WPCa& 2IBETZE#|I ) yO-#C\  P6Q/P#HP LaserJet 5Si/5Si MXipt RM 89HPLA5SMX.WRSx  @,,,$X@ yO-#C\  P6Q/P#2({XCourier New (TT)Times New Roman (TT)"5^*7DSS77S^*7*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx7Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf7.7NS7JSJSJ7SS..S.SSSS7A.SSxSSJP!PZ*7777C7SSxJxJxJxJxJooJfJfJfJfJ7.7.7.7.xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxJxSxSxSxSxS]SxSxJxJoJoJfJfJfJxSxSxSxSxSCS7S777SAxSx]AN:*KS7JSSSSS.4}}S2~~S}277JJS77SS7J72N7[[^C`^SS`*7DSS77S^*7*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx7Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf7.7NS7JSJSJ7SS..S.SSSS7A.SSxSSJP!PZv7SJSS7]777JJ:S7A7xx*7SSSS!S7~.S^7~SC[227`K*724S}}}Jxxxxxxoffff7777xxxxxxx^xxxxxx]SJJJJJJoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS[SSSSSSS?xxxX?Xx6X@DQX@y.C8*X/C\  P6QP (h-(# raph Numbersa5Right ParRight-Aligneragraph Numbers _o` `  2 R- Zo #|I Times New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)Times New Roman (Italic) (TT)"5^*7DSS77S^*7*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx7Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf7.7NS7JSJSJ7SS..S.SSSS7A.SSxSSJP!PZ*7777C7SSxJxJxJxJxJooJfJfJfJfJ7.7.7.7.xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxJxSxSxSxSxS]SxSxJxJoJoJfJfJfJxSxSxSxSxSCS7S777SAxSx]AN:*KS7JSSSSS.4}}S2~~S}277JJS77SS7J72N7[[^C`^SS`*7DSS77S^*7*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx7Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf7.7NS7JSJSJ7SS..S.SSSS7A.SSxSSJP!PZv7SJSS7]777JJ:S7A7xx*7SSSS!S7~.S^7~SC[227`K*724S}}}Jxxxxxxoffff7777xxxxxxx^xxxxxx]SJJJJJJoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS[SSSSSSSHP LaserJet 5Si/5Si MXipt RM 89HPLA5SMX.WRSC\  P6Q,,,$P2  v p kq  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)a8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  2k y v t a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# 2:  w a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# 2  p8a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# 2j:a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . 2#xa6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   2QP3a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)Documentg2"e!!l"PleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:gB?iBMACNormal<;     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<    #:}D4P XP#T I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)T,0*ÍÍ,*Í ., US!!!! ! #:}D4P XP#     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<    #:}D4P XP#,0*ÍÍ,*Í ., US!!!! ! #:}D4P XP#Footnote=Íčfootnote tex#>'p #FxX  Pg9CXP#header?Ax 4 <D  #FxX  Pg9CXP# 2YI@DA~EBiFC^Greference@;#FxX  Pg9CXP#itemizeX1A&V 8F ` hp xr#FxX  Pg9CXP#header2BI ` hp x`    #FxX  Pg9CXP# heading 3CF` hp x #FxX  Pg9CXP# 2MDOIE JFKGrLfooter!D!!#d\  PCP#CitatorFormat Secretary's Citator Output FileEW r5-#d6X@`7Ͽ@# XX  X B r5-S  BFormat DownloadFormat Downloaded DocumentFiޛ r5- XX    \ #d6X@`7Ͽ@#a2AgendaG2OHLMIrMJPNKOa1AgendaAgenda ItemsH7D yP ) I. a3AgendaIHeadingChapter HeadingJJ d  ) I. ׃  Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK>a݅@  I.   X(# 2{RLOMdjPNPOQSubheadingSubheadingL0\ E A.  HIGHLIGHT 1Italics and BoldldeddM+. DRAFT ONHeader A Text = DRAFT and DateN X =8` (#FDRAFTă r  ` (#=D3 1, 43 12pt (Z)(PC-8))T2Dă  ӟDRAFT OFFTurn Draft Style offO@@    2qWP1RQ1SR1US1@VLETTER LANDLetter Landscape - 11 x 8.5P 3'3'Standard'3'3StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11 ;   LEGAL LANDLegal Landscape - 14 x 8.5Qf 3'3'Standard'A'AStandardZ K e6VE L"nu;   LETTER PORTLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11RL 3'3'Standard3'3'StandardZ K e6VE L"nU9   LEGAL PORTLegal Portrait - 8.5 x 14S 3'3'StandardA'A'StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 119   2`YTnWUXVdXWjXTITLETitle of a DocumentTK\ * ăBLOCK QUOTESmall, single-spaced, indentedUN X HIGHLIGHT 2Large and Bold LargeVB*d. HIGHLIGHT 3Large, Italicized and UnderscoredW V -q2[_XYYE[Z-\[8#^LETTERHEADLetterhead - date/marginsXu H XX  3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"n3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"nE9    * 3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"n3' II"n"Tv3'StandarddZ K e VE L"nU9 Ѓ   INVOICE FEETFee Amount for Math InvoiceY ,, $0$0  MEMORANDUMMemo Page FormatZD.   ! M E M O R A N D U M ă r  y<N dddy   INVOICE EXPSEExpense Subtotals for Math Invoice[:A ,p, $0$002c\8_]`^Xfb_[bINVOICE TOTTotals Invoice for Math Macro\z 4p, $0$00INVOICE HEADRHeading Portion of Math Invoice]+C`*   4X 99L$0 **(  ӧ XX NORMALReturn to Normal Typestyle^SMALLSmall Typestyle_2d`[Kca[cb[dc[\dFINEFine Typestyle`LARGELarge TypestyleaEXTRA LARGEExtra Large TypestylebVERY LARGEVery Large Typestylec2hddeXlfffgdgENVELOPEStandard Business Envelope with Headerd+w ,,EnvelopeZ K e VE L"n,,EnvelopeLarge, Italicized and Under;    ,, 88+  `   1edfStyle 14Swiss 8 Pt Without Marginsf$$D Co> PfQ  )a [ PfQO Style 12Dutch Italics 11.5g$$F )^ `> XifQ  )a [ PfQO 2oh6hilmjnkoStyle 11Initial Codes for Advanced IIhJ )a [ PfQK  dddn  #  [ X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 ! )^ `> XifQ ` Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   x )^ `> XifQ Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   j-n )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  jBX )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 3oDutch Roman 11.5 with Margins/Tabsi )a [ PfQO  ddn  # c0*b, oT9 !Style 4 PSwiss 8 Point with MarginsjDq Co> PfQ  dddd  #  Style 1.5Dutch Roman 11.5 Fontk4h )a [ PfQO  dddn 27rl|omWpnpoqStyle 2Dutch Italic 11.5l$ )^ `> XifQ Style 5Dutch Bold 18 Pointm$RH$L T~> pfQ_  )a [ PfQO Style 7Swiss 11.5n$$V )ao> PfQ ]  )a [ PfQO Style 6Dutch Roman 14 Pointo$$N w [ PfQ   )a [ PfQO 2pirqpwrw|s|Style 10oInitial Codes for Advancedp U )a [ PfQK  dddn  ##  [[ b, oT9 !b, oT9 !n )^ `> XifQ ` Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   f )^ `> XifQ Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   Q" )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  QN~ )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 8PfInitial Codes for Beginninggqi )a [ PfQK  dddn  # X` hp x (#%'b, oT9  [ &e )^ `> XifQ ` Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   d )^ `> XifQ Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   jH )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  j )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 9Initial Codes for Intermediater )a [ PfQK  dddn  # X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 Њ [ e )^ `> XifQ ` Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   3 )^ `> XifQ Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   jf )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc.`+ >Page  jX )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 UpdateInitial Codes for Update Modules )a [ PfQK  dddn  #  [ X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 !n )^ `> XifQ ` Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide   f )^ `> XifQ Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide   Q" )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`7 CPage  jN~ )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 2ytlĆue0v wfootnote textftfootnote reference#u MACDocumentv4     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<     #:}D4P XP# T I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)T,0*ÍÍ,*Í ., US!!!! ! #:}D4P XP##u\4 PXP#     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<     #:}D4P XP# ,0*ÍÍ,*Í ., US!!!! ! #:}D4P XP##:}D4PXP#para numnumbered indented paragraphsw' Y- 1.(i) 1) 1.#Xw P7[hXP# 1. 1.Ҳ2x}y(z{Ca1Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfx$ a2Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfy/` ` ` a3Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfz:` ` `  a4Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf{E` ` `  2|}~p/a5Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf|P  ` ` ` hhh a6Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf}[   a7Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf~f  a8Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfq 2v+vvvheading 4heading 4 heading 5heading 5 heading 6heading 6 heading 7heading 7 2v5lvrheading 8heading 8 Default Paragraph FoDefault Paragraph Font endnote textendnote text endnote referenceendnote reference 21Omtoc 1toc 1` hp x (#(#`(#`` hp x (#toc 2toc 2` hp x (#` (#`` (#`` hp x (#toc 3toc 3` hp x (#` (#` (#` hp x (#toc 4toc 4` hp x (# (# (#` hp x (#2ۨvtoc 5toc 5` hp x (#h(#h(#` hp x (#toc 6toc 6` hp x (#(# (# ` hp x (#toc 7toc 7 toc 8toc 8` hp x (#(# (# ` hp x (#2Uݯ7toc 9toc 9` hp x (#(#`(#`` hp x (#index 1index 1` hp x (#` (#` (#` hp x (#index 2index 2` hp x (#` (#`` (#`` hp x (#toa headingtoa heading` hp x (#(#(#` hp x (#2'vlZidùcaptioncaption _Equation Caption_Equation Caption 1, 2, 3,?@65NumbersO@/"=(1*1÷$t ?.E1.A, B,t ?@65Uppercase Letters1 ?*1÷$t ?.E .2Yܺ\footnote refK&7>footnote referenceGw) "7>NGI "+WXpage numberK&7>page number"Gw* "7>NGI "(YZDefault ParaK&7>Default Paragraph Fontw+ "7>NGI "([(\endnote refeK&7>endnote referenceGw- "7>NGI "+_+`2ڽannotation rK&7>annotation referenceGw. "7>NGI "OaOb#Xv P7XP##Xv P7XP#annotation tK&7>annotation textGw/ "7>NGI "2c(d2G2*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "8ij@  3G3*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "Akl@` ` `  ` ` ` 2<4G4*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "Jmn` ` ` @  ` ` ` 5G5*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "Sop` ` `  @  6G6*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "\qr` ` `  @hhh hhh 7G7*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "est` ` `  hhh@ hhh 2p|8G8*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "nuv` ` `  hhh@  9G9*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "wwx` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp 10G0*(Q&7tDocument Style Gl0 "7t GI "צGH` ` ` 11G1*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "ק4I$J     2j12G2*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "ר*KL    13G3*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "ש'MN   14G4*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "ת&OP   15G5*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "׫&QR  . 2kJT16G6*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "׬&ST  . 17G7*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "׭&UV  . 18G8*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "׮&WX  . 19G9*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "ׯ8YZ@  2?820G:*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "װA[\@` ` `  ` ` ` 21G;*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "ױJ]^` ` ` @  ` ` ` 22G<*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "ײS_`` ` `  @  23G=*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "׳\ab` ` `  @hhh hhh 2mq024G>*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "״ecd` ` `  hhh@ hhh 25G?*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "׵nef` ` `  hhh@  26G@*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "׶wgh` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp 27wSg K6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EJmn` ` @  ` `  2L28wSg L6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg ESop` `  @  29wSg M6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E\qr` `  @hh# hhh 30wSg N6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Eest` `  hh#@( hh# 31wSg O6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Enuv` `  hh#(@- ( 2Hp32wSg P6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ewwx` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 33wSg R6w Document Style=(H8g Rܺ*HںwSg E{|` ` ` 34wSg S6w Technical Document Styleg Sܺ*HںwSg E4}$~     35wSg T6w Technical Document Styleg Tܺ*HںwSg E*    2z(36wSg U6w Technical Document Styleg Uܺ*HںwSg E'   37wSg V6w Technical Document Styleg Vܺ*HںwSg E&   38wSg W6w Technical Document Styleg Wܺ*HںwSg E&  . 