***************************************************
                         NOTICE
***************************************************
This document was converted from
Word97 to ASCII Text format.
Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page
numbers will not show up in this text version.
All text attributes such as bold, itallic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.
Features of the orginal document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.
If you need the complete document, download the
Word97, or Adobe Acrobat versions, if available.
The path and name of the Word97, and Acrobat files
 will be the same as the ASCII Text file except that they  will
end with the letters wp, doc, or pdf  respectively,
instead of the letters txt.
****************************************************
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the matter of
Communications Assistance for
Law Enforcement Act
)
)
)
)
CC Docket No. 97-213
ORDER
   Adopted:  September 18, 2001	Released:  September 21, 2001
By the Commission:  Commissioner Copps issuing a statement.
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Order, we grant in part the relief requested by the Cellular Telecommunications &
Internet Association ("CTIA").   As requested by CTIA, we are temporarily suspending the September
30, 2001 compliance date for wireline, cellular, and broadband Personal Communications Services
("PCS") carriers to implement two Department of Justice ("DoJ")/Federal Bureau of Investigation
("FBI") "punch list" electronic surveillance capabilities mandated by the Third Report and Order ("Third
R&O") in this proceeding.   We deny CTIA's request for a blanket extension of the September 30, 2001
compliance deadline for these carriers to implement a packet-mode communications electronic
surveillance capability, also mandated by the Third R&O.  However, given the imminence of the packet-
mode compliance deadline, we grant these carriers until November 19, 2001 either to come into
compliance or to seek individual relief.
II. BACKGROUND
2. In the Third R&O, released in August 1999, the Commission specified technical
requirements for wireline, cellular, and broadband PCS carriers to comply with the assistance capability
requirements prescribed by the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994
("CALEA").   We took this action under Section 107(b) of CALEA  in response to petitions filed with us
that claimed that industry standards for electronic surveillance failed to satisfy the four general assistance
capability requirements in Section 103 of CALEA.   Under Section 107(a)(2) of CALEA  (the "safe
harbor" provision), carriers and manufacturers that comply with industry standards for electronic
surveillance are deemed in compliance with their specific responsibilities under Sections 103 and 106 of
CALEA.   The Commission is authorized, under Section 107(b) of CALEA, in response to a petition from
any Government agency or person, to establish, by rule, technical requirements or standards if industry
associations or standard-setting organizations fail to issue technical requirements or standards or if any
Government agency or person believes that such requirements or standards are deficient.
3. In the Third R&O, we required that wireline, cellular, and broadband PCS carriers
implement all electronic surveillance capabilities of the industry interim standard, J-STD-025  - including
two contested features of the interim standard, i.e., a packet-mode communications capability  and a
location information requirement  - and six of nine additional capabilities requested by DoJ/FBI, known
as the "punch list" capabilities.   While we required a packet-mode capability, we did not adopt specific
technical requirements for packet-mode communications.  Rather, we permitted carriers to deliver packet-
mode data to be delivered to law enforcement agencies ("LEAs") under the interim standard pending
further study of packet-mode communications by the telecommunications industry.   We required that
the capabilities covered by the "core" interim standard - including all uncontested requirements of
J-STD-025, as well as the contested location information requirement - be implemented by June 30,
2000,  and that the packet-mode and punch list capabilities be implemented by September 30, 2001.
