4/14. The Department of the Treasury's (DOT) Internal Revenue Service (IRS) published a document in January of 2008 regarding use of cell phones and other communications devices by employees. It states that "If records are not kept of business and personal use, the value of all use is included in the wages of the employee".

That is, if employers provide employees with cell phones or other devices, and require employees to carry them, the IRS seeks to impose the record keeping requirements of its substantiation statute, which requires "the amount of such expense or other item", "the time and place of the ... the facility or property", "the business purpose of the expense", and "the business relationship to the taxpayer of persons entertained". IRS regulations strongly suggest contemporaneous recording.

If these requirements are not met, then the entire cost of both the device and the service must be treated as income to the employee. And, the employee must pay taxes on these devices and services. It must be added to the base used to calculate withholding. The employees must pay income taxes on what is in essence a business expense of the employer.

The IRS has put out little information. There is the IRS's January 2008 document [91 pages in PDF] titled "Taxable Fringe Benefit Guide". However, it contains only a few paragraphs on communications devices. The IRS asserts that its new position is supported by two sections of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC). It first relies upon 26 U.S.C. § 280F(d)(4), which subjects cell phones to the same scrutiny as big ticket corporate perks such as limousines. It also relies upon 26 U.S.C. § 274(d), which provides the rules for substantiating business use over these items. It also relies upon implementing regulations.

TLJ has long since requested, but not received, interviews with persons at the IRS and DOT's Office of Tax Policy regarding this topic.

Capitol Hill staff relate that the Congress is hearing from representatives of affected taxpayers regarding this subject. They state that the IRS has instructed its field examiners to enforce the above cited IRC sections against the users of cell phones and other communications devices.

These IRC sections are directed at big ticket corporate benefits, such as limousines, jets, skyboxes, and club memberships, that provide personal, non-business, benefits to the recipients, who are usually senior executives. However, the Congress added cell phones to the list of covered corporate perks back in 1989. Now, the IRS asserts that companies and individuals must document the business purpose of each and every call or message. If not, the entire cost must be treated as income to the employee, including low paid rank and file employees.

This new IRS position has promoted members of Congress to introduce bills. See, related story in this issue titled "Bills Introduced to Stop IRS from Taxing Employees for Work Cell Phones and Other Devices".

TLJ also intends to publish an article in a forthcoming issue titled "Analysis of IRS Authority to Tax Employees for Communications Devices and Services".

4/14. Several bills have been introduced in the House and Senate that would remove "any cellular telephone (or other similar telecommunications equipment)" from the enumeration of "listed property" under Section 280F of the Internal Revenue Code.

At issue is whether the Internal Revenue Service can treat the use of cell phones and other devices paid for by employers as income to employees, as well as record keeping and data retention requirements imposed upon employers and employees.

On February 14, 2008, Rep. Sam Johnson (R-TX) introduced HR 5450 [LOC | WW], the "Modernize Our Bookkeeping In the Law for Employee's Cell Phone Act of 2008" or "MOBILE Cell Phone Act of 2008". There are currently 36 cosponsors. It was referred to the House Ways and Means Committee, of which Rep. Johnson is a senior member.

On February 26, 2008, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) and Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) introduced S 2668 [LOC | WW], a substantially identical bill with the same title. It was referred to the Senate Finance Committee. Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY), Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), and Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) are also cosponsors of the bill.

On April 8, 2008, Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, and others introduced HR 5719 [LOC | WW], the "Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification Act of 2008". This is a broad bill that includes language similar to HR 5450 and S 2668.

No action has been taken on any of these bills. However, the House Democratic leadership has scheduled floor consideration of HR 5719 for as early as April 15, 2008. See, Rep. Hoyer's schedule for week of April 14.

No hearings have been scheduled for any of these bills. TLJ spoke with one Hill staffer who stated that no hearings will be necessary, because this is "a slam dunk stupid issue". That is, there is such broad, bipartisan and bicameral support that if the IRS does not back down, the Congress will pass legislation without formalities.

Legislative History. On August 18, 1988, then Vice President George Bush gave a speech at the Republican National Convention in which he said "Read My Lips: No New Taxes". He won the Presidential election in November of 1988.

