TLJ News from May 16-20, 2008

5th Circuit Holds There Is No §253 Private Right of Action Enforceable Under §1983

5/20. The U.S. Court of Appeals (5thCir) issued its opinion [10 pages in PDF] in Southwestern Bell Telephone v. Houston, another case regarding 47 U.S.C. § 253 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Introduction. This is another in a series of opinions in cases brought by wireline and wireless carriers arguing that that violations of various provisions in the Communications Act give rise to private rights of action under §1983.

Previously, there was also much litigation, and a circuit divide, on the §332 issue. However, the Supreme Court resolved that question. See, March 22, 2005, opinion [22 pages in PDF] of the Supreme Court in Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams, and story titled "Supreme Court Holds That Individuals Who Sue Under §332 Cannot Also Recover Damages Under §1983" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,101, March 23, 2005.

The various circuits are divided on the §253 question, with the 2nd, 9th, 10th, and now the 5th Circuits holding that there is not a private right of action, and the 6th and 11th Circuits holding that there is a private right of action.

See for example, March 13, 2007, opinion [33 pages in PDF] of the U.S. Court of Appeals (9thCir) in Sprint v. County of San Diego, and story titled "9th Circuit Holds That Wireless Zoning Ordinance Violates § 253(a), But This Creates No Private Right Of Action Under § 1983" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,551, March 13, 2007. On May 14, 2008, the 9th Circuit ordered an en banc review. See also, story titled "En Banc Panel of 9th Circuit to Hear Sprint v. San Diego" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,768, May 16, 2008.

See also, NextG Networks of NY, Inc. v. City of New York, 513 F.3d 49 (2d Cir. 2008) and Qwest Corp. v. City of Santa Fe, N.M., 380 F.3d 1258 (10th Cir. 2004).

In contrast, see BellSouth Telecomms., Inc. v. Town of Palm Beach, 252 F.3d 1169 (11th Cir. 2001) and TCG Detroit v. City of Dearborn, 206 F.3d 618 (6th Cir. 2000).

Section 1983's language ("Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance ... subject ... any ... person ... to the deprivation of any rights ... secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law ...") may appear clear. Nevertheless, this and other courts have held this language is not to be given its plain meaning in the context of actions for violation of the Communications Act.

However, the carrier lost in this case not only because the court held that the Communications Act does not allow a §1983 action, but also because the government entity did not run afoul of the Communications Act.

Background. The City of Houston, in the state of Texas, passed an ordinance requiring owners of facilities located in its rights of way, including telecommunications facilities, to relocate, and to bear the cost of relocating, their equipment to accommodate a drainage improvement project.

Southwestern Bell Telephone (AT&T) incurred costs of $420,000 to relocate its facilities.

AT&T filed a complaint in U.S. District Court (SDTex) against Houston seeking recovery of these costs. It pled, among other things, that Houston took an action preempted by 47 U.S.C. § 253, and that this gives rise to an action for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

The District Court dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), holding that a violation of §253 cannot serve as the basis of a cause of action under §1983. However, it also held that Houston's action was not preempted by §253.

AT&T brought present appeal. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Statutes. §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 ..."

§253 of the Communications Act pertains to "Removals of barriers to entry". Subsection (a) provides that "No State or local statute or regulation, or other State or local legal requirement, may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service."

But then Subsection (c) provides that "Nothing in this section affects the authority of a State or local government to manage the public rights-of-way or to require fair and reasonable compensation from telecommunications providers, on a competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory basis, for use of public rights-of-way on a nondiscriminatory basis, if the compensation required is publicly disclosed by such government.

Court of Appeals Holding. The Court of Appeals reviewed precedent, and the existing circuit split, and concluded that "the more persuasive reasoning is found in the Second, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits’ holding ... that FTA § 253(a) does not create a private right enforceable under § 1983".

Also, the Court of Appeals held that Houston's ordinance is sheltered by the safe harbor of Subsection 253(c)

This case is Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P. v. City of Houston, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, App. Ct. No. 07-20320, an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Judge Rhesa Barksdale wrote the opinion of the Court of Appeals, in which Judges Jolly and Benavides joined.

Secretary Chertoff Addresses Integrated Public Alert and Warning System

5/20. Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff gave a speech in Washington DC regarding hurricane preparedness. He discussed the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS).

Michael Chertoff

Chertoff (at left) stated that "This goes beyond the typical radio and TV-based alert system to one that allows Internet-based warning and cell phone-based, text message based, warning with an opt-in feature."