4. More specifically with respect to a packet-mode communications capability, the industry
interim standard does not specify the call identifying information for packet communications, although it
does indicate how some information that could be considered call-identifying (e.g., time stamp, physical
location of a mobile subject) could be sent with the packets under certain conditions.  As a result, call-
identifying information and call content are not separated under the interim standard during electronic
surveillance.  Nevertheless, we decided as a temporary solution that packet-mode communications could
be delivered to LEAs under the interim standard, to be used in accordance with the appropriate level of
legal authorization.   To address privacy implications of the interim standard's packet-mode capability,
we requested that the Telecommunications Industry Association ("TIA") submit to us by September 30,
2000 a report detailing a permanent solution for separating call-identifying information from call
content.   On September 29, 2000, TIA submitted its report to the Commission.   In a cover letter to the
report, TIA encourages the Commission to establish a procedure for implementing a permanent packet-
mode electronic surveillance solution in an efficient and rational manner.  The cover letter also states that
the consensus among the report's participants was that providing the entire packet stream for a particular
subscriber is by far the most cost-effective and technically feasible method for providing access to LEAs,
but that manufacturers and carriers are unsure whether to continue expending considerable resources to
develop complicated and expensive solutions for packet-mode communications consistent with J-STD-
025, if it is possible that those solutions may prove to be only an interim or temporary remedy.   The TIA
Report does not detail a specific technical solution for separating call-identifying information from call
content.  Rather, the Report discusses packet-mode technologies generally - including Internet access via
a code division multiple access technology known as "cdma2000," an integrated services digital network
technology known as "X.25 over ISDN," Internet protocol ("IP"), wireless Internet protocol ("Wireless
IP"), asynchronous transfer mode ("ATM"), "frame relay," general packet radio service ("GPRS"),
"packet-cable," and cellular digital packet data ("CDPD")  - and suggests that the FBI's "Carnivore"
technology offers a potential solution for separating call-identifying information from content, yet cites
numerous industry concerns with that technology, including liability and privacy.
5. Several parties challenged in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit six capabilities required by the Third R&O: location information and packet-mode
communications, both of which were included in J-STD-025; and dialed digit extraction, party
hold/join/drop, subject-initiated dialing and signaling, and in-band and out-of-band signaling, which are
four of the six punch list capabilities requested by DoJ/FBI that we added to J-STD-025.   In August
2000, the Court vacated and remanded to us for further proceedings those portions of the Third R&O
pertaining to the four challenged punch list capabilities.   The Court upheld our findings in the Third
R&O regarding location information and packet-mode communications, but with respect to the latter
stated: "CALEA authorizes neither the Commission nor the telecommunications industry to modify either
the evidentiary standards or procedural safeguards for securing legal authorization to obtain packets from
which call content has not been stripped, nor may the Commission require carriers to provide the
government with information that is `not authorized to be intercepted.'"
6. Following the Court's decision, CTIA filed a petition to immediately suspend the
September 30, 2001 compliance deadline for implementing the two unchallenged punch list capabilities -
content of subject-initiated conference calls and timing information - and the packet-mode
communications capability.   In its petition, CTIA states that the compliance deadline for those
capabilities should be suspended to ensure an orderly and cost-efficient implementation of the punch list
and packet-mode communications capabilities.  With respect to the punch list, CTIA argues that
disentangling the four vacated capabilities from the two remaining capabilities would be a complex and
inefficient process.   CTIA therefore recommends that we suspend the compliance date for the entire
punch list pending resolution of what capabilities are required.   With respect to packet-mode
communications, CTIA argues that the Court found that telecommunications carriers could not lawfully
deliver the full content of a packet to a LEA under a "pen register"  order.   CTIA further argues that we
may receive petitions that request that we declare the current packet-mode standard deficient because it
fails to protect the privacy of communications not authorized to be intercepted.  Accordingly, CTIA
argues that it would be prudent for us to suspend the packet-mode compliance deadline until we have all
of the information necessary to make a realistic compliance determination.
7. On September 1, 2000, our Office of Engineering and Technology ("OET") placed the
CTIA Petition on Public Notice,  and on September 15, 2000, OET received comments responding to the
CTIA Petition.  Subsequently, ex parte presentations regarding the CTIA Petition were received.   The
great majority of parties support grant of the Petition.  BellSouth Corporation, BellSouth
Telecommunications, Inc., BellSouth Cellular Corp., and BellSouth Wireless Data, L.P. ("BellSouth")
state that a suspension of the September 30, 2001 deadline for both punch list and packet-mode
communications capabilities is warranted in light of the uncertainty created by the Court's decision.