He then proceeding to raise taxes, beginning with the "Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989", or "OBRA 1989", but more substantially with the OBRA 1990. He was a one term President.

One of the things that the OBRA 1989 did was tighten tax rules to limit the ability of large corporations to pass off benefits for top executives as business expenses. One section related to the use of the then nascent and expensive technology of cell phones. The effect of the bill was that companies and their executives had to keep detailed call records to demonstrate that cell phones were actually being used for business purposes in order to depreciate the cost of the equipment and expense the cost of the telecommunications service.

The OBRA 1989 was HR 3299 (101st Congress). It is now Public Law No. 101-239. The provision in question is § 7643, which provides in full as follows:

SEC. 7643. DEPRECIATION TREATMENT OF CELLULAR TELEPHONES.

(a) GENERAL RULE- Subparagraph (A) of section 280F(d)(4) (defining listed property) is amended by striking `and' at the end of clause (iv), by redesignating clause (v) as clause (vi), and by inserting after clause (iv) the following new clause:

`(v) any cellular telephone (or other similar telecommunications equipment), and'.

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE- The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply to property placed in service or leased in taxable years beginning after December 31, 1989.

This new language is codified in 26 U.S.C. § 280F(d)(4).

Back in 1989 cell phones were prohibitively expensive for all but a few people. Hence, few people used them, and the burden of keeping records was minimal relative to the cost of the equipment and service.

§ 7643 maintained the government's ability to soak the rich.

Bill Summaries. HR 5450 (Johnson) and S 2668 (Kerry) are substantially identical. These are brief bills that would merely undo § 7643 of the OBRA 1989.

They would both remove the clause "any cellular telephone (or other similar telecommunications equipment)" from 26 U.S.C. § 280F(d)(4).

These bills provide that "section 280F(d)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code (defining listed property) is amended by ... striking clause (v) ..." (Parentheses in original.)

HR 5719 (Rangel) is a larger bill with numerous provisions. Section 3 of the bill, like HR 5450 and S 2668, would remove "any cellular telephone (or other similar telecommunications equipment)" from 26 U.S.C. § 280F(d)(4).

However, HR 5719 provides that it "shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2008" while HR 5450 and S 2668 both provide that they "shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2007."

HR 5450 (Johnson) and S 2668 (Kerry) are bills directed solely at reforming the IRC regarding taxation of communications and communications devices.

HR 5719 (Rangel) is a bill timed to coincide with a tax filing deadline. It enables House members to make speeches, take positions, and cast votes on a measure, and then assert to their taxpaying constituents that they are concerned about tax levels and tax procedure.

There is no companion bill to HR 5719 (Rangel) in the Senate.

Bills Sponsors' Explanations. Rep. Johnson stated in the Congressional Record that "A law was put in place in 1989 to require that detailed log sheets be kept by employees of their cell phone use in order to document their business use. Those rules made sense back then."

"Clearly, time and technology have marched on and companies give their employees cell phones and BlackBerrys with unlimited minutes. And these communication devices are really just an extension of the business day and place to anywhere at any time."

Rep. Johnson (at right) continued that "The IRS wants employees to keep detailed call sheets or be forced to include the value of cell phones and BlackBerrys in their pay. The law needs to be brought up to date with the fact that the office cell and BlackBerry is just an extension of the phone on an employee's desk. Employees and employers have better things to worry about than keeping detailed logs of calls only for tax purposes."

Rep. Johnson also wrote a dear colleague letter [PDF] on February 12, 2008, in which he stated that "A log listing every call, time and purpose must be kept for the cost of the cell phone to be deducible."

Sen. Kerry stated in the Senate that "The purpose of this legislation is to update the tax treatment of cell phones and mobile communication devices. During the past 20 years, the use of cell phone and mobile communication devices has skyrocketed. Cell phones are no longer viewed as an executive perk or a luxury item. They no longer resemble suitcases or are hardwired to the floor of an automobile. Cell phone and mobile communication devices are now part of daily business practices at all levels." See, Congressional Record, February 26, 2008, at Page S1203.

He said that under the statutes, "listed property is property that inherently lends itself to personal use, such as automobiles". Moreover, in 1989 the "Congress was skeptical about the daily business use of cell phones".

