date to June 30, 2000. By this deadline, all
telecommunications carriers subject to the provisions of CALEA will be required to comply with section
103's assistance capability requirements. Based on the record before us, we believe that this extension
should provide a reasonable amount of time for the development of CALEA-compliant technology based on
the core J-STD-025 standard. Further, as explained above, the Commission is committed to an expedited
rulemaking to resolve the section 107(b) petitions we have received to adopt CALEA-compliant standards
or technical requirements. Therefore, we believe this extension order fully considers both the current state
of technology development and the need to develop CALEA solutions expeditiously.
V. ORDERING CLAUSES
52. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 4(i) and 4(j) of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i) and 154(j), and sections 107(c)(1)-(4) of the
Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, 47 U.S.C. 1006(c)(1)-(4), the Petition for
Extension of Compliance Date jointly filed by AT&T Wireless Services, Inc., Lucent Technologies, Inc.,
and Ericsson, Inc. on March 30, 1998; the PrimeCo Petition for an Extension of Compliance Date, filed
April 21, 1998; the Powertel Petition for an Extension of Compliance Date, filed April 23, 1998; the
USTA, Petition for an Extension of Compliance Date, filed April 24, 1998; the Ameritech Petition for an
Extension of Compliance Date, filed April 24, 1998; the AirTouch Paging Petition for an Extension of
Compliance Date, filed May 4, 1998; the AirTouch Joint Petition for an Extension of Compliance Date,
filed May 5, 1998; the SBC Petition for an Extension of Compliance Date, filed May 8, 1998; the ICG
Petition for an Extension of Compliance Date, filed May 8, 1998; the Centennial Petition for an Extension
of Compliance Date, filed May 6, 1998; the Comcast Cellular Petition for Extension of Compliance Date,
filed May 29, 1998; the BellSouth Petition for Extension of Time, filed May 8, 1998; the CommNet
Petition for Extension of Compliance Date, filed April 30, 1998; the Metrocall Petition for Extension of
Compliance Date, filed May 21, 1998; the USCC Petition for Extension of Compliance Date, filed May 8,
1998, the PageMart Petition for Extension of CALEA Compliance Date, filed June 10, 1998; the Ardis, et
al. Joint Petition for Extension of Compliance Date, filed June 10, 1998; the Redcom Petition for Extension
of CALEA Compliance Date, filed June 1, 1998; Request of Skytel Communications, Inc. for Extension of
Time to Comply with the Assistance Capability Requirements of Section 103 of CALEA, filed July 24,
1998, Joint Petition For an Extension of the CALEA Assistance Capability Compliance Date of Iridium
United States, L.P. and Motorola, Inc., filed June 30, 1998; 360ß Communications Company Comments at
8 n.15, filed May 8, 1998; Centurytel Wireless, Inc. Communications Comments at 8 n.27, filed May 8,
1998, Paging Network, Inc., Petition for Extension of Compliance Date, filed June 8, 1998 ARE
GRANTED to the extent discussed above.
53. IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 4(i) and 4(j) of the Communications Act of 1934,
as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i) and 154(j), and sections 107(c)(1)-(4) of the Communications Assistance
for Law Enforcement Act, 47 U.S.C. 1006(c)(1)-(4), all telecommunications carriers proposing to install
or deploy, or having installed or deployed, any equipment, facility, or service prior to October 25, 1998, are
HEREBY GRANTED AN EXTENSION of the compliance date of the assistance capability requirements
of section 103 of CALEA, 47 U.S.C. 1002(a)(1)-(4), until June 30, 2000.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary
Appendix
Parties Filing Comments
1. Airtouch Communications, Inc. (AirTouch)
2. Aliant Communications, Inc. (Aliant)
3. ALLTEL Communications, Inc. (ALLTEL)
4. Ameritech Operating Companies and Ameritech Mobile Communications, Inc. (Ameritech)
5. Association for Local Telecommunications Services (ALTS)
6. AT&T Corporation, and AT&T Wireless Services Inc. (AT&T)
7. Bell Atlantic Mobile, Inc. (BAM)
8. Bell Emergis-Intelligent Signalling Technologies (Bell Emergis)
9. BellSouth Corporation, BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., BellSouth Cellular Corporation, BellSouth
Personal Communications, Inc. and BellSouth Wireless Data, L.P. (BellSouth)
10. Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA)
11. Centennial Cellular Corporation (Centennial)
12. Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT)
13. CenturyTel Wireless, Inc. (CenturyTel)
14. Electronic Privacy Information Center, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the American Civil
Liberties Union (filing jointly) (EPIC)
15. GTE Service Corporation (GTE)
16. ICG Telecom Group (ICG)
17. Liberty Cellular, Inc. (Liberty)
18. National Telephone Cooperative Association (NTCA)
19. Nextel Communications, Inc. (Nextel)
20. Northern Telecom, Inc. (Nortel)
21. Omnipoint Communications, Inc. (Omnipoint)
22. Organization for the Promotion and Advancement of Small Telecommunications Companies
(OPASTCO)
23. Paging Network, Inc. (PageNet)
24. Personal Communications Industry Association (PCIA)