39wSg X6w Technical Document Styleg Xܺ*HںwSg E&  . 2d{40wSg Y6w Technical Document Styleg Yܺ*HںwSg E&  . 41wSg Z6w Technical Document Styleg Zܺ*HںwSg E&  . 42wSg [6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E8@   43wSg \6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EA@` `  ` ` ` 2HO44wSg ]6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EJ` ` @  ` `  45wSg ^6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg ES` `  @  46wSg _6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E\` `  @hh# hhh 47wSg `6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ee` `  hh#@( hh# 27@48wSg a6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg En` `  hh#(@- ( 49wSg b6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ew` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 50wSg c6w Document Style=(H8g cܺ*HںwSg EF *  ׃  51wSg d6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EJ` ` @  ` `  2Si52wSg e6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg ES` `  @  53wSg f6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E\` `  @hh# hhh 54wSg g6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ee` `  hh#@( hh# 55wSg h6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg En` `  hh#(@- ( 2pVv56wSg i6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ew` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 57wSg j6w Document Style=(H8g jܺ*HںwSg E` ` ` 58wSg k6w Technical Document Styleg kܺ*HںwSg E4$     59wSg l6w Technical Document Styleg lܺ*HںwSg E*    2wDm60wSg m6w Technical Document Styleg mܺ*HںwSg E'   61wSg n6w Technical Document Styleg nܺ*HںwSg E&   62wSg o6w Technical Document Styleg oܺ*HںwSg E&  . 63wSg p6w Technical Document Styleg pܺ*HںwSg E&  . 2.E64wSg q6w Technical Document Styleg qܺ*HںwSg E&  . 65wSg r6w Technical Document Styleg rܺ*HںwSg E&  . 66wSg s6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E8@   67wSg t6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EA@` `  ` ` ` 2c68wSg u6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EJ` ` @  ` `  69wSg v6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg ES` `  @  70wSg w6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E\` `  @hh# hhh 71wSg x6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ee` `  hh#@( hh# 2 ]72wSg y6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg En` `  hh#(@- ( 73wSg z6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ew` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 74wSg {6w Document Style=(H8g {ܺ*HںwSg EF *  ׃  75wSg |6w Document Style=(H8g |ܺ*HںwSg E*   2"qe(e76wSg }6w Document Style=(H8g }ܺ*HںwSg E0    77wSg ~6w Document Style=(H8g ~ܺ*HںwSg E  . 78wSg 6w Document Style=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E  79wSg 6w Document Style=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E  2Pp$p80wSg 6w Document Style=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E` ` ` 81wSg 6w Document Style=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E` ` ` 82wSg 6w Technical Document Styleg ܺ*HںwSg E4$     83wSg 6w Technical Document Styleg ܺ*HںwSg E*    2084wSg 6w Technical Document Styleg ܺ*HںwSg E'   85wSg 6w Technical Document Styleg ܺ*HںwSg E&   86wSg 6w Technical Document Styleg ܺ*HںwSg E&  . 87wSg 6w Technical Document Styleg ܺ*HںwSg E&  . 2l88wSg 6w Technical Document Styleg ܺ*HںwSg E&  . 89wSg 6w Technical Document Styleg ܺ*HںwSg E&  . 90wSg 6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E8@   91wSg 6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EA@` `  ` ` ` 2PW92wSg 6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EJ` ` @  ` `  93wSg 6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg ES` `  @  94wSg 6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E\` `  @hh# hhh 95wSg 6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ee` `  hh#@( hh# 2H96wSg 6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg En` `  hh#(@- ( 97wSg 6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ew` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 98wSg 6w Default Paragraph Font8g ܺ*HںwSg E;;#x6X@7X@##b6X@C@#"5^*7]SS.77S_*7*.SSSSSSSSSS77___SxoxxofASoxfx]oxxxxo7.7aS7S]J]J7S].7].]S]]JA7]SxSSJB%BV*7777C7S]xSxSxSxSxSxxJoJoJoJoJA.A.A.A.x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxJxJoJoJoJSSS]]C]A]A7A]SSx]AN:*ZS7SSSSSS27}}S2||S}277SSS77SS7S72N7[[_C`_SS`*7]SS.77S_*7*.SSSSSSSSSS77___SxoxxofASoxfx]oxxxxo7.7aS7S]J]J7S].7].]S]]JA7]SxSSJB%BVv7SSSS7]777SS:S7A7xx*7SSSS%S7|2S_7|SC[227`Z*727S}}}SxxxxxxxooooAAAAxx_xxxxxf]SSSSSSxJJJJJ....S]SSSSS[S]]]]S]2  "5^2BQdd$BBdq2B28dddddddddd88qqqYzoBNzoozzB8B^dBYdYdYBdd88d8ddddBN8ddddY`(`l2BBBBPBddYYYYYYzYzYzYzYB8B8B8B8ddddddddddYdddddoddYYYYzYzYzYdddddPdBdBBBdNdoNNF2ZdBYddddd7>d<d<BBYYdBBddBYBdYzzzzBBBBqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddnddddddd"5^2BoddȦ8BBdr2B28ddddddddddBBrrrdzNdzoȐB8BtdBdoYoYBdo8Bo8odooYNBodddYO,Oh2BBBBPBdodddddȐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddoddddzodddYYYYYdddooPoNoNBNoddȐoNNF2ldBdddddd%7777777777>>>1eOIIOC=OO%+OCbOO=OI=COOhOOC%%47%17171%777U7777%+77O77155;%%%%,%77O1O1O1O1O1bII1C1C1C1C1%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O1O7O7O7O7O7=7O7O1O1I1I1C1C1C1O7O7O7O7O7,7%7%%%7+O7bO=+N&27%177777"RR7!SS7R!%%117n%%77ln%1n%!N%<<>,?>77?%-77[U%%7>%7777777777>>>1eOIIOC=OO%+OCbOO=OI=COOhOOC%%47%17171%777U7777%+77O77155;N%71n77%n=%b%%11&7n%l+%OO%77777%S7>%S7,OOOOOO=7111111I111117777777<7777777"5^!)22SN!!28!2222222222888,\HCCH=8HH!'H=YHH8HC8=HH^HH=!!/2!,2,2,!222N2222!'22H22,006!!!!(!22H,H,H,H,H,YCC,=,=,=,=,!!!!H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H2H2H2H282H2H,H,C,C,=,=,=,H2H2H2H2H2(2!2!!!2'H2YH8'N#-2!,22222KK2LL2K!!,,2d!!22bd!,d!N!778(98229!)22SN!!28!2222222222888,\HCCH=8HH!'H=YHH8HC8=HH^HH=!!/2!,2,2,!222N2222!'22H22,006G!2,d22!d8!Y!!,,#2d!b'!HH!22222!L28!L2(7!9-!2KKK,HHHHHHYC====!!!!HHHHHHH8HHHHHH82,,,,,,C,,,,,222222272222222"U*^*7DSS77S^*7*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx7Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf7.7NS7`YY`QJ``,4`Qv``J`YJQ``~``QP!PZ*7777C7SCx`x`x`x`x`voYfQfQfQfQ7,7,7,7,x`x`x`x`x`x`x`x`x`x`x`x`x`x`x`x`]Jx`x`x`oYoYfQfQfQx`x`x`x`x`C57,7,7,A4x`v]J5]555f5x55x5x55x55x555f5N:*KS7JSSSSS.4}}S2~~S}277JJS77SS7J72N7[[^C`^SS35555555555555*7DSS77S^*7*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx7Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf7.7NS7JSJSJ7SS..S.SSSS7A.SSxSSJP!PZv7SJSS7]777JJ:S7A7xx*7SSSS!S7~.S^7~SC[227`K*724S}}}Jxxxxxxoffff7777xxxxxxx^xxxxxx]SJJJJJJoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS[SSSSSSS"5^*7FSS$77Sp*7*.SSSSSSSSSS77pppSffoxffxx7Jo]oxfxfS]xff]]A.AFS7SSJSJ.SS..J.xSSSSAA.SJoJJAC.CZ*7777C7SSfSfSfSfSfSooJfJfJfJfJ7.7.7.7.oSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxS]JfSxSxSxS]JxSfSfSfSfSoJoJfJfJfJxSxSxSxSxSCS7S777SJxSoSAN:*WSASSSSSS.4}}S2~~S}277]]S77SS7]72N7[[pC`pSS`*7FSS$77Sp*7*.SSSSSSSSSS77pppSffoxffxx7Jo]oxfxfS]xff]]A.AFS7SSJSJ.SS..J.xSSSSAA.SJoJJAC.CZv7S]SS7S777]]:S7A7o]*ASSSS.S7~.Sp7~SC[227`W*724S}}}Sffffffoffff7777xoxxxxxpxxxxx]fSSSSSSSoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS[SSSSSJS2-&  ^!R"5^.=M\\'==\|.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==|||\ppzpp=Qzfzpp\fppffG3GM\=\\Q\Q3\\33Q3\\\\GG3\QzQQGI2Ic.====I=\\p\p\p\p\p\zzQpQpQpQpQ=3=3=3=3z\\\\\\\\\fQp\\\\fQ\p\p\p\p\zQzQpQpQpQ\\\\\I\=\===\Q\z\GN@.`\G\\\\\\39\7\7==ff\==\\=f=7N=dd|Ii|\\i.=M\\'==\|.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==|||\ppzpp=Qzfzpp\fppffG3GM\=\\Q\Q3\\33Q3\\\\GG3\QzQQGI2Ic=\f\\=\===ff@\=G=zf.G\\\\2\=3\|=\Id77=i`.=79\\ppppppzpppp====z|fp\\\\\\\zQQQQQ3333\\\\\\\d\\\\\Q\"5^!,6CCoh,,CK!,!%CCCCCCCCCC%%KKK;{`YY`QJ``,4`Qv``J`YJQ``~``Q,%,?C,;C;C;,CC%%C%hCCCC,4%CC`CC;@@H!,,,,5,CC`;`;`;`;`;vYY;Q;Q;Q;Q;,%,%,%,%`C`C`C`C`C`C`C`C`C`C`;`C`C`C`C`CJC`C`;`;Y;Y;Q;Q;Q;`C`C`C`C`C5C,C,,,C4`Cv`J4N/! {Ot -  MԍxSee, e.g., AirTouch Reply Comments at 8 (citing CTIA Comments at 2); BellSouth Reply Comments at 2; CDT Reply Comments at 6; Ameritech Reply Comments at 45. Telecommunications carriers state that electronic surveillance will not come to a "standstill" if carriers are granted an extension of CALEA's compliance date because carriers will be able to "continue to provide law enforcement with the ability to intercept telephone calls from targeted  Sp-numbers, and the grant of an extension of time will not change that fact."?pF {OV-ԍxAmeritech Reply Comments at 5; see also CDT Reply Comments at 6; TIA Reply Comments at 11. As explained by CTIA, "[a]ll carriers currently provide technical assistance to law enforcement to conduct lawfully authorized wiretaps, whether digital or analogue (sic), wireless or wireline. The vast majority of these wiretaps  S -are carried out without impediment."D@  yOp-ԍxCTIA Comments at 2.D  S -x21. Finally, the FBI argues that an extension is unnecessary because it is already undertaking extensive discussions with the industry regarding the negotiation of forbearance agreements between  SX-the FBI and "individual manufacturers and their customers."DAXh  yO`-ԍxFBI Comments at 17.D The FBI asserts that it will assure manufacturers and carriers that they will not be subject to federal enforcement actions under section 108 of CALEA in return for the manufacturers' and carriers' assurance that they will develop and use  S-equipment meeting the assistance capability requirements.Bd   {Ox-  ԍxId. In its initial comments, the FBI provided a sample forbearance agreement, which stated that the  x<capability requirements include functions defined in standard JSTD025 and additional "punch list" capabilities.  xFBI Comments, Attachment B. The "punch list" refers to the FBIproposed inclusion of additional capabilities within  xthe JSTD025 standard. The additional capabilities the FBI seeks to include are: (1) Content of conference calls;  x(2) Party hold, party join, party drop; (3) Access to subjectinitiated dialing and signaling; (4) Notification message  xL(inband and outofband signaling); (5) Timing to correlate call data and call content; (6) Surveillance status  xmessage; (7) Feature status message; (8) Continuity check; (9) Standardized delivery interface; (10) Post cutthrough  {O"- xYdialing and signaling; and (11) Separated delivery. See FBI Petition at 25, and Appendix C; see also FBI Comments,  xAttachment A. However, in its reply comments, the FBI states that, pending the Commission's issuance of a final  xrule, it will not require manufacturers and carriers to provide the punch list capabilities as a condition to being  xoffered enforcement forbearance while JSTD025 is still in effect as a safe harbor. FBI Reply Comments at 11.  