|
Cryptome DVDs are offered by Cryptome. Donate $25 for two DVDs of the Cryptome 12-years collection of 46,000 files from June 1996 to June 2008 (~6.7 GB). Click Paypal or mail check/MO made out to John Young, 251 West 89th Street, New York, NY 10024. The collection includes all files of cryptome.org, jya.com, cartome.org, eyeball-series.org and iraq-kill-maim.org, and 23,000 pages of counter-intelligence dossiers declassified by the US Army Information and Security Command, dating from 1945 to 1985.The DVDs will be sent anywhere worldwide without extra cost. |
3 June 2008
[Federal Register: June 3, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 107)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 31648-31652]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr03jn08-14]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
28 CFR Part 100
[Docket No. FBI 119]
CALEA Cost Recovery Regulations; Section 610 Review
AGENCY: Federal Bureau of Investigation, Justice.
ACTION: Notice of a section 610 review and request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document summarizes the results of a review of the CALEA
Cost Recovery Regulations, under the criteria contained in section 610
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA).
DATES: Written comments must be postmarked, and electronic comments
must be sent, on or before August 4, 2008.
ADDRESSES: To ensure proper handling of comments, please reference
``Docket No. FBI 119'' on all written and electronic correspondence.
Written comments being sent via regular mail should be sent to CALEA
Implementation Unit, Technical Programs Section, Engineering Research
Facility, Building 27958A, Quantico, Virginia. Comments may also be
sent electronically through http://www.regulations.gov using the
electronic comment form provided on that site. An electronic copy of
this document is also available at the http://www.regulations.gov Web
site. FBI will accept attachments to electronic comments in Microsoft
word, WordPerfect, Adobe PDF, or Excel file formats only. FBI will not
accept any file formats other than those specifically listed here.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: CALEA Implementation Unit, Technical
Programs Section, Engineering Research Facility, Building 27958A,
Quantico, Virginia, (703) 632-6897.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Posting of Public Comments
Please note that all comments received are considered part of the
public record and made available for public inspection online at http:/
/www.regulations.gov and are maintained in the public docket regarding
this matter. Such information includes personal identifying information
(such as your name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the
commenter. If you want to submit personal identifying information (such
as your name, address, etc.) as part of your comment, but do not want
it to be posted online or made available in the public docket, you must
include the phrase ``PERSONAL IDENTIFYING INFORMATION'' in the first
paragraph of your comment. You must also place all the personal
identifying information you do not want posted online or made available
in the public docket in the first paragraph of your comment and
identify what information you want redacted.
If you want to submit confidential business information as part of
your comment, but do not want it to be posted online or made available
in the public docket, you must include the phrase ``CONFIDENTIAL
BUSINESS INFORMATION'' in the first paragraph of your comment. You must
also prominently identify confidential business information to be
redacted within the comment. If a comment has so much confidential
business information that it cannot be effectively redacted, all or
part of that comment may not be posted online or made available in the
public docket.
Personal identifying information and confidential business
information
[[Page 31649]]
identified and located as set forth above will be redacted and posted
online and placed in the public docket file. If you wish to inspect the
agency's public docket file in person by appointment, please see the
For Further Information paragraph.
II. Overview
The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA),
codified at 47 U.S.C. 1001-1010, is an important statute. CALEA was
enacted in 1994 to preserve the Government's ability, pursuant to court
order or other lawful authorization, to intercept communications and
related information involving advanced technologies, while protecting
the privacy of communications and without impeding the introduction of
new technologies, features, and services. CALEA requires
telecommunications carriers to ensure that their telecommunications
equipment is, among other things, capable of enabling the lawfully
authorized interception of communications by the government.
The law under CALEA treats telecommunications equipment deployed on
or before January 1, 1995 differently from equipment deployed after
1995. With regard to pre-1995 telecommunications equipment, CALEA
provides that the carrier may request the Attorney General to provide
reimbursement for certain costs associated with modifications necessary
to render the equipment compliant with CALEA's surveillance assistance
capability requirements. If the Attorney General chooses in his
discretion not to make such reimbursement, then CALEA provides that the
equipment shall be ``considered to be in compliance'' until it is
modified, replaced or significantly upgraded. 47 U.S.C. 1008(d). Under
certain limited circumstances, described further herein, the payment of
costs associated with post-1995 equipment might also be authorized. See
47 U.S.C. 1008(b)(2)(A).
The FBI, as the authorized delegate of the Attorney General under
CALEA, adopted the CALEA Cost Recovery Regulations which are published
at 28 CFR 100.9, et seq. The regulations were adopted by a final rule
and published in the Federal Register on March 20, 1997 (62 FR 13324).