25. Powertel, Inc. (Powertel)
26. PrimeCo Personal Communications, L.P. (PrimeCo)
27. Redcom Laboratories, Inc. (Redcom)
28. Rural Cellular Association (RCA)
29. SBC Communications (SBC)
30. Southern Communications Services (Southern)
31. Sprint Spectrum L.P. d/b/a Sprint PCS (Sprint)
32. Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA)
33. United States Cellular Corporation (USCC)
34. United States Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation (filing jointly) (DoJ/FBI)
35. United States Telephone Association (USTA)
36. US West, Inc. (US West)
37. 360ß Communications Company (360ß)
Parties Filing Reply Comments
1. AirTouch Communications, Inc. (AirTouch)
2. Ameritech Operating Companies and Ameritech Mobile Communications, Inc. (Ameritech)
3. AT&T Corporation, and AT&T Wireless Services Inc. (AT&T)
4. BellSouth Corporation, BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., BellSouth Cellular Corporation, BellSouth
Personal Communications, Inc. and BellSouth Wireless Data, L.P. (BellSouth)
5. Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT)
6. Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA)
7. Electronic Privacy Information Center, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the American Civil
Liberties Union (filing jointly) (EPIC)
8. Globalstar L.P. (Globalstar)
9. GTE Service Corporation (GTE)
10. Metrocall, Inc. (Metrocall)
11. Nextel Communications, Inc. (Nextel)
12. PrimeCo Personal Communications, L.P. (PrimeCo)
13. SBC Communications, Inc. (SBC)
14. Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA)
15. United States Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation (filing jointly) (DoJ/FBI)
16. United States Telephone Association (USTA)
17. US West, Inc. (US West) Joint Statement
of
Commissioners Susan Ness and Michael Powell
Re: Petition for the Extension of the Compliance Date under Section 107 of the Communications
Assistance for Law Enforcement Act by AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. et al.
Upgrading our nation's telecommunications networks to provide law enforcement agencies with the
surveillance capabilities necessary to protect public safety in the digital technology era is an
important public policy goal of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act
(CALEA). Implementation of this important goal, however, must be balanced against the actual
ability of the telecommunications manufacturers and carriers to design, manufacture and deploy
CALEA compliant equipment and facilities in their telecommunications networks.
We believe that the June 30, 2000, CALEA compliance deadline established in the order balances
these competing interests. Each day that goes by without CALEA compliant equipment and
facilities in operation limits the capabilities of law enforcement agencies. Nevertheless,
telecommunications manufacturers and carriers will require a period of time to manufacture, test
and install CALEA compliant equipment and facilities in their telecommunications networks. The
extension to June 30, 2000, establishes an aggressive but achievable deadline that is within the
limits of the Commission's authority. This is a firm deadline. It affords telecommunications
carriers the necessary time to deploy CALEA compliant equipment and facilities, and we strongly
encourage telecommunications manufacturers and carriers to cooperate with law enforcement
agencies to meet this deadline.
The June 30, 2000, deadline is appropriate for another reason. In light of the significant resources
that the telecommunications industry is dedicating to resolving the Year 2000 problem, it makes
good sense to establish a CALEA compliance deadline that will not conflict with the
telecommunications industry's efforts to comply with the Year 2000 problem.
For these reasons, we support the June 30, 2000, compliance deadline set forth in the order.
Statement of
Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth
Re: Petition for the Extension of the Compliance Date under Section 107 of the Communications
Assistance for Law Enforcement Act by AT&T Wireless
Services, Inc., Lucent Technologies, and Ericsson, Inc.
I concur in today's decision to extend the CALEA compliance deadline. Clearly we
needed to grant such an extension pursuant to our authority under Section 107(c)(3). All five
Commissioners agree. The differences among us are measurable in months. I would have
preferred for us to grant the maximum allowable 24 months. While some Commissioners would
have favored less than the 22 months we grant here, I concur with the 22 month extension
because it allows nearly as much time for compliance as I would have preferred. I do not believe,
however, that we can predict with such great precision when compliance will be possible.
Perhaps our decision to grant a 22 month extension can be read as a signal to industry that
we do not plan to grant a series of maximum length 24 month extensions and that we take
seriously our responsibilities under CALEA. This much is true. But I don't believe in simply
"sending signals" and, if any signal needed to be sent, it should have been to those parties who
simultaneously demand haste and create uncertainty by seeking rapid implementation of
technology that is based on a standard they still are seeking to modify.