With respect to packet-mode communications, BellSouth concurs with CTIA that the Court found that
carriers are prohibited from providing call content to LEAs pursuant to pen register orders.   BellSouth
therefore contends that carriers cannot use J-STD-025 for packet-mode electronic surveillance, and that a
new packet-mode standard must be developed that adequately protects privacy.   Cisco Systems
("Cisco") argues that while header and content information can be separated for Internet Protocol packets,
we have never offered a meaningful definition of "call-identifying information" for packet-mode
communications and it is therefore unclear what information a carrier may lawfully provide to a LEA
under a pen register order.  The National Telephone Cooperative Association ("NTCA") contends that
small carriers cannot meet the September 30, 2001 compliance deadline and that without a suspension of
that deadline these carriers will be forced to petition the Commission for extensions of time.   USTA
contends that a suspension of the deadline is warranted both for the punch list and the packet-mode
capabilities because of the uncertainty created by the Court Remand Decision.  USTA further contends
that many vendors, and in particular those vendors that serve small and midsized wireline carriers, will
not have the punch list capabilities available to carriers by September 30, 2001.   USTA asserts that if
that deadline is not suspended, many of its members would petition the Commission for an extension.
Finally, USTA requests that we clarify that any carrier that may be granted an extension beyond
September 30, 2001 to meet the core J-STD-025 requirements be declared exempt from meeting that
deadline for the punch list and any other capability that is not contained in J-STD-025.   None of the
petition's supporters suggest a new compliance date for either the punch list or packet-mode capabilities.
8. SecureCable, Inc.  opposes any suspension of the September 30, 2001 compliance
deadline because it contends that the Court decision affects only four punch list capabilities.  SecureCable
therefore argues that there is no basis to suspend the compliance deadline for the other two punch list
capabilities and the packet-mode capability.
9. DoJ/FBI contend that an extension of the compliance deadline is warranted only for the
punch list capabilities, and recommend that the new deadline for those capabilities be six months from the
date of our forthcoming decision that will address the Court Remand Decision.   DoJ/FBI note that when
the Commission extended the general CALEA compliance date from October 25, 1998 to June 30, 2000,
it concluded that six months was sufficient time for carriers to purchase, test, and install equipment
throughout their networks.   DoJ/FBI also contend that a suspension of the compliance deadline for
packet-mode communications is unwarranted because the Court upheld our decision with respect to such
communications.   DoJ/FBI further contend that, contrary to CTIA, the Court reached no conclusion as
to whether the delivery of the full content of a packet to a LEA under a pen register order would be
unlawful.   DoJ/FBI also note that where a Title III court order has been issued, there is no dispute that a
telecommunications carrier is obligated to deliver full packet information to a LEA.   Additionally,
DoJ/FBI contend that a packet-mode electronic surveillance capability is critically important to LEAs and
is mandated by CALEA.   Moreover, DoJ/FBI assert that some authorized wiretaps have been frustrated
by carriers' inability to facilitate surveillance of packet-mode communications.  Finally, DoJ/FBI state
that they have completed cooperative agreements with five major telecommunications manufacturers for
CALEA software solutions that will enable carriers to provide all required CALEA capabilities -
including any required punch list capabilities - to LEAs at no charge to carriers.  DoJ/FBI contend that
these solutions cover more than 90% of the nation's wireline and wireless lines, and that many of the
solutions include the capability for carriers to "toggle"  individual punch list capabilities.
10. In April 2000, we issued a Public Notice providing instructions for those carriers needing
to file petitions for extension of the June 30, 2000 deadline for complying with the capability
requirements of CALEA section 103.   In that Public Notice, we noted that section 107(c)(3)  authorizes
us to extend the compliance deadline for no longer than two years from the date of the petition's grant.
We also noted that the FBI has provided each carrier an opportunity to participate in a "Flexible
Deployment Program," under which the FBI has agreed to review a carrier's extension request in light of
the priorities of LEAs.  We further noted that for carriers serving geographic areas that do not have a
history of demand by LEAs for electronic surveillance, the FBI may advise us that extensions of the
section 103 compliance deadline do not unduly threaten the public safety.  Accordingly, we urged each
carrier seeking an extension of the June 30, 2000 CALEA deadline to participate in the Flexible
Deployment Program before submitting to us a section 107(c) petition for extension of time to comply.
A number of carriers chose to participate in the Flexible Deployment Program, and we have made
preliminary determinations to suspend the June 30, 2000 deadline for many of those carriers.  On August
15, 2001, our Common Carrier Bureau released an Order making final determinations to grant extensions
of the June 30, 2000 deadline to several hundred wireline carriers.   We anticipate making final
determinations on other wireline - as well as wireless - carriers' requests for extensions of that deadline
in the near future.  We also note that in August 2001 the FBI released a Second Edition of its Flexible
Deployment Program.  This Second Edition pertains to packet-mode communications and is designed to
assist carriers in meeting packet-mode requirements mandated by CALEA.
