20 March 1997

Source: http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html



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



[Federal Register: March 20, 1997 (Volume 62, Number 54)]

[Rules and Regulations]

[Page 13307-13329]

From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

[DOCID:fr20mr97-10]



[[Page 13307]]



=======================================================================

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



DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE



28 CFR Part 100



RIN 1105-AA39



Implementation of Section 109 of the Communications Assistance

for Law Enforcement Act



AGENCY: Federal Bureau of Investigation, DOJ.



ACTION: Final rule.



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



SUMMARY: This rule implements section 109 of the Communications

Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), which requires the Attorney

General to establish regulations which set forth the procedures that

telecommunications carriers must follow in order to receive

reimbursement under Sections 109 and 104 of CALEA. CALEA requires that

this rule enable carriers to receive payments in a timely and cost-

efficient manner while minimizing the cost to the Federal Government.

Specifically, this rule sets forth the means of determining allowable

costs, reasonable costs, and disallowed costs. Furthermore, it

establishes the requirements carriers must meet in their submission of

cost estimates and requests for payment to the Federal Government for

the disbursement of CALEA funds. In addition, this rule protects the

confidentiality of trade secrets and proprietary information from

unnecessary disclosure. Finally, it sets forth the means for

alternative dispute resolution.



EFFECTIVE DATE: April 21, 1997.



FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Walter V. Meslar, Unit Chief, Telecommunications Contracts and Audit

Unit, Federal Bureau of Investigation, P.O. Box 221286, Chantilly, VA

20153-0450, telephone number (703) 814-4900.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:



A. General Background



    Recent and continuing advances in telecommunications technology and

the introduction of new digitally-based services and features have

impaired the ability of federal, state, and local law enforcement

agencies to fully and properly conduct various types of court-

authorized electronic surveillance. Therefore, on October 25, 1994, the

President signed into law the Communications Assistance for Law

Enforcement Act (CALEA) [Public Law 103-414, 108 Stat. 4279 (1994)

(codified as amended in scattered sections of 18 U.S.C. and 47

U.S.C.)]. This law requires telecommunications carriers, as defined in

CALEA, to ensure law enforcement's ability, pursuant to court order or

other lawful authorization, to intercept communications regardless of

advances in telecommunications technology.

    Under CALEA, certain implementation responsibilities are conferred

upon the Attorney General; the Attorney General has, in turn, delegated

certain responsibilities set forth in CALEA to the Director, FBI, or

his designee, pursuant to 28 CFR 0.85(o). The Director, FBI, has

designated the Telecommunications Industry Liaison Unit of the

Information Resources Division and the Telecommunications Contracts and

Audit Unit of the Finance Division to carry out these responsibilities.



Definition of ``Telecommunications Carrier''



    CALEA defines a ``telecommunications carrier'' as any ``person or

entity engaged in the transmission or switching of wire or electronic

communications as a common carrier for hire'' (section 102(8)(A)), and

includes any ``person or entity engaged in providing commercial mobile

service, (as defined in section 332(d) of the Communications Act of

1934, as amended (47 U.S.C. 332(d))'' (section 102(8)(B)). This

definition includes, but is not limited to, local exchange and

interchange carriers; competitive access providers; resellers, cable

operators, utilities, and shared tenant services providers, to the

extent that they offer telecommunications services as common carriers

for hire; cellular telephone companies; personal communications

services (PCS) providers; satellite-based mobile communications

providers; specialized mobile radio services (SMRS) providers and

enhanced SMRS providers; and paging service providers.

    The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) may determine that a

person or entity who is not a common carrier is subject to CALEA if

that person or entity provides wire or electronic communication service

and the FCC concludes that such service is a replacement for a

substantial portion of the local telephone exchange service and that it

is in the public interest to deem such a person or entity to be a

telecommunications carrier for purposes of CALEA.

    The definition does not include (1) persons or entities insofar as

they are engaged in providing information services such as electronic

publishing and massaging services; and (2) any class or category of

telecommunications carriers that the FCC exempts by rule after

consultation with the Attorney General.



Capability Requirement



    CALEA requires telecommunications carriers to ensure that, within

four years of the date of enactment, their systems have the capability

to meet the Assistance Capability Requirements as described in Section

103 of CALEA. These requirements are that a telecommunications carrier

shall ensure that its equipment, facilities, or services that provide a

customer or subscriber with the ability to originate, terminate, or

direct communications are capable of--

    (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 communications (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 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 communication 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



[[Page 13308]]



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 107(a)(2) of CALEA, a carrier will be deemed to be in

compliance if it adheres to publicly available technical requirements

or standards adopted by an industry association or standard-setting

organization to meet the requirements of section 103 of CALEA.

Telecommunications carriers may also adopt their own solutions. In any

case, carriers must meet the requirements set forth in Section 103 of

CALEA. If no technical requirements or standards are issued, or if they

are challenged as being deficient, upon petition, the FCC has authority

to develop them through a rule making.



Capacity Requirements



    Section 104 of CALEA requires that the Attorney General, after

seeking public notice and comment, establish and publish:

    (1) notice of the actual number of communications interceptions,

pen registers, and trap and trace devices, representing a portion of

the maximum capacity that the Attorney General estimates that

government agencies authorized to conduct electronic surveillance may

conduct and use simultaneously by the date that is 4 years after the

date of enactment of CALEA, and

    (2) notice of the maximum capacity required to accommodate all of

the communication interceptions, pen registers, and trap and trace

devices that the Attorney General estimates that government agencies

authorized to conduct electronic surveillance may conduct and use

simultaneously after the date that is 4 years after the date of

enactment of CALEA.

    On October 16, 1995 the FBI proposed for comment the Initial Notice

of Capacity (60 FR 53643). On November 9, 1995, the comment period for

the Initial Notice of Capacity was extended until January 16, 1996. In

response to comments received, the FBI restructured its approach and

published a Second Notice of Capacity for comment in the Federal

Register on January 14, 1997 (62 FR 1902).[[http://jya.com/fbi011497.txt]]

    Section 104 of CALEA also provides that within 180 days after the

publication of the Final Notice of Capacity, a telecommunications

carrier must submit to the Attorney General a statement (Carrier

Statement) identifying any of the systems or services that do not have

the capacity to accommodate simultaneously the number of interceptions,

pen registers, and trap and trace devices set forth in that notice. On

April 10, 1996, the FBI published an Initial Notice and Request for

Comment in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

regarding the proposed information collection requirements of the

Carrier Statement submission (61 FR 15974). A Second Notice and Request

for Comment is forthcoming in the Federal Register. The FBI intends to

use these Carrier Statements as one of the criteria upon which it will

base its decisions to solicit cooperative agreements to reimburse

carriers pursuant to section 104(e), based upon available funding.



Industry Implementation



    Industry's compliance with the requirements set forth in section

103 of CALEA is affected by a number of interrelated factors, including

whether the Attorney General has agreed to pay for needed modifications

and whether the equipment, facility, or service was installed or

deployed on or before January 1, 1995.

    In the case of equipment, facilities, and services installed or

deployed after January 1, 1995, compliance is dependent upon whether

the necessary modifications are reasonably achievable as determined by

the FCC using criteria set forth in CALEA. These criteria are as

follows:

    (1) The effect on public safety and national security.

    (2) The effect on rates for basic residential telephone service.

    (3) The need to protect the privacy and security of communications

not authorized to be intercepted.

    (4) The need to achieve the capability assistance requirements of

section 103 of CALEA by cost effective methods.

    (5) The effect on the nature and cost of the equipment, facility or

service at issue.

    (6) The effect on the operation of the equipment, facility, or

service at issue.

    (7) The policy of the United States to encourage the provision of

new technologies and services to the public.

    (8) The financial resources of the telecommunications carrier.

    (9) The effect on competition in the provision of

telecommunications services.

    (10) The extent to which the design and development of the

equipment, facility, or service was initiated before January 1, 1995.

    (11) Such other factors as the FCC determines are appropriate.

    Telecommunications carriers also may petition regulatory

authorities to adjust charges, practices, classifications, and

regulations to recover costs expended for making needed modifications

to equipment, facilities, or services pursuant to the assistance

capability requirements of CALEA section 103. CALEA also includes

provisions for exemption, extension of the compliance date,

consultation with industry, and systems security. Noncompliance may

lead to civil actions by the Attorney General and the imposition of

civil fines. In addition, CALEA requires telecommunications

transmission and switching equipment manufacturers, as well as

providers of the telecommunications support services, to cooperate with

telecommunications carriers in achieving the required capabilities and

capacities.

    Section 109 of CALEA, Payment of Costs of Telecommunications

Carriers to Comply with Capability Requirements, authorizes the

Attorney General, subject to the availability of appropriations, to

agree to pay telecommunications carriers for: (1) all reasonable costs

directly associated with the modifications performed by carriers in

connection with equipment, facilities, and services installed or

deployed on or before January 1, 1995, to establish the capabilities

necessary to comply with section 103 of CALEA; (2) additional

reasonable costs directly associated with making the assistance

capability requirements found in section 103 of CALEA reasonably

achievable with respect to equipment, facilities, or services installed

or deployed January 1, 1995, in accordance with the procedures

established in CALEA section 109(b); and (3) reasonable costs directly

associated with modifications of any of a carrier's systems or

services, as identified in the Carrier Statement required by CALEA

section 104(d), which do not have the capacity to accommodate

simultaneously the number of interceptions, pen registers, and trap and

trace devices set forth in the Capacity Notice(s) published in

accordance with CALEA section 104.

    CALEA section 109(e), Cost Control Regulations, authorizes the

Attorney General, after notice and comment, to establish regulations

necessary to effectuate timely and cost-efficient payment to

telecommunications carriers under CALEA, under 18 U.S.C. chapters 119

and 121, and under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978

(50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.). CALEA also directs the Attorney General to

consult with the FCC prior to the establishment of these

regulations.\1\

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



    \1\ CALEA Sec. 109(e)(2).

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



    The regulations must minimize the cost to the Federal Government

and



[[Page 13309]]



permit recovery by telecommunications carriers of the direct costs of

developing necessary modifications for CALEA compliance, including:

providing the capabilities requested; providing capacities requested,

training personnel in the use of such capabilities and capacities; and

deploying or installing such capabilities and capacities.

    In the case of any modification that may be used for any purpose

other than lawfully authorized electric surveillance by a law

enforcement agency of a government, CALEA permits the recovery of only

the incremental cost of making the modification suitable for such law

enforcement purposes.



B. Establishment of Cost Recovery Rules and Procedures



Purpose and Intent



    As directed by CALEA section 109(e)(1), the FBI has developed and

promulgated this rule to establish the procedures carriers must use to

seek reimbursement under sections 109(a), 109(b)(2), and 104(e) of

CALEA. Cost recovery payments under section 109(b)(2) of CALEA will be

determined pursuant to the procedures set forth in section 109(b)(1) of

CALEA and in accordance with this cost recovery rule. To the extent

possible, this rule allows carriers to use their existing accounting

procedures to record the costs of bringing equipment, facilities, and

services into compliance with CALEA.

    This rule seeks to ensure that each carrier's practices used in

estimating costs for CALEA reimbursement purposes are consistent with

the current cost accumulating and reporting procedures utilized by the

carrier for the preparation of its financial statements. Further, it

establishes that not all amounts reportable in accordance with

generally accepted accounting principles will be eligible for

reimbursement. Consistency in the application of cost accounting

practices is necessary to enhance the likelihood that comparable

transactions are treated alike. Consistent application of internal cost

accounting practices will facilitate the preparation of reliable cost

estimates and allow comparison with the costs of performance. Such

comparisons provide an important basis for financial control over costs

and aid in establishing accountability for costs in the manner agreed

to by both parties.

    This rule also ensures that each cost is allocated only once and on

only one basis to a cost group. The criteria for determining the

allocation of costs to a cost group should be the same for all similar

groupings.

    In addition to setting forth the required accounting principles

regarding reasonableness and allowability of costs and requirements for

consistency in accounting, this rule establishes the reporting and

record keeping requirements necessary for reimbursement. By

establishing these requirements, the FBI ensures that it will be able

to meet the joint mandate of CALEA section 109(e) to (1) make timely

and cost-efficient payment to carriers while (2) minimizing the cost to

the Federal Government. Throughout the development of this rule, the

FBI sought to balance the need to minimize both the regulatory burden

placed upon carriers and the expenditure of public funds.

    Specific carriers will be selected for reimbursement based upon law

enforcement priorities determined by the Attorney General. Several

criteria will be used to determined law enforcement priorities. These

include, but are not limited to: historical interceptions, features

offered, existing surveillance techniques, and product life-cycles of

telecommunications equipment, facilities, and services.



Cooperative Agreement Process



    CALEA specifically states that the Attorney General ``may agree''

to pay carriers in the three circumstances discussed above

[Sec. 109(a), Sec. 109(b)(2), and Sec. 104(e)]. Therefore, the FBI

intends to enter into cooperative agreements with carries to accomplish

this reimbursement.\2\ This rule will be incorporated in all

cooperative agreements executed under sections 109 and 104 of CALEA and

entered into between the carriers and the FBI.

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



    \2\ The Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act (31 U.S.C.

6301 et seq.) states that cooperative agreements are to be used when

``the principal purpose of the relationship is to transfer a thing

of value to the * * * recipient to carry out a public purpose of

support or stimulation authorized by a law of the United States,''

and ``substantial involvement is expected between the executive

agency and the * * * recipient when carrying out the activity

contemplated in the agreement.'' (31 U.S.C. 6305).

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



    The FBI will contact the carriers identifying the equipment,

facilities, and services which will require modification, and which are

eligible for reimbursement. The FBI will send requests for proposals to

these carriers regarding the necessary modifications. These requests

for proposals will identify the specific equipment, facilities and/or

services which are in need of modification in order to comply with

CALEA. They will also include instructions for submitting cost

estimates (Sec. 100.16 of the final rule) and proposed terms and

conditions for the cooperative agreement. Cost estimate submission is

necessary because: (1) carrier networks will require varying levels of

modification to achieve compliance; (2) carriers have great latitude in

developing and implementing CALEA-compliant solutions; and (3) CALEA's

authorization for appropriations is limited to $500 million\3\

Therefore, the FBI must have a clear idea of how much each modification

is expected to cost so that it may weigh the proposed costs of each

modification against the anticipated benefits to the public safety

prior to entering into each cooperative agreement.

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



    \3\ 31 U.S.C. 1341, commonly referred to as the Anti-Deficiency

Act, states that an officer or employee of the United States

Government may not ``make or authorize an expenditure or obligation

exceeding an amount available in an appropriation or fund for the

expenditure or obligation [31 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1)(A)].''

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



    Once a carrier has submitted a cost estimate for the needed

modifications, the FBI will enter into negotiations with that carrier

to arrive at a cooperative agreement for reimbursement. To the extent

possible, each cooperative agreement will be tailored to meet the

specific needs of the individual carrier based upon the carrier's

solution, existing accounting system, and size. For example, if a

carrier's solution requires implementation over several months, the

cooperative agreement with that carrier might include provisions for

progress or milestone payments. There are several items which will be

common to all cooperative agreements, including: the cost recovery

rules, the requirements of CALEA (section 103 and/or section 104); and

the protection of carrier patent rights. Once the carrier and the FBI

reach agreement, a cooperative agreement will be executed and work can

commence.

    It must be noted that carriers are in no way obligated to expend

funds on modifications eligible for reimbursement prior to the

execution of a cooperative agreement. However, this in no way

alleviates the carriers' responsibilities of compliance with CALEA for

equipment, facilities, or services installed or deployed subsequent to

January 1, 1995.



Proposed Rule



    In response to CALEA's mandate and in accordance with the

Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.), the FBI published

for notice and comment a proposed rule in the Federal Register on May

10, 1996 (61 FR 21396). The proposed rule was developed after

consultation with other government entities, including the FCC, the

Office of



[[Page 13310]]



Management and Budget (OMB), and the General Accounting Office (GAO),

and with representatives of the telecommunications industry.

    In response to the proposed rule, the FBI received comments from 16

representatives of the telecommunications industry, including wireline

and wireless carriers and associations. All comments have been

considered in preparing this final rule. In developing this final rule,

the FBI has also relied on the input of other governmental agencies,

telecommunications industry experts, and the many years of cost

accounting and auditing experience of its staff. Significant comments

received in response to the proposed rule and any significant changes

are discussed below.