But, Sen. Kerry (at left) said, "Technological advances have revolutionized the cell phone and mobile communication device industries. Twenty years ago, no one could have imagined the role BlackBerries play in our day-to-day communications. Cell phones and mobile communication devices are now widespread throughout all types of businesses. Employers provide their employees with these devices to enable them to remain connected 24 hours a day, seven days a week."

He explained the need for legislation. Recently, the IRS "reminded field examiners of the substantiation rules for cell phones as listed property. The current rule requires employers to maintain expensive and detailed logs, and employers caught without cell phone logs could face tax penalties."

Sen. Kerry said that the bill "updates the tax treatment of cell phones and mobile communication devices by repealing the requirement that employers maintain detailed logs. The tax code should keep pace with technological advances. There is no longer a reason that cell phones and mobile communication devices should be treated differently from office phones or computers."

Reaction. Steve Largent, head of the CTIA, stated in a release on February 13 that the IRC's "treatment of wireless devices is hopelessly outdated and fails to reflect the integration of wireless technology into American businesses."

He continued that "Thanks to wireless technology, the days of the desk-bound employee are long gone. Today’s worker carries ‘the office’ in the palm of his or her hand and has the freedom to conduct business on the go. The tax code should be written and enforced in a way that enables, rather than discourages, businesses to embrace the benefits of wireless technology."

3/25. The U.S. District Court (DC) issued its opinion [44 pages in PDF] in In Re Long-Distance Telephone Service Federal Excise Tax Refund Litigation, dismissing all claims by all taxpayer plaintiffs.

This proceeding consolidates several cases involving numerous claims by taxpayers arising out of the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) long running collection of excise taxes on certain phone services without statutory authority.

Five U.S. Courts of Appeals had held that the tax collection was illegal before the IRS stopped collecting it on July 31, 2006. See, story titled "IRS Announces It Will Cease Its Illegal Collection of Excise Taxes on Phone Service" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,379, May 26, 2006. That story lists each of the IRS's Appeals Court defeats, and hyperlinks to opinions and TLJ stories. See also, story titled "IRS Announces That It Will Violate Court of Appeals Ruling Regarding Excise Tax on Phone Service" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,241, October 27, 2005.

Statutes and Regulations. The unlawful tax collection was based upon 26 U.S.C. § 4251, which imposes a 3 percent excise tax on some, but not all, communications services. This tax is sometimes referred to as the "Spanish American War tax", since it was originally imposed to help fund that war.

The Courts held that the IRS was applying Section 4251 to communications services not covered by Section 4251, and the related definitional section.

John Snow is a former Secretary of the Treasury. The IRS is part of the Department of the Treasury (DOT). He announced in May of 2006 that the IRS would follow the law, as interpreted by the courts. However, he also attacked the entire tax. He stated in a May 25, 2006, DOT release that "In addition to ending the litigation, I would like to call on Congress to terminate the remainder of this antique tax by repealing the excise tax on local service as well." He added that this "marks the beginning of the end of an outdated, antiquated tax that has survived a century beyond its original purpose, and by now should have been ancient history."

The IRS also issued IRS Notice 2006-50 [14 pages in PDF], an undated document, at the same time. It identified a refund procedure for taxes wrongfully collected. It stated that "Taxpayers may request a credit or refund of tax on nontaxable service that was billed after February 28, 2003, and before August 1, 2006, only on their 2006 Federal income tax returns."

There is also 26 U.S.C. § 7422(a), which provides in full that "No suit or proceeding shall be maintained in any court for the recovery of any internal revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or of any penalty claimed to have been collected without authority, or of any sum alleged to have been excessive or in any manner wrongfully collected, until a claim for refund or credit has been duly filed with the Secretary, according to the provisions of law in that regard, and the regulations of the Secretary established in pursuance thereof."

In addition, 28 U.S.C. § 1346 provides that "The district courts shall have original jurisdiction, concurrent with the United States Court of Federal Claims, of: (1) Any civil action against the United States for the recovery of any internal-revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or any penalty claimed to have been collected without authority or any sum alleged to have been excessive or in any manner wrongfully collected under the internal-revenue laws

The District Court opinion states also that "If a claim is filed and the IRS denies it or withholds a response for six months, a claimant may file a refund suit against the United States ..."