III. DISCUSSION
11. There is broad agreement among industry and law enforcement that we should suspend
the September 30, 2001 compliance deadline for the two unchallenged punch list capabilities, pending a
final action by the Commission of what punch list capabilities will be required.  We agree with the
majority of commenters that retaining the current deadline for two of the punch list capabilities prior to
determining the disposition of the four punch list capabilities vacated by the Court Remand Decision
could result in major inefficiencies for carriers.  Moreover, there is insufficient corresponding benefit in
implementing these two capabilities by themselves to warrant disruption and costs such a severable
implementation would entail.  Most carriers use more than one type of switch in their networks, often
from different manufacturers.  Most manufacturers have developed a CALEA solution that includes all
six punch list capabilities that the Third R&O required; some manufacturers have included the core
interim standard and the punch list capabilities in one software package, others have separated the core
interim standard and punch list capabilities into different software packages.  Some software packages
allow each punch list capability to be toggled, while other software packages do not allow toggling.  In
either case, carriers have to install and test the full software package.  Carriers will have to test software
with toggling functions to ensure that toggling off some capabilities does not interfere with the provision
of other capabilities.  For those software packages that do not allow toggling, carriers would have to
implement the whole software package by the current September 30, 2001 deadline, absent an extension
from the Commission, if the software could not be modified before then either to remove the four vacated
punch list capabilities or to provide a toggle on/off function.  While we believe that LEAs will cooperate
with carriers to minimize the burden on carriers, we find, under these circumstances, such an approach to
be inherently burdensome and inefficient.  Furthermore, a temporary suspension of the compliance date
for the unchallenged capabilities will ensure that all punch list capabilities that may ultimately be required
will proceed on the same compliance schedule.  In any event, we anticipate that we would likely receive
and grant many individual petitions for extension, which would be an unwarranted exercise and
expenditure of resources.  While we encourage carriers to make available to LEAs any surveillance
capability they have available, we recognize that the deployment of software with the punch list
capabilities will vary from carrier to carrier.
12. Accordingly, pursuant to our authority to provide a reasonable time and conditions for
compliance with and the transition to any new standard,  we are temporarily suspending the current
September 30, 2001 deadline for all punch list capabilities, including the two unchallenged punch list
capabilities (i.e., subject-initiated conference calls and timing information), pending the Commission's
final action on the Court Remand Decision.  We anticipate that we will establish a new compliance date
for all required punch list capabilities in time to allow carriers to be fully CALEA-compliant no later than
June 30, 2002.  We arrive at this outside target date because we intend to address the Court Remand
Decision no later than year's end.  We intend to act as expeditiously as possible on the remand, before
year's end if possible, believing it to be a priority of this agency.  The record indicates that carriers can
implement any required changes to their software within six months of our decision.
13. With regard to a packet-mode communications electronic surveillance capability, we find
no need to extend the September 30, 2001 compliance deadline in the blanket manner requested by CTIA.
Implementation of this capability is unrelated to the implementation of the punch list capabilities.  In fact,
only a small percentage of telecommunications carriers use packet-mode technology.  For carriers that do
not use packet-mode technology, no packet-mode capability is required. However, for carriers that do use
that technology, suspending the packet-mode deadline would extend the period of time in which
electronic surveillance could be circumvented by use of packet-mode communications.  At the outset, we
note that the Court affirmed our findings in the Third R&O not to remove the packet-mode capability that
was included in the industry established safe harbor J-STD-025.  As we discussed above, the interim
standard does not specify the call identifying information for packet communications.  As a result, both
call-identifying information and call content could be provided for electronic surveillance under the
interim standard.  The Court noted that nothing in our treatment of packet-mode communications requires
carriers to turn over content information to LEAs absent lawful authorization, and therefore carriers have
no reason to believe that they will be forced by our packet-mode decision to submit unauthorized
information to LEAs.   We agree with DoJ/FBI that while parties may dispute whether a carrier may
supply to a LEA the entire packet (i.e., content and call-identifying information) in response to a pen
register order, there appears to be no dispute that a carrier must supply the entire packet in response to a
Title III order.   Thus, the interim standard for the packet capability appears to be appropriate at least in
some cases, even though it does not include a standard for separating call-identifying information from
the content of the packet.