C. Significant Comments or Changes



Comments by Section



    1. Proposed Sec. 100.9 (``General''): Several commenters expressed

confusion as to the reimbursement process. Therefore, the FBI has

amended this section to clarify the requirement that a cooperative

agreement must be executed prior to the incurrence of costs. This

section now makes clear that reimbursement is subject to: (1) the

availability of funds; (2) the reasonableness of costs; and (3) the

execution of a cooperative agreement between the FBI and the carrier.

Carriers are in no way obligated to expend funds on modifications that

are eligible for reimbursement under sections 109(a), 109(b)(2), and

104(e) prior to the execution of a cooperative agreement.

    2. Proposed Sec. 100.10(a) (Definition of ``allocable''): One

commenter pointed out that ``allocable'' traditionally means chargeable

to one or more cost objectives, rather than to two or more cost

objectives. The FBI accepts this comment and the final rule is modified

accordingly. In addition, for the purposes of clarity, the FBI has

expanded the definition to include the descriptive phrase ``and can be

distributed to them in reasonable proportion to the benefits

received.''

    3. Proposed Sec. 100.10(e) (Definition of ``directly allocable

costs''): One commenter pointed out that ``allocable'' traditionally

means chargeable to one or more cost objectives, rather than to two or

more cost objectives; therefore, the definition of ``directly allocable

costs'' should reflect this. The FBI accepts this comment and the final

rule is modified accordingly. In addition, for the purposes of clarity,

the FBI has expanded the definition to include the descriptive phrase

``and can be distributed to them in reasonable proportion to the

benefits received.''

    4. Proposed Sec. 100.10(j) and (k) (Definitions of ``plant non-

specific costs'' and ``plant specific costs''): Several commenters

expressed concern in connection with the allowability of plant specific

and plant non-specific costs in proposed Sec. 110.11(b) (``Allowable

costs''; Allowable plant specific costs) and proposed Sec. 100.15(c)

(``Disallowed costs''; Plant non-specific costs). In order to effect

the changes necessary to clarify these issues, the FBI has removed the

definitions of these terms from Sec. 100.10, Definitions, and replaced

them with an all encompassing definition of ``plant costs.'' The

specifics of which costs are allowed and disallowed with regard to

these terms are addressed below in responses 12 and 28.

    5. Proposed Sec. 100.10 (``Definitions''): In response to several

comments requesting further clarification of terms, the following

definitions have been added to this section in the final rule:

cooperative agreement; direct supervision; labor costs; network

operations costs; and provisioning costs.\4\ These definitions have

been inserted in the appropriate alphabetical order. It should also be

noted that the letter designations have been removed from Sec. 100.10,

Definitions, of the final rule at the suggestion of the Federal

Register.

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



    \4\ It should be noted that line costs associated with delivery

of intercepted communications to law enforcement are not

reimbursable under CALEA. However, it is anticipated that the

delivery costs associated with interceptions will continue to be

borne by the requesting law enforcement agency.

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



    6. Proposed Sec. 100.11(a)(1) (``Allowable costs''; Pre January 1,

1995 modifications; Plant specific costs): In conformance with the

changes to proposed Sec. 100.10(k), as discussed above in response 4,

the term ``plant specific costs'' has been replaced with the term

``plant costs.''

    7. Proposed Sec. 100.11(a)(1) (``Allowable costs''; Pre January 1,

1995 modifications; General): This subsection establishes the

allowability of all reasonable plant costs directly associated with the

modifications performed by carriers in connection with equipment,

facilities, and services installed or deployed on or before January 1,

1995, to establish the capabilities necessary to comply with section

103 of CALEA, until the equipment, facility, or service is replaced or

significantly upgraded or otherwise undergoes major modifications.

Several commenters asserted that the January 1, 1995 cut-off date for

reimbursable modifications was inappropriate. In particular, several

commenters from the wireless industry noted that the dynamic nature of

their industry effectively, and unfairly, excluded them from the cost

reimbursement pool under this subsection.

    The FBI must comply with CALEA, which mandates this date in section

109(a). It is, therefore, beyond the scope of the FBI's authority to

change this date.

    8. Proposed Sec. 100.11(a)(1) (``Allowable costs''; Pre January 1,

1995 modifications; Significant upgrade): This subsection establishes

the allowability of all reasonable plant costs directly associated with

the modifications performed by carriers in connection with equipment,

facilities, and services installed or deployed on or before January 1,

1995, to establish the capabilities necessary to comply with section

103 of CALEA, until the equipment, facility, or service is replaced or

significantly upgraded or otherwise undergoes major modifications. Half

of the commenters requested that the FBI define the phrase ``replaced

or significantly upgraded or otherwise undergoes major modifications''

(hereafter referred to as ``significant upgrade or major

modification''). These commenters pointed out that eligibility for

reimbursement is dependent upon how the FBI interprets ``significant

upgrade or major modification.''

    Given the dynamic nature of the telecommunications industry and the

potential impact on eligibility for reimbursement, the FBI acknowledges

that ``significant upgrade and major modification'' must be defined.

However, this issue affects only those carriers who have made

modifications or upgrades to their equipment, facilities, and/or

services installed or deployed on or before January 1, 1995. The

reimbursement eligibility of any equipment, facility, or service which

has undergone no modification or upgrade since January 1, 1995 is not

affected by this definition. In addition, ``significant upgrade or

major modification'' does not pertain to cases of reimbursement for

capability modifications which have been deemed not reasonably

achievable by the FCC under CALEA section 109(b)(2) or to reimbursement

for capacity modifications under CALEA section 104(e). Therefore, given

that many of the potential reimbursement scenarios allowed by CALEA,

and, therefore, by this rule, are not affected by the definition of

``significant upgrade and major modification,'' the FBI has elected, as

noted below, to handle this



[[Page 13311]]



issue separately in order to expedite the CALEA implementation process.

This decision is in both the best interests of the government and of

the carriers given that CALEA funds are now available to begin the

reimbursement effort.\5\ Severing the ``significant upgrade and major

modification'' issue from this rule for separate consideration allows

the FBI as soon as possible to begin reimbursing those carriers who

have made no modifications or upgrades since January 1, 1995.

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



    \5\ Public Law 104-208, Item 28: (16) ``Telecommunications

Carrier Compliance Fund.''

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



    On November 19, 1996, the FBI published an Advanced Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) in the Federal Register (61 FR 58799),

which solicited the submission of potential definitions of

``significant upgrade or major modification'' from the

telecommunications industry and the general public. This ANPRM was also

sent to a large number of associations representing the interests of

the various telecommunications carriers, both wireline and wireless.

The FBI is currently considering the comments received and anticipates

making a determination with regard to this issue in the near future.

    9. Proposed Sec. 100.11(a)(2) (``Allowable costs''; Post January 1,

1995 modifications; Plant specific costs): In conformance with the

changes to proposed Sec. 100.10(k), as discussed above in response 4,

the term ``plant specific costs'' has been replaced with the term

``plant costs.''

    10. Proposed Sec. 100.11(a)(2) (``Allowable costs''; Post January

1, 1995, modifications; Additional reasonable costs): This subsection

establishes the allowability of the additional reasonable plant costs

directly associated with making the assistance capability requirements

found in section 103 of CALEA reasonably achievable with respect to

equipment, facilities, or services installed or deployed after January

1, 1995, in accordance with the procedures established in CALEA section

109(b). Several commenters wanted to know how the FBI planned to define

``additional reasonable costs.'' CALEA section 109(b)(1) places the

responsibility of determining whether modifications to equipment,

facilities, and services installed or deployed after January 1, 1995,

are ``reasonably achievable'' with the FCC, which will make its rulings

based on specific petitions by carriers. At its most basic level,

additional reasonable costs means those costs which are above and

beyond what the FCC determines to be ``reasonably achievable'' in each

instance. The specifics of this issue fall within the purview of the

FCC's CALEA implementation responsibilities; it would, therefore, be

inappropriate for the FBI to address this issue further in this rule.

    11. Proposed Sec. 100.11(a)(3) (``Allowable costs''; Capacity

modifications; Plant specific costs): In conformance with the changes

to proposed Sec. 100.10(k), as discussed above in response 4, the term

``plant specific costs'' has been replaced with the term ``plant

costs.''

    12. Proposed Sec. 100.11(b) (``Allowable costs''; Allowable plant

specific costs): Several commenters expressed concern over the use of

plant specific and plant non-specific as qualifiers for allowability

for reimbursement purposes under CALEA. These commenters pointed out

that there could be certain plant non-specific costs which could be

allowable.

    The FBI is persuaded by these arguments and has amended the final

rule as follows.

    First, the FBI has removed the definitions of plant specific and

plant non-specific costs from Sec. 100.10, Definitions, and has

replaced them with an all-encompassing definition of ``plant costs.''

Second, the FBI has amended Sec. 100.11(b) to reflect allowable plant

costs, whether plant specific or plant non-specific. Third, the FBI has

amended Sec. 100.15(c) to reflect disallowed plant costs, whether plant

specific or plant non-specific.

    13. Proposed Sec. 100.11(b)(2) (``Allowable costs''; Allowable

plant specific costs; first-line supervision): One comment was received

from a small wireless carrier which expressed concern over the nature

and definition of ``first-line supervision.'' This commenter

interpreted this subsection as excluding from eligibility for

reimbursement the work of some individuals who, of necessity, perform

many different functions in a small business. The FBI has replaced this

term with ``direct supervision'' and has provided a definition of

``direct supervision'' in Sec. 100.10 of the final rule to clarify this

issue.

    The FBI also wishes to note that, for the purposes of

reimbursement, it is not job title which matters, but rather the nature

of the work performed. Therefore, if the Chief Executive Officer (CEO)

of a company also happens to be the engineer responsible for network

engineering, the time that individual spends coordinating the

integration of the CALEA compliant solution into the network will be

reimbursable, while the time spent managing the general business

affairs of the company will not be reimbursable.

    14. Proposed Sec. 100.11(c) (``Allowable costs''; Incremental

costs): Both CALEA \6\ and the proposed rule establish that ``[i]n the

case of any modification that may be used for any purpose other than

lawfully authorized electronic surveillance by a government law

enforcement agency, . . . only the incremental cost of making the

modification suitable for such law enforcement purposes'' is

recoverable. Some commenters wished to know the methodology the FBI

intends to use to determine (1) whether a modification could be used

for any other purpose; and (2) the nature and amount of these

``incremental costs.''

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



    \6\ Sec. 109(e)(2)(B)

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



    The determination of whether or not a modification could be used

for any purpose other than lawfully authorized electronic surveillance

by a government law enforcement agency is outside the scope of this

accounting rule.

    In the case of any modification that may be used for any purpose

other than lawfully authorized electronic surveillance by a government

law enforcement agency, the carrier may only recover the incremental

cost of making the modification suitable for such law enforcement

purposes. With regard to the determination of the nature and amount of

the ``incremental costs,'' this determination will be dependent on the

nature of the proposed solution. Therefore, the nature and amount of

any ``incremental costs'' will be identified and proposed by specific

carriers as part of specific cooperative agreements.

    15. Proposed Sec. 100.11(d) (``Allowable costs''): In the proposed

rule, ``direct cost'' was used interchangeably with ``directly

assignable cost'' which could potentially create confusion. Therefore,

in order to maintain consistency within the document and to clarify the

original intent of this subsection, ``direct and directly allocable

costs'' has been amended to read ``directly assignable and directly

allocable costs.''

    16. Proposed Sec. 100.12 (``Reasonable costs''; General): In this

section, the FBI has set forth the guidelines for determining whether a

cost is reasonable for reimbursement purposes. Several commenters

requested that the FBI clarify how the ``reasonableness'' of costs will

be determined for the purposes of reimbursement. While the guidelines

set forth in Sec. 100.12 may seem somewhat vague and subjective, it

must be noted that they are consistent with the standard guidelines

used in



[[Page 13312]]



government contracting.\7\ It is not the Government's intent to

``second guess'' the carrier's judgement; the Government simply

requires that the carrier's decisions involve the use of reasonable and

prudent judgement. Stated another way, all the Government requires is

that the carrier treat the taxpayers' money with the same prudence and

care the carrier would apply to its own corporate funds. Therefore, no

change has been made in the final rule.

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



    \7\ See, for example, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)

31.201-3 for procurement contracts and OMB Circulars A-122, ``Cost

Principles for Nonprofit Organizations'' and A-21, ``Principles for

Determining Costs Applicable to Grants, Cooperative Agreements, and

Other Agreements with Educational Institutions'' for grants and

cooperative agreements.

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



    17. Proposed Sec. 100.12(a)(1) and (a)(2) (``Reasonable costs'';

Presumption of reasonableness and burden of proof): These subsections

establish that no presumption of reasonableness is attached to the

incurrence of costs by a carrier and that the burden of proof that a

cost is reasonable for the purposes of CALEA reimbursement rests with

the carrier. Some carriers objected to these requirements, arguing that

the burden of proof that a cost was not reasonable ought to rest with

the Government. These subsections follow standard Government cost

principles.\8\ Therefore, no change has been made in the final rule.

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



    \8\ See FAR 31.201-3 for procurement contracts.

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



    For purposes of clarity, however, it must be noted that the FBI is

not requiring that supplementary documentation necessary to meet the

burden of proof be submitted with the initial cost estimate or request

for payment; those submissions require only the level of supporting

documentation outlined in Sec. 100.16 and Sec. 100.17 of the final

rule. It is only when a review of these submissions results in a

question regarding a specific cost that the carrier will be required to

meet the burden of proof with appropriate supporting documentation.

    In addition, the nature and extent of the supporting documentation

which might be required will be addressed during the cooperative

agreement process to allow flexibility (1) for the various accounting

systems in use throughout the industry and (2) for the special needs of

small entities as discussed in the Final Regulatory Flexibility

Analysis below.

    18. Proposed Sec. 100.13(a)(3) (``Directly assignable costs'';

Burden of proof): This subsection establishes that the burden of proof

that a cost is directly assignable to the CALEA implementation effort

rests with the carrier. Some carriers objected to these requirements,

arguing that the burden of proof that a cost was not directly

assignable to the CALEA implementation effort ought to rest with the

Government. This subsection follows standard Government cost

principles.\9\ Therefore, no change has been made in the final rule.

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



    \9\ Id.

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



    For purposes of clarity, however, it must be noted that the FBI is

not requiring that supplementary documentation necessary to meet the

burden of proof be submitted with the initial cost estimate or request

for payment; those submissions require only the level of supporting

documentation outlined in Sec. 100.16 and Sec. 100.17 of the final

rule. It is only when a review of these submissions results in a

question regarding a specific cost that the carrier will be required to

meet the burden of proof with appropriate supporting documentation.

    In addition, the nature and extent of the supporting documentation

which might be required will be addressed during the cooperative

agreement process to allow flexibility (1) for the various accounting

systems in use throughout the industry and (2) for the special needs of

small entities as discussed in the Final Regulatory Flexibility

Analysis below.

    19. Proposed Sec. 100.13(b) (``Directly assignable costs''; Minor

dollar amounts): The FBI has stricken the reference to minor dollar

amounts in this subsection as unnecessary.

    20. Proposed Sec. 100.13 (``Directly allocable costs''; General):

This section sets forth the requirements for treating costs as directly

allocable costs for the purposes of the CALEA reimbursement process.

One commenter argued that the definition of and requirements for

``directly allocable costs'' are largely meaningless in that they

appear to be inconsistent with the FAR. The FBI has, as noted above,

amended the definition of ``directly allocable costs'' in proposed

Sec. 100.10(e) in the final rule. In addition to this emendation, the

FBI wishes to point out that it is not possible for this rule to be

completely consistent with the FAR because CALEA specifically disallows

costs which the FAR treats as allowable. Furthermore, the treatment of

``directly allocable costs'' is the direct result of the FBI's intent

to allow carriers to use their existing accounting systems to comply

with these rules. Therefore, no change has been made in the final rule.

    21. Proposed Sec. 100.14(b) (``Directly allocable costs''; Burden

of proof): This subsection establishes that burden of proof that a cost

is directly allocable (as defined in this rule) to the CALEA

implementation effort rests with the carrier. Some carriers objected to

these requirements, arguing that the burden of proof that a cost was

not directly allocable to the CALEA implementation effort ought to rest

with the Government. This subsection follows standard Government cost

principles.\10\ Therefore, no change has been made in the final rule.

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



    \10\ See FAR 31.201-3 for procurement contracts.

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



    For purposes of clarity, however, it must be noted that the FBI is

not requiring that supplementary documentation necessary to meet the

burden of proof be submitted with the initial cost estimate or request

for payment; those submissions require only the level of supporting

documentation outlined in Sec. 100.16 and Sec. 100.17 of the final

rule. It is only when a review of these submissions results in a

question regarding specific cost that the carrier will be required to

meet the burden of proof with appropriate supporting documentation.