Plaintiffs' Claims. The District Court's opinion relates to taxpayers' attempts to obtain refunds of the monies collected unlawfully from them. Twelve of the plaintiff taxpayers in these consolidated actions are individuals. The other two plaintiffs are small businesses.

They filed complaints in federal court either prior to the May 2006 announcement, or shortly thereafter.

The plaintiffs asserted numerous claims. First, they sought refunds. Various plaintiffs also sought declaratory and injunctive relief, a writ of mandamus, recovery for violation of the Fifth Amendment's takings clause, and recovery for violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), among other claims.

District Court Opinion. The District Court conceded that "five federal appeals courts unanimously declared the IRS’s reliance on § 4251 to be unlawful", and that the IRS's continued collection of money after court determinations of unlawfulness "may" have been "unwise, stubborn, or inconsiderate positions". Moreover, the District Court made no findings that the IRS had not unlawfully collected taxes from these plaintiffs, or that the IRS had already made refunds.

Rather, the District Court found procedural grounds for dismissing all claims of all plaintiffs.

First, the District Court held that all of the plaintiffs' claims for refunds must be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Some were dismissed for failure to file administrative claims for refunds. The District Court also found grounds for dismissal where the plaintiffs had filed a complaint within five months of filing an administrative claim, but failed to plead whether "the IRS communicated a decision on their claim". The District Court also found procedural fault in failing in administrative claims to "set forth a legal basis for the claim" or the "refund amount". For one plaintiff, the District Court faulted the failure to provide claim amounts "broken down by quarter".

For another plaintiff, the District Court determined that the IRS had not yet made a decision on an administrative claim filed in 2005, even though it had written to the claimant in January of 2006 that it would take no further action. The Court reasoned that the plaintiff failed to either obtain an adverse decision, or wait the requisite time period, before filing an action in federal court. That is, the Court determined that a decision not to make a decision, and not to pay no refund, is not a decision.

Another claim sought a writ of mandamus directing the IRS, among other things, to develop and implement a "Court-supervised program that will effect a refund to all persons who have paid the Communications Excise Tax, at no cost to such taxpayers and without the necessity of submission of a refund application."

The District Court wrote that "Mandamus is a drastic remedy, reserved for extraordinary circumstances", and that "A court has no authority to order a government official to perform a discretionary duty". It dismissed the claim.

Another claim asserted that the IRS violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in failing to follow its own Notice 2006-50. The District Court wrote that "Notice 2006-50 is a statement of internal IRS policy without the force and effect of law", and that it therefore gives rise to no judicial remedy. The Court dismissed the claim.

Another set of claims asserted that the unlawful tax violated the takings clause of the Constitution. The 5th Amendment provides, in part, "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation".

The Court conceded that "Taxation does indeed ``take´´ income". The Court wrote that "Action represented by the government as a tax will be construed as a takings-in-disguise only when the tax is so arbitrary that no other conclusion is plausible."

Perhaps this opinion stands as authority for the proposition, at least in the context of tax collection, that defiance of federal law -- both statutory and multiple appellate opinions -- by an administrative agency is not arbitrary.

This case is In Re Long-Distance Telephone Service Federal Excise Tax Refund Litigation, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, MDL Docket No. 1798 and Master File No. 07-mc-0014 (RMU), Judge Ricardo Urbino presiding.

4/14. Perhaps it should also be noted here that the IRS's recently abandoned attempts to impose a 3% excise tax on certain communications services not covered by the applicable statute is similar to the IRS's new initiative to tax employees under the § 280F regime. See, related story in this issue titled "IRS Initiative Taxes Employees for Use of Work Cell Phones and Other Devices".

First, both tax users of telecommunications services.

Second, both are based on obsolete statutes.

Third, both statutes have purposes that no long apply. The excise tax began as a tax on a luxury product to fund the Spanish American War, which began in 1898. The 1989 § 280F cell phone tax amendment was an attempt to soak rich people when only rich people had access to cell phones.

Fourth, both taxes are regressive.

Fifth, the IRS's implementation of the excise tax was challenged in court and held unlawful, while the IRS's authority to impose its new § 280F tax regime on wireless services is suspect, and may face legal challenges.

