Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 22445

(2) Alternate projects. * * *

(ii) Federal funding for such alternate

projects will be 75 percent of the

Federal share of the approved Federal

estimate of eligible costs.

(iii) If soil instability at the alternate

project site makes the repair, restoration

or replacement of a State or local

government-owned or -controlled

facility infeasible, the Federal funding

for such an alternate project will be 90

percent of the Federal share of the

approved Federal estimate of eligible

costs.

* * * * *

3. Amend § 206.221 as follows:

(a) Redesignate paragraphs (e)(3)

through (e)(6) as paragraphs (e)(4)

through (e)(7); and

(b) Add new paragraph (e)(3) to read

as follows:

§ 206.221 Definitions.

* * * * *

(e) Private nonprofit facility ***

(3) Irrigation facility means those

facilities that provide water for essential

services of a governmental nature to the

general public. Irrigation facilities

include water for fire suppression,

generating and supplying electricity,

and drinking water supply; they do not

include water for agricultural purposes.

* * * * *

4. Amend § 203.226 as follows:

(a) Redesignate paragraphs (b) through

(i) as paragraphs (c) through (j); and

(b) Add new paragraph (b) to read as

follows:

§ 206.226 Restoration of damaged

facilities.

* * * * *

(b) Private nonprofit facilities. Eligible

private nonprofit facilities may receive

funding under the following conditions:

(1) The facility provides critical

services, which include power, water

(including water provided by an

irrigation organization or facility in

accordance with § 206.221(e)(3)), sewer

services, wastewater treatment,

communications, emergency medical

care, fire department services,

emergency rescue, and nursing homes;

or

(2) The private nonprofit organization

not falling within the criteria of

§ 206.226(b)(1) has applied for a disaster

loan under section 7(b) of the Small

Business Act (15 U.S.C.636(b)) and

(i) The Small Business Administration

has declined the organization’s

application; or

(ii) Has eligible damages greater than

the maximum amount of the loan for

which it is eligible, in which case the

excess damages are eligible for FEMA

assistance.

* * * * *

5. Revise § 206.361(b) to read as

follows:

§ 206.361 Loan program.

* * * * *

(b) Amount of loan. The amount of

the loan is based upon need, not to

exceed 25 percent of the operating

budget of the local government for the

fiscal year in which the disaster occurs,

but shall not exceed $5 million. The

term fiscal year as used in this subpart

means the local government’s fiscal

year.

* * * * *

6. Revise § 206.363(b)(1) to read as

follows:

§ 206.363 Eligibility criteria.

* * * * *

(b) Loan eligibility—(1) General. To be

eligible, the local government must

show that it may suffer or has suffered

a substantial loss of tax and other

revenues as a result of a major disaster

or emergency, must demonstrate a need

for financial assistance in order to

perform its governmental functions, and

must not be in arrears with respect to

any payments due on previous loans.

Loan eligibility is based on the financial

condition of the local government and a

review of financial information and

supporting documentation

accompanying the application.

* * * * *

Dated: April 30, 2001.

Joe M. Allbaugh,

Director.

[FR Doc. 01–11155 Filed 5–3–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6718–02–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 20

[WT Docket No. 97–207; FCC 01–125]

Calling Party Pays Service Offering in

the Commercial Mobile Radio Services

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule, petition for

reconsideration.

SUMMARY: This document denies a

petition for reconsideration of a

previous Declaratory Ruling in this

proceeding. This decision also

terminates this proceeding regarding

calling party pays service offering

without taking any specific action on

the issues raised in the proceeding.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joseph A. Levin or David H. Siehl, 202–

418–1310; [TTY: 202–418–7233].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s

Memorandum Opinion and Order on

Reconsideration and Order Terminating

Proceeding in WT Docket No. 97–207,

FCC 01–125, adopted April 9, 2001, and

released April 13, 2001. The complete

text of the released document is

available on the Commission’s Internet

site, at www.fcc.gov. The full text is also

available for inspection and copying

during normal business hours in the

FCC Reference Information Center

(Courtyard level), 445 12th Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20554, and also may be

purchased from the Commission’s copy

contractor, International Transcription

Services (ITS, Inc.), (202) 857–3800, 445

12th Street, SW., CY–B400, Washington,

DC 20054.

