Source: http://www.techlawjournal.com/alert/2006/06/21.asp
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 10:45:19+00:00

Document:
TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,396, June 21, 2006.
June 21, 2006, Alert No. 1,396.
6/19. The Senate Commerce Committee (SCC) released a discussion draft [156 pages in PDF] Sen. Ted Stevens' (R-AK) bill titled the "Communications, Consumers' Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act". This draft would give the federal courts in the District of Columbia exclusive jurisdiction over challenges to rulings and regulations of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). It would also further enhance the FCC's ability to conduct its activities and operations in secret.
This bill was introduced as S 2686. However, this latest discussion draft is numbered HR 5252, which is the number of the Rep. Joe Barton's (R-TX) communications reform bill. The House approved its version of HR 5252 on June 8, 2006.
District of Columbia. Section 1004 of the draft bill provides, in full, that "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any civil action challenging a ruling or regulation of the Federal Communications Commission under this Act, or under the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 151 et seq.) as amended by this Act, or the application of any such ruling or regulation to any person or circumstance, shall be brought in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia."
First, this would move challenges to FCC rulings and regulations from the Court of Appeals to the District Court. Currently, petitions for review of final orders of the FCC go directly to any of the circuits of the U.S. Court of Appeals.
District Court Judges in the District of Columbia tend to have less experience and expertise in dealing with federal agency procedure, and communications laws, than do the Court of Appeals Judges in the District of Columbia. The District Court may be less likely to overturn FCC rulings and regulations.
Also, since those who challenge FCC orders currently must go directly to the Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court rarely reviews Court of Appeals rulings, challengers have only one shot at overturning the order of the FCC, and the process is relatively quick. If the Stevens proposal were enacted into law, since there is a right of appeal, the process of challenging FCC rulings or regulations would become an at least two step process, thus taking more time and effort.
Second, this would move to the District of Columbia all actions involving "any civil action challenging ... the application of" FCC rules or regulations.
Third, since the DC Circuit has jurisdiction over appeals from the District Court for the District of Columbia, the Stevens proposal would have the effect of creating, in the DC Circuit, a specialized appellate court for federal communications law. It might be comparable to the Federal Circuit's near exclusive jurisdiction over patent matters.
As with many statutes related to jurisdiction and venue, this draft is full of ambiguities. For example, what is an "action challenging ... the application of any such ruling or regulation to any person or circumstance"?
What if the challenge to the "application of any" FCC ruling or regulation arises by way of affirmative defense, counterclaim, or intervening claim? Will District of Columbia jurisdiction depend on who files first?
What does "this Act, or under the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C 151 et seq.)" mean? The CALEA, for example, is codified at 47 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq., but the statute enacted by the Congress, HR 4922 (103rd Congress) and Public Law No. 103-414, states that it amends Title 18, which is the criminal code. Hence, what court would hear a challenge to a FCC CALEA order?
What if the FCC promulgates a regulation, and asserts it is authorized by the Communications Act to do so, and then someone challenges that regulation, under Title 5, and asserts the FCC lacks authority under the Communications Act to promulgate that regulation? Is this an action "under the Communications Act"?
Does the clause "under the Communications Act" refer back to "civil action", to "ruling or regulation", or what?
Open Meetings Law. The latest draft of the Stevens bill would also amend the Communications Act, to provide the FCC an exemption from certain open meeting requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. It would enable the FCC to operate in greater secrecy, and with less transparency, than it currently operates.
Section 1001 of the latest draft of the Stevens bill would only affect the FCC. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and other agencies covered by 5 U.S.C. § 552b would remain unaffected.
The bill provides that "Notwithstanding 552b of title 5, United States Code, and section 4(h) of this Act, the Commission may conduct a meeting that is not open to the public if the meeting is attended by (A) all members of the Commission; or (B) at least 1 member of the political party whose members are in the minority."
Second, it provides that "The Commission may not vote or make any final decision on any matter pending before it in a meeting that is not open to the public, unless (A) otherwise authorized by section 552b(b) of title 5, United States Code; or (B) the Commission has moved its operations outside Washington, D.C., pursuant to a Continuity of Operations Plan."