    In addition, the nature and extent of the supporting documentation

which might be required will be addressed during the cooperative

agreement process to allow flexibility (1) for the various accounting

systems in use throughout the industry and (2) for the special needs of

small entities as discussed in the Final Regulatory Flexibility

Analysis below.

    22. Proposed Sec. 100.14(d)(4) (``Directly allocable costs'';

Distribution base): Some commenters objected to this subsection because

they interpreted it to mean that the FBI was reserving the right to

approve or disapprove of each carrier's entire cost accounting system

based on the phrase ``has been accepted by the FBI.'' This was never

the intent of the proposed rule, nor is it the intent of the final

rule. The FBI intended to ensure the following: (1) that the base for

distributing allocable costs is definitized in the cooperative

agreement between the carrier and the FBI and (2) that the carrier

makes no significant changes [i.e. changes which will affect the level

of reimbursement from the government] to this distribution base once it

has been agreed to without the written approval of the FBI. Given the

apparent misinterpretation on the part of some of the commenters, the

FBI has amended the final rule to more clearly reflect this intent.

    23. Proposed Sec. 100.14(d)(5)(i) (``Directly allocable costs'';

Allocation methodology; cost patterns): One commenter asked whether

this subsection required that carriers submit to the FBI evidence of

how the carrier



[[Page 13313]]



allocated common costs on other projects as a mechanism for checking

the appropriateness of the proposed allocation methodology for CALEA

reimbursement. The FBI is not requiring submission of such evidence;

however, such evidence could be used as an example of the carrier's

typical practices if a question regarding the allocation methodology

arose.

    24. Proposed Sec. 100.14(d)(5)(iii) (``Directly allocable costs'';

Allocation methodology; site-specific records): One commenter asserted

that the requirement of this subsection that carriers maintain CALEA-

specific records supporting cost allocations that are site-specific

would be burdensome to carriers with multiple switches requiring CALEA

modifications.

    Given that CALEA restricts reimbursement to directly associated

costs only, it will be necessary for carriers to maintain CALEA-

specific records. As these records will, of necessity, need to indicate

work done on specific equipment, facilities, and services, there is no

apparent means of relieving carriers of the requirement to maintain

site-specific records. Therefore, no change has been made in the final

rule.

    25. Proposed Sec. 100.14(d)(6) (``Directly allocable costs''; Base

periods): One commenter asserted that it did not use ``base periods''

for allocating allocable costs. However, whether this commenter calls

it a ``base period'' or not, the commenter does use a fiscal year for

financial reporting purposes. Therefore, in the case of this commenter,

the ``base period'' could be the fiscal year. The FBI crafted these

rules to allow the carriers as much flexibility as possible in

reporting requirements in order to minimize the burden imposed upon

them. Hence, the exact definition of the ``base period'' is left up to

each carrier.

    26. Proposed Sec. 100.15 (``Disallowed costs''; General): Many

commenters questioned the restrictions set forth in this section. All

commenters addressing the issue had specific types of costs which they

believed should not be disallowed. Of these, most could be subsumed

into the areas of General and Administrative (G&A) costs and Plant Non-

Specific costs, which are addressed below. In general, the FBI wishes

to point out that it is the authority to expend funds found in CALEA

which limits reimbursable costs to directly associated costs. The FBI

would be in direct violation of law if it were to allow costs which

are, either expressly or implicitly, disallowed by CALEA. Therefore,

other than as discussed in response 28, below, with regard to the

clarification as to the definitions of plant specific and plant non-

specific costs, no costs disallowed in the proposed rule have been

removed from this section in the final rule.

    27. Proposed Sec. 100.15(a) (``Disallowed costs''; G&A costs): G&A

costs are costs which are normally considered indirect (i.e. not

directly associated with final cost objectives). The FBI cannot

disburse funds to a carrier under CALEA for costs that the carrier

would have incurred (e.g. external relations and information management

costs) had CALEA not been enacted. However, the FBI recognizes that

certain CALEA-specific expenses, which might normally be considered G&A

costs, may, in accordance with Sec. 100.11 of these rules, be charged

directly to the CALEA implementation effort. Section 100.15, Directly

Allocable Costs, was written in order to provide the carriers with the

ability to recover these costs.

    28. Proposed Sec. 100.15(c) (``Disallowed costs''; Plant non-

specific costs): Several commenters expressed concern over the use of

plant specific and plant non-specific as qualifiers for allowability

for reimbursement purposes under CALEA. These commenters pointed out

that there could be certain plant non-specific costs which would be

allowable. The FBI is persuaded by these arguments and has amended the

final rule as follows:

    First, the FBI has removed the definitions of plant specific and

plant non-specific costs from Sec. 100.10, Definitions, and has

replaced them with an all-encompassing definition of ``plants costs.''

Second, the FBI has amended Sec. 100.11(b) to reflect allowable plants

costs, whether plant specific or plant non-specific. Third, the FBI has

amended Sec. 100.15(c) to reflect disallowed plant costs, whether plant

specific or plant non-specific.

    29. Final Sec. 100.15(f) (``Additional costs''; Agreed upon): The

FBI has, for the purposes of clarity, changed ``agreed upon'' to

``agreed to by the government and the carrier.''

    30. Final Sec. 100.15(h), formerly part of Proposed Sec. 100.20

(``Disallowed costs''; Accounting provisions): Some commenters asserted

that Proposed Sec. 100.20, Accounting for Unallowable Costs, was

unnecessary and burdensome because carriers must fully account for and

document allowable expenses.

    The original intent of Proposed Sec. 100.20 was to ensure that,

should a carrier's accounting system require that unallowable costs be

used in any way to calculate the nature and amount of allowable costs

(i.e. to determine the level of allocable costs), the unallowable costs

were accurately identified as such, and were properly removed from the

calculation of the reimbursement amount. However, the FBI acknowledges

that this section appeared confusing and that it could be streamlined.

Therefore, Proposed Sec. 100.20, Accounting for Unallowable Costs, has

been deleted and the necessary elements have been added as new

subsection (h) to Final Sec. 100.15, Disallowed Costs.

    31. Proposed Sec. 100.16 and Sec. 100.17 (``Cost estimate

submission'' and ``Request for payment''; General): Many commenters

stated that the reporting requirements of these sections are

unnecessarily duplicative of each other and generally require too much

detail.

    Any expenditure of CALEA funds must meet minimal recordkeeping

requirements and must be auditable by the Inspector General of the

Department of Justice and the Comptroller General of the United

States.\11\ The rule defines the minimum amount of financial data and

supporting documentation that the FBI must retain if it is to reimburse

carriers. The FBI has required the least burdensome reporting level

possible which still allows it to meet its fiscal accountability

requirements.

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



    \11\ 31 U.S.C. 712 authorizes the Comptroller General to

investigate all matters related to the receipt, disbursement, and

use of public money. 47 U.S.C. 1010(b) (as amended by Public Law

104-316) requires the Inspector General of the Department of Justice

to report to Congress on the ``reasonableness and cost-effectiveness

of the payments made by the Attorney General to telecommunications

carriers for modifications necessary to ensure compliance with

[CALEA].''

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



    However, the FBI has also learned from the comments received that

certain aspects of these sections describing the requirements could

benefit from further explanation and some emendation for the purposes

of clarity with regard to the level of detail required to be submitted.

These explanations and emendations are addressed by subsection below.

    As for the perceived duplicativeness of Sec. 100.16 and

Sec. 100.17, the commenters appear to have been confused by the

cooperative agreement process, an explanation of which appears above in

Section B, Establishment of Cost Recovery Rules and Procedures,

subheading ``Cooperative Agreement Process.'' In addition to the

explanation of the cooperative agreement process above, the FBI

presents the following additional clarification. Estimates are needed

because the FBI must have a clear idea of how much each proposed

modification is expected to cost so that it may weigh the proposed

costs of each modification against the anticipated



[[Page 13314]]



benefits to the pubic safety.\12\ Clearly, the FBI must require that

carriers submit sufficient information for cost-benefit analyses to be

performed. Furthermore, CALEA specifically requires that the cost

recovery regulations prescribed must ``seek to minimize the cost to the

Federal Government. . . .`` \13\ The FBI must, therefore, be able to

determine that the solution proposed and its associated costs are

appropriate and reasonable prior to entering into cooperative

agreements for reimbursement with carriers.

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



    \12\ CALEA Sec. 109(c) states that ``The Attorney General shall

allocate funds appropriated to carry out this title in accordance

with law enforcement priorities determined by the Attorney

General.''

    \13\ CALEA Sec. 109(e)(2)

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



    The need for supporting documentation at the request for payment

stage is required by CALEA. While the FBI does not anticipate any

intentional fraud, honest mistakes are sometimes made and the FBI is

required to ensure that the Federal Government does not inappropriately

expend taxpayer funds on disallowed costs.

    In addition, the similarities between the cost estimate and the

request for payment remarked upon by several commenters are intended to

simplify the reporting and recordkeeping done by carriers and will help

ensure that the request for payment can adequately be correlated to the

cost estimate for review purposes.

    32. Proposed Sec. 100.16 and Sec. 100.17 (``Cost estimate

submissions'' and ``Request for payment''; General; Wireless Carrier

Concerns): Comments were received from representatives of the wireless

industry which expressed concern that the reporting requirements of

Sec. 100.16, Cost Estimate Submission, and Sec. 100.17, Request for

Payment, are too burdensome for wireless providers because their

accounting systems are not equipped to generate the level of detail

wireline providers' systems are.

    As long as such carriers are using accounting systems which

generate financial statements which are in accordance with generally

accepted accounting principles, the final rule will allow wireless

providers to use their current accounting systems to meet these

reporting requirements.

    33. Proposed Sec. 100.16 and Sec. 100.17 (``Cost estimate

submission'' and ``Request for payment''; General; Small Business

Concerns): Several commenters, either classified as small businesses

for regulatory purposes or representing the interests of such small

businesses, expressed concern that the reporting requirements of these

sections would place an undue burden on small businesses. While this

issue is addressed at length in the Final Regulatory Flexibility

Analysis below, a brief discussion is merited here. The reporting

requirements of these sections are flexible enough to allow small

carriers to submit cost estimates and requests for payment from the

level of detail available to their existing accounting systems. As

stated above in comment response 17, and as will be made clear by the

responses to specific comments which follow, the FBI only requires the

submission of supporting data if a question arises regarding specific

items. In addition, a Small Business Compliance Guide, as required by

Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

of 1996 (SBREFA) (Title II of Public Law 104-121) will be forthcoming

from the FBI. This Guide, which will be tailored to the needs of small

businesses, will provide detailed instructions for complying with all

aspects of this final rule. The FBI has consulted with the Office of

Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) and the Office of

Communications Business Opportunities at the FCC regarding this final

rule and is committed to imposing the least regulatory burden possible

on small businesses and assisting them in achieving CALEA-compliance

with respect to this rule.

    34. Proposed Sec. 100.16(c) (``Cost estimate submission''; Higher

authority): A few commenters pointed out that the reference to a

``higher authority'' was ambiguous. The FBI accepts this comment and

has amended the final rule accordingly.

    35. Proposed Sec. 100.16(d)(1) (``Cost estimate submission'';

Supporting documentation): Several commenters were concerned about the

required submission of what they perceived as an extremely high level

of supporting documentation of Sec. 100.16(d)(1). The FBI accepts this

comment and has, for the purposes of clarity, removed the descriptive

phrase ``adequately cross-referenced, suitable for detailed analysis''

from this subsection.

    36. Proposed Sec. 100.16(d)(2) (``Cost estimate submission''; Cost

element breakdown): One commenter was concerned that this subsection's

inclusion of the phrase ``and must reflect any specific requirements

established by the FBI'' gave the FBI too much latitude in requiring

additional documentation submission. While this was not the intent of

this phrase, the FBI accepts that it could be read in such a manner and

has, therefore, stricken it from the final rule.

    37. Proposed Sec. 100.16(d)(5)(iii) (``Cost estimate submission'';

``Allocable direct costs''): A few commenters found the phrase

``showing trends and budgetary data'' both burdensome and requiring

further explanation. In the interests of minimizing the reporting

burden on carriers and clarifying the requirements, the FBI has

streamlined this subsection by removing this phrase and deleting the

requirement to ``indicate the rates used and provide an appropriate

explanation.''

    38. Proposed Sec. 100.16(e)(1) (``Cost estimate submission'';

Judgmental factors): One commenter requested clarification of the term

``judgmental factors.'' The FBI has amended the final rule to include

an example of such judgmental factors in the text of this subsection.

    39. Proposed Sec. 100.16(f) (``Cost estimate submission'';

Continuous submission of cost data): A few commenters interpreted this

subsection's requirement that cost data be submitted as it becomes

available up until the time of final reimbursement as requiring a

continuous submission of data. This was not the FBI's intent; rather,

the FBI sought to ensure that, in the event that information

significantly affecting the cost estimate should become available, the

carrier would provide that information to the FBI. However, the FBI has

determined that this requirement is met by Sec. 100.17(d)(2) of the

final rule and has, therefore, amended Proposed Sec. 100.16(d)(2)

accordingly.

    40. Proposed Sec. 100.17(b)(1) (``Request for Payment''; Supporting

documentation): Several commenters were concerned about the required

submission of what they perceived as an extremely high level of

supporting documentation in Sec. 100.17(b)(1). The FBI accepts this

comment and has, for the purposes of clarity, removed the descriptive

phrase ``adequately cross-referenced, suitable for detailed analysis''

from this subsection.

    41. Proposed Sec. 100.17(b)(2) (``Request for Payment''; Cost

element breakdown): One commenter was concerned that this subsection's

inclusion of the phrase ``and must reflect any specific requirements

established by the FBI'' gave the FBI too much latitude in requiring

additional documentation submission. While this was not the intent of

this phrase, the FBI accepts that it could be read in such a manner and

has, therefore, stricken it from the final rule.

    42. Proposed Sec. 100.17(c) (``Request for Payment''; Forward

costing factors): The FBI has stricken the reference to forward costing

factors in this subsection as unnecessary.



[[Page 13315]]



    43. Proposed Sec. 100.17(c)(2) (``Request for Payment''; Direct

labor): A few commenters found this subsection to be confusing and

requiring a potentially overburdensome submission of documentation. The

FBI has streamlined this subsection and clarified its document

submission requirements such that they impose the least burden

possible. Specifically, the FBI has added the phrase ``have available

for audit in accordance with Sec. 100.18'' to the text to better define

the documentation requirements. This phrase has also been added to

Proposed subsections 100.17(c) (3), (4), and (5) for the same purpose.

    44. Proposed Sec. 100.17(d)(1) (``Request for Payment''; Specific

identification of cost data): The FBI has amended this subsection to

clarify the phrase ``by specific identification.''

    45. Proposed Sec. 100.17(d)(2) (``Request for Payment''; Continuous

submission of cost data): A few commenters interpreted this

subsection's requirement that cost data be submitted as it becomes

available up until the time of final reimbursement as requiring a

continuous submission of data. This was not the FBI's intent; rather,

the FBI sought to ensure that, in the event that information

significantly affecting the cost estimate should become available, that

the carrier would provide that information to the FBI. This subsection

has been amended to better reflect that intent.

    46. Proposed Sec. 100.17(e) (``Request for Payment''; Index): The

FBI has streamlined this subsection to minimize the indexing

requirements.

    47. Proposed Sec. 100.18 (``Audit''; General): One commenter

questioned the FBI's right to audit with regard to CALEA

reimbursements. The right to audit is implicit in a federal agency's

stewardship responsibilities with respect to the disbursement of

taxpayer funds. Furthermore, conducting audits of CALEA reimbursements

is an important and integral part of the FBI's internal financial

controls, which are required under 31 U.S.C. Subtitle III, Financial

Management.

    48. Proposed Sec. 100.18 (``Audit''; Attorney-Client Privileged

Material and Attorney Work Product): Two commenters seemed to interpret

this section as granting the FBI the right to examine attorney-client

privileged material and attorney work product during the normal course

of an audit. This is not the FBI's intent. Audit materials do not

include privileged communications or work product as protected by law.

It must be noted, however, that the burden proving that the

communication or material is privileged is on the party claiming the

privilege.\14\

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



    \14\ SEC v. Gulf & Western Industries, Inc., 518 F. Supp. 675

(D.D.C. 1981). See also Olender v. United States, 210 F.2d 795 (9th

Cir. 1954) (privilege not applicable to communications with attorney

where he has been ``employed as an accountant solely and simply'' in

preparing tax returns).