The FBI contends that these agreements" $B,''"""  S-will prevent the Commission from being "deluged" with extension petitions,DC yOh-ԍxFBI Comments at 17.D and asserts that the use of its forbearance agreements will ensure a solution fair to carriers, acceptable to law enforcement, and  S-consistent with the language and structure of CALEA.BDX {O-ԍ xId. at 19.Bpp  S`-x22. Many industry commenters, however, disagree that the negotiation of forbearance agreements with the FBI by each carrier is a viable alternative to an industrywide extension of  S-CALEA's compliance date.E" {O -  zԍxSee, e.g., AirTouch Reply Comments at 6; BellSouth Reply Comments at 56; AT&T Reply Comments  x<at 4; CDT Reply Comments at 3; Ameritech Reply Comments at 5; SBC Reply Comments at 6; USTA Reply  xxComments at 4; US West Reply Comments at 5; GTE Reply Comments at 6; AirTouch Reply Comments at 6; PrimeCo Reply Comments at 5. For example, SBC argues that the forbearance agreements would impose on industry the FBI's own preferred network design and configuration of services, and, therefore, would not provide much relief to carriers who do not agree with the inclusion of these disputed  S-standards within CALEA.F {O -ԍxSee SBC Reply Comments at 6; see also USTA Reply Comments at 4; US West Reply Comments at 5.ĭ Moreover, commenters state that this approach would be administratively  Sp-unworkable because each forbearance agreement would have to be separately negotiated.Gpf  {Ov-ԍxSBC Reply Comments at 6; see also USTA Reply Comments at 4; US West Reply Comments at 5.ĩ GTE points out that forbearance agreements would not assist the industry in determining the standard for CALEA  S -compliance.IH  yO-ԍxGTE Reply Comments at 6.I Furthermore, AirTouch argues that the use of forbearance agreements is impractical because, as even the FBI concedes, a federal agreement does not protect carriers from enforcement actions filed by state or local law enforcement agencies in the manner that a Commission order  S -would.I  {O-  ԍ xSee AirTouch Reply Comments at 6 (citing FBI Comments at 17 n.3); see also PrimeCo Reply Comments at 5. AirTouch also contends that the use of forbearance agreements is inconsistent with CALEA because Congress expressly gave the Commission, not the FBI, the authority to grant extensions and to  SX-determine the scope of CALEA.{JX yO-  ԍxAirTouch Reply Comments at 6. AirTouch believes that, as part of its forbearance agreement procedure,  xthe FBI is attempting to convince manufacturers to provide capabilities which carriers do not agree are required by  xhCALEA, thereby bypassing the congressional determination that ultimate control over the scope of CALEA rests in  {O2!- xhthe Commission. Id. at 67 n.23; see also CDT Reply Comments at 4; Ameritech Reply Comments at 5; PrimeCo Reply Comments at 7; US West Reply Comments at 5.{ Noting that Congress intended public accountability with regard to the standardssetting process to be the hallmark of CALEA, AirTouch further argues that the use of"0J,''""J"  S-forbearance agreements will not permit public accountability. K$ {Oh-  ԍ xAirTouch Reply Comments at 7 (citing H. Rep. at 14, 20, and 2728 (1994)). See also AT&T Reply  {O2- xComments at 4 (citing H. Rep. No. 103837 at 19, reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3489, 3507 (stating that "[Section  xw107(b)] is also intended to add openness and accountability to the process of finding solutions to intercept problems. Any FCC decision on a standard for compliance with this bill must be made publicly."). pp  S-x23. Decision. Having reviewed all of the comments concerning the issue of CALEA's impending deadline, we find that compliance with the assistance capability requirements of section 103 of the Act is not reasonably achievable for any telecommunications carrier through the application of  S8-technology that will be available within the compliance period.UL8 {O -ԍxSee 47 U.S.C.  1006(c)(2).U Accordingly, pursuant to our authority under section 107(c)(3)(A) of the Act, and in the interest of administrative efficiency, we grant an extension of CALEA's October 25, 1998, compliance date for all telecommunications carriers proposing to install or deploy, or having installed or deployed, any equipment, facility or service prior to the effective date of section 103, for that part of the carrier's business on which the new equipment,  Sp-facility or service is used, until June 30, 2000.YMpF {OV-ԍxSee 47 U.S.C.  1006(c)(1)(4).Y  S -x24. The record before us indicates that compliance with the assistance capability requirements of section 103 of the Act is not reasonably achievable for any telecommunications carrier through the application of technology that will be available within the compliance period. Even Bell Emergis, for example, which states that it is close to completing a networkbased CALEAcompliant product, does not state that it will be able to deliver CALEAcompliant equipment by October 25, 1998, alluding to  SX-"serious challenges" that remain in meeting the deadline.N X yO-  ԍxBell Emergis Comments at 4. It is also important to note that the Bell Emergis solution, as pointed out by  xthe FBI in its Petition for Rulemaking, will not work with "older" (analog, electromechanical) switching systems.  xFBI/DOJ Petition at 11 (stating that ". . . the Bell Emergis solution would operate . . . for approximately 90% of the access lines nationwide."). We note that some vendors are developing "outofswitch" technologies that will provide a portion of CALEA's requirements. We also note, however, that these solutions depend critically on the switch to provide section 103 capability requirements. If the switch itself has not been upgradedas manufacturers have stated will not be possible before the deadlineto provide the required information or interconnect with the outofswitch  S-vendor's equipment, no CALEA capabilities can be provided.QO  {O-ԍxADC July 6 ex parte.Q In addition we note that none of these systems have been fully tested, either for their ability to meet the section 103 requirements or for their  S@-ability to interconnect to carrier networks.RPX@R  yO2#-  ԍxThe Bell Emergis solution is still being tested by the FBI, and the ADC technology has not yet been tested.  xDespite significant industry interest in both potential solutions, neither, to our knowledge, has been fully tested by a telecommunications carrier.R  S-x25. Accordingly, we rest our conclusion that an extension is warranted under section 107(c)(2)"rP,''""4" upon our finding that no CALEAcompliant technology is currently available or will be available in  S-time for carriers to meet the compliance deadline.UQ {O@-ԍxBut see para. 46 infra. U The FBI alleges, and a handful of carriers seem to agree, that one of the reasons why CALEAcompliant technology is not available is because manufacturers were reluctant to develop any CALEA technology until clear standards had emerged. On this basis, the FBI argues that the petitions for extension actually hinge upon an absence of standards, which under section 107(a)(3)(B) does not excuse noncompliance with section 103. Most carriers, however, have grounded their requests for an extension not on the absence of an industry  S-standard, but on the absence of technology.URZ {O -ԍxSee 47 U.S.C.  1006(c)(2).U These are separable issues. On the one hand, it is possible that, in the absence of an industry standard, CALEAcompliant technology could be developed. Congress implicitly recognized this possibility in enacting section 107(a), and concluded in section 107(a)(3)(B), as the FBI points out, that the absence of standards does not relieve an individual carrier of the obligation to comply with CALEA. We agree with the FBI that the lack of standards does not relieve carriers of their obligation to comply with CALEA's capability requirements. We emphasize, however, that we are not granting an extension based on the simple assertion that standards do not exist. Rather, our conclusion rests on the determination that, although an industry standard has been developed, there is no technology available that will enable carriers to implement that standard. We are also persuaded by the fact that there are no fully developed alternative technologies or solutions that will be available by October 25, 1998, and that would allow carriers to meet their  S0-section 103 obligations. Congress enacted section 107(c)(2) to address just such a circumstance. We therefore find that the FBI's reliance on section 107(a)(3)(B) is misplaced, and instead focus our inquiry on the need for an extension on the primary issue specified in the plain language of section 107(c)(2): Is technology currently available that will allow carriers to comply with CALEA by the October 25, 1998, compliance deadline? We have, as discussed above, concluded on the record before us that such technology is not currently available, and this conclusion confers upon us the authority to grant relief under section 107(c)(2). For these reasons, we reject the FBI's argument.  S-x26. We also reject, with the support of several commenters, the FBI's assertion that an extension of the compliance date would interfere with law enforcement's ability to protect the public  S-from criminal activity.S {O,-  MԍxSee, e.g., AirTouch Reply Comments at 8 (citing CTIA Comments at 2); BellSouth Reply Comments at 2; CDT Reply Comments at 6; Ameritech Reply Comments at 45. We agree with AirTouch that the grant of an industrywide extension will not  Sx-mean that electronic surveillance will come to a standstill.TxF {O^ -  ԍxId. CDT points out that, when the numbers of law enforcement wiretaps and national security wiretaps  xconducted during 1997 are combined, the number of wiretaps authorized during 1997 are at least 20% higher than  xthose authorized in 1994. CDT Reply Comments at 6. CDT contends that these statistics contradict the FBI's claim  {O"- xthat new technologies are interfering with surveillance. Id. TIA also states, that in 1997, federal and state courts  x"granted a record 1,186 Title III wiretap orders, permitting law enforcement agents to transparently intercept  x: approximately two million conversations." TIA Reply Comments at 11 (citing to Administrative Office of the United  {O%- xYStates Courts, Annual Report of the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts on Applications  {O%- xYfor Orders Authorizing or Approving the Interception of Wire, Oral, or Electronic Communications 1997, released in April, 1998.).  All carriers currently provide technical"xT,''""" assistance to law enforcement to conduct lawfully authorized wiretaps, and nothing in this Order should be construed as relieving carriers of their preCALEA responsibilities to assist law enforcement authorities in conducting authorized surveillance. In fact, we note that CALEA was designed to allow law enforcement to continue its surveillance activities in the face of new digital technologies and services. However, we recognize that no matter what action we take today, hardware and software will not be available in time to meet the October 25, 1998, deadline. Given that fact, it is our belief that nothing we do in the instant Order will delay the ultimate deployment of CALEAcompliant equipment; rather, this extension should serve as a recognition that more time is needed to develop technologies that will allow the industry to meet CALEA's section 103 requirements.  