Third, it provides that "If the Commission conducts a meeting that is not open to the public under this section, the Commission shall promptly publish an executive summary describing the matters discussed at that meeting after the meeting ends, except for such matters as the Commission determines may be withheld under section 552b(c) of title 5, United States Code. This paragraph does not apply to a meeting described in paragraph (4)."
Fourth, this paragraph (4) provides that "Neither section 552b of title 5, United States Code, nor paragraph (1) of this subsection applies to (A) a meeting of 3 or more members of the Commission with the President, any person employed by the Office of the President, any official of a Federal, State, or local agency, a Member of Congress or his staff; (B) the attendance, by 3 or more members of the Commission, at a forum or conference to discuss general communications issues; or (C) a meeting of 3 or more members of the Commission when the Continuity of Operations Plan is in effect and the Commission is operating under the terms of that Plan."
Paragraph (4)(A) would enable three or more members to meet with any government official. One issue area that this would impact would be the FCC's increasing involvement in electronic surveillance, collection of phone records, and technology mandates that might facilitate government surveillance and data collection. That is, DOJ and NSA employees would be able to lobby and pressure the FCC in complete secrecy.
Paragraph (4)(B), regarding "a forum or conference", is similar to many other provisions in state and federal open meeting, lobbying, campaign finance, and other laws. However, it lacks a qualifying term found in similar provisions, such as "public", "open to the public", or televised, broadcast or web cast. That is, as written, it enables the FCC Commissioners to meet in secrecy with any industry group at an event that it designates as a "forum or conference", even if reporters, and uninvited but affected persons, are excluded.
Disclosure. Section 1001 of the draft bill would negatively impact the ability of TLJ to obtain information about the activities and operations of the FCC for news reporting purposes. Hence, readers may wish to question the objectivity or accuracy of any TLJ reporting on Section 1001.
6/16. A dispute settlement panel of the World Trade Organization (WTO) released a report regarding the lack of uniform administration of customs laws in the European Communities (EC). In particular, the panel found a lack of uniform administration regarding LCD monitors.
Section VII [3 pages in PDF] of the report is titled "Conclusions and Recommendations". It states that "the Panel recommends that the Dispute Settlement Body request the European Communities to bring itself into conformity with respect to ... the administration of the Common Customs Tariff regarding the tariff classification of liquid crystal display monitors with digital video interface".
For the full document, see Part I of report [179 pages in PDF] and Part II of report [204 pages in PDF].
However, the panel also found that the US "has not proved that the refusal to withdraw the revocation of BTI by the UK customs authorities with respect to the tariff classification of Sony PlayStation2 in the context of the Sony PlayStation2 case amounts to non-uniform administration", and that the US "has not proved that the interpretation and application of the amended explanatory notes to the Common Custom Tariff concerning camcorders in the context of the Camcorders case amounts to non-uniform administration".
Back on May 26, 2006, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) introduced a series of short bills to suspend temporarily the U.S. duty on various types of color flat panel screen monitors, and other monitors. See, Congressional Record, May 26, 2006, and Senate Bills 3312 through 3315.
Also on May 26, Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) introduced a series of short bills to suspend temporarily the U.S. duty on various types of DVD camcorders (see, Congressional Record, May 26, 2006, and Senate Bills 3278 through 3281) and various types of wide-range high sensitivity color zoom digital security cameras (see, Congressional Record, May 26, 2006, and Senate Bills 3285 through 3287).
6/20. The U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) issued its opinion [23 pages in PDF] in Verizon v. FCC. The Court of Appeals denied in part and dismissed in part petitions for review of a final order of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding use of the add-back accounting rule for rates charges by local exchange carriers for access to their networks. This case is Verizon Telephone Companies, et al. v. FCC and USA, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, App. Ct. Nos. 04-1331 and 04-1332, petitions for review of a final order of the FCC.