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



    49. Proposed Sec. 100.18(d) (``Audit''; ``Availability'';

Reasonable availability): A few commenters found the requirement that a

carrier ``shall make available at its office at all reasonable times

the cost and support material described herein, for examination, audit,

or reproduction . . .'' to be burdensome given that many carriers store

such information offsite. These commenters interpreted this subsection

as requiring carrier to store such information on-site, thereby

requiring them to alter their existing record keeping regimes.

    The FBI agrees that requiring carriers to store such records on-

site would be burdensome; however, this was not the intent of Proposed

Sec. 100.18(d). The pivotal phrase here is ``at all reasonable times.''

Given the wide range of accounting and record keeping methods in use in

the telecommunications industry, the FBI recognizes that ``reasonable''

might be 24 hours for one carrier or 3-5 business days for another

carrier. Therefore, to meet the specific needs of individual carriers,

a ``reasonable'' time frame will be defined as part of the cooperative

agreement entered into with each carrier.

    50. Proposed Sec. 100.18(d) (``Audit''; ``Availability''; Record

retention): Several commenters asserted that the five (5) year record

retention requirement was too long and inconsistent with other federal

regulatory record retention requirements. In the interest of minimizing

the regulatory burden on private industry, the FBI accepts this

comment. The record retention period in the final rule is amended to

three (3) years.

    51. Proposed Sec. 100.19 (``Reduction for defective cost data''): A

few commenters expressed concern that this section could be interpreted

as a penalty clause. This was not the FBI's intent; rather, this

section was included to allow for equitable adjustments to an agreed-to

amount to reflect actual costs. To clarify this intent, the FBI has

expanded Sec. 100.19 to include adjustment procedures for revisions of

the agreed-to amount: (1) prior to the incurrence of a cost; (2)

subsequent to the incurrence of a cost; and (3) subsequent to the

discovery that cost data was defective.

    52. Proposed Sec. 100.19(c)(1) (``Reduction for defective cost

data''; Sole source supplier): Several commenters, either classified as

small businesses for regulatory purposes or representing the interests

of such small businesses, expressed concern that holding small

businesses responsible for the cost data of their sole source suppliers

was unduly burdensome. This issue is addressed at length in the Final

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis below.

    53. Proposed Sec. 100.19(c)(4) (``Reduction for defective cost

data''; Interest): A few commenters requested that a subsection be

added requiring the Government to pay the carrier interest in the event

of an underpayment or late payment by the Government. The FBI

originally believed that such payments were mandated by the Prompt

Payment Act (31 U.S.C. 3901 et seq., as amended), which requires the

payment of interest on the part of the Government and OMB Circular A-

125 (Revised), ``Prompt Payment,'' which establishes the procedures for

the payment of interest to parties in the event of late payment by the

Government. It has since determined, however, that both the Prompt

Payment Act and OMB Circular A-125 apply only to procurement contracts.

Given this, the FBI does not derive statutory authority to pay interest

under the Prompt Payment Act. However, the FBI may contractually bind

itself with such provisions. Therefore, the FBI can incorporate such a

clause into its cooperative agreements with carriers. Rather than

develop duplicate procedures, the FBI intends to incorporate the

procedures for the payment of interest on late payment of invoice

payments (including progress payments) set forth in OMB Circular A-125

into all cooperative agreements with carriers. Therefore, the FBI has

not amended the final rule.

    54. Proposed Sec. 100.20 (``Accounting for unallowable costs''):

Some commenters asserted that Proposed Sec. 100.20, Accounting for

Unallowable Costs, was unnecessary and burdensome because carriers must

fully account for and document allowable expenses.

    The original intent of Proposed Sec. 100.20 was to ensure that,

should a carrier's accounting system require that unallowable costs be

used in any way to calculate the nature and amount of allowable costs

(i.e. to determine the level of allocable costs), the unallowable costs

were accurately identified as such, and were properly removed from the

calculation of the reimbursement amount. However, the FBI acknowledges

that this section appeared confusing and that it could be streamlined.

Therefore, Proposed Sec. 100.20, Accounting for Unallowable



[[Page 13316]]



Costs, has been deleted and the necessary elements have been added as

new subsection (h) to Final Sec. 100.15, Disallowed Costs.

    55. Proposed Sec. 100.21 (``Confidentiality of trade secrets/

proprietary information''): One commenter requested that the FBI amend

this section to ensure that company proprietary information is not

indiscriminately disclosed to Government employees. While this was not

the FBI's intent, it accepts the comment and has amended the final rule

accordingly.



General Comments



    1. Capacity Requirements: Several commenters felt that they could

not adequately comment on the proposed cost recovery rules without

knowing what the final capacity requirements were. These commenters

asserted that they needed to know the estimated costs prior to

assessing the proposed rule.

    These comments are not accepted. The Cost Recovery Rules are

accounting principles addressing allowability and reasonableness which

will be applied universally to carriers' costs, regardless of amount.

    2. Takings: Two commenters asserted that carrier compliance with

CALEA would require the carriers to expend funds or lose profits which

would constitute a taking for which the carriers would be entitled to

full compensation pursuant to the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth

Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. One commenter

asserted that this was so regardless of whether Congress provides

funding for CALEA cost reimbursement.

    No set formula exists for identifying when Government regulatory

action constitutes a ``taking'' under the Constitution; the Supreme

Court has instead generally relied on an ad hoc, factual inquiry into

the circumstances of each particular case. The Supreme Court has,

however, indicated that the following factors have particular

significance: (1) the severity of the economic impact of the regulation

on the claimant; (2) the extent to which the regulation has interfered

with distinct investment-backed expectations; and (3) the character of

the government action. See Concrete Pipe and Products of California,

Inc. v. Construction Laborers Pension Trust for So. California, 508

U.S. 602, 113 S.Ct. 2264, 124 L.Ed.2d 539 (1993); Connolly v. Pension

Benefit Guaranty Corp. 475 U.S. 211, 106 S.Ct. 1018, 89 L.Ed.2d 166

(1986); see also Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Commission, 505 U.S.

1003, 112 S.Ct. 2886, 120 L.Ed.2d 798 (1992).

    In response to the comments received, the FBI has analyzed these

factors and has concluded that CALEA's requirements do not amount to a

compensable taking. First, the FBI does not believe that the economic

impact of these CALEA regulations on carriers will rise to the level of

a taking requiring compensation. These regulations will not

significantly impair the economically beneficial use of the carrier's

property, and the value of such property will not be substantially

reduced. If any such reduction does occur, these regulations provide

that it may be offset by Congressional funding available to reimburse

carriers. Moreover, it has been held that ``mere diminution in the

value of property, however serious, is insufficient to demonstrate a

taking.'' Concrete Pipe, 508 U.S. at 645. Second, these regulations

will not interfere with investment-backed expectations of the carriers.

Carriers have cooperated with the execution of court-ordered electronic

surveillance for some time now. Carriers could, consequently, readily

anticipate that such wiretapping would continue and that the mechanisms

of such wiretapping would evolve as telecommunications technology

advanced. These regulations do not expand law enforcement authority but

merely maintain the ability of law enforcement to conduct court-ordered

surveillance. Carriers had no reasonable expectation that they would

not be required to continue to provide assistance to law enforcement.

Finally, the character of the government action involved suggests that

these regulations do not involve a compensable taking. In carrying out

CALEA, no law enforcement agency will physically invade any carriers'

property or appropriate any carriers' assets for its own use. The FBI

feels that these CALEA regulations substantially advance the Nation's

legitimate interests in preserving public safety and national security.

These interests would unquestionably be jeopardized without the ability

to conduct court-ordered electronic surveillance. Such wiretaps are

critical to saving lives and solving crimes. In sum, the FBI does not

believe that the carriers are being forced to bear a burden ``which, in

all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole.''

Armstong v. United States, 364 U.S. 40, 49 (1960).

    3. Manufacture Date of Equipment: One commenter seemed to assert

that it was the manufacture date of the equipment which determined its

eligibility for reimbursement. This comment is non-germane given that

CALEA specifically addresses ``equipment, facilities, and services

installed or deployed on or before January 1, 1995'' [Sec. 109(a),

emphasis added], and ``equipment, facilit[ies] and service[s] installed

or deployed after January 1, 1995'' [Sec. 109(b)(1), emphasis added].

Clearly, it is the installation or deployment date rather than the

manufacture date which determines eligibility for reimbursement.

    4. Dispute Resolution: A few commenters requested that the FBI

identify a means of dispute resolution should a disagreement occur

between a carrier and the FBI regarding the cooperative agreement

process. As discussed above, carriers are in no way obligated to expend

funds on modifications that are eligible for reimbursement under

sections 109 and 104 prior to the execution of a cooperative agreement.

Furthermore, should a carrier and the FBI fail to reach agreement as to

the terms of the cooperative agreement, that carrier will remain in

compliance with CALEA until such time as the equipment, facility or

service in question is no longer eligible for reimbursement, either

because it has undergone a ``significant upgrade or major

modification'' or because the modification required has been determined

to be reasonably achievable by the FCC.\15\ Nevertheless, if a dispute

does arise which has resulted in an impasse to the negotiations, there

may be benefits to both the FBI and the carrier that would warrant

additional efforts at resolving the dispute, so that a cooperative

agreement could be agreed upon. The FBI is also aware of the Attorney

General's April 6, 1995 Policy on Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR),

as well as Executive Order 12988, and the Congressional endorsement of

ADR as found in the recently reauthorized Administrative Dispute

Resolution Act of 1996. For all these reasons, the FBI has decided

that, where an impasse in the negotiations precludes it from executing

a cooperative agreement with a carrier, it will consider using

mediation (where the carrier agrees) to achieve, in a timely fashion, a

consensual resolution of all outstanding issues through facilitated

negotiations. The FBI expects that the costs of mediation would be

shared equally by the parties, and that each mediation would be

governed by a separate mediation agreement prepared by the FBI and the

carrier. Accordingly, Sec. 100.21 ``Alternative Dispute Resolution''

has been added to the Final Rule.

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



    \15\ CALEA Sec. 109(d) and Sec. 109(b)(1).



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



[[Page 13317]]



    5. ESI Document: Two commenters expressed concern about the FBI's

Electronic Surveillance Interface (ESI) document. The commenters

asserted their belief that the requirements in the ESI exceeded those

of CALEA. The ESI document is not a requirements document, rather it is

law enforcement's recommendation for the delivery interface between

carrier systems and the law enforcement collection equipment. It

relates only to the delivery of intercepted communications. It does not

dictate interception solutions. The ESI document is merely a

contribution to the standard setting process by law enforcement. The

FBI coordinated the development of the ESI document with the law

enforcement community and the Department of Justice to ensure that the

recommendations were consistent with the scope and intent of CALEA and

with existing electronic surveillance laws. As such, all costs directly

associated with this approach will be eligible for reimbursement.

    6. Safe Harbor. Two commenters requested a blanket statement that

all costs associated with meeting a ``safe harbor'' standard as

described in CALEA Sec. 107(a)(2) are reimbursable. Once an industry

standard has been established in accordance with CALEA Sec. 107, the

costs associated with the implementation of that standard will be

reviewed for allowability and reasonableness under this rule.



D. Applicable Administrative Procedures and Executive Orders



Executive Order 12612



    This final rule will not have a substantial direct effect on the

States, on the relationship between the national Government and the

States, or on distribution of power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive

Order 12612, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient

federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism

Assessment.



Executive Order 12866



    The FBI has completed its examination of this final rule in light

of Executive Order 12866 and has found that it constitutes a

significant regulatory action only under section 3(f)(4). In accordance

with section 6 of Executive Order 12866, the FBI has submitted this

rule, and the proposed rule which preceded it to the Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), OMB, for review, and has met

all of the requirements of this section.



Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995



    The FBI has completed its examination of this final rule in light

of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 and has determined, after

consultation with OIRA, that it does not impose an unfunded mandate as

defined in that Act.



Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995



    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, public

comment has twice been solicited on the reporting and recordkeeping

requirements of this final rule (61 FR 21396 and 61 FR 58592). As noted

above, all comments have been considered in preparing this final rule,

and significant comments received have been discussed above in Section

C of the Supplementary Information. These reporting and recordkeeping

requirements have been assigned OMB Control Number 1110-0022 which

expires on September 30, 1998.



Regulatory Flexibility Act--Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis



    As required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),

5 U.S.C. 603, a summary of the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

(IRFA) was incorporated into the NPRM. The FBI's Final Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms with the RFA as amended by the

Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996 (CWAAA), Public Law 104-

121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996).\16\

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



    \16\ Subtitle II of the CWAAA is ``The Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996'' (SBREFA), codified at 5 U.S.C.

601 et seq.

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



A. Need for and Objectives of this Final Rule



    This rule implements section 109 of the Communications Assistance

for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) which requires the Attorney General to

establish regulations which set forth the procedures telecommunications

carriers must follow in order to receive reimbursement under sections

109 and 104 of CALEA. CALEA requires that this rule enable carriers to

recover costs in a timely and cost-efficient manner while minimizing

the cost to the Federal Government. Specifically, this rule sets forth

the means of determining allowable costs, reasonable costs, and

disallowed costs. Furthermore, it establishes the requirements carriers

must meet in their submission of cost estimates and requests for

payment to the Federal Government for the disbursement of CALEA funds.

Finally, this rule protects the confidentiality of trade secrets and

proprietary information from unnecessary disclosure. The FBI seeks to

subject all carriers to the same regulatory policy, while allowing

carriers to use their existing accounting systems in the reimbursement

process. Pursuant to the goal of imposing the least burden on carriers

while also fulfilling the obligation to adhere to Government fiscal

accountability requirements, this rule specifies reporting objectives

rather than specifying the manner in which these records must be kept.



B. Description and Estimates of the Number of Small Entities Affected

by this Final Rule



    The RFA defines a ``small business'' to be the same as a ``small

business concern'' under the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 632,

unless the regulating agency has developed or adopted one or more

definitions that are appropriate to its activities and are approved by

the Small Business Administration.\17\ Under the Small Business Act, a

``small business concern'' is one that: (1) Is independently owned and

operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) meets

any additional criteria established by the SBA.\18\ The SBA has defined

a small business for Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)

categories 4812 (Radiotelephone Communications) and 4813 (Telephone

Communications, Except Radiotelephone) to be small entities when they

have fewer than 1,500 employees.\19\ The total number of small

telephone companies falling within both of those SIC categories in

general is discussed first. The number of small businesses within the

two subcategories an attempt to refine further those estimates to

correspond with the categories of telephone companies that are commonly

used by the FCC follows.

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



    \17\ See 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the

definition of ``small business concern'' in 5 U.S.C. 632).

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 632. See, e.g., Brown Transport Truckload, Inv.

V. Southern Wipers, Inc., 176 B.R. 82 (N.D. Ga. 1994).

    \19\ 13 CFR 121.201.

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



1. Telephone Companies (SIC 481)

    Total Number of Telephone Companies Affected. The rules adopted

herein may have a significant effect on a substantial number of the

small telephone companies identified by the SBA. The United States

Bureau of the Census (``the Census Bureau'') reports that, at the end

of 1992, there were 3,497 firms engaged in providing telephone

services, as defined therein,



[[Page 13318]]



for at least one year.\20\ This number contains a variety of different

categories of carriers, including local exchange carriers,

interexchange carriers, competitive access providers, cellular

carriers, mobile service carriers, operator service providers, pay

telephone operators, PCS providers, covered SMRS providers, and

resellers. It seems certain that some of those 3,497 telephone service

firms may not qualify as small entities because they are not

``independently owned and operated.'' \21\ For example, a PCS provider

that is affiliated with an interexchange carrier having more than 1,500

employees would not meet the definition of a small business. It seems

reasonable to conclude, therefore, that fewer than 3,497 telephone

service firms are small entity telephone service firms that may be

affected by this rule.

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



    \20\ United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census,

1992 Census of Transportation, Communications, and Utilities:

Establishment and Firm Size, at Firm Size 1-123 (1995) (1992

Census).

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 632(a)(1).

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



    Wireless Carriers and Service Providers. The SBA has developed a

definition of small entities for telephone communications companies

other than radiotelephone (wireless) companies. The Census Bureau

reports that, there were 2,321 such telephone companies in operation

for at least one year at the end of 1992.\22\ According to the SBA's

definition, a small business telephone company other than a

radiotelephone company is one employing fewer than 1,500 persons.\23\

All but 26 of the 2,321 non-radiotelephone companies listed by the

Census Bureau were reported to have fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus,

even if all 26 of those companies had more than 1,500 employees, there

would still be 2,295 non-radiotelephone companies that might qualify as

small entities. Although it seems certain that some of these carriers

are not independently owned and operated, the FBI is unable at this

time to estimate with greater precision the number of wireline carriers

and service providers that would qualify as small business concerns

under the SBA's definition. Consequently, the FBI estimates that there

are fewer than 2,295 small entity telephone communications companies

other than radiotelephone companies that may be affected by this rule.