Sp-x27. Finally, we reject the FBI's argument that its proposed forbearance agreements with carriers eliminate the need for an industrywide extension of the compliance deadline. First, such agreements do not preclude the possibility that individual state or local law enforcement authorities may begin enforcement proceedings against their local carrier. Thus, a carrier could still be subject to  S -potential enforcement action even though it had come to an agreement with the FBI/DOJ.U  {O8-ԍxSee PrimeCo Reply Comments at 56 (citing FBI Comments at 17 n.3); Airtouch Reply Comments at 6. Forbearance agreements thus represent only a partial solution, and it is unclear how many carriers and manufacturers would be willing to risk such exposure. Second, forbearance agreements are not the equivalent of extensions since they cannot legally extend the compliance deadline. Rather, a forbearance agreement represents an agreement on the part of DOJ/FBI that they will not bring section  S-108 enforcement actions if a carrier meets certain conditions.!V"Z {O-  ԍxSee FBI Comments at 1719. But see CDT Reply Comments at 45 "[t]he government's attempt to use its  xenforcement authority under section 108, not only to extend the deadline for compliance but as a lever over what  xZis within and beyond the scope of CALEA, completely undermines the Act's carefully crafted balance among the  yO\-roles of industry, law enforcement, the Commission, the courts, and the public." ! The use of such agreements would in essence allow the FBI to extend the compliance date at will, which would be inconsistent with the  S-Act.dWD yO-  ԍxCALEA expressly gives authority to extend the deadline solely to the Commission based on the specific  xYcriteria outlined section 107(c) of the Act. 47 U.S.C.  1006(c). CTIA suggests that if the Commission allowed the  xuse of forbearance agreements to extend the compliance deadline the "DOJ would use the promise of an extension  xto extract punch list concessions thereby transferring the section 107 process from the FCC, as Congress intended, to the FBI." CTIA Reply Comments at 15. d Third, because JSTD025 is a voluntary standard, we believe that forcing carriers through a forbearance agreement to pledge that they will develop and use equipment meeting JSTD025 specifications might arguably go beyond what Congress intended, thus undermining the use of the standard as a safe harbor, and effectively nullifying the technical flexibility Congress sought to preserve in sections 103(b)(1) and 107(a). Such a requirement, before the Commission rules on the section 107(b) petitions for rulemaking, might also make irrelevant that separate, congressionally S-authorized proceeding.[X  yO\#-  ԍxThe Department of Justice and the FBI have requested that the Commission not stay the interim standard  {O$$- x,during consideration of its section 107(b) expedited petition for rulemaking. See FBI Petition at 67. We note that  {O$- xwthe majority of commenters strongly oppose this suggestion. See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 8; CTIA Comments at  x1011; US West Comments at 14; BellSouth Reply Comments at 8. As explained in paras. 5 and 37, we emphasize  x-that we are not reaching any conclusions with respect to the interim standard in this Memorandum Opinion and"&W,''&" Order. We will consider this issue in our disposition of the 107(b) petitions for rulemaking.[ In addition, we also note that widespread use of forbearance agreements to"XX,''""" require adherence to JSTD025 could further reduce manufacturers' incentives to develop alternative (nonJSTD025) solutions. Finally, such agreements would have to be negotiated individually, which would place a considerable administrative burden on carriers, as well as the Government. It is also likely that with the large number of carriers and manufacturers involved, agreements would not be reached with all affected parties, making it likely that the Commission would still receive many petitions for extension upon which it would have to act. For all these reasons, we do not believe that the forbearance agreement approach as suggested by the FBI/DOJ would solve the problems identified in the petitions for extension filed with us.  S-x28. Processing of Extension Requests. Having determined that an extension is warranted based on the lack of available technology, we now address the issue of how the Commission can most effectively and efficiently process petitions for extension under CALEA. Telecommunications carriers, which represent the vast majority of commenters, urge the Commission to grant an industrywide extension of the compliance date because every individual petition for extension will reveal the same set of factsa rapidly approaching compliance deadline, a set of technical standards that have been challenged, and no commercially available equipment that complies with CALEA's assistance  S -capability requirements.Y X {Ox-  ԍxPCIA Comments at 14; see also Ameritech Comments at 2 (stating that the Commission has the authority  xfor administrative efficiency to recognize that all telecommunications carriers are similarly situated, and thus equally  yO - xideserving of an extension of time); ALLTEL Comments at 12; AT&T Comments at 2; CTIA Comments at 2;  xI Omnipoint Comments at 45; PageNet Comments at 34; Powertel Comments at 3; PrimeCo Comments at 23; USTA  xYComments at 5; 360 Comments at 1; ICG Comments at 5; Sprint PCS Comments at 3; CDT Comments at 12; US  xJWest Comments at 12; BAM Comments at 3; OPASTCO Comments at 24; Airtouch Comments at 2; Centennial  x;Comments at 4; Nortel Comments at 12; TIA Comments at 13; CenturyTel Comments at 4; BellSouth Comments  xat 4; Nextel Comments at 1; RCA Comments at 6; Aliant Comments at 3; Southern Comments at 1; SBC Comments  xat 12; AirTouch Reply Comments at 9; BellSouth Reply Comments at 1; Ameritech Reply Comments at 12;  yO-Nextel Reply Comments at 2.   S0-x29. As the carriers point out, section 107(c) of CALEA provides the statutory basis for the Commission to extend the October 25, 1998, compliance deadline. Section 107(c)(2) of the Act states that: "The Commission may, after consultation with the Attorney General, grant an extension under this subsection, if the Commission determines that compliance with the assistance capability requirements under section 103 is not reasonably achievable through the application of technology  Sh-available within the compliance period."KZh  yO-ԍx47 U.S.C.  1006(c)(2).K None of the commenters dispute the fact that this provision of CALEA authorizes the Commission to grant an extension of the Act's compliance deadline. With respect to whether the Commission may grant an extension of the deadline on an industrywide basis, the telecommunications carriers submitting comments argue that since it is undisputed that the Commission has the authority to grant individual requests for extension under section 107(c) of the Act, it should also be able to grant a more efficient omnibus extension for all telecommunications" Z,''"""  S-carriers.[@ yOh-  {ԍxAT&T Comments at 5; PageNet Comments at 3; Powertel Comments at 36; TIA Comments at 5;  xCenturyTel Comments at 2; Nextel Comments at 1; Ameritech Comments at 4, n.4 (stating that nothing in the  x;language of section 107 prohibits the Commission from granting a blanket extension of time and that, although the  xwlanguage is written in the singular, the Commission has the authority to recognize that the information applies to all  xcarriers equally); ALTS Comments at 1; USCC Comments at 1; Centennial Comments at 1; BAM Comments at 1;  xACLU Comments at 1, Sprint PCS Comments at 1; US West Comments at 1; CDT Comments at 1; BellSouth  xZComments at 3 (agreeing with Ameritech that nothing in section 107 prohibits the Commission from granting a blanket extension); Ameritech Reply Comments at 3; Nextel Reply Comments at 4. AT&T, for example, contends that if the Commission may "act on petitions individually, it [may] act in the aggregate when the single factor affecting compliance is the same for all carriers  S-the absence of CALEAcompliant technology due to the absence of a stable industry standard."P\ yO -ԍxAT&T Comments at 6.P  S`-x30. The Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation are, on the other hand, opposed to a blanket extension of CALEA's compliance date. The FBI challenges the Commission's  S-statutory authority to grant such an extension,G]`  yO-ԍxFBI Comments at 1113.G and asserts that any extension provided under section  S-107(c) of CALEA cannot be granted en masse, but instead must be extended to individual carriers  S-based upon individual petitions to the Commission.I^  yOR-ԍ xFBI Comments generally.I The FBI further maintains that the commenters favoring a blanket extension have not presented sufficient evidence of an industrywide inability to achieve compliance with CALEA by the October 25, 1998, deadline. Rather, the FBI asserts, carriers  SJ -have offered only "bare assertions."B_J  {Oj-ԍ xId. at 16.B  S -x31. Asserting that the "clear intent of Congress" is expressed in the language and structure of CALEA, the FBI argues that section 107(c), by its plain terms, provides for only the grant of an extension to individual carriers on individual petitions, and even then "shall apply to only that part of  S -the carrier's business on which the new equipment, facility, or service is used."\`  {O4-ԍ xId. at 1213 (emphasis in original).\ The FBI further argues that while Congress "went to great lengths" to ensure that compliance within the statutory deadline "would create no unfairness or undue burdens for individual industry participants," Congress did not "grant the Commission or any other entity the authority to change the statutory compliance  S-date of October 25, 1998 for the industry as a whole."Wa {O&"-ԍxSee generally id. at 910.W The FBI contends that the legislative history of CALEA reveals that the extension provision allows "any company to seek from the [Commission] up to a two year extension of the compliance date if retrofitting a particular system [would] take"6a,''"""  S-longer than the four years allowed for compliance."b {Oh-  ԍxId. at 13 (citing H.R. Rep. No. 103827, pt. 1, at 1819 (1994), reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3489, 349899.). Finally, the FBI argues that to interpret the Act in any other manner would interfere with law enforcement's ability to "protect the public from criminal  S-activity."Bc" {Or-ԍ xId. at 11.B  S`-x32. Decision. The Commission is committed to providing law enforcement with the tools it needs to protect U.S. citizens, and we recognize the FBI's concern that a delay in implementing CALEA's requirements might pose some potential risk. Nevertheless, we conclude that granting a blanket extension is both within the Commission's authority and the most reasonable course of action under the circumstances. Moreover, given the telecommunications industry's overwhelming consensus that compliance is not reasonably achievable through the application of technology available within the compliance date, we anticipate that we would be inundated with repetitive filings for extension if an industrywide extension was not granted. We believe that the approach we take today best preserves the intent of Congress since we conclude that, if we were to seek additional comment on every petition for extension of CALEA's compliance date we receive, the issues raised in those comment cycles would unquestionably duplicate the issues raised in the comments on the abovecaptioned petitions, thereby substantially and unnecessarily delaying CALEA implementation.  