Synopsis of Memorandum Opinion and

Order on Reconsideration and Order

Terminating Proceeding

1. This Memorandum Opinion and

Order on Reconsideration and Order

Terminating Proceeding (MO&O) denies

a Petition for Reconsideration of the

Declaratory Ruling and Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking in this proceeding

(64 FR 38313, July 16, 1999; 64 FR

38396, July 16, 1999) regarding calling

party pays service, and terminates the

proceeding without action.

2. The Ohio Public Utilities

Commission (Ohio Petition) alleges that

the Declaratory Ruling contains

ambiguous and potentially conflicting

conclusions that should be clarified. As

discussed in paragraphs 7 through 19 of

the MO&O, because the Commission’s

rules permit parties to file petitions for

reconsideration only for final rules, the

MO&O considers only that part of the

Ohio Petition which argues that calling

party pays is not properly classified as

a commercial mobile radio service

because it does not meet the

interconnected service criteria. The

Commission denies the Ohio Petition,

finding that calling party pays service is

an interconnected for profit service to

the public and, therefore, constitutes

commercial mobile radio service under

the Communications Act.

3. The MO&O also terminates the

calling party pays proceeding without

taking action. The MO&O, in paragraphs

20–24 of the full text of the MO&O,

finds that it is unclear that regulatory

intervention by the Commission is

warranted. The Commission

emphasizes, however, that the existing

rules do not prevent a carrier from

offering a calling party pays service to

its subscribers. In terminating this

22446 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

proceeding, the Commission removes

any remaining regulatory uncertainty

regarding calling party pays occasioned

by the pendency of the proceeding.

Ordering Clauses

4. The Petition for Reconsideration of

the Declaratory Ruling in this

proceeding, filed by the Public Utility

Commission of Ohio on August 16,

1999, is denied.

5. The proceeding is terminated

without further action.

6. This action is taken pursuant to

sections 1, 4(i), 7, 201, 202, 303(r), and

332 of the Communications Act of 1934

as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 157,

201, 202, 303(r), 332.

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–11169 Filed 5–3–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64

[CC Docket No. 97–213; FCC 01–126]

Communications Assistance for Law

Enforcement Act

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; petitions for

reconsideration.

SUMMARY: In this document the

Commission responds to petitions for

reconsideration of previous Commission

decisions in this proceeding which

implements the Communications

Assistance for Law Enforcement Act

(CALEA). The Commission makes minor

revisions to the Commission’s rules to

clarify the arrangements

telecommunications carriers subject to

CALEA must make to ensure that law

enforcement agencies can contact them

when necessary, and to clarify the

interception activity that triggers a

record keeping requirement. The

Commission makes additional

clarifications without altering the rules,

but otherwise denies the requests for

reconsideration.

DATES: Effective June 4, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

Spencer or Susan Kimmel, 202–418–

1310.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Second

Order on Reconsideration (Second

Order) in CC Docket No. 97–213; FCC

01–126, adopted April 9, 2001, and

released April 16, 2001. The complete

text of this Second Order is available for

inspection and copying during normal

business hours in the FCC Reference

Information Center, Courtyard Level,

445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC,

and also may be purchased from the

Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Services

(ITS, Inc.), CY–B400, 445 12th Street,

SW., Washington, DC.