He continued that "We piloted this system last year in the Gulf. It worked very well. It is not terribly expensive. We are going to be encouraging the governors of the states in the hurricane areas to sign up for this system. I think it's only a few million dollars, and there's even some of our grant money. If they want to use some of that, they can do it. But we're providing them with a tool that will enhance their ability to reach out to the members of their community - particularly people who may be hearing-impaired - and give them notice if there's any kind of an event. And they need to step up to the plate and accept this invitation; and we're going to be encouraging them to do that."

He also said in response to a question that the DHS will "build into the plans alternative language capabilities for warning, and we did that with the IPAWS system last year. Warning capability for the hearing-impaired. People can sign up if they want a text message."

"And so we built this system. It's out there", said Chertoff.

Most of the facilities that carry these warnings were built by, and are owned by broadcasters, carriers, and other private sector entities. Much of the rulemaking and enforcement activities have been conducted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Moreover, Rep. Sam Graves (R-MO) addresses IPAWS as a future program that is being developed, and should be expanded into more communications technologies. See, related story in this issue titled "Rep. Graves Introduces Integrated Public Alert and Warning System Bill".

Chertoff continued that "It can be contracted for. What we want to do is urge the states. Ultimately we'd like every state to do this."

Finally, Chertoff said that "We're saying we got this. The system works. We've tested it. It's available. I think depending on the nature of the state and exactly how fully configured the system you buy is, it's 2 to $3 million per year. It's not a lot of money. And warning, anybody will tell you is the key. If you get - the more people who are warned and take steps in advance the better off you are in response. I can't see a reason why a governor wouldn't sign up for this to be honest with you."

David PaulisonDavid Paulison, Administrator of the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) also spoke. He added that "I don't know why a governor would not want to be able to warn everybody in the state if there was something bad happening. Just last week we had a tornado that went through Pitcher, Oklahoma and into Seneca, Missouri."

He added there were people in cars who did not receive warning, but that "if there was a warning system out there that could access your Blackberry, your cell phone, or your car radio, or satellite radio which everybody listens to now. So somebody could have activated that and said there's a tornado; get out of your car."

Summary of Public Alert and Warning Systems

5/20. This article offers an overview of various federal warning programs and systems, and their acronyms, including the EAS, CMAS, NAWS, and IPAWS.

The US has long had an Emergency Alert System (EAS). It is an old system based upon broadcasting. Until 1994, it was named the Emergency Broadcast System (EBS). The Commercial Mobile Alert System (CMAS) is a new system, required by the WARN Act in 2006. It is currently being developed for cell phones and other mobile devices. The National Alert and Warnings System (NAWS) is the term for all alert and warning systems used in an Executive Order in 2006. The Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) is a term used to describe all alert and warning systems.

The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) web site states that the Emergency Alert System (EAS) is a "national public warning system that requires broadcasters, cable television systems, wireless cable systems, satellite digital audio radio service (SDARS) providers and, direct broadcast satellite (DBS) service providers to provide the communications capability to the President to address the American public during a National emergency. The system also may be used by state and local authorities to deliver important emergency information such as AMBER alerts and weather information targeted to a specific area." See, FCC's Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau's web page titled "Emergency Alert System".

The EAS is created by statute, and implemented by the FCC, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and National Weather Service (NWS).

TLJ spoke with a House Transportation Committee (HTC) aide who elaborated that certain broadcasters and others are required to have certain equipment. Moreover, carrying a Presidential message is mandatory. This would include such things as a warning of a nuclear attack. However, he said that this has never been activated.

In contrast, the HTC aide explained, carrying local communications, such as tornado and hurricane warnings, is voluntary.

The FCC promulgates, and enforces, rules implementing the EAS. In 2005, it expanded the EAS from analog television and radio to include participation by digital television broadcasters, digital cable television providers, digital broadcast radio, Digital Audio Radio Service (DARS), and Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) systems.

On May 31, 2007, the FCC adopted a Second Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding the existing EAS, and a "next-generation national EAS". It released the text [75 pages in PDF] on July 12, 2007. This item is FCC 07-109 in EB Docket No. 04-296.

The FCC also hosted a meeting on April 10, 2008, regarding the current and future EAS. See, FCC notice.

The Commercial Mobile Alert System (CMAS) was created by the WARN Act in 2006, and is still being implemented by the FCC. This expands government alerts to cell phones and other mobile devices. The FCC is setting technical requirements. It is a voluntary program in which carriers can choose whether or not to participate.

The Congress enacted the "Warning, Alert, and Response Network Act", or "WARN Act", as part of HR 4954 (109th Congress), the port security bill, which is now Public Law No. 109-347. The WARN Act begins at Section 601 of the bill.

