2/20. The Supreme Court issued its unanimous opinion [17 pages in PDF] in Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transport Association affirming the judgment of the Court of Appeals. This opinion will have the effect of limiting state regulation of electronic commerce.

Introduction. This case involves whether certain sections of the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAAA), which is sometimes pronounced as "F quad A", preempt sections of a statute of the state of Maine that regulates the activities of air carriers and motor carriers.

Consumers purchase items over the internet by using desktop computers, laptops and other internet connected devices to visit and make purchases at e-commerce web sites. Regulating consumers, and distant web site operators, can be difficult for states.

However, the online purchase of physical items still requires delivery by intermediaries. The Maine statute attempts to regulate e-commerce by regulating these delivery intermediaries. The problem for the state of Maine, and other states that would regulate e-commerce by compelling air and motor carriers to implement their regulations, is that the FAAA preempts state regulation of air and motor carriers.

The New Hampshire Motor Transport Association (NHMTA) and other trade groups that deliver packages challenged the Maine statute. They filed a complaint in U.S. District Court (DMaine) against Steven Rowe, the Attorney General of Maine, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief that the Maine statute is preempted by the FAAAA. The District Court granted summary judgment to the NHMTA.

Maine appealed. The U.S. Court of Appeals (1stCir) issued its opinion on May 19, 2006, 2006, affirming in part the judgment of the District Court. See, story titled "1st Circuit Rules Federal Aviation Statute Preempts Part of Maine's Internet Tobacco Sales Statute" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,381, May 31, 2006. That opinion is also reported at 448 F.3d 66.

Maine petitioned the Supreme Court for writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court granted certiorari on June 25, 2007. See also, story titled "Supreme Court Grants Cert in Case Regarding State Regulation of E-Commerce" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,601, June 26, 2007. And now, the Supreme Court has affirmed.

This present case involves Maine's attempt to compel air and motor carriers to enforce its bans on sales of tobacco products to minors. However, the holding in this case will limit a wide range of state attempts to regulate and tax e-commerce.

This opinion is a victory for free and open internet based commerce.

Of course, this opinion does nothing to limit federal regulation of e-commerce. Moreover, one possible consequence is that it might be a causal factor leading the Congress to enact legislation authorizing states to tax and regulate certain e-commerce activities.

Federal Statute. The FAAAA contains sections that preempt state laws and regulations that attempt to regulate prices or services of air carriers and motor carriers, including delivery companies, such as United Parcel Service (UPS). The relevant sections of the FAAAA are codified in 49 U.S.C. § 14501 and 49 U.S.C. § 41713.

These provide that states cannot regulate "service of any motor carrier ... with respect to the transportation of property" or "service of an air carrier".

Subsection 14501(c)(1) provides that "a State, political subdivision of a State, or political authority of 2 or more States may not enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other provision having the force and effect of law related to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier (other than a carrier affiliated with a direct air carrier covered by section 41713(b)(4)) or any motor private carrier, broker, or freight forwarder with respect to the transportation of property." (Parentheses in original.)

Subsection 4173(b)(4)(A) provides that "a State, political subdivision of a State, or political authority of 2 or more States may not enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other provision having the force and effect of law related to a price, route, or service of an air carrier or carrier affiliated with a direct air carrier through common controlling ownership when such carrier is transporting property by aircraft or by motor vehicle (whether or not such property has had or will have a prior or subsequent air movement)." (Parentheses in original.)

Maine Statute. Maine enacted a statute that is codified at 22 M.R.S.A. §§ 1551, 1555-C & 1555-D, that regulates the sale of tobacco products, including internet sales. It contains a ban on the sale of tobacco products to minors. It also provides for the licensing of tobacco retailers. However, these provisions are not at issue in this case. This case involves those portions of the Maine statute that impose burdens upon air carriers and motor carriers for the purpose of enforcing a ban on sales to minors.

The relevant sections of the statute have the effect of requiring these companies to ascertain the content of packages, the age of the addressee of packages, and whether the addressee is of legal age to receive the package (27 years old in the case of tobacco products). It further requires them to ascertain whether the retailer was licensed by the state of Maine to sell tobacco products.

The two statutory sections held by the District Court, Court of Appeals, and Supreme Court to be preempted are 1555–C(3)(C) and 1555-D.