The FBI uses these regulations in appropriate cases to govern the
submission of claims (and accompanying information) by
telecommunications carriers under CALEA, and, as is further required by
CALEA Section 109(c), to allocate appropriated funds ``in accordance
with law enforcement priorities.'' See 47 U.S.C. 1008(c).
The CALEA Cost Recovery Regulations are accounting and procedural
rules. The Regulations specify certain requirements for submission of
cost recovery claims under CALEA. The Cost Recovery Regulations specify
in detail the types of costs that could be authorized for reimbursement
(28 CFR 100.11), how such costs should be documented (Sec. 100.16),
and the process by which a claim could be evaluated or audited (Sec.
Sec. 100.18, 100.19).
In the FBI's experience, many of the costs eligible for
reimbursement were paid through ``Nationwide Right-To-Use (RTU)
Software License Agreements.'' Through this program, administered by
the FBI, several major telecommunications equipment manufacturers
contracted to produce CALEA-compliant software upgrades and make them
available to telecommunications carriers without additional charge.
As discussed in this Notice, the FBI finds that the Cost Recovery
Regulations probably do not have a ``significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.'' We have, however, undertaken
the review herein pursuant to Section 610 to determine whether the Cost
Recovery Regulations should be continued without change, amended, or
rescinded (consistent with the objectives of CALEA) to minimize the
impacts on small entities. The Cost Recovery provisions serve an
important purpose by governing the submission of cost recovery claims
under CALEA. Other methods of cost recovery have been utilized by the
FBI under CALEA, as explained herein, but the procedures set forth in
the Cost Recovery Regulations provide another valid method.
The CALEA Cost Recovery Regulations have been established in such a
way as to protect the carrier against incurring any additional costs
that will not be reimbursed. For example, prior to signing an
agreement, all costs that the government is willing to reimburse are
documented and their estimated amounts are agreed to. The CALEA Cost
Recovery Regulations have no analogue under State laws. There is no
state equivalent to the requirements of CALEA.
The FBI has not received any complaints or expressions of concern
regarding the regulations from the public since the time the
regulations were adopted by the FBI. The regulations do not conflict
with or duplicate other Federal rules. The FBI therefore has determined
that the CALEA Cost Recovery Regulations should be continued without
change.
III. Section 610 Review of the CALEA Cost Recovery Regulations
A. Purpose of the Review
This review is being conducted under section 610 of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA). The DOJ published in the Federal Register (64 FR
54794-01; October 8, 1999), its plan to review certain regulations,
including CALEA Cost Recovery Regulations, under criteria contained in
section 610 of the RFA 5 U.S.C. 601-612. After consideration, we
believe that the CALEA Cost Recovery Regulations set forth procedural
requirements only and that they likely do not have a ``significant
economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities.''
Nevertheless, the FBI has conducted a review pursuant to the criteria
under section 610.
The purpose of the review is to determine whether the CALEA Cost
Recovery Regulations should be continued without change, amended, or
rescinded (consistent with the objectives of CALEA) to minimize the
impacts on small entities. In conducting this review, we considered the
following factors: (1) The continued need for the regulations; (2) the
nature of complaints or comments received from the public concerning
the regulations; (3) the complexity of the regulations; (4) the extent
to which the regulations overlap, duplicate, or conflict with other
Federal rules, and, to the extent feasible, with State and local
governmental rules; and (5) the length of time since the regulations
have been evaluated or the degree to which technology, economic
conditions, or other factors have changed in the area affected by the
regulations.
B. 1. Background Regarding CALEA
The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA),
codified at 47 U.S.C. 1001-1010, is an important statute and sets forth
requirements that are critically important to federal, state and local
law enforcement agencies. It was enacted in 1994 to preserve the
Government's ability, pursuant to court order or other lawful
authorization, to intercept communications and related information
involving advanced technologies, while protecting the privacy of
communications and without impeding the introduction of new
technologies, features, and services. CALEA generally requires
telecommunications carriers to ensure that their telecommunications
equipment is, among other things, capable of enabling the lawfully
authorized interception of
[[Page 31650]]
communications by the government. See 47 U.S.C. 1002(a)(1)-(4).