6/20. The U.S. Court of Appeals (11thCir) issued its opinion [16 pages in PDF] in Wexler v. Anderson, a case regarding the constitutionality of the state of Florida's implementation of its Electronic Voting Systems Act. Some counties in Florida enable electronic voting with touch screen voting machines. Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL), who is also a member of the House Judiciary Committee, and others, filed a complaint in U.S. District Court (SDFl). The District Court rejected the challenge, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. This case is Robert Wexler, et al. v. Arthur Anderson, et al., U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, App. Ct. No. No. 04-16280, an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, D.C. No. 04-80216-CV-JIC.
6/20. The U.S. Court of Appeals (4thCir) issued its opinion [5 pages in PDF] in XO v. MetroPCS, a contract dispute regarding payment for completion of phone calls. MetroPCS provides wireless telephone service. MetroPCS routed calls to XO Communications' network, pursuant to contracts, for completion. The two companies disputed the amounts owing under the contracts. The District Court granted summary judgment for MetroPCS. The Court of Appeals affirmed in an opinion that it designated as "unpublished". This case is XO Communications, Inc. v. MetroPCS, Inc., U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, App. Ct. No. 05-1218, an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, D.C. No. CA-04-845.
6/20. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) published a notice in the Federal Register announcing that it intents to delete the system of records titled "Radio Spectrum Management Career Development Program". The notice adds that "This system of records is no longer collected or maintained by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration. There are no records remaining in the system." The deadline to submit comments to the NTIA is July 20, 2006. See, Federal Register, June 20, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 118, at Page 35416.
6/19. The Supreme Court denied certiorari in Crater Corporation v. Lucent Technologies, a patent, contract, and misappropriation of trade secrets case in which the Lucent and the U.S. asserted the state secrets privilege. The Office of the Solicitor General (and Peter Keisler of the Civil Division) submitted a brief urging the Supreme Court to deny certiorari. This lets stand the September 7, 2005, opinion [22 pages in PDF] of the U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir). See, stories titled "Federal Circuit Issues Opinion on State Secrets Privilege" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,209, September 8, 2005, and "Crater v. Lucent" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 203, June 7, 2001. This case is Sup. Ct. No. 05-1135 and App. Ct. No. 04-1349. See, Order List [10 pages in PDF] at page 9 and Supreme Court docket.
6/19. The Supreme Court denied certiorari in Empresa Cuban Del Tobaco v. General Cigar Co., Inc., a trademark dispute between a U.S. company and a Cuban enterprise involving the Cuban Assets Control Regulations (CACRs). The U.S. Court of Appeals (2ndCir) held that the Cuban enterprise could not acquire the COHIBA trademark in the U.S. because of the CACRs. The Office of the Solicitor General submitted a brief urging the Supreme Court to deny certiorari. See, Order List [10 pages in PDF] at 2 and Supreme Court docket. This case is Sup. Ct. No. 05-417, and App. Ct. Nos. 04-2527-cv and 04-3005-cv.
6/19. The Supreme Court denied certiorari in SmithKline Beecham v. Apotex, a patent case. The Office of the Solicitor General submitted a brief urging the Supreme Court to deny certiorari. This case is Sup. Ct. No. 05-489 and App. Ct. Nos. 03-1285 and 03-1313. See, Order List [10 pages in PDF] at page 9 at Supreme Court docket.
6/19. The Supreme Court denied certiorari in New Cingular Wireless v. Porsha Meoli, Sup. Ct. No. 05-1169, and Cingular Wireless v. Jaime Wing, Sup. Ct. No. 05-1170. Both are petitions for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California. See, Order List [10 pages in PDF] at page 2, and Supreme docket and docket.
10:00 AM. The House Commerce Committee's (HCC) Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations will hold the first of two hearings titled "Internet Data Brokers and Pretexting: Who has Access to Your Private Records?". The witness list includes 14 persons, some of whom have been subpoenaed to testify, but indicated that they will not. See, notice. The hearing will be webcast by the HCC. Press contact: Larry Neal (Barton) at 202-225-5735 or Terry Lane (Barton) at 202-225-5735. Location: Room 2322, Rayburn Building.
TIME AND LOCATION CHANGE. 10:00 AM. The House Ways and Means Committee's Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures will hold a hearing titled "Hearing on the Impact of International Tax Reform on U.S. Competitiveness". See, notice. Location: Room B-318, Rayburn Building.