Synopsis of the Second Order on

Reconsideration

1. This Second Order on

Reconsideration (Second Order)

resolves two petitions for

reconsideration of the Report and Order

(R&O) in this proceeding (64 FR 51462,

September 23, 1999) and one petition

for reconsideration of the Second Report

and Order (Second R&O) in this

proceeding (64 FR 55164, October 12,

1999). These decisions implemented

sections 102, 105, and 301 of the

Communications Assistance for Law

Enforcement Act (CALEA)

(Communications Assistance for Law

Enforcement Act, Public Law 104–414,

108 Stat. 4279, 1994.) The Second Order

makes minor revisions to 47 CFR

64.2103 and 64.2104 to clarify the

arrangements telecommunications

carriers subject to CALEA must make to

ensure that law enforcement agencies

can contact them when necessary, and

the interception activity that triggers a

record keeping requirement. The

Second Order makes additional

clarifications without altering the

Commission’s rules, but otherwise

denies the requests for reconsideration.

2. The U.S. Department of Justice and

the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

seek stronger personnel security

measures than those adopted in the First

R&O, in order to ‘‘ensure the

trustworthiness of the private-company

employees who have become

increasingly responsible for

implementing electronic surveillance.’’

As discussed in paragraphs 4 through 14

of the Second Order, the Commission

denies the FBI’s request. However, the

Commission encourages carriers to

consider voluntarily adopting, as

internal procedures, measures to

respond to the concerns presented by

the FBI, as appropriate, and making

them part of their systems security and

integrity (SSI) policies and procedures.

3. The FBI also proposes a

requirement that carriers generate an

automated message that would permit

law enforcement agencies (LEAs) to

confirm periodically that the software

used to conduct an interception is

working correctly and is accessing the

equipment, facilities, or services of the

correct subscriber. The Commission, as

detailed in paragraphs 15 through 17 of

the Second Order, similarly denies this

proposal. In so doing, however, the

Commission notes that ‘‘there is nothing

that would prevent carriers from

providing this capability either on a

voluntary basis or with compensation

from LEAs.’’

4. The FBI next asks the Commission

to modify the rules, adopted in the R&O

requiring that carriers report acts of

unauthorized electronic surveillance

that occur on their premises and

compromises of their SSI procedures

involving the execution of electronic

surveillance ‘‘within a reasonable

period of time upon discovery.’’ The FBI

recommends that the Commission

modify the rule to require reporting ‘‘as

soon after discovery as is reasonable in

light of privacy and safety concerns and

the needs of law enforcement.’’ The

Commission, as indicated in paragraphs

18 through 20 of the Second Order,

shares the FBI’s concern about the

importance of prompt reporting of

systems security breaches and expects

carriers to report breaches with due

diligence and dispatch. However, in the

absence of significant problems to date,

the Commission declines to adopt

additional factors to further define how

quickly a carrier should report a

security breach to law enforcement.

5. The FBI seeks modification of the

Commission’s record keeping

requirement in 47 CFR 64.2104(a)(1),

pertaining to the commencement of

interceptions. Specifically, FBI argues

that the current language could lead to

interpretations when the circuit is open

for the duration of ‘‘multiple intercepts,

the carrier’s records of these various

intercepts would all show the same

‘start date and time,’ ’’ as opposed to

recording individual interceptions.

Thus, FBI asks the Commission to

modify the phrase in § 64.2104(a)(1)

from ‘‘date and time of the opening of

the circuit’’ to ‘‘date and time at which

the interception of communications or

access to call identifying information

was enabled.’’ The Commission, in

paragraphs 21 through 24 of the Second

Order, grants the FBI’s request and

modifies the rules accordingly with

slight modification.

6. The National Telephone

Cooperative Association (NCTA) asks

that the Commission clarify the

language of 47 CFR 64.2103 ‘‘to make it

obvious that a single person in not

responsible for being law enforcement’s

point of contact[for CALEA matters], 24

hours a day, 7 days a week.’’ The

Commission agrees with NCTA and, as

indicated in paragraphs 25 through 28

of the Second Order, modifies § 64.2102

accordingly. The Commission