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.

4/11. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report [69 pages in PDF] titled "Media Ownership: Economic Factors Influence the Number of Media Outlets in Local Markets, While Ownership by Minorities and Women Appears Limited and Is Difficult to Assess".

This report contains the conclusion that "the overall growth in the communications industry and the emergence of the Internet have provided unprecedented levels of media choices to the American public." It also concludes that "local and national consolidation and operating agreements ...reduce the number of independent voices".

This report primarily focuses on media ownership laws, and the older media, the ownership of which is regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), including broadcast television and radio, newspapers, cable, direct broadcast satellite (DBS).

This report contains little on new internet based media.

The report finds that "Since the 1970s, the number of media outlets has increased dramatically, with large increases in the number of television and radio stations. In the case of television, the number of full-power television stations increased from 875 in 1970 to 1,754 in 2006".

It reports that "Since the 1970s, the number of households subscribing to a multichannel video program distributor (MVPD) has increased significantly, thereby increasing the programming options available to many households. The two most prominent MVPD platforms are cable and direct broadcast satellite (DBS) services. Since 1975, the number of households subscribing to cable service has increased from approximately 10 million to nearly 66 million in 2006, and since 1995, the number of households subscribing to DBS service has increased from 2.2 million to over 29 million in 2006." (Footnote omitted.)

However, it states that "Daily newspapers illustrate a different trend -- decreasing from 1,763 in 1970 to 1,447 in 2006."

The report finds that "The numbers of media outlets and owners of media outlets generally increase with the size of the market, although operating agreements may reduce the effective number of independent outlets. Markets with large populations have more radio and television stations and newspapers than less populated markets."

It adds that "In more diverse markets, we also observed more radio and television stations and newspapers operating in languages other than English, which contributed to a greater number of outlets."

It also reports that "Some companies participate in agreements to share content or agreements that allow one entity to produce programming or sell advertising through two outlets, among other agreements. In our review, these agreements were prevalent in a variety of markets but not in the top three markets, suggesting that market size may influence the benefits that firms achieve through such arrangements. To some degree, these agreements may suggest that the number of independently owned media outlets in a market might not always be a good indicator of how many independently produced local news or other programs are available in a market."

The report finds that "Ownership of broadcast outlets by minorities and women appears limited, but comprehensive data are lacking."

The report relates the views of media outlets and others on media ownership laws. However, the report does not make its own recommendations. It does recommend that the FCC "identify processes and procedures to improve the reliability of FCC’s data on gender, race, and ethnicity"

New Media. The report largely fails to address the nature, scope, use, or policy consequences of new internet based types of media.

It states at the outset that "we observed few independent news Web sites in our case study markets, as most of the Web sites that we found were affiliated with one or more traditional media outlets."

The body of the report provides this elaboration. "The Internet delivers content from a virtually limitless supply of sources. For example, while residents of New York can read The New York Times, residents in Harrisonburg with access to the Internet also can read this publication. Most of the traditional media outlets -- newspapers, radio stations, and television stations -- in our case study markets maintain a Web site. This provides another means for residents to access the content of these outlets. However, we identified few news Web sites in our case study markets that were unaffiliated with the traditional media outlets."

It continues that "While there are many blogs and Web sites, when we spoke with stakeholders about assessing the number of "voices" in a media market, there was no consensus on how to count Internet outlets. Some stakeholders said that audience size was less important than the existence of many potential voices, while other stakeholders said that voices on the Internet mattered only when they reached an audience above a certain minimum size. Further, some stakeholders said that journalistic content was important, such as that arising from news gathering and investigations."

The report states at the outset that "stakeholders reported that technological factors, such as the emergence of the Internet, have facilitated entry for new companies, thereby increasing the amount of content and competition. However, stakeholder opinions varied over the significance of new media entrants, such as individual Web pages and blogs."

The report then elaborates that "New technologies appear to facilitate entry, thereby promoting new content and competition. In particular, the Internet provides new opportunities for individual citizens and companies to produce their own Internet publications with little investment. For example, individuals and companies no longer need to acquire a broadcast license and invest in broadcast facilities to distribute content to a wide audience. Forty-four stakeholders told us that the Internet creates an abundance of outlets, while only 17 disagreed."

