|TLJ News from August 26-31, 2013|
Tech Companies Seek Permission to Release More Data on Government Surveillance
8/30. Brad Smith, Microsoft's General Counsel, stated in a release that Microsoft and Google "stand together" on public disclosure of information regarding releasing aggregate data on government surveillance requests.
He wrote that both companies "remain concerned with the Government's continued unwillingness to permit us to publish sufficient data relating to Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) orders."
He continued that "Each of our companies filed suit in June to address this issue. We believe we have a clear right under the U.S. Constitution to share more information with the public. The purpose of our litigation is to uphold this right so that we can disclose additional data."
This proceeding is before the body titled "United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court".
This is not a public proceeding. However, several groups filed on July 8, and publicly released, their amicus curiae brief in support of Microsoft and Google. The groups are the ACLU, Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and Tech Freedom.
Smith also disclosed that "negotiations ended in failure".
Also, "With the failure of our recent negotiations, we will move forward with litigation in the hope that the courts will uphold our right to speak more freely. And with a growing discussion on Capitol Hill, we hope Congress will continue to press for the right of technology companies to disclose relevant information in an appropriate way."
"Now more than ever, there is a need for government to come clean with the American people and the international community", said Ed Black of the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) in a release. "The public deserves to know the scope of the surveillance that affects them daily. It is paid for with their tax dollars and has the potential to disrupt their lives. Companies also have a First Amendment right to discuss aggregate information about the surveillance their users are subject to, and a duty to protect their constitutional rights and those of their customers."
People and Appointments
8/30. The Department of Commerce's (DOC) National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) published a notice in the Federal Register (FR) that lists members of the Performance Review Board: Delwin Brockett (NIST CIO, whose term expires on December 31, 2013), Richard Cavanagh (Director of the NIST Special Programs Office, December 31, 2015), Kevin Kimball (Chief of Staff of NIST, December 31, 2015), Laurie Locascio (Director of the NIST Material Measurement Laboratory), James Olthoff (Deputy Director for Measurement Services at NIST, December 31, 2015), Kimberly Glas (Deputy Assistant Secretary for Textiles and Apparel at the DOC's International Trade Administration), and Maureen Wylie (Chief of Resource and Operations Management at the DOC's NOAA, December 31, 2015). See, FR, Vol. 78, No. 169, August 30, 2013, at Page 53729.
8/30. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC') published a notice in the Federal Register that announces, describes, recites, and sets the effective date (October 1, 2013) for, changes to its Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR). These changes update the fees charged to entities accessing the National Do Not Call Registry. See, FR, Vol. 78, No. 169, August 30, 2013, at Pages 53642-53643.
Washington Post Discloses Details from Leaked Copy of Budget Summary for the National Intelligence Program
8/29. The Washington Post (WP) published an article on August 29, 2013 by Barton Gellman and Greg Miller titled "U.S. spy network's successes, failures and objectives detailed in ‘black budget’ summary".
It states that the WP obtained from Edward Snowden a "178-page budget summary for the National Intelligence Program", which disclose a total budget for FY 2013 of $52.6 Billion.
It is titled "FY 2013: Congressional Budget Justification: Volume 1: National Intelligence Program Summary", and dated February 2012. That is, it is a year and one half old.
The article states that the WP obtained only a budget summary, and that in addition, the WP "is withholding some information after consultation with U.S. officials who expressed concerns about the risk to intelligence sources and methods".
Actually, the WP article publishes very little of the leaked document.
The WP also published a statement by James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, regarding the intelligence community's budget. Clapper wrote that "Our budgets are classified as they could provide insight for foreign intelligence services to discern our top national priorities, capabilities and sources and methods that allow us to obtain information to counter threats."
The WP article discloses that the FY 2013 budget for the CIA is $14.7 Billion, the budget for the National Security Agency (NSA) is $10.8 Billion, the budget for the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) is $10.3 Billion, and the budget for the National Geospatial Intelligence Program is $4.3 Billion.
For the U.S. government, fiscal year 2013 ends on September 30, 2013.