Section 1555–C(3)(C) requires that delivery services follow a recipient verification procedure. The Supreme Court described it as follows: "The delivery service must make certain that (1) the person who bought the tobacco is the person to whom the package is addressed; (2) the person to whom the package is addressed is of legal age to purchase tobacco; (3) the person to whom the package is addressed has himself or herself signed for the package; and (4) the person to whom the package is addressed, if under the age of 27, has produced a valid government-issued photo identification with proof of age."

The overturned part of Section 1555-D provides that the delivery service is "deemed to know" that a package contains a tobacco product if it receives a package from someone whose name appears on a list of unlicensed tobacco retailers compiled by the Maine Attorney General.

The statute imposes burdens and costs upon carriers, and requires that they change their national business practices to enforce a ban that only reaches transactions with buyers in the state of Maine.

Supreme Court Opinion. Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the Supreme Court, wrote that "We here consider whether a federal statute that prohibits States from enacting any law ``related to´´ a motor carrier ``price, route, or service´´ pre-empts two provisions of a Maine tobacco law, which regulate the delivery of tobacco to customers within the State. ... We hold that the federal law pre-empts both provisions."

That is, federal Sections 14501(c)(1) and 41713(b)(4)(A) preempt Maine Sections 1555–C(3)(C) and 1555–D.

The Supreme Court wrote that "the carrier associations claim (and Maine does not deny) that the law will require carriers to offer a system of services that the market does not now provide (and which the carriers would prefer not to offer). And even were that not so, the law would freeze into place services that carriers might prefer to discontinue in the future. The Maine law thereby produces the very effect that the federal law sought to avoid, namely, a State's direct substitution of its own governmental commands for ``competitive market forces´´ in determining (to a significant degree) the services that motor carriers will provide." (Parentheses in original.)

The opinion continues that the "deemed to know" language of 1555-D "means that the Maine law imposes civil liability upon the carrier, not simply for its knowing transport of (unlicensed) tobacco, but for the carrier’s failure sufficiently to examine every package. The provision thus requires the carrier to check each shipment for certain markings and to compare it against the Maine attorney general’s list of proscribed shippers. And it thereby directly regulates a significant aspect of the motor carrier’s package pick-up and delivery service. In this way it creates the kind of state-mandated regulation that the federal Act pre-empts." (Parentheses and emphasis in original.)

Maine argued that there is a public health exception from preemption in this case because its laws help it prevent minors from obtaining cigarettes. However, the Supreme Court wrote that "The Act says nothing about a public health exception. To the contrary, it explicitly lists a set of exceptions (governing motor vehicle safety, certain local route controls, and the like), but the list says nothing about public health." (Parentheses in original.)

Finally, the Court's opinion states that states are free to "seek appropriate federal regulation", and identified two pending bills, HR 4081 [LOC | WW], the "Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act of 2007" or "PACT Act", and HR 4128 [LOC | WW], the "Criminal Code Modernization and Simplification Act of 2007".

HR 4081 provides that states may regulate tobacco sales, and that this includes regulation of delivery companies. See also, S 1027 [LOC | WW], also titled the "PACT Act". The House Judiciary Committee (HJC) has taken no action on HR 4081. However, the Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) has approved S 1027.

HR 4128 is a massive bill with a wide range of changes to the criminal code. Sections 1411-1416 pertain to cigarettes. Section 1416 provides for state enforcement of federal law.

Justice Ruth Ginsburg wrote in a short concurring opinion that "State measures to prevent youth access to tobacco, however, are increasingly thwarted by the ease with which tobacco products can be purchased through the Internet."

"While I join the Court’s opinion, I doubt that the drafters of the FAAAA, a statute designed to deregulate the carriage of goods, anticipated the measure's facilitation of minors' access to tobacco. Now alerted to the problem, Congress has the capacity to act with care and dispatch to provide an effective solution."

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the opinion of the Supreme Court. Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Ginsburg wrote concurring opinions. See also, Supreme Court docket.