14. Based on the TIA Report, it appears that there are numerous packet-mode technologies
and that the development of packet-mode electronic surveillance standards governing the separation of
call-identifying information from content in a manner that fully satisfies privacy concerns for each of
these technologies is still in a relatively early stage.  Under CALEA, development of technical
requirements is left, in the first instance, to the telecommunications industry and LEAs - and not the
Commission.  The absence of technical standards or requirements for implementing the assistance
capability requirements of section 103  does not preclude a telecommunications carrier, manufacturer, or
support service provider from deploying a technology or service or relieve those entities of their
obligations under section 103.   As the Court noted in its decision, section 107(b)  defines the
circumstances under which the Commission is to engage in establishing technical requirements or
standards.   The Commission may act, in response to a petition, when the industry fails to issue technical
requirements or standards or, if it has done so, when parties allege that the standard is deficient.  The
industry has not yet developed any standard for separating call-identifying information from content for
packet technologies, and thus no one has petitioned us alleging deficiencies in such a standard.  We also
have not received a petition requesting us to establish technical requirements or standards for the
separation of packet-mode call-identifying information.  We do not construe TIA's transmittal letter to its
Report as a request for the Commission to establish a packet-mode standard, but rather as a request that
we facilitate the process of establishing such a standard by industry.  To the extent TIA and Cisco are
requesting guidance regarding the definition of "call-identifying information" with respect to packet-
mode communications, our forthcoming decision addressing the Court Remand Decision will clarify the
definition with respect to the punch list, and the clarification is likely to provide the necessary guidance
for the packet-mode context as well.  We anticipate a continuing dialogue with the telecommunications
industry, LEAs, regulators, and consumers regarding the development of new CALEA standards, which
can serve as safe harbors.
15. We recognize that there is no industry standard for separating call-identifying
information in the packet-mode context.  Nonetheless, as we noted in the Third R&O, with many packet
technologies it is fairly straightforward to separate some address information from call content.
However, in other cases, address information used by one service provider (e.g., an Internet telephony
provider) may appear as packet content to another service provider (e.g., the initial phone number dialed
by a caller becomes part of the content of a packet when routed by an Internet service provider up the
chain of providers that receive the information). We also note that some carriers are using packet-
switching technology over "softswitches,"  which carriers contend cannot be accessed by LEAs using the
methods contemplated in the packet-switching standard under J-STD-025.   We understand industry is
working with LEAs to establish a CALEA compliance safe harbor for softswitch technology, however,
the International Softswitch Consortium has raised concerns that carriers currently using such technology
will be unable to meet the September 30, 2001 compliance deadline.   We expect that, pending
development of any additional industry standards for packet technology, carriers and LEAs will work
cooperatively to provide requested surveillance information under lawful authorizations, taking into
account current limitations of existing technologies.  We emphasize that nothing in the Commission's
decision is intended to modify the evidentiary standards or procedural safeguards for securing a legal
authorization to obtain packet information and that the Commission may not "require carriers to provide
the government with information that is `not authorized to be intercepted."
16. We note that carriers that believe that compliance with the assistance capability
requirements under section 103  is not reasonably achievable through application of packet technology
available within the compliance period may individually petition the Commission for an extension of time
of the compliance date under CALEA section 107(c).   In addition, carriers that believe that compliance
with the assistance capability requirements under section 103 is not reasonably achievable with respect to
any equipment, facility, or service installed or deployed after January 1, 1995 may petition the
Commission for a "Reasonably Achievable" determination with respect to the packet-mode capability
through the individual petition process under CALEA section 109(b).