Much of the article pertains to intelligence activities and operations that do no involve information and communications technologies.
However, the article states that "The CIA and the NSA have begun aggressive new efforts to hack into foreign computer networks to steal information or sabotage enemy systems, embracing what the budget refers to as ``offensive cyber operations.´´"
It also states that "The NSA is planning high-risk covert missions, a lesser-known part of its work, to plant what it calls ``tailored radio frequency solutions´´ -- close-in sensors to intercept communications that do not pass through global networks."
It also states that "Even the CIA devotes $1.7 billion, or nearly 12 percent of its budget, to technical collection efforts, including a joint program with the NSA called ``CLANSIG,´´ a covert program to intercept radio and telephone communications from hostile territory."
FTC Administrative Complaint Asserts Authority to Regulate Data Security Practices
8/29. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that it has filed (but not released to the public) an administrative complaint against LabMD. The FTC issued only a news release that omits key information.
The FTC's release does not disclose what statute it alleges has been violated by LabMD. The FTC's release does not disclose what statute authorizes the remedies that it seeks.
The FTC's release does disclose that it alleges that LabMD "failed to reasonably protect the security of consumers' personal data, including medical information". See also, the FTC's web page for this proceeding, FTC Docket No. 9357.
The Congress has not granted the FTC any general statutory authority with respect to either data security or consumer privacy. Numerous such bills have been introduced in recent Congresses, but none has been enacted into law. However, the FTC has on many occasions relied upon Section 5 of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45) in filing civil and administrative complaints that make allegations regarding data security.
Section 5 merely provides, in relevant part, that "Unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are hereby declared unlawful."
The FTC has promulgated no regulations to implement its asserted authority over data security practices. Hence, the only notice that companies and attorneys have regarding what the FTC asserts is prohibited is its prior complaints and settlements. Since many FTC settlements involve no fines, no admissions of wrongdoing, and no findings of fact and conclusions of law by a judicial officer, they are particularly unsuitable as precedential authority.
LabMD stated in a release that "The Federal Trade Commission's enforcement action against LabMD based, in part, on the alleged actions of Internet trolls, is yet another example of the FTC's pattern of abusing its authority to engage in an ongoing witch hunt against private businesses. The allegations in the FTC's complaint are just that: allegations. LabMD looks forward to vigorously fighting against the FTC's overreach by seeking recourse through the available legal processes."
See, full story.
People and Appointments
8/29. Alex Saric, a member of the staff of Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, will leave the FCC. See, FCC release, which does not state what he will do next. He previously worked at the Department of Commerce (DOC), for Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) on Senate Commerce Committee (SCC) matters, and for the law firm of Latham & Watkins.
8/29. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) filed a motion to dismiss [36 pages in PDF] with the U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) in Spectrum Five v. FCC, App. Ct. Nos. 13-1231 and 13-1232.
8/29. T-Mobile USA's Kathleen Ham wrote a short piece titled "Spectrum-Aggregation Limits Are Good For Public Safety". She restated T-Mobile's arguments that AT&T and Verizon should not be permitted to buy at auction all of the low band 600 MHz spectrum.
8/29. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced in a release that is has filed an administrative complaint against LabMD, Inc. The FTC did not release a copy of the complaint, because LabMD has asserted "confidential business information". The release does not disclose the legal theory of the case, or even what statute is alleged to have been violated. The release does disclose that the complaint "alleges that LabMD billing information for over 9,000 consumers was found on a peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing network and then, in 2012, LabMD documents containing sensitive personal information of at least 500 consumers were found in the hands of identity thieves". The release adds that this includes names, Social Security numbers, and bank account information. The release does not disclose what remedies the FTC seeks.
NIST Releases Cyber Security Standards Document
8/28. The Department of Commerce's (DOC) National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) released a document [36 pages in PDF] titled "Discussion Draft of the Preliminary Cybersecurity Framework".