CALEA divides telecommunications equipment generally into two
classes. The first class includes equipment, facilities and services
installed or deployed on or before January 1, 1995. The second class
includes all other equipment, facilities and services installed or
deployed after January 1, 1995. With regard to pre-1995 equipment, the
law provides that the carrier may request the Attorney General to agree
to pay reimbursement for certain costs associated with reasonable
modifications necessary to ensure that it is compliant with CALEA's
surveillance assistance capability requirements set forth in 47 U.S.C.
1002(a)(1)-(4). If the Attorney General chooses in his discretion not
to make such reimbursement, then CALEA further provides that the
equipment shall be ``considered to be in compliance'' until it is
modified, replaced or significantly upgraded. 47 U.S.C. 1008(d). This
provision essentially accords ``grand-father'' protection to pre-1995
equipment.
Post-1995 equipment is generally required to be fully compliant
with CALEA without any such cost reimbursement. Under certain very
limited circumstances, however, the reimbursement of such costs may be
authorized if the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) makes a
formal determination that compliance by a carrier is ``not reasonably
achievable.'' See 47 U.S.C. 1008(b)(2)(A). The circumstances under
which such determinations might be made by the FCC are quite limited.
As the FCC has noted, this provision ``imposes a high burden of proof
for telecommunications carriers to demonstrate that they made
reasonable efforts to develop CALEA solutions and that none of them are
reasonably achievable.'' See Communications Assistance for Law
Enforcement Act and Broadband Access and Services, Second Report and
Order, ET Docket No. 04-295, RM-10865, 21 FCC Rcd 5360 ] 30 (2006).
Thus, while the law provides that some cost reimbursement could
potentially be authorized under CALEA for post-1995 equipment; such
circumstances would likely be rare.
B. 2. The CALEA Cost Recovery Regulations
In order to control any payment of costs under the provisions
described above, CALEA further directs the Attorney General to
``establish regulations necessary to effectuate timely and cost-
efficient payment to telecommunications carriers under this title.'' 47
U.S.C. 1008(e). CALEA contains specific directives for the Attorney
General to follow in adopting these regulations. Sections 1008(e)(2)(A)
through (C) of Title 47, United States Code provides:
(2) CONTENTS OF REGULATIONS--The Attorney General, after
consultation with the Commission, shall prescribe regulations for
purposes of determining reasonable costs under this title. Such
regulations shall seek to minimize the cost to the Federal
Government and shall--
(A) Permit recovery from the Federal Government of--
(i) The direct costs of developing the modifications described
in subsection (a), of providing the capabilities requested under
subsection (b)(2), or of providing the capacities requested under
section 104(e), but only to the extent that such costs have not been
recovered from any other governmental or non-governmental entity;
(ii) The costs of training personnel in the use of such
capabilities or capacities; and
(iii) The direct costs of deploying or installing such
capabilities or capacities;
(B) In the case of any modification that may be used for any
purpose other than lawfully authorized electronic surveillance by a
law enforcement agency of a government, permit recovery of only the
incremental cost of making the modification suitable for such law
enforcement purposes; and
(C) Maintain the confidentiality of trade secrets.
In addition, the regulations must include a requirement that claims
for cost reimbursement will ``contain[] or [be] accompanied by such
information as the Attorney General may require. * * *'' Id. Sec.
1008(e)(3).
The FBI Director is the authorized delegate of the Attorney General
under CALEA. 28 CFR 0.85(o). The FBI therefore adopted the ``CALEA Cost
Recovery Regulations'' as required by the statute. The Cost Recovery
Regulations were adopted by a final rule and published in the Federal
Register on March 20, 1997 at 62 FR13324, and are now codified at 28
CFR 100.9, et seq. The FBI relies on these regulations in appropriate
cases to govern the submission of claims and accompanying information
by telecommunications carriers. Information accompanying such claims is
used by the FBI in part to decide whether payment would be appropriate,
after considering the nature and amount of the claim, the benefit to
law enforcement, and other factors. The FBI allocates any funds
appropriated under CALEA ``in accordance with law enforcement
priorities'' as required by CALEA. 47 U.S.C. 1008(c).