17. While we deny CTIA's  107(c) petition for a blanket extension for the reasons stated
above, we believe that the record supports a brief extension in order to allow carriers additional time for
compliance with and transition to the packet-mode standards.  Given the imminence of the September 30,
2001 deadline, we believe that a brief extension is necessary to allow carriers additional time to upgrade
their systems to incorporate the packet-mode capability or to allow any carriers wishing to avail
themselves of the section 107(c) petition procedure a reasonable amount of time to prepare their petitions,
including the technical justification required therein.  Briefly extending the deadline will also provide any
carriers that wish to voluntarily participate in the FBI's Flexible Deployment Program with respect to
packet-mode communications the time necessary to prepare the documentation, including technical data
relating to the carrier's system, as required under the program and allow Commission staff to announce
the section 107(c) filing procedures with respect to packet-mode communications. Accordingly, pursuant
to our authority under section 107(b)(5) of CALEA  and sections 4(i) and (j) of the Communications
Act,  we grant, sua sponte, an extension until November 19, 2001 for wireline, cellular, and broadband
PCS carriers to implement a packet-mode capability.   We view this brief extension as extraordinary
relief necessary in the interests of fairness and reasonableness and do not expect to grant any further
extensions on an industry-wide basis with respect to packet-mode communications.  We therefore
encourage any carriers unable to meet the November 19, 2001 deadline to seek individual relief under the
section 107(c) procedures.  In this regard, we direct the Common Carrier Bureau and the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau to release a Public Notice further explaining the section 107(c) petitioning
process with respect to packet-mode communications.
IV. ORDERING CLAUSE
18. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 1, 4, 229, 301, 303, and 332 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 107(b) of the Communications Assistance for Law
Enforcement Act, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154, 229, 301, 303, 332, and 1006(b), the Petition to Suspend
Compliance Date, filed August 23, 2000 by CTIA, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, to
the extent discussed herein.
	FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION
	Magalie Roman Salas
		Secretary
APPENDIX: COMMENTING PARTIES TO CTIA PETITION
Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions
AT&T Corp.
AT&T Wireless Group
BellSouth Corporation, BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., BellSouth Cellular Corp., and
     BellSouth Wireless Data, L.P.
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation
International Softswitch Consortium
Motorola, Inc.
National Telephone Cooperative Association
PacWest Telecomm, Inc and the Association for Local Telecommunications Services
Rural Cellular Association
SBC Communications, Inc.
SecureCable, Inc.
Sprint Corporation
Telecommunications Industry Association
Triton PCS Operating Company, LLC
United States Telecom Association
Verizon Telephone Companies
STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS
RE:  COMMUNICATIONS ASSISTANCE FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT, CC DOCKET NO.
97-213
Pursuant to Section 107 of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act
("CALEA"),  upon the filing of an appropriate petition, this Commission must specify technical
requirements for wireless carriers to comply with the assistance capability requirements prescribed by
CALEA.  This task is an important responsibility, affecting the ability of law enforcement agencies to
have access to critical information and the obligation of wireless carriers to implement systems that will
provide that information.  In prior proceedings, the Commission has attempted to complete this task.
Today, we move ahead to implement the September 30, 2001 compliance deadline for carrier packet-
mode communication electronic surveillance capability.  We also commit to making the resolution of the
remaining issues a priority, while temporarily suspending one of the compliance dates pending such
resolution.
Specifically, today's Order includes a temporary suspension of the September 30, 2001
compliance date for wireless carriers to implement two Department of Justice/Federal Bureau of
Investigation "punch list" electronic surveillance capabilities mandated by the Commission in a prior
Commission Order.   We do so because last year the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit vacated and remanded to this agency for further proceedings portions of that Order
dealing with the other four of the six "punch list" items mandated by the Commission.   We conclude
that implementing compliance with "punch list" items at different times could result in major
inefficiencies for carriers.  In suspending this compliance date, we have established outside target dates
for completing our actions on the remand proceeding and mandating compliance with these aspects of
CALEA.
	I believe it is incumbent upon us to act as swiftly as possible on the issues posed by the court's
remand to us.  I am pleased that the Order targets a date no later than the end of this year for completion
of the remand proceeding and makes this proceeding a priority.  I fervently hope, however, that the
Commission will give this item the true priority it deserves and move forward on a date earlier than the
end of the year.  In the interim, I note that the Commission previously has encouraged carriers to
cooperate with law enforcement agencies to achieve the capability to provide them with necessary
information upon the receipt of appropriate and lawful requests.   Now, more than ever, such
encouragement appears to be well founded.  The events of the past week cogently demonstrate the
imperative of bringing these capabilities on line as soon as possible.  This is no time for "business as
usual" on this issue in either the private or public sectors.