"Additionally, 67 of 102 stakeholders mentioned competition from new entrants from the Internet or new telecommunications services as a factor influencing media ownership. For example, six newspaper industry stakeholders reported that industry revenues have suffered from the availability of low-cost or free classified advertising services available on the Internet."

It should be noted too the most of the "stakeholders" consulted by the GAO are representatives of old media. They are listed in an appendix to the report. The GAO did not attempt to obtain a wide survey of new media entities.

Finally, the GAO report states that "While many stakeholders reported that the Internet creates an abundance of outlets, opinions varied as to the significance of these outlets. For example, several stakeholders cited increases in the number of outlets available on the Internet, such as blogs, but said there is little evidence that these outlets are widely read or are journalistic substitutes for newspapers. Similarly, several other stakeholders estimated that a significant portion of the content available on these Web sites originates from large, established media firms such as newspapers."

The House will meet at 12:30 PM for morning hour debate, and 2:00 PM for legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 PM. The House will consider several non-technology related items under suspension of the rules. See, Rep. Hoyer's schedule for week of April 14.

The Senate will meet at 2:00 PM. It will resume consideration of HR 1195 [LOC | WW], the "Highway Technical Corrections Act of 2007".

Extended deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding the Petition for Declaratory Ruling [33 pages in PDF] filed by the Public Knowledge (PK) and other groups on December 11, 2007, pertaining to the regulatory status of text messaging services, including short code based services sent from and received by mobile phones. The PK requests that the FCC declare that these services are governed by the anti-discrimination provisions of Title II of the Communications Act. See, story titled "Verizon Wireless and Net Neutrality Advocates Clash Over Text Messaging" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,647, September 27, 2007. See also, letter from Verizon Wireless to NARAL dated September 27, 2007, and NARAL's web page titled "NARAL Pro-Choice America Wins Fight over Corporate Censorship". See also, story titled "Public Knowledge Asks FCC to Declare that Blocking and Refusing to Carry Text Messages Violates Title II" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,686, December 11, 2007. This proceeding is WT Docket No. 08-7. See, original notice in the Federal Register, January 28, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 18, at Pages 4866-4867. See also, notice [PDF] of extension (DA 08-282), and second notice in the Federal Register, February 28, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 40, at Pages 10775-10776.

2:00 PM. The Public Knowledge will host a news conference by telephone regarding its petition to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding the text messaging services. The speakers will include Richard Brodsky (New York State Assembly), Laura Scher (CREDO Mobile), Gigi Sohn (PK), Jef Pearlman (PK), Marvin Ammori (Free Press). For more information, contact Art Brodsky at 202-518-0020 or brodsky at publicknowledge dot org.

EXTENDED TO JUNE 11. Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Report on Broadcast Localism and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The FCC adopted this item on December 18, 2007, and released the text on January 24, 2008. It is FCC 07-218 in MB Docket No. 04-233. See, notice in the Federal Register, February 13, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 30, at Pages 8255-8259. See also, FCC's Public Notice [PDF] (DA 08-393). See also, Public Notice [PDF] (DA 08-515) extending deadlines.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding leased commercial access. The FCC adopted this NPRM on November 27, 2007, and released the text on February 1, 2008. This NPRM is FCC 07-208 in MB Docket No. 07-42. See, story titled "FCC Adopts R&O and FNPRM Regarding Commercial Leased Access" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,680, November 30, 2007. See also, notice in the Federal Register, February 28, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 40, Pages 10732-10738.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) regarding cable and broadcast attribution rules. The FCC adopted this item on December 18, 2007, and released the text on February 11, 2008. It is FCC 07-219 in MM Docket No. 92-264. See, notice in the Federal Register, February 27, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 39, at Pages 10411-10415.

The House will meet at 10:30 AM for morning hour debate, and 12:00 NOON for legislative business. The House will consider several non-technology related items under suspension of the rules. See, Rep. Hoyer's schedule for week of April 14.