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



    \22\ 1992 Census, supra, at Firm Size 1-123.

    \23\ 13 CFR 121.201, Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)

Code 4812.

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



    Local Exchange Carriers. Neither the FCC nor the SBA has developed

a definition of small providers of local exchange services (LECs). The

closest applicable definition under SBA rules is for telephone

communications companies other than radiotelephone (wireless)

companies. The most reliable source of information regarding the number

of LECs nationwide of which the FBI is aware appears to be the data

that the FCC collects annually in connection with the

Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS). According to the FCC's most

recent data, 1,347 companies reported that they were engaged in the

provision of local exchange services.\24\ Although it seems certain

that some of these carriers are not independently owned and operated,

or have more than 1,500 employees, the FBI is unable at this time to

estimate with greater precision the number of LECs that would qualify

as small business concerns under the SBA's definition. Consequently,

the FBI estimates that there are fewer than 1,347 small incumbent LECs

that may be affected by this rule.

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



    \24\ Federal Communications Commission, CCB, Industry Analysis

Division, Telecommunications Industry Revenue: TRS Fund Worksheet

Data, Tbl. 21 (Average Total Telecommunications Revenue Reported by

Class of Carrier) (Feb. 1996) (TRS Worksheet).

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



    Interexchange Carriers and Resellers. Neither the FCC nor the SBA

has developed a definition of small entities specifically applicable to

providers of interexchange services (IXCs). The closest applicable

definition under SBA rules is for telephone communications companies

other than radiotelephone (wireless) companies.

    The most reliable source of information regarding the number of

IXCs only nationwide of which the FBI is aware appears to be the data

that the FCC collects annually in connection with TRS. According to the

FCC's most recent data, 97 companies reported that they were engaged in

the provision of interexchange services.\25\ Although it seems certain

that some of these carriers are not independently owned and operated,

or have fewer than 1,500 employees, the FBI is unable at this time to

estimate with greater precision the number of IXCs only that would

qualify as small business concerns under the SBA's definition.

Consequently, the FBI estimates that there are fewer than 97 small

entity IXCs only that may be affected by this rule.

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



    \25\ Id.

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



    Neither the FCC nor the SBA has developed a definition of small

entities specifically applicable to resellers. The closest applicable

definition under SBA rules is for all telephone communications

companies. The most reliable source of information regarding the number

of resellers only nationwide of which the FBI is aware appears to be

the data that the FCC collects annually in connection with the TRS.

According to the FCC's most recent data, 206 companies reported that

they were engaged in the resale of telephone services.\26\ Although it

seems certain that some of these carriers are not independently owned

and operated, or have more than 1,500 employees, the FBI is unable at

this time to estimate with greater precision the number of resellers

only that would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA's

definition. Consequently, the FBI estimates that there are fewer than

206 small entity resellers only that may be affected by this rule.

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



    \26\ Id.

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



    However, the FCC does have more recent data which combines IXCs and

resellers. According to the FCC's most recent combined data, 583

companies were determined to be either IXCs or resellers.\27\ Although

it seems certain that some of these carriers are not independently

owned and operated, or have more than 1,500 employees, the FBI is

unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the combined

number of IXCs and resellers that would qualify as small business

concerns under the SBA's definition. Consequently, the FBI estimates

that there are fewer than 583 small entity IXCs and resellers that may

be affected by this rule.

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



    \27\ Federal Communications Commission, CCB, Industrial Analysis

Division, Long Distance Market Shares, 2nd Quarter, 1996,

(September, 1996).

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



    Competitive Access Providers. Neither the FCC nor the SBA has

developed a definition of small entities specifically applicable to

providers of competitive access services (CAPs). The closest applicable

definition under SBA rules is for telephone communications companies

other than radiotelephone (wireless) companies. The most reliable

source of information regarding the number of CAPs nationwide of which

the FBI is aware appears to be the data that the FCC collects annually

in connection with the TRS. According to the FCC's most recent data, 30

companies reported that they were engaged in the provision of

competitive access services.\28\ Although it seems certain that some of

these carriers are not independently owned and operated, or have more

than 1,500 employees, the FBI is unable at this time to estimate with

greater precision the number of CAPs that would qualify as small

business concerns under the SBA's



[[Page 13319]]



definition. Consequently, the FBI estimates that there are fewer than

30 small entity CAPs that may be affected by this rule.

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



    \28\ Federal Communications Commission, CCB, Industry Analysis

Division, Telecommunications Industry Revenue: TRS Fund Worksheet

Data, Tbl. 21 (Average Total Telecommunications Revenue Reported by

Class of Carrier) (Fbe. 1996) (TRS Worksheet).

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



    Operator Service Providers. Neither the FCC nor the SBA has

developed a definition of small entities specifically applicable to

providers of operator services. The closest applicable definition under

SBA rules is for telephone communications companies other than

radiotelephone (wireless) companies. The most reliable source of

information regarding the number of operator service providers

nationwide of which the FBI is aware appears to be the data that the

FCC collects annually in connection with the TRS. According to the

FCC's most recent data, 29 companies reported that they were engaged in

the provisions of operator services.\29\ Although it seems certain that

some of these companies are not independently owned and operated, or

have more than 1,500 employees, the FBI is unable at this time to

estimate with greater precision the number of operator service

providers that would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA's

definition. Consequently, the FBI estimates that there are fewer than

29 small entity operator service providers that may be affected by this

rule.

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



    \29\ Id.

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



    Pay Telephone Operators. Neither the FCC nor the SBA has developed

a definition of small entities specifically applicable to pay telephone

operators. The closest applicable definition under SBA rules is for

telephone communications companies. The most reliable source of

information regarding the number of pay telephone operators nationwide

of which the FBI is aware appears to be the data that the FCC collects

annually in connection with the TRS. According to the FCC's most recent

data, 197 companies reported that they were engaged in the provision of

pay telephone services.\30\ Although it seems certain that some of

these carriers are not independently owned and operated, or have more

than 1,500 employees, the FBI is unable at this time to estimate with

greater precision the number of pay telephone operators that would

qualify as small business concerns under the SBA's definition.

Consequently, the FBI estimates that there are fewer than 197 small

entity pay telephone operators that may be affected by this rule.

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



    \30\ Id.

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



    Wireless (Radiotelephone) Carriers. The SBA has developed a

definition of small entities of radiotelephone (wireless) companies.

The Census Bureau reports that there were 1,176 such companies in

operation for at least one year at the end of 1992.\31\ According to

the SBA's definition a small business radiotelephone company is one

employing fewer than 1,500 persons.\32\ The Census Bureau also reported

that 1,164 of those radiotelephone companies had fewer than 1,000

employees. Thus, even if all of the remaining 12 companies had more

than 1,500 employees, there would still be 1,164 radiotelephone

companies that might qualify as small entities if they are

independently owned and operated, the FBI is unable at this time to

estimate with greater precision the number of radiotelephone carriers

and services providers that would qualify as small business concerns

under the SBA's definition. Consequently, the FBI estimates that there

are fewer than 1,164 small entity radiotelephone companies that may be

affected by this rule.

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



    \31\ 1992 Census, supra, at Firm Size 1-123.

    \32\ 13 C.F.R. 121.201, SIC Code 4812.

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



    Cellular Service Carriers. Neither the FCC nor the SBA has

developed a definition of small entities specifically applicable to

providers of cellular services. The closest applicable definition under

SBA rules is for radiotelephone (wireless) companies. The most reliable

source of information regarding the number of cellular service carriers

nationwide of which the FBI is aware appears to be the data that the

FCC collects annually in connection with the TRS. According to the

FCC's most recent data, 789 companies reported that they were engaged

in the provision of cellular services.\33\ Although it seems certain

that some of these carriers are not independently owned and operated,

or have more than 1,500 employees, the FBI is unable at this time to

estimate with greater precision the number of cellular service carriers

that would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA's

definition. Consequently, the FBI estimates that there are fewer than

789 small entity cellular service carriers that may be affected by this

rule.

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



    \33\ Id.

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



    Mobile Service Carriers. Neither the FCC nor the SBA has developed

a definition of small entities specifically applicable to mobile

service carriers, such as paging companies. The closest applicable

definition under SBA rules is for radiotelephone (wireless) companies.

The most reliable source of information regarding the number of mobile

service carriers nationwide of which the FBI is aware appears to be the

data that the FCC collects annually in connection with the TRS.

According to the FCC's most recent data, 117 companies reported that

they were engaged in the provision of mobile services.\34\ Although it

seems certain that some of these carriers are not independently owned

and operated, or have more than 1,500 employees, the FBI is unable at

this time to estimate with greater precision the number of mobile

service carriers that would qualify under the SBA's definition.

Consequently, the FBI estimates that there are fewer than 117 small

entity mobile service carriers that may be affected by this rule.

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



    \34\ Id.

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



    Broadband PCS Licensees. The broadband PCS spectrum is divided into

six frequency blocks designated A through F. As set forth in 47 C.F.R.

Sec. 24.720(b), the FCC has defined ``small entity'' in the auctions

for Blocks C and F as a firm that had average gross revenues of less

than $40 million in the three previous calendar years. The FCC's

definition of a ``small entity'' in the context of broadband PCS

auctions has been approved by the SBA.\35\ The FCC has auctioned

broadband PCS licenses in Blocks A, B, and C. Neither the FCC nor the

FBI has sufficient data to determine how many small businesses bid

successfully for licenses in Blocks A and B. There were 90 winning

bidders that qualified as small entities in the Block C auction. Based

on this information, the FBI concludes that the number of broadband PCS

licensees affected by this rule includes, at a minimum, 90 winning

bidders that qualified as small entities in the Block C broadband PCS

auction.

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



    \35\ See Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications

Act--Competitive Bidding, PP Docket No. 93-253, Fifth Report and

Order, 9 FCC Rcd 5532, 5581-84 (1994).

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



    At present, no licenses have been awarded for Blocks D, E, and F of

broadband PCS spectrum. Therefore, there are no small business

currently providing these services. However, a total of 1,479 licenses

will be awarded in the D, E, and F Block broadband PCS auctions, which

began on August 26, 1996. Eligibility for the 483 F Block licenses is

limited to entrepreneurs with average gross revenues of less than $125

million.\36\ The FBI cannot estimate the number of licenses that will

be won by small entities under the FCC's definition, nor how many small

entities will win D or E Block licenses. Given that nearly all

radiotelephone



[[Page 13320]]



companies have fewer than 1,000 employees \37\ and that no reliable

estimate of the number of prospective D, E, and F Block licensees can

be made, the FBI assumes, for the purposes of this FRFA, that all of

the licensees in the D, E, and F Block Broadband PCS auctions may be

awarded to small entities which may be affected by this rule.

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



    \36\ Amendment of Parts 20 and 24 of the Commission's Rules--

Broadband PCS Competitive Bidding and the Commercial Mobile Radio

Service Spectrum Cap, WT Docket No. 96-59, Amendment of the

Commission's Cellular/PCS Cross-Ownership Rule, Report and Order, GN

Docket No. 90314, FCC 96-278 (rel. June 24, 1996).

    \37\ 1992 Census, Table 5, Employment Size of Firms: 1992, SIC

Code.

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



    SMRS Licensees. Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. Sec. 90.814(b)(1), the FCC

had defined ``small entity'' in auctions for geographic area 800 MHz

and 900 MHz SMRS licenses as a firm that had average annual gross

revenues of less than $15 million in the three previous calendar years.

This definition of a ``small entity'' in the context of 800 MHz and 900

MHz SMRA has been approved by the SBA.\38\ This rule may apply to SMRS

providers in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz band that either hold geographic

area licenses or have obtained extended implementation authorizations.

The FBI does not know how many firms provide 800 MHz or 900 MHz

geographic area SMRS service pursuant to extended implementation

authorizations, nor how many of these providers have annual revenues of

less than $15 million. The FBI assumes, for purpose of this FRFA, that

all of the extended implementation authorizations may be held by small

entities, which may be affected by this rule.

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



    \38\ See Amendment of Parts 2 and 90 of the Commission's Rules

to Provide for the Use of 200 Channels Outside the Designated Filing

Areas in the 896-901 MHz and the 935-940 MHz Bands Allotted to the

Specialized Mobile Radio Pool, PR Docket No. 89-583, Second Order on

Reconsideration and Seventh Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 2639, 2693-

702 (1995); Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to

Facilitate Future Development of SMRS Systems in the 800 MHz

Frequency Band, PR Docket No. 93-144, First Report and Order, Eighth

Report and Order, and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,

11 FCC Rcd 1463 (1995).

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



    The FCC recently held auctions for geographic area licenses in the

900 MHz SMRS bands. There were 60 winning bidders who qualified as

small entities in the 900 MHz auction. Based on this information, the

FBI concludes that the number of geographic area SMRS licensees

affected by this rule includes these 60 small entities. No auctions

have been held for the 800 MHz geographic area SMRS licenses.

Therefore, no small entities currently hold these licenses. A total of

525 licenses will be awarded for the upper 200 channels in the 800 MHz

geographic area SMRS auction. However, the FCC has not yet determined

how many licenses will be awarded for the lower 230 channels in the 800

MHz geographic area SMRS auction. There is no basis moreover, on which

to estimate how many small entities will win these licenses. Given that

nearly all radiotelephone companies have fewer than 1,000 employees and

that no reliable estimate of the number of prospective 800 MHz

licensees can be made, the FBI assumes, for purposes of this FRFA, that

all of the licenses may be awarded to small entities who may be

affected by this rule.

    Commerical Paging and Commercial 220 MHz Radio Services. Neither

the FCC nor the SBA has developed a definition of small entities

specifically applicable to providers of paging services. The closest

applicable definition under SBA rules is for radiotelephone (wireless)

companies.\39\ With respect to commercial 220 MHz services, the FCC has

proposed a two-tiered definition of small business for purposes of

auctions: (1) for EA licensees,\40\ a firm with average annual gross

revenues of not more than $6 million for the preceding three years and

(2) for regional and nationwide licensees, a firm with average annual

gross revenues of not more than $15 million for the preceding 3

years.\41\ Since this definition has not yet been approved by the SBA,

the FBI will use the SBA's definition applicable to radiotelephone

companies. The FBI notes that while there are incumbents in this

service, they are not commercial providers and will not, therefore, be

affected by this rule. Since there have been no auctions for either

service as of yet and the parameters of the industry have not been

fully defined, any estimate of the number of small businesses who will

seek to bid in the future auctions is not yet determined. Given the

fact that nearly all radiotelephone companies have fewer than 1,000

employees,\42\ and that no reliable estimate of the number of

prospective licensees can be made, the FBI assumes, for the purposes of

its evaluations and conclusion in this FRFA, that all of the licenses

will be awarded to small entities, as that term is defined by the SBA.

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



    \39\ 13 CFR 121.201, Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)

Code 4812.

    \40\ EA licenses refer to the 60 channels in the 172 geographic

economic areas as defined by the Bureau of Economic Analysis,

Department of Commerce. See In the Matter of Amendment of Part 90 of

the Commission's Rules to Provide for the Use of the 220-222 MHz

Band by the Private Land Mobile Radio Service, Second Memorandum

Opinion and Order and Third Notice of Proposed Rule Making, GN

Docket 93-252, 10 FCC Rcd 188 (1995).

    \41\ See In the Matter of Amendment of Part 90 of the

Commission's Rules to Provide for the Use of the 220-222 MHz Band by

the Private Land Mobile Radio Service, Second Memorandum Opinion and

Order and Third Notice of Proposed Rule Making, GN Docket 93-252, 10

FCC Rcd 188 (1995).

    \42\ See U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce,

1992 Census of Transportation, communications, and Utilities, UC92-

S-1, Subject Series, Establishment and Firm Size, Table 5,

Employment Size of Firms; 1992, SIC Code 4812 (issued May 1995).

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



    Interconnected Business Services. Neither the FCC nor the SBA has

developed a definition of small entities specifically applicable to

providers of for-profit interconnected business services. The closest

applicable definition under SBA rules is for radiotelephone (wireless)

companies.\43\ The size data provided by the SBA does not enable the

FBI to make a meaningful estimate of the number of for-profit

interconnected business service providers which are small entities

because it combines all radiotelephone companies with 500 or more

employees.\44\ The Census Bureau reports that only 12 out of a total of

1,178 radiotelephone firms which operated during 1992 had 1,000 or more

employees.\45\ However, the FCC does not know how many of the 1,178

firms were for-profit interconnected business service companies.