  At the time CTIA filed its petition, it was known as the "Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association."
  Third Report and Order, CC Docket No. 97-213, 14 FCC Rcd 16794 (1999).
  Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, Pub. L. No. 103-414, 108 Stat. 4279 (1994) (codified as
amended in 18 U.S.C.  2522, 3121, and 47 U.S.C.  229, 1001-1010).
  47 U.S.C.  1006(b).
  47 U.S.C.  1002.
  47 U.S.C.  1006(a)(2).
  47 U.S.C.  1002, 1005.
  47 U.S.C.  1006(b).
  The interim standard was jointly published in December 1997 by the Telecommunications Industry Association
(TIA) and Committee T1, sponsored by the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS).
  Section 3 of J-STD-025 describes packet-mode as a "communication where individual packets or virtual circuits
of a communication within a physical circuit are switched or routed by the accessing telecommunication system.
Each packet may take a different route through the intervening network(s)."
  J-STD-025 includes a parameter that would identify the location of a subject's "mobile terminal" whenever this
information is reasonably available at the intercept access point and its delivery to law enforcement is legally
authorized.  Location information would be available to the law enforcement agency irrespective of whether a call
content channel or a call data channel is employed.  See J-STD-025 at  6.46 and  5.4.1-5.4.8, Tables 1, 5, 6, and
8.
  For an in-depth description of the punch list, including the three capabilities that we denied, see Third R&O, supra
n.2, at  57-123.  Briefly, with respect to the six capabilities that we required, "dialed digit extraction" would
provide to LEAs those digits dialed by a subject after the initial call setup is completed; "party hold/join/drop" would
provide to LEAs information to identify the active parties to a call; "subject-initiated dialing and signaling" would
provide to LEAs access to all dialing and signaling information available from the subject, such as the use of flash-hook
and other feature keys; "in-band and out-of-band signaling" would provide to LEAs  messages whenever a subject's
service sends a tone or other network message to the subject or associate, such as notification that a line is ringing or
busy; "subject-initiated conference calls" would provide to LEAs the content of conference calls supported by the
subject's service; and "timing information" would provide to LEAs information necessary to correlate call-identifying
information with call content.
  Third R&O at  1.
  Id. at  13, 46.
  Id. at  55, 129.
  Id. at  55, 56.
  Id. at  56.
  See "Report to the Federal Communications Commission on Surveillance of Packet-Mode Technologies" ("TIA
Report"), September 29, 2000.
  See Letter of September 29, 2000 from Matthew J. Flanigan, TIA President, and Grant Seiffert, TIA Vice
President, Government Relations, to FCC Chairman William Kennard, at 4.
  Some of these packet-mode technologies, as well as additional packet-mode technologies such as short message
service ("SMS") for cellular and Personal Communications Services, are discussed in J-STD-025.  See J-STD-025 at
 4.5.2, 5.4.6, 6.3.6, and B.1.
  TIA Report at 11-13.
  See Brief of Petitioners United States Telecom Association, Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association,
and Center for Democracy and Technology, filed January 20, 2000; and Brief of Petitioners Electronic Privacy
Information Center, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and American Civil Liberties Union, filed January 20, 2000.
  See United States Telecom. Association v. FCC, 227 F.3d 450, 463 (DC Cir. 2000) (hereinafter "Court Remand
Decision").  The Court Remand Decision is available at http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2000/99-
1442.html.
  Id. at 465.
  See "Petition to Suspend Compliance Date," filed by CTIA on August 23, 2000.
  Id. at 5.
  Id. at 6.
   "Pen registers" capture call-identifying information, but not call content, for numbers dialed from the facility that
is the subject of lawful interception.
  CTIA Petition at 6.
  Id. at 7.
  See "Comment Invited on CTIA Petition to Suspend CALEA Compliance Date," DA 00-2022.
  Commenting parties, including parties making ex parte presentations, are listed in the Appendix.
  BellSouth Comments at 2.
  Id. at 7.
  Id. at 8.
  Cisco Comments at 5.