ROOM CHANGE. 9:30 AM. The House Commerce Committee's (HCC) Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet will hold a hearing titled "Oversight of the Federal Communications Commission -- the 700 MHz Auction". The first panel of witnesses will be the five FCC Commissioners. The second panel will be Charles Dowd (NYC Police Department), Stewart Hutcheson (Leap Wireless), Harold Feld (Media Access Project), Robert Duncan (SVP of Rivada Networks), Morgan O'Brien (CEO of Cyren Call Communications), Harlan McEwen (Public Safety Spectrum Trust), Steven Zipperstein (Verizon Wireless), and Coleman Bazelon (Brattle Group). See, witness list [PDF]. This hearing will be webcast by the HCC. See also, story titled "Rep. Markey Announces Hearing on 700 MHz Auction" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,734, March 20, 2008. The hearing will be webcast by the HCC. Location: Room 2123, Rayburn Building.

The House will meet at 10:00 AM for legislative business. See, Rep. Hoyer's schedule for week of April 14.

10:00 AM. The Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) will hold a hearing titled "National Security Letters: The Need for Greater Accountability and Oversight". The witnesses will be James Baker (former Counsel for Intelligence Policy, Department of Justice), Gregory Nojeim (Center for Democracy and Technology), and Michael Woods (former Chief, National Security Law Unit, Office of the General Counsel, FBI). Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.

10:00 AM. The House Science Committee (SCC) will hold a hearing titled "The National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2008". The witnesses will be Floyd Kvamme (Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology), Sean Murdock (Nano Business Alliance), Joseph Krajcik (University of Michigan), Andrew Maynard (Woodrow Wilson Center), Raymond David (BASF Corporation), and Robert Doering (Texas Instruments). Location: Room 2318, Rayburn Building.

2:00 PM. The Senate Judiciary Committee's (SJC) Subcommittee on Crime will hold a hearing titled "Challenges and Solutions for Protecting our Children from Violence and Exploitation in the 21st Century". The witnesses will be McGregor Scott (U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of California Flint Waters (Office of the Attorney General of the State of Wyoming), Robert Moses (High Technology Crimes Unit, Delaware State Police), Michelle Collins (National Center for Missing and Exploited Children), and Grier Weeks (National Association to Protect Children). See, notice. This hearing will address online exploitation. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.

2:00 PM. The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee's Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census, and National Archives will hold a hearing titled "Electronic Communications Preservation Act". Location: Room 2247, Rayburn Building.

6:00 - 8:15 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Wireline Committee will host an event titled "Pole Attachments: Current Issues and Policy Considerations". This event qualifies for continuing legal education (CLE) credits. See, registration form [PDF] and notice and online registration page. Prices vary. The deadline for registrations and cancellations is 5:00 PM on April 14. Location: Bingham McCutchen, 2020 K St., NW.

The House will meet at 10:00 AM for legislative business. See, Rep. Hoyer's schedule for week of April 14.

10:00 AM. The Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) may hold an executive business meeting. The agenda includes consideration of S 2533 [LOC | WW], the "State Secrets Protection Act". The SJC rarely follows its published agendas. This bill has been on prior agendas. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.

10:00 - 11:30 AM. The Department of State's (DOS) Advisory Committee on International Communications and Information Policy will meet. See, notice in the Federal Register, April 1, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 63, at Pages 17396-17397. Location: Loy Henderson Auditorium, DOS, 2201 C St., NW.

6:00 PM. Deadline for the winning bidders in Auction 73 to submit the balance of the net amount of their winning bids. See, notice.

6:30 - 8:30 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Diversity Committee and Young Lawyers Committee will host an event titled "Happy Hour". For more information, contact Parul Desai at pdesai at mediaaccess dot org, Chris Fedeli at chrisfedeli at dwt dot com, or Tarah Grant at tsgrant at hhlaw dot com. Location: Oya Restaurant & Lounge, 777 9th St., NW.

Extended deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to it Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding the Recommended Decision of the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, released on November 20, 2007, regarding comprehensive reform of high cost universal service taxes and subsidies. The FCC adopted this NPRM on January 15, 2008, and released the text on January 29, 2008. It is FCC 08-02 in WC Docket No. 05-337 and CC Docket No. 96-45. See, original notice in the Federal Register, March 4, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 43, at Pages 11587-11591. See also, notice [PDF] of extension (DA 08-674).