SX-x 33. Neither section 107(c) nor its legislative history speak directly to the question of whether the Commission must grant extensions individually or instead has the discretion to grant a blanket  S-extension.Hd {O\-  !ԍxSee Ameritech Comments at 4 n.4 (stating that nothing in the language of section 107 prohibits the  xhCommission from granting a blanket extension of time and that, although the language is written in the singular, the  xiCommission has the authority to recognize that the information applies to all carriers equally); BellSouth Reply  xZComments at 3 (agreeing with Ameritech that nothing in section 107 prohibits the Commission from granting a blanket extension).H As the agency charged with interpreting CALEA, the Commission has the authority (and  S-the obligation) to fill in this legislative gap.ef  yO-  ԍxThe United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit relied on similar reasoning in one  {O- xxof its recent decisions affirming an agency's promulgation of a "blanket" regulation. SeeSweet Home Chapter of  {Ox- xCommunities For a Great Oregon v. Babbitt, 1 F.3d 1 (1993), reh'g granted in part on different grounds, 17 F.3d  {OB- x1463 (D.C. Cir. 1994), rev'd on different grounds, 515 U.S. 687 (1995) (Sweet Home). In that case, the Fish and  yO - xWildlife Service issued a regulation that declared all "threatened" species entitled to the same protection against  x"takings" as "endangered" species, over the objection of parties claiming that the Service could only issue this type  xxof regulation for one species at a time. The Court of Appeals affirmed the blanket regulation in part because the  xstatutory provision granting the Fish and Wildlife Service the authority to issue such regulations, even though phrased  xhin the singular, "simply [did] not speak directly to the question of whether the [Service] must promulgate protection  {O"-speciesbyspecies or may extend such protection in a single rulemaking."  Id. at 7. As long as the Commission acts reasonably in doing"e,''"""  S-so, its decision is entitled to deference.f$ {Oh-  >ԍxSee Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Counsel, 467 U.S. 837, 842843 (1984); see also  {O2- xZINS v. CardozaFonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 448 (1987) (citations omitted) ("In [the] process of filling any gap left,  xhimplicitly or explicitly, by Congress, the courts must respect the interpretation of the agency to which Congress has delegated the responsibility for administering the statutory program.").  S-x!34. The Commission finds that interpreting section 107(c) to permit a blanket extension is reasonable. The sole question under section 107(c)(2) is "whether compliance with the assistance capability requirements under section 103 is reasonably achievable through application of technology available within the compliance period." As discussed above, the answer to this question at this time is the same for all telecommunications carriers CALEAcompliant technology will not be available to the industry by the compliance deadline. As a result, the only difference between granting a blanket extension under section 107(c)(2) and granting an extension for each individual carrier is the additional time and effort required of the Commission to process and issue individual petitions for extension to each carrier. We find it unreasonable to presume that Congress intended the Commission to inefficiently expend its resources by individually acting on potentially thousands of duplicative filings. In fact, if we were to attempt to consider requests for extension of the compliance deadline on an individual basis, it is almost certain that we could not resolve all such requests prior to the October  S -1998 deadline.2gB  {O$-  zԍxSee, e.g., AT&T Comments at 56, 9 ("The Commission will be inundated with petitions and carriers and  xZtheir vendors will be put to a substantial and unnecessary burden in the preparation and submission of requests.");  x,Omnipoint Comments at 34 (stating that "carriers may be subject to a fine of $10,000 per switch for every day of  xnoncompliance unless an extension is granted" and that "such a comprehensive approach will conserve the  xCommission's resources and will prevent every carrier in the United States from filing an individual extension request  xin order to protect itself from potential liability."); Powertel Comments at 2, 6; PrimeCo Comments at 5; USTA  xComments at 5; 360 Comments at 7; ICG Petition at 5; CTIA Comments at 9 ("Some carriers may opt for nonstandard solutions to guard against possible enforcement actions under section 108"); Omnipoint Comments at 3.2 This would open the possibility that carriers could be exposed to enforcement actions based on their inability to comply with CALEA's requirements even though they had timely petitions for extension pending before us. Furthermore, the more resources the Commission devotes to processing individual petitions, the less it has remaining to resolve the stillpending rulemaking on CALEA standards and the greater the chances of delaying the ultimate implementation of CALEA. We therefore believe that it is both reasonable and appropriate to interpret section 107(c) so as to  S-avoid such a waste of administrative resources and to allow a blanket extension.h"  {O>-  jԍxSee also, Letter from Henry J. Hyde and John Conyers, Members, U.S. House of Representatives, to William  xE. Kennard, dated July 24, 1998 at 1 (urging the Commission to grant an extension); Letter from Patrick J. Leahy,  xSenator, United States Senate, to William E. Kennard, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, dated June 26, 1998 at 1.  S-x"35. We reject the FBI's argument that the use of the singular in section 107(c)(2) necessarily requires us to grant extensions on an individual, casebycase basis. In fact, the United States Code  S@-sets up the exact opposite presumption: Section 1, Title 1, of the United States Code states that "[i]n determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise . . . words"h,''""&"  S-importing the singular include and apply to several persons, parties, or things." i$ {Oh-  ԍx1 U.S.C. 1. Seealso First National Bank in St. Louis v. State of Missouri, 263 U.S. 640, 647 (1924); Toy  {O2- x,Manufacturers of America, Inc. v. Consumer Product Safety Comm'n, 630 F.2d 70, 74 (2d Cir. 1980) (Toy Manuf.)  x;(ascertaining whether the "typical rule of statutory construction set forth in 1 U.S.C. 1 would be inappropriate" by examining the "general thrust" of the statute).  There is nothing in  S-the context of section 107(c)(2) that would rebut this presumption. Indeed, the context here favors the inclusion of plural in Congress' use of the singular. Congress, through CALEA's use of mandatory  S-deadlines,j yO-  ԍx47 U.S.C. 1001 note(b) ("Sections 103 and 105 of this title shall take effect on the date that is 4 years after the date of the enactment of this Act."). clearly expressed its preference for the timely deployment of CALEAcompliant technology. Reading section 107(c)(2) as requiring individual petitions for extension would, as discussed above, result in the inundation of the Commission with petitions and would accordingly  S-hamper the Commission's ability to resolve expediently the "standards" issue.k  yO -  ԍxIn this regard, our decision today is similar to the decision of the Consumer Product Safety Commission  x,to require testing for all toys intended for children under the age of three, over the objection of parties who insisted  xthat the statute, which used the singular, required the Commission to specify toys for testing on an individual basis.  {O- xSee Toy Manuf., 630 F.2d 70. The Second Circuit, in reviewing the Commission's regulation, concluded that a  xblanket approach was consistent with Congressional intent under 1 U.S.C. 1, noting that "identification of the hazard  xthat is the concern of the Small Parts Regulation (i.e., small parts) appears well suited to a general prescriptive  {On- xapproach employing carefully defined, objective, and standardized testing procedures." Id. at 74. Because section  x,107(c)(2) involves the same inquiry for all carriers, it is equally well suited to "a general prescriptive approach" and  {O- x<is equally consistent with 1 U.S.C. 1. AccordSweet Home, 1 F.3d at 57 (rejecting argument that Congress' use of singular prevented a blanket regulation, relying in part upon 1 U.S.C. 1). Thus, we find that 1 U.S.C. 1 provides us with additional support for our conclusion that section 107(c) enables us to grant a blanket extension.  Sp-x#36. Although we do not deem it necessary to rest our authority to grant blanket extensions upon sources other than section 107(c), we will nevertheless respond to arguments that we have such other authority. A number of carriers suggest that the Commission should extend the compliance  S -deadline pursuant to its authority under section 107(b)(5) of the Act.l  {OB-  [ԍxSee, e.g., CTIA Comments at 13;  360 Comments at 910; BellSouth Reply Comments at 4; AT&T Reply Comments at 5; PrimeCo Comments at 6 n.19. For instance, CTIA and 360 contend that the record supports a blanket extension and that "the Commission has clear authority under section 107(b) of CALEA to set a reasonable time for compliance after it resolves the standards  S -dispute."m  {O$!-  ԍxCTIA Comments at 13; see also 360 Comments at 910; BellSouth Reply Comments at 4; AT&T Reply Comments at 5. CTIA explains that where the technical standard developed by industry for compliance with section 103 is challenged, "Congress mandated that the Commission set a reasonable time for  S0-compliance after resolution of the dispute for carriers to meet their obligations."En0^ yO.%-ԍxCTIA Comments at 14.E Given the petitions challenging the capability standards that are currently before the Commission, CTIA maintains that"n,''"" " "the requirements of section 107(b)(5) are triggered and a reasonable time for meeting CALEA after  S-the Commission determines the scope of a carrier's compliance obligations is mandated.";o {O@-ԍxId. ; Likewise, PrimeCo submits that a blanket extension under section 107(b) is "within the Commission's statutory mandate 'to provide a reasonable time and conditions for compliance with and transition to' the new  S`-standards."Lp`Z yOZ-ԍxPrimeCo Comments at 6 n.19.L The FBI does not agree that section 107(b)(5) grants the Commission the authority to  S8-extend the CALEA compliance date under the current circumstances.Eq8 yO -ԍ xFBI Comments at 12.E Instead, the FBI maintains that the Commission's authority under section 107(b)(5) applies only in the context of a section 107(b)  S-rulemaking petition.:rz {O -ԍxId.:  S-x$37. We agree with those carriers contending that section 107(b)(5) provides the Commission with the authority to provide carriers with a reasonable amount of time to comply with section 103 during any transition period associated with the Commission's establishment of a standard for  S -CALEA.sZ  {O-  ԍxSee 47 U.S.C.  1006(b)(5). Thus, whereas section 107(b)(5) pertains to the grant of an extension of time  xwhere the Commission becomes involved in setting a standard for the implementation of section 103, section 107(c) provides the Commission with the authority to grant an extension independent of any standard setting process.  