2/19. The Supreme Court issued an order in Quanta Computer v. LG Electronics. It wrote that "The motion of petitioners to unseal the reply brief is granted." See, Orders List [36 pages in PDF] at page 4. This case involves the patent exhaustion doctrine. The Supreme Court heard oral argument on January 16, 2008. See, transcript [69 pages in PDF]. See also, stories titled "Supreme Court Requests Solicitor General Brief in Patent Case" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,566, April 17, 2007, "Solicitor General Urges Supreme Court to Take Case Regarding Patent Exhaustion Doctrine" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,629, August 28, 2007, and "Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in Patent Exhaustion Case" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,647, September 27, 2007. This case is Quanta Computers, Inc., et al. v. LG Electronics, Inc., Sup. Ct. No. 06-937, a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, App. Ct. Nos. 05-1261, 05-1262, 05-1263, 05-1264, 05-1302, 05-1303, and 05-1304. Judge Mayer wrote the opinion of the Court of Appeals, in which Judges Michel and Newman joined. The Court of Appeals heard appeals from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Claudia Wilkin presiding. See also, SCUS docket.

2/19. The Supreme Court denied certiorari in All Computers v. Intel, a patent case involving microprocessor clocking technology. This lets stand the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals (4thCir), which affirmed the U.S. District Court's (EDVa) summary judgment of non-infringement. This case is All Computers, Inc. v. Intel Corporation, Sup. Ct. No. 07-815, a petition for write of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, App. Ct. No. 2007-1016. Neither Chief Justice John Roberts nor Justice Sam Alito participated. See, Orders List [36 pages in PDF] at page 29. See also, Supreme Court docket.

2/19. The Supreme Court denied certiorari in Latin American Music v. Southern Music Publishing, a copyright infringement case. See, Orders List [36 pages in PDF] at page 6. This lets stand the August 16, 2007, opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals (1stCir). This case is Latin American Music Co., Inc., et al. v. Southern Music Publishing Co., Inc., Sup. Ct. No. 07-729, a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit, App. Ct. No. 05-2806. The Court of Appeals heard an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. See also, Supreme Court docket.

2/19. The U.S. Court of Appeals (6thCir) issued its opinion [9 pages in PDF] in Brannum v. Overton County School Board, a case regarding the constitutionality of electronic video surveillance of locker rooms in public middle schools, and retention and storage in electronic databases of the products of this surveillance.

The District Court merely denied a motion for summary judgment based upon qualified immunity. The Court of Appeals reversed in part, holding that some defendants have immunity, while others do not. The case will proceed in the District Court against the remaining defendants. However, to reach its decision, the Court of Appeals reached the conclusion that the students had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the locker room against video surveillance.

The surveillance system was authorized by the school board. It delegated authority to the Director of Schools, who delegated authority to the Principal, Melinda Beatty, who delegated authority to the Assistant Principal, Robert Jolley. A private contractor installed the system. Cameras were located throughout the school, including the boys' and girls' locker rooms. The cameras captured images of both Overton and visiting students dressing in the locker rooms.

The captured video was stored in a computer database in Jolley's office. Moreover, the Court of Appeals wrote that stored video was "accessible via remote internet connection. Any person with access to the software username, password, and Internet Protocol (IP) address could access the stored images." The Court of Appeals also noted that "the system was accessed ninety-eight different times", included via ISPs in other locations.

Larry and Necole Brannum, as guardians for a student, and others filed a complaint in U.S. District Court (MDTenn) against the Overton County School Board, school board members, Beatty, Jolley, and others alleging violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 provides a civil action for damages for deprivation of federal rights by states. In this case, the students allege deprivation of their federal constitutional right to privacy.

Section 1983 provides in part that "Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress ..."

The 4th Amendment provides that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The school defendants moved for summary judgment based upon qualified immunity. The District Court denied the motion. The school defendants brought the present appeal.

The Court of Appeals reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded.

It wrote that the student plaintiffs "adequately alleged a Fourth Amendment violation of their constitutional right to privacy because the students had a reasonable expectation of privacy and the invasion of the students' privacy in this case was not justified by the school’s need to assure security."

It also concluded that "this constitutional violation is actionable because this particular right was clearly established at the time of the videotaping, such that a reasonable person who knew or ought to have known of the videotaping would be aware that what he or she was doing violated the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, the school officials directly involved in the decision to install the cameras and responsible for determining their locations, that is, defendants Beaty and Jolley, are not entitled to qualified immunity. Whether they are shown to have any personal liability to the plaintiffs is a question for determination by the fact finder, not this court."