The CALEA Cost Recovery Regulations, in general, consist of a set
of special accounting rules pertaining to costs eligible for
reimbursement under CALEA. These Regulations were adopted pursuant to
the requirements of CALEA, and meet the requirements set forth in
CALEA, 47 U.S.C. 1008(e)(2)(A)-(C). Each section of the Cost Recovery
Regulations addresses a different procedural requirement for carriers
seeking to submit a valid claim for reimbursement, including:
Definitions, Allowable Costs, Reasonable Costs, Directly Assignable
Costs, Directly Allocable Costs, Disallowed Costs, Cost Estimate
Submission, Request for Payment, Audit, Adjustments to Agreement
Estimate, Confidentiality of Trade Secrets/Proprietary Information, and
Alternative Dispute Resolution.
As discussed above, CALEA provides for submissions of claims by
carriers for cost reimbursement with regard to pre-1995 equipment, and
to a much more limited extent, certain post-1995 equipment under
circumstances where the FCC makes a determination that compliance is
``not reasonably achievable.'' If a carrier chooses to request
reimbursement of eligible costs under CALEA, then it must submit a
claim in accordance with the Regulations. Of course, a carrier is only
required to comply with the Cost Recovery Regulations to the extent
that it chooses to seek cost reimbursement. If, for whatever reason, an
eligible carrier chooses not to seek any reimbursement, but rather to
comply with CALEA and recover any costs through other means, then such
a carrier would not need to submit a claim under the Regulations. A
carrier submitting a claim must demonstrate in accordance with the Cost
Recovery Regulations that the expenses were incurred and that they are
potential eligible for reimbursement, among other things. The FBI then
uses the information provided to evaluate various factors in order to
determine whether or not to exercise its discretion to pay the claim.
In addition to payment of certain eligible costs in accordance with
the Regulations as described above, the FBI is further authorized at
its option to make certain payments of eligible costs under CALEA to
telecommunications carriers and equipment manufacturers pursuant to
``firm fixed-price agreements.'' See Public Law 106-246, Div. B, Title
II, July 13, 2000, 114 Stat. 542. The FBI made two agreements under the
firm-fixed price option, after determining that the prices were
reasonable, based on allowable costs, and supported by sufficient
documentation.
[[Page 31651]]
C. FBI's Experience With the Cost Recovery Regulations
After CALEA was enacted in 1994, the FBI, over several years,
successfully pursued a CALEA implementation strategy whereby it pursued
agreements with major telecommunications equipment manufacturers to
develop CALEA-compliant software upgrades for the majority of the types
of telecommunications equipment already deployed throughout the United
States. The agreements resulted in the manufacturing of the software
upgrades, along with a ``Nationwide Right-To-Use (RTU) Software
License'' granting any telecommunications carrier the right to install
and use the software free of charge. These agreements ensured the ready
availability of CALEA-compliant software upgrades for a significant
amount of pre-1995 telecommunications equipment. The FBI made such
agreements with AG Communications Systems, Lucent Technologies,
Motorola, Nortel Networks, and Siemens AG. When considered in total,
these agreements resulted in software upgrade solutions being made
available for the vast majority (over 85 percent) of pre-1995
telecommunications equipment. Because the software is available free of
charge, costs to telecommunications carriers were significantly
reduced. Consequently, the need for carriers to seek reimbursement for
costs associated with modifying pre-1995 equipment to comply with
CALEA, and also to comply with the Cost Recovery Regulations, was
likewise significantly reduced. The agreements did not entirely cover
all potentially reimbursable costs associated with each carrier's
compliance. In particular, some carriers incurred some costs in the
installation of the free-of-charge software solutions on pre-1995
equipment.
In the FBI's experience to date, it has received and processed a
total of 84 claims submitted in accordance with the CALEA Cost Recovery
Regulations. Many of these claims were submitted seeking FBI approval
for interim ``progress payments'' issued pursuant to the comprehensive
RTU agreements described above. Only three claims were submitted by
small entity carriers and these sought a total reimbursement of
$24,000.
D. Economic Impact of the Cost Recovery Regulations on Small Entities
Section 610 of the RFA requires each agency to plan for the
periodic review of any rules issued by the agency ``which have or will
have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small
entities.'' 5 U.S.C. 610(a). The FBI estimates that over 5,000
telecommunications carrier entities are engaged in providing
communications services and would be subject to CALEA's requirements.
We further estimate that about 90 percent of these companies would be
considered small businesses under criteria established by the Small
Business Administration (13 CFR 121.601). Both large and small
carriers, if they were to submit claims for cost recovery under CALEA,
must comply with the same Cost Recovery Regulations.