However, we also agree with the DOJ/FBI that CALEA only allows an extension of time to be granted under section 107(b) as a result of a 107(b) rulemaking proceeding. As noted previously, the Commission is not taking any action affecting the assistance capability standards in this Memorandum Opinion and Order. Instead, the issue of technical standards for CALEA compliance will be addressed in a separate order. Accordingly, we find no occasion to rest our decision to grant a blanket extension upon section 107(b)(5). We nonetheless remain committed to effectuating the swift implementation of CALEA, and will take action in the very near future on the contested technical issues, including transition terms and conditions, addressed in the section 107(b) petitions for rulemaking we have received. We emphasize that nothing we say in this Memorandum Opinion and  S-Order should be interpreted as prejudging those contested issues.t.  yO-  ԍxWe note that only certain portions of the interim standard have been challenged. Accordingly, the contested  xtechnical standards which will be resolved by the Commission's section 107(b) rulemaking include the issues raised  yO- xby the Center for Democracy and Technology as well as the contentions of the FBI. Specifically, CDT challenges  xthat the interim industry standard goes too far in enhancing location tracking capabilities and failing to protect the  yO - xwprivacy of packet switched communications that the government is not authorized to intercept. CDT Petition at 7,  xh10. The FBI, on the other hand, believes the standard is underinclusive and seeks to implement the so called "punch  xlist" items, which include: (1) Content of conference calls; (2) Party hold, party join, party drop; (3) Access to  xsubjectinitiated dialing and signaling; (4) Notification message (inband and outofband signaling); (5) Timing to  xcorrelate call data and call content; (6) Surveillance status message; (7) Feature status message; (8) Continuity check;  {O$- xx(9) Standardized delivery interface; (10) Post cutthrough dialing and signaling; and (11) Separated delivery. See  {OX%-FBI Petition at 25, and Appendix C; see also FBI Comments, Attachment A.  "t,''"""Ԍ S-x%38. Telecommunications industry commenters also suggest that sections 4(i), 4(j), and 229(a) of the Communications Act provide the Commission with additional authority to issue a blanket  S-extension of the CALEA compliance date.u\ {O-  ԍxSee, e.g., AT&T Comments at 7 n.22; TIA Comments at 5 n.18; Nextel Reply Comments at 4. See also  xNLetter from Pamela J. Riley, AirTouch Communications, Inc., to Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal  {O-Communications Commission, dated June 18, 1998 at 56 (AirTouch June 18 ex parte). As those commenters note, section 4(i) of the Communications Act grants the Commission the general authority to "make such rules and regulations, and issue such orders, not inconsistent with [the Act], as may be necessary in the execution of its  S8-functions."v8 {O -ԍxSee 47 U.S.C.  154(i); see also AirTouch June 18 ex parte at 56. Section 4(j) gives the Commission further ability to "conduct its proceedings in such  S-manner as will best conduce to the proper dispatch of business and to the ends of justice."Qw~ {O. -ԍxSee 47 U.S.C.  154(j).Q  S-Similarly, section 229(a) of the Communications Act, added by section 301 of CALEA,Mx {O-ԍxSee 108 Stat. 429293.M specifically provides that "[t]he Commission shall prescribe such rules as are necessary to implement the  S-requirements of" CALEA._y {O-ԍxSee 47 U.S.C.  229(a). _ Certain carriers contend that these broad provisions complement the  Sp-Commission's authority granted in section 107(c) of CALEA.zp4  yOD-  \ԍxWe note that the FBI made this argument with regard to the Commission's authority to act under section  {O -107(b) of CALEA.  See FBI Petition at 24,  41. Moreover, these commenters assert that, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 229(a), the Commission has the authority to determine what steps are necessary to resolve proceedings brought before it in a manner that is both fair and  S -reasonable.{  {O&-ԍxSee, e.g., AT&T Comments at 7 n.22; TIA Comments at 5 n.18; Nextel Reply Comments at 4.  S -x&39. The FBI disagrees with this reasoning and states that section 229(a) of the Communications Act grants the Commission only the authority to prescribe rules that are necessary to implement the requirements of CALEA, that section 229(a) does not give the Commission the authority to prescribe rules that "contravene" it, and that a blanket extension would contravene the  S-Act.D|  yO-ԍxFBI Comments at 13.D Given the fact that CALEA expressly anticipates the need for the Commission to grant an extension of CALEA's compliance date, we do not believe that our doing so for all affected carriers (where the record supports a finding of lack of reasonable achievability), contravenes the requirements of the Act. We find it unnecessary to decide whether section 229(a) is an appropriate basis upon which to supplement our authority to grant a blanket extension under the Act. That section allows us to prescribe "rules," and we are not convinced that granting any appropriate extension under authority"@|,''"""  S-of section 107(c) requires an exercise of our rulemaking authority.} yOh- x-ԍ To the extent that rulemaking authority might be required, however, we do believe that section 229(a) is  xappropriate authority for our action and that "good" cause would exist for dispensing with notice and comment  xiprocedures. Given that the factual basis for our extension Memorandum Opinion and Order applies equally to all  xaffected carriers, and we have received extensive comment on these issues, public notice and comment procedures  {O-would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. See 5 U.S.C.  553(b)(3)(B). Sections 4(i) and 4(j), however, do supplement our 107(c) authority to grant a blanket extension. In light of our conclusion that issuing a blanket extension order achieves the same result as granting multiple extensions to individual carriers, and that it enables us to devote our resources to resolving the standards issue more quickly, as Congress clearly intended, we have little trouble concluding that our order today is "necessary in the  S8-execution of [our] functions"G~8z yOR -ԍx47 U.S.C.  154(i).G and "conduce[s] to the proper dispatch of business and to the ends of  S-justice."G  yO -ԍx47 U.S.C.  154(j).G Thus, in the interest of conserving administrative resources, and in an effort to ensure that the objectives and obligations of CALEA are met in a timely manner, we conclude that we may and should grant a broad extension order based upon the authority provided us in section 107(c)(2). Therefore, although section 107(c)(2) is a sufficient basis for our action, that authority is supplemented by the authority found in sections 4(i) and 4(j) of the Communications Act.  S -x'40. Finally, a few carriers offered suggestions for ways that the Commission could grant  S -extensions if we found that we lacked the authority to issue a blanket extension.:  yO2-  yԍxAT&T notes that the Commission "could streamline the process by requiring only a carrier certification that  xit is in consultation with the manufacturer of its telecommunications equipment as required by section 106 and that  xat least a two year extension is required due to the absence of CALEAcompliant equipment. The extension could  xbe approved upon filing without further action by the Commission, effective October 25, 1998. The extension would  xapply to all of the carrier's business covered by CALEA." AT&T Comments at 6 n.17. Similarly, CTIA suggests  xthat the "Commission could use its authority under section 301 of CALEA to implement a procedure to streamline  xthe petition process by requiring only a carrier submission that would state that the carrier had consulted with the  xmanufacturer of its telecommunications equipment and that compliant technology is not currently available." CTIA  xComments at 16 n.24. ICG also notes that the Commission could "avoid unnecessarily burdensome requirements  {O:-and accept pro forma requests for extensions." ICG Comments at 5 n.5. : However, because we have determined that the Commission has the authority to grant a blanket extension and that such an extension is warranted, and because we believe doing so is in the public interest and best ensures that the objectives and obligations of CALEA are met in a timely manner, we will not address such alternatives. x  S-x(41. Length of the Extension. We have been presented with three different suggestions by industry with respect to the length of the extension. Many carriers argue that the CALEA compliance deadline should be extended for two years after the Commission establishes accepted compliance"4,''"""  S-standards.f  {Oh-  ԍxSee, e.g., AT&T Comments at 9 (suggesting extension until 24 months after standards are adopted); CTIA  xComments at 12 ("extend the compliance deadline for 24 months, effective upon completion and promulgation of  xany revised standards"); Omnipoint Comments at 6 (seeking an extension until two years after final standards are  xxadopted); 360 Comments at 4, 10 (suggesting two years from adoption of final standards); RCA Comments at  x6 (suggesting extension until October 20, 2000 or 24 months following adoption of final standards); PCIA  xComments at 11 (requesting two years from adoption of final standards); GTE Comments at 3, 6 (arguing for two  x<years from adoption of final standards; CenturyTel Comments at 45 (seeking two years after adoption of final  xstandards); Nortel Comments at 2 (suggesting an extension of the compliance date until 24 to 36 months after adoption of final capability standards).f Some commenters urge the same result in a slightly different manner by asking us to toll the compliance deadline during the pendency of the Commission's standardssetting rulemaking  S-and then allow for a two year extension to take effect. {O -ԍxOmnipoint Comments at 4 n.9; see also Nextel Comments at 2; PCIA Comments at 9, n.20. Other telecommunications carriers simply  S-suggest that we should grant a two year extension from the October 1998 deadline.t ,  {OT-  ԍxSee ALLTEL Comments at 1 (requesting extension until October 24, 2000); PageNet Comments at 5  xw("PageNet supports a blanket extension of the CALEA compliance date to October 24, 2000, effective on or before  x: October 25, 1998."); Powertel Comments at 1,7 ("Powertel has filed a petition for extension of time, through October  x24, 2000."); PrimeCo Comments at 7 (requesting a two year extension); USTA Comments at 1 n.2 ("While CALEA  xallows for two year extensions, the Commission should exercise its authority to grant extensions at least until the  xhardware and software necessary to comply with the capacity requirements are commercially available."); ICG  xYPetition for Extension at 5; SBC Petition at 1, 7; Ameritech Comments at 8 (suggesting extension until 24 months  xafter compliance date); TIA Comments at 2 (suggesting two year extension of compliance date); AT&T Petition (requesting extension until at least October 24, 2000).t x  S8-x)42. The FBI recommends that the length of any extension should be no longer than two years measured from December 1997, when the industry published the standards incorporated in JSTD S-025. $ yO-  ԍxFBI Reply Comments at 12. The FBI states that the duration of extension "should be no longer than two  xyears measured from December 1997, when the industry itself published the standards incorporated in JSTD025."  {O- xYId.  The FBI contends that two years from the time that a standard is in place is ample time to develop compliance  {O-solutions in accord with the standard. Id.   The FBI also argues that the Commission should provide that, unless new carrierspecific justifications have arisen, the extensions be onetime extensions that include "milestones" in the design  S-and development process that carriers must meet during the extension period. {O"-  jԍxId. at 12. The FBI recommends that the Commission consult with the Attorney General in developing these  {O-milestones. Id. Furthermore, the FBI recommends that the Commission terminate these extensions if and when a compliance solution that  SH -substantially facilitates compliance on an industrywide basis becomes available.AH F {O.#-ԍxId. at 13.A Finally, the FBI maintains that industry participants should be required to consult in good faith with law enforcement during the extension period and manufacturers should be required to develop their JSTD025 solutions in a manner that does not impede, and will indeed facilitate, the future addition of punch list",''"" "  S-features. {Oh-ԍxId. at 13. See also note 66 supra for an explanation of the punch list features.  S-x*43. Decision. Pursuant to section 107(c)(3), the Commission may grant an extension for no longer than the earlier of "(A) the date determined by the Commission as necessary for the carrier to comply with the assistance capability requirements under section 103; or (B) the date that is two years  S8-after the date on which the extension is granted."S8Z yO2-ԍx47 U.S.C.  1006(c)(3)(A)(B).S Thus, both extension periods suggested by the carrierstwo years from the issuance of our standards order or two years from the October 1998 deadlinefall outside our authority under section 107(c)(3), which caps the length of any single extension at two years from the date of the extension order. Because the dates urged by the carriers are beyond that point in time, the Commission is without authority to grant the extensions the carriers request.  S -x+44. Of the alternatives actually available to the Commission, we conclude that an extension until June 30, 2000, provides the necessary amount of time for telecommunications carriers to achieve CALEA compliance. Section 107(c)(3)(A) permits the Commission to extend the compliance deadline to the date it determines "as necessary for the carrier to comply with the assistant capability  S -requirements under section 103."M  yO -ԍx47 U.S.C. 1006(c)(3)(A).M Based on the comments we have received, we determine that an extension to June 30, 2000, is necessary for carriers to comply with section 103's requirements. We base this conclusion on a threepart analysis. x  S-x,45. First, all parties generally agree that an interim standard, JSTD025, was adopted by the industry in December 1997. The FBI contends that this standard is deficient because it does not support nine additional law enforcement surveillance capabilities (the punch list), while privacy advocates take the position that this standard includes two capabilities that would undermine the  S@-privacy interests of telecommunications users and are not required to be provided under CALEA.@z yOZ-ԍXx#C\  P6Q/P#FBI Petition at 25, and Appendix C; CDT Petition at 7, 10.(#ƚ Law enforcement, the carriers and manufacturers and privacy groups, however, do not dispute any of the other features or requirements of JSTD025. Thus, the vast majority of the featuresthe "core" of JSTD025 is not opposed.  Sx-x-46. We note that in the near future we expect to initiate a rulemaking proceeding under section 107(b) that will adopt final technical requirements and/or standards that will allow carriers to meet the capability requirements of section 103 of CALEA. Since final action in that proceeding is not likely to be completed in time for carriers to meet CALEA's October 25, 1998 deadline, we will require carriers to have installed CALEAcompliant equipment and facilities based on the core JSTD" ,''""="ԫ S-025 standard by June 30, 2000.1X yOh- xԍ "Core JSTD025" refers here to the industry interim standard, excluding the provision of location information  xand technical requirements related to packetswitched communications that are under review pursuant to the CDT Petition.1 This is a firm deadline. If this standard is ultimately modified and new capabilities or features are added to the core standard in the section 107(b) rulemaking, we will consider establishing a separate deadline for upgrading carrier equipment and facilities to comply with those capabilities or features in that proceeding pursuant to our authority under section 107(b)(5). This approach provides certainty to the telecommunications industry in developing and installing CALEAcompliant solutions, and recognizes the interests of law enforcement in providing effective public safety. It also seeks to allow carriers to implement a CALEAcompliant solution sooner, rather than later, while providing the flexibility to design modifications to the core JSTD025 standard that can be installed in carrier equipment and facilities in subsequent upgrades, if any such modifications are adopted in the section 107(b) rulemaking proceeding.  SH -x.47. Second, all parties generally agree that it should take manufacturers approximately two years from the date CALEA requirements are standardized to develop technology capable of  S -complying with that standard.  {O-  =ԍxFBI Reply Comments at 12( citing e.g. CTIA Comments at 8). The FBI states that two years is ample time  {OJ-to implement the JSTD025 standard. Id. In analyzing this amount of time, we rely in great measure upon the FBI's expertise on the issue of CALEA compliance. Because JSTD025 was adopted in December 1997, manufacturers should be able to produce equipment that will be generally available for carriers  S -to meet the section 103 capability requirements by December 31, 1999." D yOd-  ԍxAs noted above, the fact that the JSTD025 standard has fallen under contention does not relieve the carriers  yO,- xof their statutory obligation to implement the capability requirements of section 103 of CALEA. 47 U.S.C.   {O- x1006(a)(3).  See also FBI June 29 ex parte (indicating that some manufacturers will have networkbased or switchbased solutions generally available before December 1999).  S0-x/48. Third, we agree with commenters that after a manufacturer makes CALEAcompliant equipment and facilities based on the core JSTD025 standard generally available, carriers require an additional period of time to purchase, test and install such equipment and facilities throughout their  S-networks.\.  yO-ԍxAT&T Petition at 7; PrimeCo Petition at 10.\ Based on the record in this proceeding, we conclude that six months will provide carriers  S-with sufficient time to accomplish these tasks. "  {O-  ԍxSee US West Comments at 89 (stating that "[o]nce CALEA solutions do become commercially available,  xcarriers will need additional time to order, engineer, and install the technology in switches across their networks.")  xUS West explains that once CALEA solutions are made commercially available by manufacturers, carriers need  {OH"- xanother six months to twelve months to install those solutions. Id.; see also Letter from Thomas M. Barbara,  xSteptoe & Johnson on behalf of Telecommunications Industry Association, to Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal  xCommunications Commission, dated August 20, 1998 at 1 (TIA explains that it "typically requires approximately  xwtwelve months from the time a software product has reached the generally available phase for a large wireline carrier  xto make a generic switch upgrade in every switch within its network."); Letter from Linda L. Kent, United States  xTelephone Association, to Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, dated August 18, 1998"2&,''&"  xat 2 (contending that "once a product which is compliant with JSTD025 becomes generally available, additional  xtime will be required to install these products into the carrier switches.") USTA estimates that it "would require  x;approximately twelve months from the time a software product is generally available . . . for a large wireline carrier  {O-to make a generic switch upgrade in every switch."  Id.  Although USTA and TIA indicate that a 12 month",''""" installation period for the carriers is appropriate, we believe that a six month period is both sufficient and reasonable given the urgency of ensuring law enforcement access to CALEA's capabilities. The 12 month period is based on the time the largest carriers would require to install a CALEAcompliant solution in all of their switches. Not all carriers are large carriers with the same number of switches. Consequently, some carries will be able to install CALEAcompliant solutions earlier than 12 months. Finally, the record indicates that outofswitch CALEAcompliant solutions are likely to be available  S-as early as the end of calendar year 1998. {Ob -  >ԍxSee FBI June 29 ex parte at 2. See also Letter from David F. Fisher, ADC Telecommunications, Inc., to Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, dated August 12, 1998 at 2. These outofswitch solutions generally work by taking information (call identifying data, for example) provided by the switch, processing it in a separate  S-computer, and then delivering the information and data to the law enforcement surveillance center.P  {Ol-ԍxADC July 6 ex parte at 2.P As a result, some carriers may opt to install outofswitch solutions in lieu of switchbased solutions.  SH -x049. For these reasons, a six month period for carriers to install CALEAcompliant equipment and facilities based on the core JSTD025 standard appears to be the necessary time frame for compliance. Therefore, starting with the December 31, 1999, date by which manufacturers should have CALEA compliant equipment and facilities based on the core JSTD025 standard generally available, and adding six months to this date for carrier installation of equipment and facilities, we conclude that carrier compliance with CALEA's section 103 requirements should be extended to June 30, 2000.  S-x150. Despite our desire to facilitate the rapid implementation of CALEA compliance, our careful review of the record leads us to conclude that we should not adopt the FBI's other conditions for granting extensions. Although we anticipate that manufacturers and carriers will work diligently towards developing and installing CALEAcompliant equipment and facilities by June 30, 2000, we conclude that we cannot impose the FBI's suggested limitation that our extension will be a onetime grant, because the plain language of section 107(c) states that carriers may petition the Commission for  S-one or more extensions of the deadline.U {OV-ԍxSee 47 U.S.C.  1006(c)(1).U Nonetheless, we fully believe that an extension until June 30, 2000 will allow sufficient time for carriers to satisfy their obligations and that further extensions should not be necessary. Furthermore, with respect to the FBI's request that we establish milestones for carriers during the extension period, we note that as part of our section 107(b) rulemaking proceeding, the Commission can establish, "a reasonable time and conditions for compliance with and  SP-the transition to any new standard, including defining the obligations of telecommunications carriers  S*-under section 103 during any transition period."f*0  {O%-ԍxSee 47 U.S.C.  1006(b)(5) (emphasis added).f If in that proceeding we adopt a modified JSTD"* ,''""l"ԫ025 standard and adjustments are needed in the time or conditions (such as the "milestones" advocated by the FBI) required for carriers to comply with CALEA's assistance capability requirements, we can make such adjustments as part of that proceeding.  