2:00 PM. The House Commerce Committee's (HCC) Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations will hold the second of two hearings titled "Internet Data Brokers and Pretexting: Who has Access to Your Private Records?". The scheduled witnesses are Peter Lyskowski (Missouri Assistant Attorney General), Julia Harris (Florida AAG), Paul Kilcoyne (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement), Elaine Lammert (FBI), James Bankston (U.S. Marshals Service), Ava Cooper Davis (DEA), Larry Ford (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives), Raul Ubieta (Miami-Dade Police Department), and David Carter (Austin Police Department). See, notice. The witnesses will include Paul Kilcoyne (DHS/ICE). The hearing will be webcast by the HCC. Press contact: Larry Neal (Barton) at 202-225-5735 or Terry Lane (Barton) at 202-225-5735. Location: Room 2322, Rayburn Building.
3:00 PM. The Senate Judiciary Committee's (SJC) Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights will hold a hearing titled "AT&T and BellSouth Merger: What Does it Mean for Consumers?". The witnesses will be Edward Whitacre (Ch/CEO of AT&T), Duane Ackerman (Ch/CEO of BellSouth), James Geiger (P/CEO Cbeyond Communications), and Jonathan Rubin (American Antitrust Institute). See, notice. The SJC frequently cancels or postpones hearings without notice. Press contact: Courtney Boone at 202-224-5225. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.
10:00 AM. The House Commerce Committee's (HCC) Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations will hold the first of two hearings titled "Making the Internet Safe for Kids: The Role of ISP’s and Social Networking Sites". See, notice. The hearing will be webcast by the HCC. Press contact: Larry Neal (Barton) at 202-225-5735 or Terry Lane (Barton) at 202-225-5735. Location: Room 2123, Rayburn Building.
10:00 AM. The Senate Finance Committee will hold a hearing on the nomination of Eric Solomon, to be Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Tax Policy. See, notice. Location: Room 215, Dirksen Building.
12:00 NOON. The Federal Communications Bar Association (FCBA) will host a lunch. The speaker will be FCC Commissioner Deborah Tate. See, registration form [PDF]. Prices vary. The deadline to register is 12:00 NOON on June 23. Location: Capital Hilton Hotel, 16th and K Streets, NW.
10:00 AM. The House Commerce Committee's (HCC) Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations will hold the fecond of two hearings titled "Making the Internet Safe for Kids: The Role of ISP’s and Social Networking Sites". See, notice. The hearing will be webcast by the HCC. Press contact: Larry Neal (Barton) at 202-225-5735 or Terry Lane (Barton) at 202-225-5735. Location: Room 2322, Rayburn Building.
10:00 AM. The House Financial Services Committee's (HFSC) Subcommittee on Capital Markets will hold a hearing titled "Protecting Investors: A Review of the Milberg Weiss Indictment and Ways to Prevent Securities Litigation Abuse". See also, story titled "Milberg Weiss Indicted for Paying Illegal Kickbacks to Class Action Plaintiffs" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,375, May 22, 2006. Location: Room 2128, Rayburn Building.
6:00 - 8:00 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Young Lawyers and Diversity Committees will host an event titled "Happy Hour". For more information, contact Jeff Tignor at jhtig at aol dot com or Natalie Roisman at natalie dot roisman at fcc dot gov. Location: Poste -- Modern Brasserie, 555 8th Street, NW.
Day two of a four day conference hosted by the Wireless Communications Association International (WCAI). See, conference web site. At 10:45 AM there will be a panel discussion titled "Regulation, Public Policy & Spectrum Rights Acquisition: Surveying Options For New North American Spectrum Acquisition & Valuation". At 1:30 PM, there will be a panel discussion titled "Regulation, Public Policy & Spectrum Rights Acquisition: Looming Issues For U.S. BWA Carriers". At 2:45 PM, there will be a panel discussion titled "Regulation, Public Policy & Spectrum Rights Acquisition: Meet The FCC Legal Advisors". Location: Omni Shoreham Hotel.

References: § 1001
 § 552
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.