Although there are in excess of 13,000 for-profit interconnected

business service licenses, the FCC is unable to determine the number of

for-profit interconnected business service licensees because a single

licensee may own several licenses.\46\ Given these facts, the FBI

assumes, for purposes of this FRFA, that all of the current inter-

connected business service licensees are small entities, as that term

is defined by the SBA.

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



    \43\ 13 CFR 121.201, Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)

Code 4812.

    \44\ U.S. Small Business Administration 1992 Economic Census

Employment Report, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of

Commerce, SIC Code 4812 (radiotelephone communications industry data

adopted by the SBA Office of Advocacy).

    \45\ 1992 Census, supra, at Firm Size 1-123.

    \46\ Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Permit Flexible

Service Offerings in the Commercial Mobile Radio Services, First

Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, WT

Docket No. 96-6, 11 FCC Rcd 8965, 9025 (1996).

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



2. Cable System Operators (SIC 4841)

    The SBA has developed a definition of small entities for cable and

other pay television services, which includes all such companies

generating less than $11 million in revenue annually. This definition

includes cable systems operators, closed circuit television services,

direct broadcast satellite services, multipoint distribution systems,

satellite master antenna systems and subscription television services.

According to the Census



[[Page 13321]]



Bureau, there were 1,323 such cable and other pay television services

generating less and $11 million in revenue that were in operation for

at least one year at the end of 1992.\47\

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



    \47\ 1992 Census, supra, at Firm Size 1-123.

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



    The FCC has developed its own definition of a small cable system

operator for the purposes of rate regulation. Under the FCC's rules, a

``small cable company'' is one serving fewer than 400,000 subscribers

nationwide.\48\ Based on the FCC's most recent information, the FBI

estimates that there were 1,439 cable operators that qualified as small

cable system operators at the end of 1995.\49\ Since then, some of

those companies may have grown to serve over 400,000 subscribers, and

others may have been involved in transactions that caused them to be

combined with other cable operators. In addition, it is unlikely that

many of the ``small cable companies'' will be engaging in activities as

``telecommunications carriers'' as defined by CALEA. Consequently, the

FBI estimates that there are significantly fewer than 1,439 small

entity cable system operators that may be affected by this rule.

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



    \48\ 47 CFR Sec. 76.901(e). The Commission developed this

definition based on its determination that a small cable system

operator is one with annual revenues of $100 million or less.

Implementation of Sections of the 1992 Cable Act: Rate Regulation,

Sixth Report and Order and Eleventh Order and Reconsideration, 10

FCC Red 7393.

    \49\ Paul Kagan Associates, Inc., Cable TV Investor, Feb. 29,

1996 (based on figures for Dec. 30, 1995).

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



    The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, also contains a

definition of a small cable system operator, which is ``a cable

operator that, directly or through an affiliate, serves in the

aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all subscribers in the United States

and is not affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual

revenues in the aggregate exceed $250,000,000.'' \50\ There were

63,196,310 basic cable subscribers at the end of 1995, and 1,450 cable

system operators serving fewer than one percent (631,960) of

subscribers.\51\ Although it seems certain that some of these cable

system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual

revenues exceed $250,000,000, the FBI is unable at this time to

estimate with greater precision the number of cable system operators

that would qualify as small cable operators under the definition of

small cable system operator in the Communications Act of 1934.

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



    \50\ 47 U.S.C. 543(m)(2).

    \51\ Paul Kagan Associates, Inc., Cable TV Investor, Feb. 29,

1996 (based on figures for Dec. 30, 1995).

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



C. Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements and

Steps Taken to Minimize the Significant Economic Impact of This Report

and Order on Small Entities, Including the Significant Alternatives

Considered and Rejected



    Structure of the Analysis. In this section of the FRFA, the FBI

analyzes the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance

requirements that may apply to small entities as a result of this

rule.\52\ As a part of this discussion, the FBI mentions some of the

types of skills that will be needed to meet the new requirements. The

FBI also describes the steps taken to minimize the economic impact of

this rule on small entities, including the significant alternatives

considered and rejected.\53\

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



    \52\ See 5 U.S.C. Sec. 604(a)(4).

    \53\ See 5 U.S.C. Sec. 604(a)(5).

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



    The FBI provides this information to provide context for its

analysis in this FRFA. To the extent that any statement contained in

this FRFA is perceived as creating ambiguity with respect to this rule,

the rule shall be controlling.

1. Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements

    This rule requires carriers to submit cost estimates and requests

for payment to the FBI to receive reimbursement with CALEA funds. To

meet the reporting requirements for these submissions, carriers must

submit quantitative cost data, such as labor rates, estimates, and

invoices for equipment or services procured from subcontractors. This

data is necessary to evaluate cooperative agreement proposals and

subsequent requests for reimbursement under CALEA, and will be used to

determine whether agreement prices are fair and reasonable.

    No forms are prescribed for these submissions; rather, in order to

allow carriers to use their existing accounting systems, the rule

simply prescribes the types of information and the headings for

submissions. Carriers may then determine the best means of meeting the

required submission of data in the way least burdensome for their

staffs. The FBI anticipates that small carriers will have the least

difficulty meeting the requirements because their accounting systems

are less likely to require complex calculations or extensive

explanations of such calculations.

    The FBI estimates that there are fewer than 3,497 small carriers,

as discussed above, which could be affected by this rule over a 5 year

period. Given the difficulty in determining with any accuracy the

number of small carriers, for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act

of 1995, the FBI has calculated its estimate of the reporting and

recordkeeping requirements on a per switch basis. There are

approximately 23,000 switches which may require modification at some

point during the 5 year CALEA implementation period. Therefore, given

this 5 year time span, the total maximum number of annual responses

from all carriers is estimated at 4,600. However, the very nature of

small carriers ensures that the number of switches affect per year

which are owned and operated by small carriers will be significantly

less than 4,600. Based on the collection of similar data under the

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and on the nature of the

telecommunications industry, the time to read and prepare the required

information for one switch is estimated at 4 hours. Therefore, an

extremely small carrier with only one switch might have only 4 burden

hours imposed whereas a larger carrier with 50 switches might have 200

burden hours imposed.

    The recordkeeping necessitated by this rule is, for the most part,

the same as that the carriers would do in the normal course of

business. The only exception might be in the case of carriers which do

not maintain site-specific records. These carriers would be required to

maintain CALEA-specific records for audit purposes. This requirement is

as much for the carrier's protection as for the needs of the

Government, given that the development and maintenance of such records

assure that the carrier will be able to provide the required

information with the least disruption of its business should its

acceptance and use of appropriated funds be audited by the Comptroller

General.\54\ Finally, given that carriers are using their existing

accounting systems, the accounting and financial management skills of

their current personnel are all that is required by this rule.

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



    \54\ 31 U.S.C. 701 et seq. specifically, 31 U.S.C. 712

authorizes the Comptroller General to investigate all matters

related to the receipt, disbursement, and use of public money.

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



2. Steps taken to Minimize Burdens on Small Entities

    First, the guiding principle in the development of this rule was to

allow the maximum range of compliance options to carriers dependent

upon their own accounting systems. The rule was crafted such that it

requires the minimum level of data submission possible which still

allows the FBI to



[[Page 13322]]



meet its good stewardship responsibilities with respect to taxpayer

funds. Furthermore, the dual mandate of CALEA requiring this rule to

permit timely and cost-effective payment to carriers of costs directly

associated with the compliance effort while minimizing the costs to the

Government has limited the FBI's ability to be flexible in some areas

such as the determination of allowable costs.

    Within this framework, the FBI has sought industry input at all

stages of the rulemaking process. Initially, the FBI met with carriers

and associations, such as NECA and PCIA, in order to explain the

requirements of CALEA Sec. 109 and to solicit questions and comments

from the industry.\55\ Using the industry input from these meetings,

the FBI drafted the initial versions of the proposed rule. As each

draft was completed, the FBI incorporated its outline and sections of

actual text into the presentations the FBI continued to make to the

industry. At this stage, the FBI met with representatives of both

wireline and wireless carriers.\56\ In addition, the FBI presented to

the Electronic Communications Service Provider (ECSP) committee both

the outline of the draft proposed rule and an explanation of how such

concepts as allowability and reasonableness of costs were being

treated. In addition to carrier representatives, ECSP membership

includes representatives of various associations, including CTIA, NECA,

PCIA, and USTA. Again the FBI solicited comments and issued an open

invitation to meet with anyone who wished to discuss the cost recovery

rules further.\57\ Once the proposed rule was published, the FBI met

again with the ECSP committee and with a variety of individual carriers

and associations to provide supplemental explanations of the proposed

rule and to once again solicit comments and extend the invitation to

discuss the rule further.\58\ Finally, the FBI has maintained an on-

going dialogue with the telecommunications industry with regard to the

CALEA cost recovery rules, both through meetings and in the responses

to comments in the Supplementary Information of this document.

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



    \55\ January through September, 1995.

    \56\ October, 1995 through April, 1996.

    \57\ ECSP meeting held at Telecommunications Industry Liaison

Unit's facility on November 15, 1995.

    \58\ May through July, 1996. ECSP meeting held at the

Telecommunications Industry Liaison Unit's facility on June 26,

1996.

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



    In addition to industry input, the FBI solicited advice from a

number of other government entities including the Department of

Justice, the FCC, the General Accounting Office, and the Office of

Management and Budget. With specific regard to the needs of small

carriers, the FBI has also actively sought the assistance of both the

Office of Advocacy at the SBA and the Office of Communications Business

Opportunities at the FCC.

    In addition the FBI is currently drafting a Small Business

Compliance Guide (Guide) in accordance with SBREFA. This Guide will be

provided to the SBA and the various associations representing the

interests of small entities in telecommunications industry. It will

also be available upon request from the FBI. and FBI small business

liaison able to assist small carriers with the compliance process will

also be identified in the Guide.

3. Significant Alternatives Considered and Rejected

    The FBI considered and rejected a number of alternatives prior to

drafting its proposed rule. Initially, the FBI considered whether a new

regulation was actually necessary. That some procedures were required

was obvious from the mandate of CALEA 109(e) which directs the Attorney

General to ``establish regulations necessary to effectuate timely and

cost-effective payment to telecommunications carriers'' to reimburse

carriers for certain compliance costs. However, it seemed possible that

some existing regulations might be used for this purpose.

    First, the FBI considered using the FAR as a vehicle for carrying

out reimbursement. However, it became readily apparent that this

approach was nonproductive. The FAR was designed for Federal

procurement actions in which the contractor not only recovers direct

and indirect costs, but also makes a profit. CALEA specifically

restricts reimbursement to costs directly associated with the

modifications performed for CALEA compliance. In addition, the FAR

could require that contractors maintain and use accounting systems

which are compliant with the Cost Accounting Standards as set forth in

48 CFR 30, ``Cost Accounting Standards'' (Part 30). Given that many of

the telecommunications carriers, particularly those classified as small

entities, could be required to implement entirely new accounting

systems to meet this requirement,\59\ the FBI determined that using the

FAR would impose far too great a burden. In addition, using the FAR

could also violate the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 by requiring

some carriers already subject to FCC reporting requirements to maintain

duplicate records. Therefore, the FBI rejected this alternative.

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



    \59\ 48 CFR 9901.306 states that ``Cost Accounting Standards

promulgated by the [Cost Accounting Standards Board] shall be

mandatory for use by all executive agencies and by contractors and

subcontractors in estimating, accumulating, and reporting costs in

connection with pricing and administration of, and settlement of

disputes concerning, all negotiated prime contract and subcontract

procurements with the United States Government in excess of

$500,000. * * *''

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



    Second, the FBI considered using the FCC's accounting regulations

found in 47 CFR 32, ``Uniform System of Accounts for Telecommunications

Companies'' (Part 32) as a vehicle for carrying out reimbursement.

However, it became readily apparent that this approach was also non-

productive. While large wireline carriers dealt with these regulations

on a regular basis, many small wireline carriers were exempt from

detailed reporting requirements. Furthermore, wireless carriers, a

large number of which are classified as small entities, had never been

bound by these regulations. Given that many of these small wireline and

wireless carriers would be required to implement entirely new

accounting systems to meet this requirement, the FBI determined that

using Part 32 of the FCC's regulations would impose far too great a

burden. Therefore, the FBI rejected this alternative.

    The FBI could identify no other existing regulations which might

provide viable alternatives. Ultimately, the FBI determined that it was

necessary to develop new regulations which were both industry and CALEA

specific; this rule is the result of that development effort.

    In developing this rule, the FBI explored two options which might

ease the regulatory burden on small entities. The FBI considered using

a tiered system similar to those the FCC uses. The FBI also considered

allowing small carriers to seek waivers of certain reporting

requirements. However, this rule was crafted to permit reimbursement

for the maximum amount allowable under CALEA and requires the minimum

level of data submission possible that allows (1) The FBI to meet its

good stewardship responsibilities with respect to taxpayer funds; and

(2) the carriers to meet the requirements of an audit by the

Comptroller General. In addition, the flexibility of the cooperative

agreement process and the minimal nature of the reporting requirements

obviate the need for any issuance of waivers. Therefore, the FBI

determined that no special



[[Page 13323]]



exemptions or waivers for small carriers were viable.



D. Issues Raised and Alternatives Suggested in Response to the IRFA



    No comments were submitted specifically in response to the IRFA. In

general comments on the proposed rule, however, some commenters raised

issues that might affect small entities. Some commenters also proposed

alternatives which they believed might ease the burden on small

carriers.

1. Issues Raised

    Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements. Several commenters either

classified as small entities for regulatory purposes or representing

such small entities were concerned about what they perceived to be the

excessive reporting and recordkeeping requirements of Sec. 100.16 and

Sec. 100.17 of the proposed rule. These comments have been addressed at

length both in the discussion of general comments received (Section C.,

Significant Comments and Changes) and in the discussion of reporting

and recordkeeping requirements in this FRFA (Section C., 1. Reporting,

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements) above. In Section C.,

Significant Comments and Changes, small entities are specifically

referred to comment responses 30 through 45, with emphasis on response

32. The FBI has considerably clarified and streamlined the reporting

and recordkeeping requirements and believes that this final rule

reflects the least burdensome reporting and recordkeeping requirements

possible with regard to small entities.

    Definition of ``First-Line Supervision''. One small wireless

carrier expressed concern over the nature and definition of ``first-

line supervision'' as that phrase was used in proposed

Sec. 100.11(b)(2) (``Allowable costs''; Allowable plant specific costs;

first-line supervision). This commenter interpreted this subsection as

excluding from eligibility for reimbursement the work of some

individuals who, of necessity, perform many different functions in a

small business. This was not the FBI's intent. For the purposes of

reimbursement, it is not job title which matters, but rather the nature

of the work performed. Therefore, if the CEO of a company also happens

to be the engineer responsible for network engineering, the time that

individual spends coordinating the integration of the CALEA compliant

solution into the network will be reimbursable, while the time spent

managing the general business affairs of the company will not be

reimbursable. In addition to this explanation, the FBI has changed the

term ``first-line supervision'' to the more commonly used ``direct

supervision'' and has provided a definition of ``direct supervision''

in Sec. 100.10 of the final rule to clarify this issue in the rule.

    Burden of Proof. A few commenters either classified as small

entities for regulatory purposes or representing such small entities

were concerned about the burden of proof requirements in proposed

Sec. 100.12(a)(1), Sec. 100.12(a)(2), Sec. 100.13(a)(3), and

Sec. 100.14(b). These subsections establish that no presumption of

reasonableness is attached to the incurrence of costs by a carrier and

that burden of proof that a cost is reasonable for the purposes of

CALEA reimbursement rests with the carrier. The commenters believed

that the burden of proof might be too onerous for small entities,

particularly with respect to supporting documentation submission. These

comments have been specifically addressed in the discussion of general

comments received (Section C., Significant Comments and Changes) and

generally addressed in the discussion of reporting and recordkeeping

requirements in this FRFA (Section C., 1. Reporting, Recordkeeping, and

Other Compliance Requirements) above. In Section C., Significant

Comments and Changes, small entities are specifically referred to

comment responses 17, 18, and 21.