Extended deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding the use of reverse auctions to determine the amount of high cost universal service subsidies provided to eligible telecommunications carriers serving rural, insular, and high cost areas. The FCC adopted this NPRM on January 9, 2008, and released the text on January 29, 2008. It is FCC 08-05 in WC Docket No. 05-337 and CC Docket No. 96-45. See, original notice in the Federal Register, March 4, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 43, at Pages 11591-11602. See also, notice [PDF] of extension (DA 08-674).

Extended deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding the FCC's rules governing the amount of high cost universal service subsidies provided to competitive eligible telecommunications carriers (ETCs). This NPRM also tentatively concludes that the FCC should eliminate the existing identical support rule, which is also known as the equal support rule. The FCC adopted this NPRM on January 9, 2008, and released the text on January 29, 2008. It is FCC 08-04 in WC Docket No. 05-337 and CC Docket No. 96-45. See, original notice in the Federal Register, March 4, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 43, at Pages 11580-11587. See also, notice [PDF] of extension (DA 08-674).

Rep. Hoyer's schedule for week of April 14 states that "no votes are expected in the House".

12:30 - 1:30 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Engineering and Technical Practice Committee will host an event titled "Tour of T-Mobile Wireless Switch Office". See, registration form [PDF]. This event is free. Registration required; limit of 15. Location: T-Mobile wireless switching office, 12050 Baltimore Ave., Beltsville, MD.

5:00 PM. Deadline to submit to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) applications for a grant for the Pan-Pacific Education and Communications Experiments by Satellite (PEACESAT) Program. See, notice in the Federal Register, March 19, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 54, at Pages 14777-14780.

5:00 PM. Extended deadline to submit comments to the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Computer Security Division (CSD) regarding SP 800-73-2, Part 1 [40 pages in PDF] titled "Interfaces for Personal Identity Verification -- Part 1: End-Point PIV Card Application Namespace, Data Model, and Representation", SP 800-73-2, Part 2 [28 pages in PDF] titled "Interfaces for Personal Identity Verification -- Part 2: End-Point PIV Card Application Card Command Interface", SP 800-73-2, Part 3 [19 pages in PDF] titled "Interfaces for Personal Identity Verification -- Part 3: End-Point PIV Client Application Programming Interface", and SP 800-73-2, Part 4 [16 pages in PDF] titled "Interfaces for Personal Identity Verification -- Part 4: The PIV Transitional Interface and Data Model Specification".

Deadline to submit comments to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (OUSTR) regarding the OUSTR's complaint to the World Trade Organization (WTO) regarding the People's Republic of China's (PRC) WTO restrictions on financial information services and financial information suppliers. See, notice in the Federal Register, March 24, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 57, at Pages 15544-15545.

Passover begins at sundown.

Day one of a three day conference hosted by the Wireless Communications Association International (WCAI) titled "WCAI 2008: Capitalizing on the 4G/WiMax Eco-System". Location: Grand Hyatt Hotel, 1000 H St., NW.

TIME? Day one of a two day invitation only conference hosted by the Business Software Alliance (BSA) titled "BSA High-Tech General Counsel Forum". See, notice. Location?

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding interference protection rights for LPFM stations. The FCC adopted this item on November 27, 2007, and released the text on December 11, 2007. It is FCC 07-204 in MB Docket No. 99-25. See, notice in the Federal Register, March 6, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 45, at Pages 12061-12065, and Public Notice [PDF] (DA 08-531).

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding expanding the local number portability (LNP) requirements and numbering related rules, including compliance with N11 code assignments, to interconnected voice over internet protocol (VOIP) providers. The FCC adopted this NPRM on October 31, 2007, and released the text on November 8, 2007. See, story titled "FCC Extends LNP Requirements to Interconnected VOIP" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,668, November 2, 2007. This NPRM is FCC 07-188 in WC Docket Nos. 07-243 and 07-244. See, notice in the Federal Register, February 21, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 35, at Pages 9507-9515.

Deadline to submit comments to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in response to its notice of proposed rulemaking regarding its Technology Innovation Program (TIP). See, notice in the Federal Register, March 7, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 46, at Pages 12305-12312.