The WARN Act requires the FCC to promulgate Commercial Mobile Service Alert (CMSA) regulations. The FCC adopted and released its Report and Order [62 pages in PDF] on April 9, 2008, that announces, recites, and explains its Commercial Mobile Alert Service (CMAS) regulations.

Michael CoppsFCC Commissioner Michael Copps (at left) wrote in a statement [PDF] associated with this R&O that there remains an unresolved problem. There is no agency in place to originate the alerts. He wrote that "there is one final issue that remains unresolved by today’s Order -- an issue that, if left uncorrected, threatens to vitiate it entirely. So far, no federal agency has stepped up to fulfill the unified aggregator/gateway role that virtually all stakeholders agree is necessary for our mobile alert system to work properly."

The National Alert and Warnings System (NAWS) is a term used in Executive Order No. 13407, issued by President Bush on June 26, 2006. This order was published in the Federal Register, June 28, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 124, at Pages 36975-36977.

This executive order states that "It is the policy of the United States to have an effective, reliable, integrated, flexible, and comprehensive system to alert and warn the American people in situations of war, terrorist attack, natural disaster, or other hazards to public safety and well-being (public alert and warning system), taking appropriate account of the functions, capabilities, and needs of the private sector and of all levels of government in our Federal system, and to ensure that under all conditions the President can communicate with the American people." (Parentheses in original.)

This order, among other things, directs the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to "establish or adopt, as appropriate, common alerting and warning protocols, standards, terminology, and operating procedures for the public alert and warning system to enable interoperability and the secure delivery of coordinated messages to the American people through as many communication pathways as practicable, taking account of Federal Communications Commission rules as provided by law".

The Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) is a term used by the DHS, FEMA, and others to refer to the collection and integration of current and future alert and warning systems.

The HTC aide with whom TLJ spoke explained that the EAS, NAWS, and CMAS are all part of the IPAWS.

Also, it should be noted that information that might be included in alerts and warning could come from a variety of agencies other than the FEMA and other components of the DHS. The Department of Commerce's (DOC) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Weather Service (NWS) provides, among other things, weather forecasts and warnings. The Department of Defense (DOD) provides defense information. AMBER Alert information comes from a variety of sources.

GAO Reports on Status of DTV Transition

5/20. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report [38 pages in PDF] titled "Digital Television Transition: Majority of Broadcasters Are Prepared for the DTV Transition, but Some Technical and Coordination Issues Remain".

This report states that "Broadcast stations have made substantial progress in transitioning to DTV, with the vast majority already transmitting a digital signal." It continues that "approximately 91 percent of full-power stations are currently transmitting a digital signal. Our survey further indicated that approximately 68 percent of respondents are transmitting their digital signal at full strength. In addition, 68 percent of survey respondents are currently transmitting their digital signal on the channel from which they will broadcast after the transition date."

The report also states that "Twenty-three percent of stations that responded to our survey indicated they will be moving their digital signal to their analog channel. In addition, other stations need to move to a completely new channel. While almost all full-power stations are already broadcasting a digital signal, 97 stations, or 9 percent of stations responding to our survey, are not currently broadcasting digitally. Almost all of these stations, however, indicated that they plan to have their digital signal operational by February 17, 2009."

Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), the Chairman of the House Commerce Committee (HCC), stated in a release that "I am greatly encouraged that so many broadcasters are well on their way to becoming fully prepared for the digital transition. I urge the FCC to work closely with industry to resolve remaining issues so that one hundred percent of full-power broadcasters will complete a smooth transition to digital. The Committee will continue to monitor the status of the transition, and I expect to see continued progress."

The HCC will hold a hearing on June 10 on the status of the DTV transition.

Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI), the Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee (SCC), stated in a release that "While I welcome the GAO report’s overall findings that a majority of stations are reasonably well prepared for the coming DTV transition, I believe that a closer examination of the report’s statistics reveal that there remain a number of hurdles for industry to overcome."

He also said that "I would note my ongoing and deep concern that while industry is, at a minimum, fully informed of the upcoming transition and aware of the potential pitfalls, the same cannot be said for consumers. Far too many Americans are unaware of or unprepared for February 17, 2009."

People and Appointments

5/20. Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) was diagnosed to have a malignant brain tumor. He is a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC). See, statement of Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Chairman of the SJC, statement of Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), the ranking Republican on the SJC, and statement of Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), a senior Republican on the SJC.

5/20. Rep. Vito Fossella (R-NY) announced that he will not run for re-election. He is a member of the House Commerce Committee (HCC) and its Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet.