    It must be noted that small entities will be required to submit

supplementary documentation meeting the burden of proof only if a

question arises regarding a specific cost on a cost estimate or request

for payment. In addition, the specifics of what constitutes adequate

documentation to meet the burden of proof will be definitized during

the cooperative agreement process. The FBI is cognizant of the special

needs of small carriers and will make every effort to work with small

carriers to tailor the burden of proof requirements to meet their needs

during the cooperative agreement process. Furthermore, the FBI

anticipates that small carriers will have the least difficulty meeting

the requirements because their accounting systems are less likely to

entail complex calculations and, therefore, less likely to require

extensive supporting explanations of such calculations.

    Carrier Responsibility for Sole-Source Suppliers. Several

commenters, either classified as small entities for regulatory purposes

or representing the interests of such small entities, expressed concern

that holding small carriers responsible for the cost data of their

sole-source sup-pliers [proposed Sec. 100.19(c)(1)] was unduly

burdensome. Specifically, these commenters asserted that small entities

have little control over their sole-source suppliers because of the

nature of their networks and their inability to make bulk purchases.

The FBI is cognizant of this situation and is prepared to make

accommodations for such situations during the cooperative agreement

process with small carriers. However, this provision exists to ensure

that all carriers make a good faith effort to seek the most cost-

effective solutions for their networks. The FBI requires only that

small carriers negotiate prices with their sole-source suppliers for

CALEA-related work in the same manner that these small carriers would

negotiate if the work were solely to benefit their businesses.

Therefore, the FBI cannot relieve small carriers of this

responsibility.

2. Alternatives Suggested

    Tiered System. One association representing the interests of small

carriers suggested that the FBI institute a tiered system, similar to

the FCC's, for the reporting requirements of this rule. In developing

this rule, the FBI did consider using a tiered system as a means of

easing the burden on small entities. However, this rule permits

reimbursement for the maximum amount allowable under CALEA and requires

the minimum level of data submission possible that allows (1) The FBI

to meet its good stewardship responsibilities with respect to taxpayer

funds; and (2) the carriers to meet the requirements of an audit by the

Comptroller General. Therefore, the FBI determined that no exemptions

based upon carrier size were feasible and that no tiered system could

be implemented. Therefore, this proposed alternative was rejected.

    FCC Collaboration/Rulemaking. One commenter, which was not a small

entity, suggested that the FBI and DOJ collaborate with the FCC to

determine the best mechanism for ensuring compliance with CALEA. The

commenter asserted that this would yield greater input from industry,

allow for coordination and consistent application of telecommunications

law and policy, and allow the FBI to use FCC developed rules and

procedures permitting the use of established industry cost allocation

manuals.

    First, the FBI did consult with the FCC in the development of these

rules. Specifically, the FBI consulted with the FCC in order to ensure

consistent application of telecommunications law and policy in the

development of this rule. The FBI also drew on the FCC's



[[Page 13324]]



considerable knowledge of the telecommunications industry during the

development of this rule. Second, the FBI strove for the maximum

industry input, not only by publishing the proposed notice in the

Federal Register requesting comment, but also by meeting with industry

representatives and associations during the development process and,

concurrent with publication, directly soliciting input by all parties

which had requested that they be included on the proposed rule

distribution list. Furthermore, the FBI made every effort to distribute

the proposed rule to the various industry-related associations in order

to reach the broadest commenter possible. Thus, the FBI is confident

that it did receive input from the industry. Lastly, using industry

established cost allocation manuals, which establish fully distributed

cost methodologies, is not a viable option under CALEA's mandate to

reimburse only for directly associated costs. Therefore, this proposed

alternative was rejected.

    Keep Cost System. One commenter, which was not a small entity,

suggested that the FBI allow carriers to use their existing keep cost

system. This system, which is used by many large carriers, is a cost

accumulation system that allows the user to identify costs to specific

accumulation points. These rules do not preclude the use of carriers

existing systems to the extent that the system can exclude or

specifically identify costs that are not allowable under CALEA.

However, if the FBI were to prescribe this type of system, many

carriers, especially those classified as small entities, could be

forced to alter their existing accounting systems. Therefore, this

proposed alternative was rejected.

    Rural Utility Services Loan Proposal Forms. One association

representing the interest of small carriers suggested that the FBI use

the existing Rural Utility Services loan proposal form for cost data

submission given that it already exists and that small carriers

understand the form. The FBI reviewed the form and its underlying

requirements and found that some of the information required is

similar. However, the form itself requires unnecessary details and

information not applicable to CALEA. Use of this form could, therefore,

cause confusion within the industry as to what is required under CALEA.

Additionally, not all small carriers are familiar with this form.

Therefore, this potential alternative was rejected.

    Separate Rules for the Wireless Industry. One association

representing the interests of wireless carriers suggested that the FBI

implement separate rules for wireless carriers because their accounting

systems were different from those prescribed for wireline carriers.

However, as long as wireless carriers are using accounting systems

which generate financial statements which are in accordance with

generally accepted accounting principles, the final rule will allow

wireless providers to use their current accounting systems to meet

requirements of this rule. Therefore, this potential alternative was

rejected.



E. Conclusion



    The FBI believes this rule is fair to small entities and is

committed to assisting them in complying with it. The FBI intends to

maintain an on-going dialogue with the Office of Advocacy at the SBA

and with representatives of small carriers, both wireline and wireless,

with regard to the development of the Small Business Compliance Guide.

In addition, the FBI is in the process of identifying a small business

liaison for CALEA reimbursement issues to ensure that small carriers

are provided with the information and assistance they need to comply

with this rule in the least burdensome manner possible.

    Finally, small carriers are reminded that they are in no way

obligated to expend funds on modifications eligible for reimbursement

pursuant to CALEA sections 109(a), 109(b)(2) and 104(e) prior to the

execution of a cooperative agreement. Therefore, in the event they are

selected for reimbursement, they will have both the direct assistance

of the FBI's contracting officer and the opportunity to tailor the

cooperative agreement to meet their special needs.



List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 100



    Accounting, Law enforcement, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Telecommunications, Wiretapping and electronic

surveillance.



    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 28 CFR chapter I is

amended by adding part 100 to read as follows:



PART 100--COST RECOVERY REGULATIONS, COMMUNICATIONS ASSISTANCE FOR

LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1994



Sec.

100.9   General.

100.10  Definitions.

100.11  Allowable costs.

100.12  Reasonable costs.

100.13  Directly assignable costs.

100.14  Directly allocable costs.

100.15  Disallowed costs.

100.16  Cost estimate submission.

100.17  Request for payment.

100.18  Audit.

100.19  Adjustments to agreement estimate.

100.20  Confidentiality of trade secrets/proprietary information.

100.21  Alternative dispute resolution.



    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 1001-1010; 28 CFR 0.85(o).



Sec. 100.9  General.



    These Cost Recovery Regulations were developed to define allowable

costs and establish reimbursement procedures in accordance with section

109(e) of Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA)

(Public Law 103-414, 108 Stat. 4279, 47 U.S.C. 1001-1010).

Reimbursement of costs is subject to the availability of funds, the

reasonableness of costs, and an agreement by the Attorney General or

designee to reimburse costs prior to the carrier's incurrence of said

costs.



Sec. 100.10  Definitions.



    Allocable means chargeable to one or more cost objectives and can

be distributed to them in reasonable proportion to the benefits

received.

    Business unit means any segment of an organization for which cost

data are routinely accumulated by the carrier for tracking and

measurement purposes.

    Cooperative agreement means the legal instrument reflecting a

relationship between the government and a party when--

    (1) The principal purpose of the relationship is to reimburse the

carrier to carry out a public purpose of support or stimulation

authorized by a law of the United States; and

    (2) Substantial involvement is expected between the government and

carrier when carrying out the activity contemplated in the agreement.

    Cost element means a distinct component or category of costs (e.g.

materials, direct labor, allocable direct costs, subcontracting costs,

other costs) which is assigned to a cost objective.

    Cost objective means a function, organizational subdivision,

contract, or other work unit for which cost data are desired and for

which provision is made to accumulate and measure the cost of

processes, products, jobs, capitalized projects, etc.

    Cost pool means groupings of incurred costs identified with two or

more cost objectives, but not identified specifically with any final

cost objective.

    Direct supervision means immediate or first-level supervision.

    Directly allocable cost means any cost that is directly chargeable

to one or more cost objectives and can be distributed to them in

reasonable proportion to the benefits received.



[[Page 13325]]



    Directly assignable cost means any cost that can be wholly

attributed to a cost objective.

    Directly associated cost means any directly assignable cost or

directly allocable cost which is generated solely as a result of

incurring another cost, and which would not have been incurred had the

said cost not been incurred.

    Final cost objective means a cost objective that has allocated to

it, both assignable and allocable costs and, in the carrier's

accumulation system, is one of the final accumulation points.

    Installed or deployed means that, on a specific switching system,

equipment, facilities, or services are operable and available for use

by the carrier's customers.

    Labor cost means the sum of the payroll cost, payroll taxes, and

directly associated benefits.

    Network operations costs means all directly associated costs

related to the ongoing management and maintenance of a

telecommunications carrier's network.

    Plant costs means the directly associated costs related to the

modifications of specific kinds of telecommunications plants, such as

switches, intelligent peripherals and other network elements. These

costs shall include the costs of inspecting, testing and reporting on

the condition of telecommunications plant to determine the need for

replacements, rearranges and changes; rearranging and changing the

location of plant not retired; inspecting after modifications have been

made; the costs of modifying equipment records, such as administering

trunking and circuit layout work; modifying operating procedures;

property held for future telecommunications use; provisioning costs;

network operations costs; and receiving training to perform plant work.

Also included are the costs of direct supervision and office support of

this work.

    Provisioning costs means all costs directly associated with the

resources expended within a telecommunications carrier's network to

provide a connection and/or service to an end user of the

telecommunications service.

    Trade secrets/proprietary information means information which is in

the possession of a carrier but not generally available to the public,

which that carrier desires to protect against unrestricted disclosure

or competitive use, and which is clearly identified as such at the time

of its disclosure to the government.

    Unit cost means the directly associated cost of a single unit of a

good or service which is included in a cost element.



Sec. 100.11  Allowable costs.



    (a) Costs that are eligible for reimbursement under section 109(e)

CALEA are:

    (1) All reasonable plant costs directly associated with the

modifications performed by carriers in connection with equipment,

facilities, and services installed or deployed on or before January 1,

1995, to establish the capabilities necessary to comply with section

103 of CALEA, until the equipment, facility, or service is replaced or

significantly upgraded or otherwise undergoes major modifications;

    (2) Additional reasonable plant costs directly associated with

making the assistance capability requirements found in section 103 of

CALEA reasonably achievable with respect to equipment, facilities, or

services installed or deployed after January 1, 1995, in accordance

with the procedures established in CALEA section 109(b); and

    (3) Reasonable plant costs directly associated with modifications

to any of a carrier's systems or services, as identified in the Carrier

Statement required by CALEA section 104(d), that do not have the

capacity to accommodate simultaneously the number of interceptions, pen

registers, and trap and trace devices set forth in the Capacity

Notice(s) published in accordance with CALEA section 104.

    (b) Allowable plant costs shall include:

    (1) The costs of installation, inspection, and testing of the

telecommunications plant, and inspection after modifications have been

made; and

    (2) The costs of direct supervision and office support for this

work for plant costs.

    (c) In the case of any modification that may be used for any

purpose other than lawfully authorized electronic surveillance by a

government law enforcement agency, this part permits recovery of only

the incremental cost of making the modification suitable for such law

enforcement purposes.

    (d) Reasonable costs that are directly associated with the

modifications performed by a carrier as described in Sec. 100.11(a) are

recoverable. These allowable costs are limited to directly assignable

and directly allocable costs incurred by the business units whose

efforts are expended on the implementation of CALEA requirements.



Sec. 100.12  Reasonable costs.



    (a) A cost is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not

exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct

of competitive business. Reasonableness of specific costs must be

examined with particular care in connection with the carrier or its

separate divisions that may not be subject to effective competitive

restraints.

    (1) No presumption of reasonableness shall be attached to the

incurrence of costs by a carrier.

    (2) The burden of proof shall be upon the carrier to justify that

such cost is reasonable under this part.

    (b) Reasonableness depends upon considerations and circumstances,

including, but not limited to:

    (1) Whether a cost is of the type generally recognized as ordinary

and necessary for the conduct of the carrier's business or the

performance of this obligation; or

    (2) Whether it is a generally accepted sound business practice,

arm's-length bargaining or the result of Federal or State laws and/or

regulations.

    (c) It is the carrier's responsibility to inform the Government of

any deviation from the carrier's established practices.



Sec. 100.13  Directly assignable costs.



    (a) A cost is directly assignable to the CALEA compliance effort if

it is a plant cost incurred specifically to meet the requirements of

CALEA sections 103 and 104.

    (1) A cost which has been incurred for the same purpose, in like

circumstances, and which has been included in any allocable cost pool

to be assigned to any final cost objective other than the CALEA

compliance effort, shall not be assigned to the CALEA compliance effort

(or any portion thereof).

    (2) Costs identified specifically with the work performed are

directly assignable costs to be charged directly to the CALEA

compliance effort. All costs specifically identified with other

projects, business units, or cost objectives of the carrier shall not

be charged to the CALEA compliance effort, directly or indirectly.

    (3) The burden of proof shall be upon the carrier to justify that

such cost is an assignable cost under this part.

    (b) For reasons of practicality, any directly assignable cost may

be treated as a directly allocable cost if the accounting treatment is

consistently applied within the carrier's accounting system and the

application produces substantially the same results as treating the

cost as a directly assignable cost.



Sec. 100.14  Directly allocable costs.



    (a) A cost is directly allocable to the CALEA compliance effort:



[[Page 13326]]



    (1) If it is a plant cost incurred specifically to meet the

requirements of CALEA sections 103 and 104; or

    (2) If it benefits both the CALEA compliance effort and other work,

and can be distributed to them in reasonable proportion to the benefits

received.

    (b) The burden of proof shall be upon the carrier to justify that

such cost is an allocable cost under this part.

    (c) An allocable cost shall not be assigned to the CALEA compliance

effort if other costs incurred for the same purpose in like

circumstances have been included as a direct cost of that, or any

other, cost objective.

    (d) The accumulation of allocable costs shall be as follows:

    (1) Allocable costs shall be accumulated by logical cost groupings

with due consideration of the reasons for incurring such costs.

    (i) Each grouping should be determined so as to permit distribution

of the grouping on the basis of the benefits accruing to the multiple

cost objectives.

    (ii) Similarly, the particular case may require subdivision of

these groupings (e.g., building occupancy costs might be separable from

those of personnel administration within the engineering group).

    (2) Such allocation necessitates selecting a distribution base

common to all cost objectives to which the grouping is to be allocated.

The base should be selected so as to permit allocation of the grouping

on the basis of the benefits accruing to the multiple cost objectives.

    (3) When substantially the same results can be achieved through

less precise methods, the number and composition of cost groupings

should be governed by practical considerations and should not unduly

complicate the allocation.

    (4) Once a methodology for determining an appropriate base for

distributing allocable costs has been agreed to, it shall not be

modified without written approval of the FBI, if that modification

affects the level of reimbursement from the government. All items

properly includable in an allocable cost base should bear a pro rata

share of allocable costs irrespective of their acceptance as

reimbursable under this part.

    (5) The carrier's method of allocating allocable costs shall be in

accordance with the accounting principles used by the carrier in the

preparation of their externally audited financial statements and

consistently applied, to the extent that the expenses are allowable

under there regulations. The method may require further examination

when:

    (i) Substantial differences occur between the cost patterns of work

under CALEA compliance effort and the carrier's other work;

    (ii) Significant changes occur in the nature of the business, the

extent of subcontracting, fixed-asset improvement programs,

inventories, the volume of sales and production, manufacturing

processes, the carrier's products, or other relevant circumstances; or

    (iii) Allocable cost groupings developed for a carrier's primary

location are applied to off-site locations. Separate cost groupings for

costs allocable to off-site locations may be necessary to permit

equitable distribution of costs on the basis of the benefits accruing

to the multiple cost objectives.

    (6) The base period for allocating allocable costs is the cost

accounting period during which such costs are incurred and accumulated

for distribution to work performed in that period. The base period for

allocating allocable costs will normally be the carrier's fiscal year.

A shorter period may be appropriate when performance involves only a

minor portion of the fiscal year, or when it is general practice to use

a shorter period. When the compliance effort is performed over an

extended period, as many base periods shall be used as are required to

accurately represent the period of performance.



Sec. 100.15  Disallowed costs.



    (a) General and Administrative (G&A) costs are disallowed. G&A

costs include, but are not limited to, any management, financial, and

other expenditures which are incurred by or allocated to a business

unit as a whole. These include, but are not limited to:

    (1) Accounting and Finance, External Relations, Human Resources,

Information Management, Legal, Procurement; and

    (2) Other general administrative activities such as library

services, food services, archives, and general security investigation

services.