The Congress has not enacted legislation giving the President general authority to regulate cyber security related business practices. Nevertheless, President Obama is pursuing regulation absent legislative authority. He issued an Executive Order (EO) titled "Improving Critical Cybersecurity Infrastructure" on February 13, 2013. It is cloaked in the terminology of voluntary conduct and partnerships. Nevertheless, government compulsion underlies the regime created by the EO.
See, story titled "Obama Signs Cyber Security Order and Policy Directive" and related stories in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,525, February 19, 2013.
This EO relies upon the NIST for implementation, and particularly for writing cyber security standards for the private sector. The NIST issued a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) on March 28, 2013. See, notice in the FR, Vol. 78, No. 60, March 28, 2013, at Pages 18954-18955, and story titled "NIST Issues Cyber Security NOI" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,542, March 27, 2013.
The just released document is part of the NIST's effort to implement the President's EO.
It states that "An organization should use the Framework as the basis for establishing a new cybersecurity program or improving an existing cybersecurity program."
The NIST may ultimately issue standards, compliance with which will effectively be mandatory. Such standards may be onerous, costly, intrusive, and in some cases, counterproductive. However, this relatively short document does not include standards with specificity or granularity.
The NIST will host a meeting pertaining to the just released document in Dallas, Texas on September 11-13, 2013. It is titled "4th Cybersecurity Framework Workshop". See, notice.
The NIST's Information Security and Privacy Advisory Board (ISPAB) will host a meeting in Washington DC, the agenda of which includes this matter, on October 9-11, 2013. See, related story in this issue titled "NIST ISPAB to Hold Three Day Meeting".
FCC Again Seeks Comments on Phone Bill Cramming
8/28. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released a Public Notice (PN) that announces that it seeks public comments to refresh its record on phone bill cramming.
This PN defines cramming as "the unlawful and fraudulent practice of placing unauthorized charges on telephone bills".
The FCC adopted and released its last Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) [79 pages in PDF] on cramming back on April 27, 2012. It is FCC 12-42 in CG Docket No. 11-116, CG Docket No. 09-158 and CC Docket No. 98-170.
The FCC, which is not a consumer protection agency, periodically seeks comments on cramming. It also occasionally and inconsequentially tweaks its rules.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which does often function as a consumer protection agency, held a roundtable on mobile cramming on May 8, 2013. See, event web site. However, it lacks sectoral regulatory authority over the mobile service providers.
The House Commerce Committee (HCC) and Senate Commerce Committee (SCC) also sometimes hold hearings.
In recent years, the SCC has studied the issue. See especially, the SCC's July 12, 2011 report [50 pages in PDF] titled "Unauthorized Charges on Telephone Bills". That report concluded that "third-party billing is causing extensive financial harm to all types of landline telephone customers". See also, story titled "Senate Commerce Committee Releases Report on Unauthorized Charges on Phone Bills" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,258, July 14, 2011.
Also, the SCC Chairman, Sen. John Rockefeller (D-WV), has introduced legislation. See, S 1144 [LOC | WW | PDF], the "Fair Telephone Billing Act of 2013", and story titled "Sen. Rockefeller Introduces Bill to Limit Third Party Billing by Phone Companies" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,579, June 18, 2013. See also, S 3291 [LOC | WW], the "Fair Telephone Billing Act of 2012", from the 112th Congress. Neither of these bills has been enacted into law.
See also, story titled "Senate Commerce Committee Holds Hearing on Phone Bill Cramming" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,258, July 14, 2011.
Either the Congress or the FCC could eliminate most improper phone bill cramming by prohibiting the use of either landline, wireless or interconnected VOIP service bills for third party billing. However, neither are inclined to do this. So, cramming continues.
This PN states that the FCC is particularly interested in comments about cramming on wireless bills. However, it also seeks comments on a wide range of issues.
It seeks comments on issues raised by the 2012 FNPRM, "including but not limited to the current extent of cramming for consumers of wireline and CMRS services, the need for an opt-in requirement and the mechanics of an opt-in process for wireline and/or CMRS services, and the other specific issues discussed below."