More News

5/20. The U.S. District Court (DC) issued an order [PDF] in Covad v. Revonet, denying Revonet's motion for judgment on the pleadings. This is a breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets action involving customer lead information. This case is Covad Communications Company v. Revonet, Inc., U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, D.C. No. 06-1892 (CKK).

People and Appointments

5/19. Jim Lyons was hired as Republican tax counsel for the Senate Finance Committee. His areas of responsibility will include research and development. The R&D tax credit expired on December 31, 2007. There is legislation pending in both the House and Senate to extend and modify the R&D tax credit. Lyons previously worked in the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Tax Division. Before that, he worked for the House Ways and Means Committee.

More News

5/19. The Supreme Court issue an Orders List [8 pages in PDF].

5/19. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (OUSTR) released a statement [PDF] regarding ongoing Doha round trade negotiations. "We are going to be studying these revised texts in the days ahead. The U.S. is committed to concluding a successful Doha Round this year that achieves new market access for agricultural and industrial products and services in both developed and emerging market economies. We are prepared to make the tough political choices necessary to conclude an agreement, as others will need to do as well. Specifically, we will be looking to see how the world’s largest and fastest growing economies are going to make market-opening contributions commensurate with their increasing participation and role in the world economy."

Microsoft and Yahoo Continue Talks

5/18. Microsoft announced in a release that "In light of developments since the withdrawal of the Microsoft proposal to acquire Yahoo! Inc., Microsoft announced that it is continuing to explore and pursue its alternatives to improve and expand its online services and advertising business."

Last week Carl Icahn announced that he is leading a proxy fight to replace the current Yahoo board of directors with one that would negotiate with Microsoft. See, story titled "Icahn Announces Proxy Fight to Elect Yahoo Board that will Negotiate with Microsoft" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,768, May 16, 2008.

Microsoft's release continues that it "is considering and has raised with Yahoo! an alternative that would involve a transaction with Yahoo! but not an acquisition of all of Yahoo! Microsoft is not proposing to make a new bid to acquire all of Yahoo! at this time, but reserves the right to reconsider that alternative depending on future developments and discussions that may take place with Yahoo! or discussions with shareholders of Yahoo! or Microsoft or with other third parties."

Yahoo responded in its own release that "Yahoo! has confirmed with Microsoft that it is not interested in pursuing an acquisition of all of Yahoo! at this time. Yahoo! and its Board of Directors continue to consider a number of value maximizing strategic alternatives for Yahoo!, and we remain open to pursuing any transaction which is in the best interest of our stockholders. Yahoo!'s Board of Directors will evaluate each of our alternatives, including any Microsoft proposal, consistent with its fiduciary duties, with a focus on maximizing stockholder value." See also, same statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

5th Circuit Holds Section 230 Immunizes MySpace

5/16. The U.S. Court of Appeals (5thCir) issued its opinion [13 pages in PDF] in Doe v. MySpace, affirming the District Court's dismissal of the complaint pursuant to Section 230.

While the 5th Circuit's willingness to apply Section 230 may be viewed as a victory for internet based activities, it should be noted that the opinion, without referencing the 9th Circuit's opinion in the case, stated that it did not decide questions regarding whether any content creation by MySpace would deprive it of Section 230 immunity. Hence, it is possible that the 5th Circuit, in a later opinion, will follow the 9th Circuit.

Background. A 13 year old individual identified in the opinion as Julie Doe created an online profile on the social networking web site named MySpace, which is now owned by News Corporation. Myspace only allows people aged 14 and above to create profiles.

However, people, such as this Julie Doe, lie about their ages. MySpace's web site is also configured to limit the information that is displayed in profiles of persons aged 14 and 15. Julie Doe claimed she was 18.

She met through MySpace a 19 year old named Pete Solis, who is not a party to this appeal. They later met in person, and he sexually abused her.

Proceedings Below. Julie Doe's mother, who is identified in the opinion as Jane Doe, filed a complaint in a trial court of the state of Texas against MySpace, News Corporation, and Solis. She alleged sexual abuse by Solis. She also alleged fraud, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, and gross negligence by MySpace.

Doe later moved for nonsuit (a procedure under which the complaint is dismissed without adjudication on the merits), which was granted. She filed another complaint, not naming Solis as a defendant, in a trial court of the state of New York.

She alleged, among other things, that MySpace "owed a legal duty to 14-year-old Julie to institute and enforce appropriate security measures and policies that would substantially decrease the likelihood of danger and harm".

MySpace removed the action to the U.S. District Court (SDNY), and moved for a change of venue to the U.S. District Court (WDTex), which motion was granted.