  NTCA Comments at 3.
  USTA Ex Parte Presentation, CC Docket No. 97-213, filed April 26, 2001.
  Id. at 1.
  Id. at 2.
  SecureCable is a telecommunications equipment provider.
  SecureCable Comments at 4.
  DoJ/FBI Comments at 2-4.
  See Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 98-223, 13 FCC Rcd 17990, 18017 (1998), at   48.
  DoJ/FBI Comments at 5.
  Id.
  Id. at 6.
  DoJ/FBI Ex Parte Presentation, CC Docket No. 97-213, filed April 18, 2001, at 2.
  "Toggling" is a feature designed into the software that allows a particular capability to be easily switched on or
off by a carrier.
  DoJ/FBI Ex Parte Presentation at 2.
  47 U.S.C.  1002.  The June 30, 2000 deadline for wireline, cellular, and broadband PCS carriers concerned the
capabilities covered by the core interim standard - including all uncontested requirements of J-STD-025, as well as
the contested location information requirement, see supra  3.
  47 U.S.C.  1006(c)(3).
  Public Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 7484,  5.
  Id., 15 FCC Rcd at 7484,  6.
  Order, CC Docket No. 97-213, NSD-L-00-234, DA 01-1902.  The maximum extensions granted were to June 30,
2002.
  Flexible Deployment Assistance Guide, Second Edition, Packet-Mode Communications, OMB Control Number:
1110-0030.
  47 U.S.C.  1006(b).
  See, e.g.,  9, supra.
  Court Remand Decision, 227 F.3d at 465-466.
  We make no finding regarding whether a carrier must supply the entire packet to a LEA in response to a pen
register order. As the D.C. Circuit stated, CALEA does not authorize the Commission to modify either the
evidentiary standards or procedural safeguards for securing legal authorization to obtain the entire packet.  See
Court Remand Decision, 227 F.3d at 465 (citing  47 U.S.C.  1002(a)).  As such, this is an issue that is left to the
courts to resolve.
  47 U.S.C.  1006(a), (b).
  47 U.S.C.  1002.
  CALEA section 107(a)(3), 47 U.S.C.  1006(a)(3).
  47 U.S.C.  1006(b).
  Court Remand Decision, 227 F.3d at 455.
  Id.
  Third R&O at  55.
  According to Internet Telephony magazine: "Very broadly, a softswitch provides call routing/call state functions
and controls connectivity within IP networks and between IP and the public switched telephone network (PSTN)."
See Internet Telephony, March 2001, "The Many Faces Of A Softswitch," by Laura Thompson, at 1.
  See ex parte communication of May 24, 2001, CC Docket No. 97-21, filed by the International Softswitch
Consortium, at 1-2.
  Id. at 2.
  Court Remand Decision at 465.
  47 U.S.C.  1002.
  47 U.S.C.  1006(c).
  47 U.S.C.  1008(b).
  47 U.S.C.  1006(b)(5).
  47 U.S.C.  154(i) and (j).
  As discussed in n.51, supra, the June 30, 2000 deadline for wireline, cellular, and broadband PCS carriers
concerned the capabilities covered by the core interim standard - including all uncontested requirements of J-STD-
025, as well as the contested location information requirement.  For all other carriers (paging, cable, satellite, etc.),
June 30, 2000 was the deadline to implement all CALEA capabilities, including - if required - a packet-mode
capability, unless those carriers have independently sought a section 107(c) extension from the Commission.
  Pub. L. No. 103-414, 108 Stat. 4279 (1994), codified as amended, 18 U.S.C.  2522, 3121 and 47 U.S.C.  229,
1001-1010.
  Third Report and Order, CC Docket No. 97-213, 14 FCC Rcd 16794 (1999).
  United States Telecom. Association v. FCC, 227 F.3d 450, 463 (D.C. Cir. 2000).
  Third Report and Order, supra, at  101 ("We are confident that carriers and LEAs will work together to ensure
that a wiretap is functioning correctly.  We also note that there is nothing that would prevent carriers from providing
this capability either on a voluntary basis, or with compensation from LEAs").
(...continued from previous page)
(continued....)
	Federal Communications Commission	FCC 01-265
2
	Federal Communications Commission	FCC 01-265