The PN also seeks comments "on the specific details of how wireline carriers have implemented voluntary commitments to cease including most third-party charges on telephone bills and on the efficacy of those efforts; the efficacy of CMRS industry efforts to combat cramming, such as the double opt-in process; and on the details and efficacy of any other industry efforts to combat wireline and CMRS cramming."
The PN also seeks comments on "the extent to which wireline cramming remains a problem for subscribers of carriers that have not voluntarily ceased including most third-party charges on their bills, and whether different measures to combat cramming are appropriate for small and rural wireline carriers. Similarly, we seek comment on whether different measures might be more appropriate for small and rural CMRS carriers than for other CMRS carriers. We generally seek comment on whether additional measures to combat wireline cramming are necessary and whether any new measures to combat CMRS cramming are appropriate, as well as what those measures might be."
This PN is DA 13-1807 in CG Docket No. 11-116 and 09-158; CC Docket No. 98-170. Initial comments will be due within 45 days of publication of a notice in the Federal Register (FR). Reply comments will be due within 60 days of such publication. As of the September 3 issue of the FR, such notice had not yet been published.
Clyburn Announces FCC Staff Appointments
8/28. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Mignon Clyburn announced three FCC staff appointments. See, FCC release.
She announced that David Valdez will be Special Counsel on her personal staff. He was previously Senior Director for the Computing Technology Industry Association. He has also worked for Verizon, including as Chief Privacy Officer. He has also worked as an Attorney Advisor in the National Telecommunications and Information Administration's (NTIA) Office of Chief Counsel.
Clyburn also announced that Mark Stephens will be "Acting Managing Director" of the FCC, with responsibility for the FCC's "budget and financial programs, human resources, contracts, purchasing, communications, computer services, physical space, security, and distribution of official FCC documents."
Stephens is a long time employee of the FCC. Most recently, he was Chief Financial Officer in the FCC's Office of the Managing Director.
She also stated that David Bray will be the FCC's "Chief Information Officer".
FCC Seeks Comments on FirstNet Matters Raised by NTIA
8/28. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) published a notice in the Federal Register (FR) that sets an imminent deadline -- September 4 -- for filing comments on matters raised by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration's (NTIA) petition for rulemaking [4 pages in PDF] regarding the First Responder Network Authority, which is also known as the FirstNet.
The NTIA's petition is titled "comments", but is in the nature of a petition for rulemaking. The NTIA urges the FCC "to amend its technical service rules" affecting the FirstNet, and "to refrain at this time from imposing additional reporting requirements or other obligations with respect to license renewal" on the FirstNet, particularly with respect to rural areas.
The United Telecom Council (UTC), Motorola, and the National Rural Electrical Cooperative Association (NRECA) and National Telephone Cooperative Association (NTCA, which is transitioning to the brand of Rural Broadband Association) have argued that the FCC should be encouraging rural deployment by adopting milestones that could be used to review FirstNet's license renewal. See for example, UTC filing and NRECA/NTCA filing.
The FCC's Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB) released a Public Notice (PN) [4 pages in PDF] on August 19 requesting comments. It is DA 13-1775 in PS Docket Nos. 12-94 and 06-229, and WT Docket No. 06-150. See also, FR, Vol. 78, No. 167, August 28, 2013, at Pages 53124-53126, which set the deadline to submit comments to the FCC.
People and Appointments
8/28. Victoria Espinel joined the Business Software Alliance (BSA) as President and CEO, effective September 3, 2013. She was previously the U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator.
8/28. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (OUSTR) released, and set the deadline for commenting upon, its Interim Environmental Review (IER) [89 pages in PDF] of the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA). The TPPA is important to producers and users of information technology based products and services, particularly in its provisions regarding intellectual property (IP). This IER identifies numerous environmental issues in the countries that are party to the TPPA, including air pollution, water quality, waste management, deforestation, poaching, invasive species, and fisheries management. However, the IER identifies no impact of IP provisions on any of these environmental issues. The deadline to submit comments to the OUSTR is 11:59 PM on September 25, 2013. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 167, August 28, 2013, at Pages 53183-53184.