After considering all of the available facts, and its experience
since publication of the 1997 final CALEA Cost Recovery Regulations,
the FBI finds that the Cost Recovery Regulations likely do not have a
``significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small
entities.'' Several reasons support this conclusion.
First, as described above, only a limited class of
telecommunications equipment is even eligible for cost reimbursement
under CALEA, and most of that equipment was installed before 1995.
Since it has been over 10 years since CALEA's enactment, a significant
portion of this equipment has already been upgraded or replaced.
Second, and more significantly, however, the FBI's implementation
strategy after CALEA's enactment greatly reduced the costs associated
with CALEA compliance with regard to pre-1995 equipment. By contracting
with major equipment manufacturers to produce CALEA-compliant software
upgrades available free-of-charge to carriers, the costs incurred
through compliance with CALEA were greatly reduced for a majority of
carriers. This action necessarily reduced the potential number of
claims for cost recovery, and hence, the number of entities potentially
required to comply with the Cost Recovery Regulations. The fact that
this reduction occurred is evidenced by the relatively low number of
claims (84) that the FBI has processed under CALEA to date, and very
few claims (3) having been submitted by small entities to date. It is
very likely therefore that the Regulations have no effect at all on a
substantial number of small entities.
Moreover, even in cases where a small entity does submit a claim,
the Cost Recovery Regulations would not likely have any ``significant
economic impact'' on that entity. As described above, the Regulations
are procedural. They require an entity to support and document its
monetary claim with records evidencing the accuracy of the claimed
costs, and demonstrating that such costs are eligible for repayment
under CALEA. In general, an entity providing this information would be
required to reference and provide copies its own business records, and
to summarize information that is readily available from its own
business records. At most, it might be necessary for a carrier to seek
the assistance of an employee or contractor with financial expertise in
order to comply with the Regulations. This type financial accounting
activity occasioned by compliance with the Cost Recovery Regulations is
common in many businesses. This activity is very unlikely to create a
``significant economic impact'' on any small entity.
As stated above however, notwithstanding this conclusion the FBI
has proceeded to consider the factors specified for review in Section
610(b) of the RFA.
D. 1. The Continued Need for for the Regulations
As discussed herein, the purpose of the CALEA Cost Recovery
Regulations is to implement the requirements of CALEA related to costs.
See generally 47 U.S.C. 1008. CALEA specifically required the Attorney
General to establish regulations setting forth the procedures that
telecommunications carriers must follow in order to request and be
considered for reimbursement for the costs of modifications to pre-1995
equipment, and any other eligible costs. Id. at section 1008(e)(1). In
addition, in order to facilitate CALEA's implementation, Congress
authorized $500 million to be appropriated to reimburse the
telecommunications industry for certain eligible costs associated with
CALEA compliance.
The majority of the funds appropriated under CALEA, have been
applied in the ``Nationwide Right-To-Use (RTU) Software License''
strategy described above, which covered a majority of the eligible of
costs associated with upgrading pre-1995 telecommunications equipment
in order to comply with CALEA's requirements. As stated herein, these
arrangements allowed the FBI paid for the development of CALEA software
solutions for certain high priority switching platforms, and allowed
all carriers to receive CALEA-compliant software at no charge. The
arrangements did not, however, cover certain additional, and
potentially reimbursable, costs associated with each carrier's
compliance. In particular, some carriers would still incur costs in the
deployment and activation of the software solutions on pre-1995
equipment. The FBI continues to hold discussion with carriers to
determine
[[Page 31652]]
whether it is appropriate to consider agreeing to reimbursement of
these or other costs, subject to the level of remaining appropriated
funds and the limitations specified in CALEA. Despite some reductions
in the level of appropriated funding, these discussions create a
continuing need for the CALEA Cost Recovery Regulations. In addition,
as is also described above, the FBI might in its discretion, and within
the very limited circumstances of an FCC decision that compliance by a
particular entity is ``not reasonably achievable,'' agree to pay
certain eligible other costs. Payments in these situations might also
require the entity to submit a claim in accordance with the Cost
Recovery Regulations. For these reasons, there is a continued need for
the Regulations.