It added that "There is no indication in the record that the defendant school board members or Director Needham authorized or were aware of the locker room videotaping."

The Court of Appeals held that the Beatty and Jolley are not entitled to qualified immunity, but that the school board members and director are. The case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings.

This opinion does not address the liability, if any, of third party contractors who install surveillance systems, or third parties who access stored video.

This case is Larry Brannum, et al. v. Overton County School Board, et al., U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, App. Ct. No. 06-5931, an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee at Cookeville, D.C. No. 03-00065, Judge William Haynes presiding. Judge Ryan wrote the opinion of the Court of Appeals, in which Judges Griffen and Joseph Hood joined.

2/19. The Supreme Court denied certiorari in ACLU v. NSA, a case regarding warrantless surveillance. See, Orders List [36 pages in PDF] at page 5. This lets stand the July 6, 2007, opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals (6thCir).

The plaintiffs are the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and journalists, academics, and lawyers who communicate with individuals located overseas. They believe that they might be subject to National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance under a program titled by the NSA as "Terrorist Surveillance Program" or "TSP".

The Court of Appeals wrote that "the TSP includes the interception (i.e., wiretapping), without warrants, of telephone and email communications where one party to the communication is located outside the United States and the NSA has ``a reasonable basis to conclude that one party to the communication is a member of al Qaeda, affiliated with al Qaeda, or a member of an organization affiliated with al Qaeda, or working in support of al Qaeda.´´" (Parentheses in original. Quotation to news conference of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and General Michael Hayden on December 19, 2005.)

The plaintiffs filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court (EDMich) against the NSA and others seeking injunctive and declaratory relief. The gist of their complaint is breach of privacy, based upon alleged violations of the 4th Amendment and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

The District Court, Judge Anna Taylor presiding, issued its wide and wild opinion [44 pages in PDF] on August 17, 2006, enjoining the TSP. The District Court held that the TSP violates the separation of powers doctrine, the First and Fourth Amendments, the FISA, Title III of Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). It also rejected the government's procedural arguments regarding standing and the states secrets doctrine.

See also, story titled "District Court Holds NSA Surveillance Program Violates Constitution" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,433, August 17, 2006.

On July 6, 2007, the Court of Appeals issued its divided opinion [PDF] vacating the judgment of the District Court. The Court of Appeals held that the plaintiffs lacked standing, and hence, vacated the judgment of the District Court, and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.

See also, story titled "6th Circuit Vacates in ACLU v. NSA for Lack of Standing" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,606, July 6, 2007.

The ACLU's Jameel Jaffer stated in a release that "Congress enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act intending to protect the rights of U.S. citizens and residents, and the president systematically broke that law over a period of more than five years. It's very disturbing that the president’s actions will not be reviewed by the Supreme Court. It shouldn’t be left to executive branch officials alone to determine what limits apply to their own surveillance activities and whether those limits are being honored. Allowing the executive branch to police itself flies in the face of the constitutional system of checks and balances."

The ACLU's Steven Shapiro stated in the same release that "Although we are deeply disappointed with the Supreme Court’s refusal to review this case, it is worth noting that today’s action says nothing about the case’s merits and does not suggest in any way an endorsement of the lower court’s decision. The court’s unwillingness to act makes it even more important that Congress insist on legislative safeguards that will protect civil liberties without jeopardizing national security."

This case is American Civil Liberties Union, et al. v. National Security Agency, et al., Sup. Ct. No. 07-468, a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, App. Ct. Nos. 06-2140 and 06-2095. The Court of Appeals heard an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, D.C. No. 06-CV-10204, Judge Anna Taylor presiding. Judge Alice Batchelder wrote the opinion of the Court of Appeals, in which Judge Julia Gibbons concurred. Judge Ronald Gilman wrote a long dissent. See also, Supreme Court docket.

The House will not meet. It is in recess. See, Rep. Hoyer's 2008 calendar [4.25 MB PDF].

The Senate will not meet. It is in de facto recess.

10:00 AM. The Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) will hold a hearing on the nomination of Catherina Haynes to be a Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals (5thCir). Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.

12:00 NOON - 2:00 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Transactional Practice Committee will host a brown bag lunch titled "Negotiating Carrier-Carrier and Carrier-Enterprise Agreements". The speakers will be Andrew Brown (Levine Blaszak) and Eric Branfman (Bingham McCutchen). See, notice and registration page. Location: Arnold & Porter, 555 12th St., NW.