FCC Adopts NPRM and Issues Freeze Regarding Emission Mask Requirements for 800 MHz Public Safety Spectrum
8/27. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) [17 pages in PDF] regarding emission mask requirements for digital technologies on 800 MHz NPSPAC channels.
This NPRM proposes "to require digital technologies, including but not limited to Terrestrial Trunked Radio (TETRA) based technologies, to comply with Emission Mask H when operated in the 800 MHz National Public Safety Planning Advisory Committee (NPSPAC) band (806-809/851-854 MHz)." (Parentheses in original. Footnote omitted.)
It also proposes "to require equipment to have analog FM capability when operating on 800 MHz, VHF, and UHF public safety mutual aid and interoperability channels."
This NPRM states that "these proposals could help safeguard adjacent-channel interference and to preserve interoperability."
This NPRM also institutes a "freeze" on certain facilities applications and equipment certifications pending outcome of this rulemaking proceeding. See also, August 27 Public Notice (DA 13-1803) regarding this "freeze".
This "freeze" covers "Applications seeking 800 MHz NPSPAC channels where the applicant specifies digitally modulated equipment that does not conform to Emission Mask H will not be accepted", "Applications seeking 800 MHz NPSPAC channels where the applicant specifies equipment not capable of analog FM modulation on the NPSPAC mutual aid channels will not be accepted", "Applications seeking certification of equipment capable of operating on the NPSPAC public safety channels will not be accepted unless the certification applicant demonstrates that the equipment conforms to Emission Mask H when operating on the NPSPAC public safety channels", and "Applications seeking certification of equipment capable of operating on the NPSPAC public safety channels will not be accepted unless the certification applicant demonstrates that the equipment is capable of operating with analog FM modulation on the NPSPAC mutual aid channels".
This NPRM follows the April 30, 2012 petition for rulemaking [13 pages in PDF] filed by the Harris Corporation.
This NPRM is FCC 13-117 in PS Docket No. 13-209. The FCC adopted it on August 23, and released it on August 27. Initial comments will be due within 45 days of publication of a notice in the Federal Register (FR). Reply comments will be due within 60 days of such publication. As of the August 28 issue of the FR, this notice had not yet been published.
FCC Further Delays AT&T ATNI Transaction
8/27. Ruth Milkman, chief of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) sent a letter to AT&T and Atlantic Tele-Network, Inc. (ATNI) stating that the FCC will further delay its approval of the AT&T ATNI transaction. AT&T expressed its extreme disappointment.
Milkman (at left) wrote that the FCC seeks "additional information and clarification of certain matters" regarding ATNI's "pre-paid customer base".
AT&T and ATNI (which does business as Alltel) announced in a release on January 22, 2013 that AT&T would acquire ATNI's wireless retail operations, and spectrum licenses. This transaction would affect about 620,000 subscribers in the states of Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, and Washington. This transaction pertains to the operations and spectrum that the FCC required be divested when Verizon Wireless acquired Alltel back in 2008.
On November 10, 2008, the FCC released the text [129 pages in PDF] of its Memorandum Opinion and Order and Declaratory Ruling approving, subject to divestitures, Verizon Wireless's acquisition of Alltel. The FCC adopted this item on November 4, 2008. It is FCC 08-258 in WT Docket No. 08-95.
AT&T's Jim Cicconi responded in a release on August 27 that "AT&T is extremely disappointed at the FCC delay today on this small transaction. AT&T is ready, willing and able to make significant network investments in these rural territories to bring HSPA+ and LTE services to Allied's customers, an investment that will not occur but for this transaction. AT&T has actively worked to address FCC concerns and will continue to work with the Commission until all issues are resolved."
Several entities filed petitions to deny the request to transfer spectrum licenses associated with the AT&T ATNI transaction on April 4, 2013.
The Rural Telecommunications Group wrote in its petition to deny [8 pages in PDF] that "Thus continues the onslaught of continual spectrum consolidation by the Twin Bells of AT&T and Verizon Wireless."