D. 2. The Nature of Complaints or Comments Received From the Public
Concerning the Regulations
The FBI has processed 84 claims for reimbursement to date. Each of
these claims was paid, and required only minor adjustments to the
amount claimed. No complaints have been received by the FBI regarding
the Cost Recovery Regulations. In those few cases where the FBI
required additional information beyond the information initially
submitted by the entity with the claim, the FBI's questions were
answered satisfactorily and reimbursement was made.
There have been no instances since the adoption of the Regulations
where an entity has expressed to the FBI any difficulties in its
compliance with the Regulations. In fact, in many cases, carriers
expressed satisfaction that they had received proper reimbursement for
the costs they had incurred. In addition, some carriers found the
Regulations to be useful, because the process allowed the entity to
proceed with CALEA-related modifications while after receiving
assurance from the FBI that eligible costs would be reimbursed. The
Regulations thus serve as a helpful tool that provide carriers and
other entities with guidance as to how to verify the eligibility of
compliance costs for reimbursement before such costs are actually
incurred.
Additionally, as described above, the FBI is also authorized to use
an alternate procedure authorized in, whereby the FBI may agree to a to
firm fixed-price arrangement with a carrier, manufacturer or other
entity. See Public Law 106-246, Div. B, Title II, July 13, 2000, 114
Stat. 542. This alternative provides flexibility for cases where a
firm-fixed price is appropriate, and has been used by the FBI in two
arrangements.
The FBI also considered whether any changes that could be made to
improve the cost-reimbursement process. Based on the flexibility
inherent in the Regulations themselves and the firm-fixed price
strategy, and also on the success of the Regulations to date, the FBI
determined that no changes are necessary.
D. 3. The Complexity of the Regulations
The CALEA Cost Recovery Regulations are roughly similar in
complexity to other existing cost-accounting regulations imposed by the
Federal government, including for example, the Federal Acquisition
Regulations. Based upon our review, the Regulations do not appear to be
excessively complex. In the FBI's experience, all of the entities
submitting claims in accordance with the Regulations have successfully
complied with minimal assistance from the FBI.
D. 4. The Extent to Which the Regulations Overlap, Duplicate, or
Conflict With Other Federal Rules and to the Extent Feasible With State
and Local Government Rules
No other Federal or State regulations overlap, duplicate or
conflict with the CALEA Cost Recovery Regulations. This is because the
FBI, as the authorized delegate of the Attorney General, is the only
Federal or State agency with the authority and responsibility for
implementing the cost recovery provisions of CALEA. As described above,
there is no analogue to CALEA under State law.
D. 5. The Length of Time Since the Regulations Have Been Evaluated or
the Degree to Which Technology, Economic Conditions, or Other Factors
Have Changed in the Area Affected by the Regulations
The Regulations were evaluated in some respect in 2000, when it was
determined that it would be beneficial to add flexibility by providing
the government with the discretion to make firm fixed-price agreements
in certain cases. The FBI has re-evaluated the Regulations pursuant to
this inquiry. Technology, economic conditions, and other factors have
changed in the telecommunications area affected by the Regulations
since the time when they were adopted. For example, the wide deployment
by carriers of new technologies, such as broadband internet access and
Voice-Over-Internet-Protocol, has led the FCC to adopt new rules for
CALEA-compliance. See In the Matter of Communications Assistance for
Law Enforcement Act and Broadband Access and Services, First Report and
Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 20 FCC Rcd 14989
(2005). These changes however have no impact on the requirements for
the Cost Recovery Regulations, since the Regulations are based on
accounting concepts which are essentially neutral as to technology,
economic conditions, or other factors. For example, the application of
the definition of ``reasonable costs'' found in 28 CFR 100.12(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 a
competitive business.'') would be the same without regard to the
technology utilized by the entity incurring the cost. This is the case
for all of the Cost Recovery Regulations. For these reasons the FBI has
determined that no changes are necessary at this time to the Cost
Recovery Regulations.
E. Conclusion
For the reasons discussed herein, the FBI concludes that the CALEA
Cost Recovery Regulations do not have a significant economic impact
upon a substantial number of small entities. The FBI further concludes
after consideration of the criteria set forth in the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, Section 610(b), Title 5, United States Code, that the
Regulations should be maintained in their current status, without
changes.
Dated: April 10, 2008.
Marybeth Paglino,
Unit Chief, Federal Bureau of Investigation, CALEA Implementation Unit.
[FR Doc. E8-12399 Filed 6-2-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-02-P