    (b) Customer Service costs are disallowed. These costs include, but

are not limited to, any Marketing, Sales, Product Management, and

Advertising expenses.

    (c) Plant costs that are not directly associated with the

modifications identified in Sec. 100.11 are disallowed. These include,

but are not limited to, repairing materials for reuse, performing

routine work to prevent trouble; expenses related to property held for

future telecommunications use; provisioning costs; network operations

costs; and depreciation and amortization expenses.

    (d) Costs that have already been recovered from any governmental or

nongovernmental entity are disallowed.

    (e) Costs that cannot be either directly assigned or directly

allocated are disallowed.

    (f) Additional costs that are incurred due to the carrier's failure

to complete the CALEA compliance effort in the time frame agreed to by

the government and the carrier are disallowed.

    (g) Costs associated with modifications of any equipment, facility

or service installed or deployed after January 1, 1995 which are deemed

reasonably achievable by the Federal Communications Commission under

section 109(b) of CALEA are disallowed.

    (h) To ensure that the Government does not reimburse carriers for

disallowed costs, the following provisions are included:

    (1) Costs that are expressly disallowed or mutually agreed to be

disallowed, including mutually agreed to be disallowed directly

associated costs, shall be excluded from any billing, claim, or

proposal applicable to reimbursement under CALEA. When a disallowed

cost is incurred, its directly associated costs are also disallowed.

    (2) Disallowed costs involved in determining rates used for

standard costs, or for allocable cost proposals or billing, need be

identified only at the time rates are proposed, established, revised,

or adjusted. These requirements may be satisfied by any form of cost

identification which is adequate for purposes of cost determination and

verification.



Sec. 100.16  Cost estimate submission.



    (a) The carrier shall provide sufficient cost data at the time of

proposal submission to allow adequate analysis and evaluation of the

estimated costs. The FBI reserves the right to request additional cost

data from carriers in order to ensure compliance with this part.

    (b) The requirement for submission of cost data is met if, as

determined by the FBI, all cost data reasonably available to the

carrier are either submitted or identified in writing by the date of

agreement on the costs.

    (c) If cost data and information to explain the estimating process

are required by the FBI and the carrier refuses to provide necessary

data, or the FBI determines that the data provided are so deficient as

to preclude adequate analysis and evaluation, the FBI will attempt to

obtain the data and/or elicit corrective action.



[[Page 13327]]



    (d) Instructions for submission of the cost data for the estimate

are as follows:

    (1) The carrier shall submit to the FBI estimated costs by line

item with supporting information.

    (2) A cost element breakdown as described in Sec. 100.16(h) shall

be attached for each proposed line item.

    (3) Supporting breakdowns shall be furnished for each cost element,

consistent with the carrier's cost accounting system.

    (4) When more than one line item is proposed, summary total amounts

covering all line items shall be furnished for each cost element.

    (5) Depending on the carrier's accounting system, the carrier shall

provide breakdowns for the following categories of cost elements, as

applicable:

    (i) Materials. Provide a consolidated cost summary of individual

material quantities included in the various tasks, orders, or agreement

line items being proposed and the basis upon which they were developed

(vendor quotes, invoice prices, etc.). Include raw materials, parts,

software, components, and assemblies. For all items proposed, identify

the item, source, quantity, and cost.

    (ii) Direct labor. Provide a time-phased (e.g., monthly, quarterly)

breakdown of labor hours, rates, and costs by appropriate category, and

furnish the methodologies used in developing estimates.

    (iii) Allocable direct costs. Indicate how allocable costs are

computed and applied, including cost breakdowns that provide a basis

for evaluating the reasonableness of proposed rates.

    (iv) Subcontracting costs. For any subcontractor costs submitted

for reimbursement, the carrier is responsible for ensuring that

documentation requirements set forth herein are passed on to any and

all subcontractors utilized in the carrier's efforts to meet CALEA

requirements.

    (v) Other costs. List all other costs not otherwise included in the

categories described above (e.g., special tooling, travel, computer and

consultant services) and provide bases for costs.

    (e) As part of the specific information required, the carrier shall

submit with its cost estimate and clearly identify as such, costs that

are verifiable and factual. In addition, the carrier shall submit

information reasonably required to explain its estimating process,

including:

    (1) The judgmental factors applied, such as trends or budgetary

data, and the mathematical or other methods used in the estimate,

including those used in projecting from known data; and

    (2) The nature and amount of any contingencies included in the

proposed estimate.

    (f) There is a clear distinction between submitting cost data and

merely making available books, records, and other documents without

identification. The requirement for submission of cost data is met when

all accurate cost data reasonably available to the carrier have been

submitted, either actually or by specific identification, to the FBI.

    (g) In submitting its estimate, the carrier must include an index,

appropriately referenced, of all the cost data and information

accompanying or identified in the estimate. In addition, any future

additions and/or revisions, up to the date of agreement on the costs,

must be annotated in a supplemental index.

    (h) Headings for submission are as follows:

    (1) Total Project Cost: Summary

    (i) Cost Elements (Enter appropriate cost elements.)

    (ii) Proposed Cost Estimate--Total Cost (Enter those necessary and

reasonable costs that in the carrier's judgment will properly be

incurred in efficient completion of CALEA requirements. When any of the

costs in this have already been incurred (e.g., under a letter

contract), describe them on an attached supporting schedule.)

    (iii) Proposed Cost Estimate--Unit Cost (Enter the unit costs for

each cost element.)

    (iv) Supporting Material (Identify the attachment in which the

information supporting the specific cost element may be found.)

    (2) Total Project Costs: Detail (at Switch Level or Project Level,

as appropriate)

    (i) Cost Elements (Enter appropriate cost elements.)

    (ii) Proposed Cost Estimate--Total Cost (Enter those necessary and

reasonable costs that in the carrier's judgment will properly be

incurred in efficient completion of CALEA requirements. When any of the

costs in this have already been incurred (e.g., under a letter

contract), describe them on an attached supporting schedule.)

    (iii) Proposed Cost Estimate--Unit Cost (Enter the unit costs for

each cost element.)

    (iv) Supporting Material (Identify the attachment in which the

information supporting the specific cost element may be found.)



Sec. 100.17  Request for payment.



    (a) The carrier shall provide sufficient supporting documentation

at the time of submission of request for payment to allow adequate

analysis and evaluation of the incurred costs. The FBI reserves the

right to request additional cost data from carriers in order to ensure

compliance with this part.

    (b) Instructions for submission of the supporting documentation for

the request for payment are as follows:

    (1) The carrier shall submit to the FBI incurred costs by line item

with supporting information.

    (2) A cost element breakdown as described in Sec. 100.17(f) shall

be attached for each agreed upon line item.

    (3) Supporting breakdowns shall be furnished for each cost element,

consistent with the carrier's cost accounting system.

    (c) When more than one line item has been agreed upon, summary

total amounts covering all line items shall be furnished for each cost

element. Depending on the carrier's accounting system, breakdowns shall

be provided to the FBI for the following categories of cost elements,

as applicable:

    (1) Materials. Provide a consolidated cost summary of individual

material quantities included in the various tasks, orders, or agreement

line items and the basis upon which they were determined (vendor

invoices, time sheets, payroll records, etc.). Include raw materials,

parts, software, components, and assemblies. For all reimbursable

items, identify the item, source, quantity, and cost.

    (2) Direct labor. Provide a breakdown of labor hours, rates, and

cost by appropriate category, and furnish the methodologies used in

identifying these costs. Have available for audit, in accordance with

Sec. 100.18, time sheet and labor rate calculation justification for

all direct labor charged to the agreement.

    (3) Allocable direct costs. Indicate how allocable costs are

computed and applied, including cost breakdowns, comparing estimates to

actual data as a basis for evaluating the reasonableness of actual

costs.

    (4) Subcontracting costs. For any subcontractor costs submitted for

reimbursement, along with a copy of the invoice, the carrier must have

available for audit in accordance with Sec. 100.18, documentation that

costs incurred are just and reasonable.

    (5) Other costs. List all other costs not otherwise included in the

categories described above (e.g., special tooling, travel, computer and

consultant services) and have available for audit in accordance with

Sec. 100.18, documentation that costs incurred are just and reasonable.

    (d) There is a clear distinction between submitting cost data and

merely making available books, records,



[[Page 13328]]



and other documents without identification.

    (1) The requirement for submission of cost data is met when all

accurate cost data reasonably available to the carrier have been

submitted, either actually or by specific identification of the data

that are available for review in the carrier's files, to the FBI.

    (2) Should later information which affects the level of

reimbursement come into the carrier's possession, it must be promptly

submitted to the FBI.

    (3) The requirement for submission of cost data continues up to the

time of final reimbursement.

    (e) In submitting its invoice, the carrier must include an index,

which cross references the actual cost data submitted with the cost

estimate.

    (f) Headings for submission are as follows:

    (1) Total Project Cost: Summary

    (i) Cost Elements (Enter appropriate cost elements.)

    (ii) Actual Costs Incurred--Total Cost (Enter those necessary and

reasonable costs that were incurred in the efficient completion of

CALEA requirements.)

    (iii) Actual Costs Incurred--Unit Cost (Enter the unit costs for

each cost element.)

    (iv) Supporting Material (Identify the attachment in which the

information supporting the specific cost element may be found.)

    (2) Total Project Costs: Detail (at Switch Level or Project Level,

as appropriate.)

    (i) Cost Elements (Enter appropriate cost elements.)

    (ii) Actual Costs Incurred--Total Cost (Enter those necessary and

reasonable costs that were incurred in the efficient completion of

CALEA requirements.)

    (iii) Actual Costs Incurred--Unit Cost (Enter the unit costs for

each cost element.)

    (iv) Supporting Material (Identify the attachment in which the

information supporting the specific cost element may be found.)



Sec. 100.18  Audit.



    (a) General. In order to evaluate the accuracy, completeness, and

timeliness of the cost data, the FBI or other representatives of the

Government shall have the right to examine and audit all of the

carrier's supporting materials.

    (1) These materials include, but are not limited to books, records,

documents, and other data, regardless of form (e.g., machine readable

media such as disk, tape) or type (e.g., data bases, applications

software, data base management software, utilities), including

computations and projections related to proposing, negotiating,

costing, or performing CALEA compliance efforts or modifications.

    (2) The right of examination shall extend to all documents

necessary to permit adequate evaluation of the cost data submitted,

along with the computations and projections used.

    (b) Audits of request for payment. The carrier shall maintain and

the FBI or representatives of the Government shall have the right to

examine and audit supporting materials.

    (1) These materials include, but are not limited to, books,

records, documents, and other evidence and accounting procedures and

practices, regardless of form (e.g., machine readable media such as

disk, tape) or type (e.g., date bases, applications software, data base

management software, utilities), sufficient to reflect properly all

costs claimed to have been incurred, or anticipated to be incurred, in

performing the CALEA compliance effort.

    (2) This right of examination shall include inspection at all

reasonable times of the carrier's plants, or parts of them, engaged in

performing the effort.

    (c) Reports. If the carrier is required to furnish cost, funding,

or performance reports, the FBI or representatives of the Government

shall have the right to examine and audit books, records, other

documents, and supporting materials, for the purpose of evaluating the

effectiveness of the carrier's policies and procedures to produce data

compatible with the objectives of these reports and the data reported.

    (d) Availability. The carrier shall make available at its office at

all reasonable times the costs and support material described herein,

for examination, audit, or reproduction, until three (3) years after

final reimbursement payment. In addition,

    (1) If the CALEA compliance effort is completely or partially

terminated, the records relating to the work terminated shall be made

available for three (3) years after any resulting final termination

settlement; and

    (2) Records relating to appeals, litigation or the settlement of

claims arising under or relating to the CALEA compliance effort shall

be made available until such appeals, litigation, or claims are

disposed of.

    (e) Subcontractors. The carrier shall ensure that all terms and

conditions herein are incorporated in any agreement with a

subcontractor that may be utilized by the carrier to perform any or all

portions of the agreement.



Sec. 100.19  Adjustments to agreement estimate.



    (a) Adjustments prior to the incurrence of a cost.

    (1) In accordance with Sec. 100.17(d)(2), the carrier shall notify

the FBI when any change affecting the level of reimbursement occurs.

    (2) Upon such notification, if the adjustment results in an

increase in the estimated reimbursement, the FBI will review the

submission and determine if

    (i) Funds are available;

    (ii) The adjustment is justified and necessary to accomplish the

goals of the agreement; and

    (iii) It is in the best interest of the government to approve the

expenditure.

    (3) The FBI will provide the decision as to the acceptability of

any increase to the carrier in writing.

    (b) Adjustments after the incurrence of a cost. Any cost incurred

that exceeds the provision in Sec. 100.16(e)(2) will be reviewed by the

FBI to determine reasonability, allowability, and if it is in the best

interest of the government to approve the expenditure for

reimbursement.

    (c) Reduction for defective cost data.

    (1) The cost shall be reduced accordingly and the agreement shall

be modified to reflect the reduction if any cost estimate negotiated in

connection with the CALEA compliance effort, or any cost reimbursable

under the effort is increased because:

    (i) The carrier or a subcontractor furnished cost data to the

government that were not complete, accurate, and current;

    (ii) A subcontractor or prospective subcontractor furnished the

cost data to the carrier that were not complete, accurate, and current;

or

    (iii) Any of these parties furnished data of any description that

were not accurate.

    (2) Any reduction in the negotiated cost under Sec. 100.19(c)(1)

due to defective data from a prospective subcontractor that was not

subsequently awarded the subcontract shall be limited to the amount by

which either the actual subcontract or the actual cost to the carrier,

if there was no subcontract, was less than the prospective subcontract

cost estimate submitted by the carrier, provided that the actual

subcontract cost was not itself affected by defective cost data.

    (3) If the FBI determines under Sec. 100.19(c)(1) that a cost

reduction should be made, the carrier shall not raise the following

matters as a defense:

    (i) The carrier or subcontractor was a sole source supplier or

otherwise was in a superior bargaining position and thus the costs of

the agreement would not



[[Page 13329]]



have been modified even if accurate, complete, and current cost data

had been submitted;

    (ii) The FBI should have known that the cost data at issue were

defective even though the carrier or subcontractor took no affirmative

action to bring the character of the data to the attention of the FBI;

    (iii) The carrier or subcontractor did not submit accurate cost

data. Except as prohibited, an offset in an amount determined

appropriate by the FBI based upon the facts shall be allowed against

the cost reimbursement of an agreement amount reduction if the carrier

certifies to the FBI that, to the best of the carrier's knowledge and

belief, the carrier is entitled to the offset in the amount requested

and the carrier proves that the cost data were available before the

date of agreement on the cost of the agreement (or cost of the

modification) and that the data were not submitted before such date. An

offset shall not be allowed if the understated data were known by the

carrier to be understated when the agreement was signed; or the

Government proves that the facts demonstrate that the agreement amount

would not have increased even if the available data had been submitted

before the date of agreement on cost; or

    (4) In the event of an overpayment, the carrier shall be liable to

and shall pay the United States at that time such overpayment as was

made, with simple interest on the amount of such overpayment to be

computed from the date(s) of overpayment to the carrier to the date the

Government is repaid by the carrier at the applicable underpayment rate

effective for each quarter prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury

under 26 U.S.C. 6621(a)(2).



Sec. 100.20  Confidentiality of trade secrets/proprietary information.



    With respect to any information provided to the FBI under this part

that is identified as company proprietary information, it shall be

treated as privileged and confidential and only shared within the

government on a need-to-know basis. It shall not be disclosed outside

the government for any reason inclusive of Freedom of Information

requests, without the prior written approval of the company.

Information provided will be used exclusively for the implementation of

CALEA. This restriction does not limit the government's right to use

the information provided if obtained from any other source without

limitation.



Sec. 100.21  Alternative dispute resolution.



    (a) If an impasse arises in negotiations between the FBI and the

carrier which precludes the execution of a cooperative agreement, the

FBI will consider using mediation with the goal of achieving, in a

timely fashion, a consensual resolution of all outstanding issues

through facilitated negotiations.

    (b) Should the carrier agree to mediation, the costs of that

mediation process shall be shared equally by the FBI and the carrier.

    (c) Each mediation shall be governed by a separate mediation

agreement prepared by the FBI and the carrier.



    Dated: February 25, 1997.

Louis Freeh,

Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice.

[FR Doc. 97-7035 Filed 3-19-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-02-M



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

[End]