2:00 - 4:00 PM. The Department of State's (DOS) International Telecommunication Advisory Committee (ITAC) will meet to discuss the U.S. positions for the April 2008 meeting of the Organization of American States Inter-American Telecommunication Commission Permanent Consultative Committee I (Telecommunication) (OAS/CITEL/PCC.I). See, notice in the Federal Register, February 4, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 23, at Page 6547. Location?

4:00 - 6:00 PM. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and the Federalist Society will host a panel discussion titled "Federal Preemption and the Supreme Court". The speakers will be Michael Greve (AEI), Catherine Sharkey (New York University School of Law), Daniel Troy (Sidley Austin), and Theodore Frank (AEI). See, notice. Location: AEI, 11th floor, 1150 17th St., NW.

The House will not meet. It is in recess. See, Rep. Hoyer's 2008 calendar [4.25 MB PDF].

The Senate will meet momentarily in pro forma session only.

9:00 - 11:00 AM. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) will host a panel discussion titled "Strengthening Freedom in Asia: A Twenty-First Century Agenda for the U.S.-Taiwan Partnership". The speakers will be Dan Blumenthal (AEI), Randall Schriver (Armitage International), Claude Barfield (AEI), Rupert Hammond-Chambers (U.S.-Taiwan Business Council), Michael Mitchell (Orion Strategies), Mark Stokes, and Danielle Pletka (AEI). Location: AEI, 11th floor, 1150 17th St., NW.

9:30 AM. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) North American Numbering Council (NANC) will meet. See, notice in the Federal Register, February 6, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 25, at Page 6968. Location: FCC, Suite 5-C162, 445 12th St. SW.

5:00 PM. Deadline to submit applications for planning and construction grants for public telecommunications facilities to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). The NTIA will distribute $16.8 Million in grants under its Public Telecommunications Facilities Program (PTFP) in FY 2008. See, notice in the Federal Register, January 10, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 7, at Pages 1864-1865.

Deadline to submit comments to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regarding its staff document [7 pages in PDF] titled "Online Behavioral Advertising: Moving the Discussion Forward to Possible Self-Regulatory Principles". See, story titled "FTC Proposes and Seeks Comments on Voluntary Principles for Online Behavioral Advertising" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,691, December 19, 2007.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Copyright Office (CO) regarding its proposed rules changes regarding the recordation of notices of termination and related matters. The CO stated that these proposed changes "would communicate the Office's practices as to notices of termination that are untimely filed; clarify the fact that a notice of termination is not legally sufficient simply because it has been recorded; update the legibility requirements for all recorded documents, including notices of termination; make minor explanatory edits to the fee schedule for multiple titles within a document (adding notices of termination as an example); and create a new mailing address to which notices of termination should be sent." See, notice in the Federal Register, January 23, 2008, Vol. 73, No.15, at Pages 3898-3900.

The House will return from its President's Day Recess. Votes will be postponed at least until 6:30 PM. See, Rep. Hoyer's 2008 calendar [4.25 MB PDF].

8:30 AM - 5:30 PM. The National Science Foundation's (NSF) Committee on Equal Opportunities in Science and Engineering will meet. See, notice in the Federal Register, February 8, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 27, at Page 7611. Location: 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA.

5:00 PM. Deadline to submit applications to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) for Summer Undergraduate Research Fellowships (SURF) in Gaithersburg, Maryland, and Boulder Colorado. See, notice in the Federal Register, January 25, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 17, at Pages 4535-4540.

Day one of a three day conference hosted by the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) titled "2008 NAB State Leadership Conference". See, conference web site. Location: Mandarin Oriental Hotel.

Deadline to submit comments to the Department of Defense's (DOD), General Services Administration's (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Civilian Agency Acquisition Council (CAAC) and Defense Acquisition Regulations Council (DARC) regarding amendments to the federal acquisition regulation (FAR) with respect to the environmental impact of desktop computers, notebooks, monitors and other electronic products. See, notice in the Federal Register, December 26, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 246, Pages 73215-73218.

Effective date of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) amendments to the proxy rules to facilitate electronic shareholder forums. See, notice in the Federal Register, January 25, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 17, at Pages 4450-4459.