MySpace then moved to dismiss based upon the immunity provision of 47 U.S.C. § 230, and Texas common law. The District Court granted the motion to dismiss the claims for negligence and gross negligence. Jane Doe withdrew her other claims. Jane Doe then brought the present appeal.

Statute. 47 U.S.C. § 230 provides certain immunity for an "interactive computer service".

The key subsection, §230(c)(1), provides that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider".

Subsection 230(d)(3) provides that "Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any State from enforcing any State law that is consistent with this section. No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section."

Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Section 230 immunizes MySpace from the negligence claims.

The Court of Appeals cited and relied upon the long series of cases extending Section 230 to a wide range of web based service providers.

However, it did not cite the one case that defies this line of precedent, and the language and purpose of Section 230, the 9th Circuit's opinion in the case.

The Court wrote that "Parties complaining that they were harmed by a Web site's publication of user-generated content have recourse; they may sue the third-party user who generated the content, but not the interactive computer service that enabled them to publish the content online."

The Court of Appeals rejected the argument of Jane Doe that her claims did not attempt to treat MySpace as a "publisher", and that therefore, Section 230 does not immunize MySpace. It wrote that MySpace published the communications of Solis, and that Doe now seeks to hold MySpace liable as a result of those publications.

The Court of Appeals also rejected the argument of Jane Doe that MySpace created and selected some of the content, and therefore is not entitled to Section 230 immunity. The Court also rejected the argument that MySpace's search function makes it an "information content provider". The Court of Appeals first suggested that the record in this case does not support these arguments, but ultimately ruled that Doe is barred from making these arguments because she did not raise them until the appeal.

The next plaintiff in the 5th Circuit who introduces evidence into the trial court record, and raises this argument in the trial court, will be free to advance this argument on appeal.

The Court of Appeals concluded in the present case as follows: "We therefore hold, without considering the Does’ content-creation argument, that their negligence and gross negligence claims are barred by the CDA, which prohibits claims against Web-based interactive computer services based on their publication of third-party content. 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1), (e)(3). Because we affirm the district court based upon the application of § 230(c)(1), there is no need to apply § 230(c)(2), or to assess the viability of the Does’ claims under Texas common law in the absence of the CDA." It should be noted that these theories that interactive computer service providers are also content providers, and that search functions are not immune, are what the 9th Circuit seized upon in its aberrant opinion in the case.

Last month, an en banc panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals (9thCir) issued its 8-3 opinion [54 pages in PDF] in FHCSFV v. See, story titled "En Banc 9th Circuit Panel Rejects Section 230 Immunity in Case" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,741, April 2, 2008.

The majority held, as did the three judge panel, that an interactive computer service, such as, can be held liable for the speech of users, despite language to the contrary in Section 230. Moreover, the majority held that the web site's search and e-mail notification functions have no immunity.

The 9th Circuit opined that because users provide information in response to an online questionnaire written by, this causes or induces the users to make statements, and hence, makes a content creator.

Search functions, e-mail services, and requesting users to supply answers to certain questions are an integral part of most interactive computers services. The approach of the 9th Circuit, if followed and extended by other courts, threatens to undermine Section 230 immunity. This could result in new state regulation, and a torrent of libel, negligence, and other tort litigation against web site operators.

This case is Jane Doe v. Myspace, Inc. and News Corporation, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, App. Ct. No. 07-50345, an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the for the Western District of Texas. Judge Edith Clement wrote opinion of the Court of Appeals, in which Judges Garwood and Elrod joined.

People and Appointments

5/16. Allison Bringardner joined the Progress & Freedom Foundation (PFF) as Director of Development and Marketing, and Amy Smorodin was promoted to VP of Communications and External Affairs.

More News

5/16. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report [52 pages in PDF] in presentation slides format titled "Information Technology: Agriculture Needs to Strengthen Management Practices for Stabilizing and Modernizing Its Farm Program Delivery Systems".

5/16. Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) and 21 other members of the House, including both Democrats and Republicans, submitted a comment [3 pages in PDF] to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) in response to it notice of proposed rulemaking regarding its Digital To Analog Converter Box Coupon Program. They wrote that "Seniors could suffer real consequences if their TVs will not operate past February 17, 2009, including isolation from society, anxiety, or mental or physical decline. Since seniors are more likely to be unfamiliar with new technology, and to have physical, financial or transportation barriers that would prevent them from purchasing and installing a converter box, we continue to be concerned about how NTIA is addressing those barriers." However, they proposed no solutions, or rules. The deadline to submit comments is 5:00 PM on June 9, 2008. See, notice in the Federal Register, April 24, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 80, at Pages 22120-22124.

Go to News from May 11-15, 2008.