The Public Knowledge (PK) wrote in its petition to deny [7 pages in PDF] that it too is concerned about spectrum aggregation by AT&T and Verizon.
Buffalo-Lake Eric Wireless Systems Co., L.L.C. (also known as Blue Wireless) wrote in its petition to deny that "The proposed transaction, if consummated, will have the effect of converting ATN's CDMA facilities to GSM facilities in order to be integrated into the AT&T system. The Commission is well aware of the roaming problems which smaller carriers like Blue Wireless are experiencing as the major national carriers gobble up regional carriers and expand their footprints, making it difficult, if not impossible, for carriers to reach reasonable roaming agreements with giant carriers which have no incentive to do so. The loss of a potential COMA roaming partner in this key market will markedly reduce Blue Wireless and its customers' roaming options, access and capabilities. Accordingly, Blue Wireless has standing to file this petition."
The practice of the FCC is not to issue final orders denying applications of this nature. Rather, the FCC delays its approval, until it extracts the concessions that it seeks. Time is of the essence to the transacting parties, but not to the FCC. Moreover, with no final order, the transacting parties have no recourse to judicial review.
The FCC's proceeding is WT Docket Nos. 13-54.
People and Appointments
8/27. The White House news office release a statement that names five persons to be members of the President's "Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technology". The five are Richard Clarke (Good Harbor Security Risk Management), Michael Morell (recently retired Deputy Director of the CIA), Geoffrey Stone (University of Chicago law school), Cass Sunstein (Harvard law school) and Peter Swire (Georgia Tech business school).
SoundExchange Sues Sirius for Underpayment of Statutory Royalties
8/26. SoundExchange filed a complaint [17 pages in PDF] in the U.S. District Court (DC) against Sirius alleging violation of the Copyright Act, and regulations thereunder, in connection with underpayment of royalties for its digital transmission of sound recordings in the years 2007 through 2012.
SoundExchange is a performance rights organization that collects digital performance and related royalties and distributes them to artists and copyright owners. Sirius is the one satellite digital audio radio service in the U.S. It has a statutory license, under 17 U.S.C. §§ 112 and 114(d)(2), for digital public performances of copyrighted sound recordings.
Subsection 114(f) then provides for the Library of Congress's Copyright Royalty Judges to adopt regulations that set royalty rates. The Copyright Royalty Judges have also designated SoundExchange to collect and distribute statutory royalties. The Copyright Royalty Judges set the statutory royalty at 6.0% of gross revenues for 2007, climbing to 8.0% of gross revenues in 2012.
The complaint alleges that Sirius has underpaid statutory royalties by making unauthorized exclusions for gross revenues, by excluding pre-1972 recordings. It states that "From at least January 1, 2007 until December 31, 2012, Sirius XM reduced its reported Gross Revenues by an amount that it deemed attributable to performances of pre-1972 sound recordings. The CRB’s regulations did not permit this reduction."
The complaint also alleges underpayment by partial exclusion of revenue from Sirius XM premier subscriptions, and by exclusion of revenue from its "Family Friendly" and "Mostly Music" subscriptions. The complaint also alleges failure to make late fee payments.
SoundExchange stated in a release that its seeks to "recover a massive underpayment of digital royalties for the period 2007-2012". The complaint asserts that Sirius has underpaid "not less than $50 million and up to $100 million or more".
This case is SoundExchange, Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc., U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, D.C. No.1:13-cv-01290.
SoundExchange is represented by Michael DeSanctis and others in the Washington DC office of the law firm of Jenner & Block.
8/26. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted and released a Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking [94 pages in PDF] regarding the provision and marketing of Internet Protocol Captioned Telephone Service (IP CTS). This item is FCC 13-118 in CG Docket No. 13-24 and CG Docket No. 03-123. Initial comments will be due within 45 days of publication of a notice in the Federal Register (FR). Reply comments will be due within 75 days of such publication. As of the August 28 issue of the FR, this notice had not yet been published.