TIME? The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee will hold a hearing titled "Preservation of White House E-mails". Location: Room 2154, Rayburn Building.

8:30 AM - 2:00 PM. The National Science Foundation's (NSF) Committee on Equal Opportunities in Science and Engineering will meet. See, notice in the Federal Register, February 8, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 27, at Page 7611. Location: 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA.

1:00 - 4:00 PM. The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board's (ATBCB) Telecommunications and Electronic and Information Technology Advisory Committee (TEITAC) will meet by conference call. See, notice in the Federal Register, January 24, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 16, at Page 4132.

2:00 - 4:00 PM. The Department of State's (DOS) International Telecommunication Advisory Committee (ITAC) will meet to prepare advice on the World Telecommunication Standardization Assembly 2008 (WTSA 08), including positions on cybersecurity. See, notice in the Federal Register, February 13, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 30, at Pages 8389-8390. Location?

Day two of a three day conference hosted by the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) titled "2008 NAB State Leadership Conference". See, conference web site. Location: Mandarin Oriental Hotel.

8:30 AM - 5:00 PM. The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission will hold a public hearing titled "China's Views of Sovereignty and Methods of Access Control". The hearing will also address "ways that China may be influencing the development of international sovereignty laws and norms in space and cyberspace". See, notice in the Federal Register, January 30, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 20, at Pages 5631-5632. Location: Room 562, Dirksen Building, Capitol Hill.

Day three of a three day conference hosted by the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) titled "2008 NAB State Leadership Conference". See, conference web site. Location: Mandarin Oriental Hotel.

6:00 - 8:15 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Enforcement Committee will host an event titled "FCC Hearings and Investigations -- Nuts and Bolts Review". See, notice and registration page. Registrations are due by 5:00 PM on February 25. This event offers continuing legal educations (CLE) credits. The price to attend ranges from $25 to $135. Location: Wilmer Hale, 1875 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.

Deadline to submit requests to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to be panelists at its May 6-7, 2008, workshop titled "Beyond Voice: Mapping the Mobile Marketplace". See, notice.

9:00 AM - 12:00 NOON. The Department of Commerce's (DOC) National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) will hold a public meeting to to discuss the mid-term review of the Joint Project Agreement (JPA) between the DOC and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). See, notice in the Federal Register, January 24, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 16, at Page 4181. Location: DOC, Auditorium, 1401 Constitution Ave., NW.

12:00 NOON - 2:00 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) International Telecommunications Practice Committee will host a panel discussion titled "EU Telecommunications Law Developments". The speakers will be Gerry Oberst (Hogan & Hartson), Winston Maxwell (Hogan & Hartson), and David Gross (Department of State). Lunch will be provided by Hogan & Hartson. RSVP to aqfitzgerald at hhlaw dot com. Location: Hogan & Hartson, Litigation Center, 555 13th St., NW.

2:00 - 3:00 PM. The President's National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee (NSTAC) will hold a partially closed meeting by teleconference. The agenda of the open portion of the meeting, which begins at 2:00 PM, includes a discussion and vote on the NSTAC's Global Positioning Systems report. The agenda of the closed portion of the meeting, which begins at 2:30 PM, includes a discussion of the results of the NSTAC's investigation of the global network infrastructure environment, and a discussion of the work of the NSTAC's Network Security Scoping Group. See, notice in the Federal Register, February 4, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 23, at Pages 6521-6522.

Deadline for the Department of Education's National Mathematics Advisory Panel to submit its final report to the President. See, notice in the Federal Register, August 20, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 160, at Pages 46452-46453.

Tech Law Journal publishes a free access web site and subscription e-mail alert. The basic rate for a subscription to the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert is $250 per year. However, there are discounts for subscribers with multiple recipients. Free one month trial subscriptions are available. Also, free subscriptions are available for journalists, federal elected officials, and employees of the Congress, courts, and executive branch. The TLJ web site is free access. However, copies of the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert are not published in the web site until one month after writing. See, subscription information page.

Contact: 202-364-8882.
P.O. Box 4851, Washington DC, 20008.

Privacy Policy
Notices & Disclaimers
Copyright 1998-2008 David Carney, dba Tech Law Journal. All rights reserved.