S`-x251. Therefore, based on the above considerations, and pursuant to section 107(c) of the Act, we grant an extension of CALEA's compliance date to June 30, 2000. By this deadline, all telecommunications carriers subject to the provisions of CALEA will be required to comply with section 103's assistance capability requirements. Based on the record before us, we believe that this extension should provide a reasonable amount of time for the development of CALEAcompliant technology based on the core JSTD025 standard. Further, as explained above, the Commission is committed to an expedited rulemaking to resolve the section 107(b) petitions we have received to adopt CALEAcompliant standards or technical requirements. Therefore, we believe this extension order fully considers both the current state of technology development and the need to develop CALEA solutions expeditiously.  S - V. ORDERING CLAUSES ĐTP  S0-x352. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 4(i) and 4(j) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i) and 154(j), and sections 107(c)(1)(4) of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, 47 U.S.C.  1006(c)(1)(4), the Petition for Extension of Compliance Date jointly filed by AT&T Wireless Services, Inc., Lucent Technologies, Inc., and Ericsson, Inc. on March 30, 1998; the PrimeCo Petition for an Extension of Compliance Date, filed April 21, 1998; the Powertel Petition for an Extension of Compliance Date, filed April 23, 1998; the USTA, Petition for an Extension of Compliance Date, filed April 24, 1998; the Ameritech Petition for an Extension of Compliance Date, filed April 24, 1998; the AirTouch Paging Petition for an Extension of Compliance Date, filed May 4, 1998; the AirTouch Joint Petition for an Extension of Compliance Date, filed May 5, 1998; the SBC Petition for an Extension of Compliance Date, filed May 8, 1998; the ICG Petition for an Extension of Compliance Date, filed May 8, 1998; the Centennial Petition for an Extension of Compliance Date, filed May 6, 1998; the Comcast Cellular Petition for Extension of Compliance Date, filed May 29, 1998; the BellSouth Petition for Extension of Time, filed May 8, 1998; the CommNet Petition for Extension of Compliance Date, filed April 30, 1998; the Metrocall Petition for Extension of Compliance Date, filed May 21, 1998; the USCC Petition for Extension of Compliance Date, filed May 8, 1998, the PageMart Petition for Extension of CALEA Compliance Date, filed June 10, 1998; the Ardis, et al. Joint Petition for Extension of Compliance Date, filed June 10, 1998; the Redcom Petition for Extension of CALEA Compliance Date, filed June 1, 1998; Request of Skytel Communications, Inc. for Extension of Time to Comply with the Assistance Capability Requirements of Section 103 of CALEA, filed July 24, 1998, Joint Petition For an Extension of the CALEA Assistance Capability Compliance Date of Iridium United States, L.P. and Motorola, Inc., filed June 30, 1998; 360 Communications Company Comments at 8 n.15, filed May 8, 1998; Centurytel Wireless, Inc. Communications Comments at 8 n.27, filed May 8,  S"-1998, Paging Network, Inc., Petition for Extension of Compliance Date, filed June 8, 1998 ARE GRANTED to the extent discussed above.  S %-x453. IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 4(i) and 4(j) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i) and 154(j), and sections 107(c)(1)(4) of the Communications"%,''""'" Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, 47 U.S.C.  1006(c)(1)(4), all telecommunications carriers proposing to install or deploy, or having installed or deployed, any equipment, facility, or service prior to October 25, 1998, are HEREBY GRANTED AN EXTENSION of the compliance date of the assistance capability requirements of section 103 of CALEA, 47 U.S.C.  1002(a)(1)(4), until June 30, 2000. x` `  hh@FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` ` hh@  Sp-x` `  hh@Magalie Roman Salas,    x` `  hh@Secretary x" ,''"" "  S-7n Appendix ĐTP  S-Parties Filing Comments 1. Airtouch Communications, Inc. (AirTouch) 2. Aliant Communications, Inc. (Aliant) 3. ALLTEL Communications, Inc. (ALLTEL) 4. Ameritech Operating Companies and Ameritech Mobile Communications, Inc. (Ameritech) 5. Association for Local Telecommunications Services (ALTS) 6. AT&T Corporation, and AT&T Wireless Services Inc. (AT&T) 7. Bell Atlantic Mobile, Inc. (BAM) 8. Bell EmergisIntelligent Signalling Technologies (Bell Emergis) 9. BellSouth Corporation, BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., BellSouth Cellular Corporation, BellSouth Personal Communications, Inc. and BellSouth Wireless Data, L.P. (BellSouth) 10. Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA) 11. Centennial Cellular Corporation (Centennial) 12. Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) 13. CenturyTel Wireless, Inc. (CenturyTel) 14. Electronic Privacy Information Center, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the American Civil Liberties Union (filing jointly) (EPIC) 15. GTE Service Corporation (GTE) 16. ICG Telecom Group (ICG) 17. Liberty Cellular, Inc. (Liberty) 18. National Telephone Cooperative Association (NTCA) 19. Nextel Communications, Inc. (Nextel) 20. Northern Telecom, Inc. (Nortel) 21. Omnipoint Communications, Inc. (Omnipoint) 22. Organization for the Promotion and Advancement of Small Telecommunications Companies (OPASTCO) 23. Paging Network, Inc. (PageNet) 24. Personal Communications Industry Association (PCIA) 25. Powertel, Inc. (Powertel) 26. PrimeCo Personal Communications, L.P. (PrimeCo) 27. Redcom Laboratories, Inc. (Redcom) 28. Rural Cellular Association (RCA) 29. SBC Communications (SBC) 30. Southern Communications Services (Southern) 31. Sprint Spectrum L.P. d/b/a Sprint PCS (Sprint) 32. Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) 33. United States Cellular Corporation (USCC) 34. United States Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation (filing jointly) (DoJ/FBI) 35. United States Telephone Association (USTA) 36. US West, Inc. (US West) 37. 360 Communications Company (360) "% ,''""'"Ԍ S-Parties Filing Reply Comments 1. AirTouch Communications, Inc. (AirTouch) 2. Ameritech Operating Companies and Ameritech Mobile Communications, Inc. (Ameritech) 3. AT&T Corporation, and AT&T Wireless Services Inc. (AT&T) 4. BellSouth Corporation, BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., BellSouth Cellular Corporation, BellSouth Personal Communications, Inc. and BellSouth Wireless Data, L.P. (BellSouth) 5. Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) 6. Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA) 7. Electronic Privacy Information Center, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the American Civil Liberties Union (filing jointly) (EPIC) 8. Globalstar L.P. (Globalstar) 9. GTE Service Corporation (GTE) 10. Metrocall, Inc. (Metrocall) 11. Nextel Communications, Inc. (Nextel) 12. PrimeCo Personal Communications, L.P. (PrimeCo) 13. SBC Communications, Inc. (SBC) 14. Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) 15. United States Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation (filing jointly) (DoJ/FBI) 16. United States Telephone Association (USTA) 17. US West, Inc. (US West)"!,''"""  S-"z Joint Statement Nof TP Commissioners Susan Ness and Michael Powell  S-  S8-Re:XxPetition for the Extension of the Compliance Date under Section 107 of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act by AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. et al.(#  X-Upgrading our nation's telecommunications networks to provide law #XP\  P6QXP#enforcement agencies with the surveillance capabilities necessary to protect public safety in the digital technology era is an important public policy goal of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA). Implementation of this important goal, however, must be balanced against the actual ability of the telecommunications manufacturers and carriers to design, manufacture and deploy CALEA compliant equipment and facilities in their telecommunications networks. We believe that the June 30, 2000, CALEA compliance deadline established in the order balances these competing interests. Each day that goes by without CALEA compliant equipment and facilities in operation limits the capabilities of law enforcement agencies. Nevertheless, telecommunications manufacturers and carriers will require a period of time to manufacture, test and install CALEA compliant equipment and facilities in their telecommunications networks. The extension to June 30, 2000, establishes an aggressive but achievable deadline that is within the limits of the Commission's authority. This is a firm deadline. It affords telecommunications carriers the necessary time to deploy CALEA compliant equipment and facilities, and we strongly encourage telecommunications manufacturers and carriers to cooperate with law enforcement agencies to meet this deadline. The June 30, 2000, deadline is appropriate for another reason. In light of the significant resources that the telecommunications industry is dedicating to resolving the Year 2000 problem, it makes good sense to establish a CALEA compliance deadline that will not conflict with the telecommunications industry's efforts to comply with the Year 2000 problem. x For these reasons, we support the June 30, 2000, compliance deadline set forth in the order. x"",''"" " x  X-#Xj\  P6G;XP# Statement of  X- Commissioner Harold FurchtgottRoth Re: Petition for the Extension of the Compliance Date under Section 107 of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act by AT&T Wireless Services, Inc., Lucent Technologies, and Ericsson, Inc. xI concur in today's decision to extend the CALEA compliance deadline. Clearly we needed to grant such an extension pursuant to our authority under Section 107(c)(3). All five Commissioners agree. The differences among us are measurable in months. I would have preferred for us to grant the maximum allowable 24 months. While some Commissioners would have favored less than the 22 months we grant here, I concur with the 22 month extension because it allows nearly as much time for compliance as I would have preferred. I do not believe, however, that we can predict with such great precision when compliance will be possible. xPerhaps our decision to grant a 22 month extension can be read as a signal to industry that we do not plan to grant a series of maximum length 24 month extensions and that we take seriously our responsibilities under CALEA. This much is true. But I don't believe in simply "sending signals" and, if any signal needed to be sent, it should have been to those parties who simultaneously demand haste and create uncertainty by seeking rapid implementation of technology that is based on a standard they still are seeking to modify.  X7-