The U.S. Department of Transportation will unveil a set of recommendations Thursday on texting while driving and the broader topic of distracted driving, Secretary Ray LaHood said Wednesday, opening a two-day distracted driving summit. “We're not here simply to study the problem. We're here to come up with solutions,” LaHood said. “I don’t know if there’s any more important meeting that we can have at DOT than the meeting that will take place here in the next day and a half.”

Comments supporting musicFIRST’s petition that the FCC investigate radio stations for allegedly refusing to play music by artists that support instituting a performance royalty confirm that the petition itself is just a headline grab, the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) said in reply comments filed this week. MusicFIRST’s supporters gave weak examples of “artist intimidation,” in their initial comments, NAB said. “The vagueness and lack of evidence … particularly the anonymous allegations and hearsay -- make it impossible for NAB and radio stations to respond specifically to musicFIRST’s accusations.” Lawyers for musicFIRST disagreed in their own reply comments. “The record thus far shows that broadcasters are not complying with their public interest obligations and are stifling debate on a matter of public importance,” attorneys Samuel Feder and Jessica Ring Amunson of Jenner & Block wrote on behalf of the group. Initial comments included some from broadcasters who “openly admitted that they are refusing to play music by artists who are” musicFIRST members and that they refused to air the group’s ads supporting the Performance Royalty Act, they said. Contrary to arguments raised by the NAB in initial comments, the FCC has authority to address broadcasters’ “abuse of their obligation to place the interests of the public ahead of their own self interest,” the Media Access Project said in reply comments. NAB had argued that the Supreme Court’s decision in Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v Democratic National Committee precludes FCC action in this case, but MAP said it favored their view. “Having noted that broadcasters are generally afforded broad discretion in programming judgements, the Court contemplated that when this discretion is abused in contravention of the public’s right to have such access, the Commission would have to take remedial action,” it said.

Comments supporting musicFIRST’s petition that the FCC investigate radio stations for allegedly refusing to play music by artists that support instituting a performance royalty confirm that the petition itself is just a headline grab, the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) said in reply comments filed this week. MusicFIRST’s supporters gave weak examples of “artist intimidation,” in their initial comments, NAB said. “This lack of an evidentiary record reaffirms that the Petition is merely a public relations vehicle, rather than a serious request for legal relief,” NAB said. “The vagueness and lack of evidence … particularly the anonymous allegations and hearsay -- make it impossible for NAB and radio stations to respond specifically to musicFIRST’s accusations.” Lawyers for musicFIRST disagreed in their own reply comments. “The record thus far shows that broadcasters are not complying with their public interest obligations and are stifling debate on a matter of public importance,” attorneys Samuel Feder and Jessica Ring Amunson of Jenner & Block wrote on behalf of the group. Initial comments included some from broadcasters who “openly admitted that they are refusing to play music by artists who are” musicFIRST members and that they refused to air the group’s ads supporting the Performance Royalty Act, they said. “NAB refuses to engage musicFIRST on the merits of [it’s] arguments that broadcasters are violating their public interest obligations by intimidating artists, boycotting musicFIRST ads on their stations and engaging in a media campaign designed to spread malicious and untruthful information,” they said. Contrary to arguments raised by the NAB in initial comments, the FCC has authority to address broadcasters “abuse of their obligation to place the interests of the public ahead of their own self interest,” the Media Access Project said in reply comments. NAB had argued that the Supreme Court’s decision in Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v Democratic National Committee precludes FCC action in this case. “Far from foreclosing Commission action, CBS v. DNC makes plain that the Commission can afford relief in the appropriate case,” MAP said. “Having noted that broadcasters are generally afforded broad discretion in programming judgements, the Court contemplated that when this discretion is abused in contravention of the public’s right to have such access, the Commission would have to take remedial action,” it said.

Federal agencies would have a year to create a plan to guide federal cybersecurity research efforts, under a bill approved Wednesday by the Research and Science Education Subcommittee of the House Science and Technology Committee. Chairman Dan Lipinski, D-Ill., and Ranking Member Vernon Ehlers, R-Mich., expressed support for the Cybersecurity Research and Development Act.

A proposed repeal of immunity for telecom carriers in electronic surveillance cases involving suspected terrorists seems to have little support in Congress or the administration, according to testimony this week in the House and Senate Judiciary committees. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., this week proposed the repeal as part of a bill to reauthorize expiring provisions of the Patriot Act (CD Sept 21 p8). But he didn’t promote the provision specifically Wednesday at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on legislation renewing three expiring provisions, which affect court-ordered collection of electronic communications (CD Sept 23 p2).

A proposed repeal of immunity for telecom carriers in electronic surveillance cases involving suspected terrorists seems to have little support in Congress or the administration, according to testimony this week in the House and Senate Judiciary committees. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., this week proposed the repeal as part of a bill to re- authorize expiring provisions of the Patriot Act. But he didn’t promote the provision specifically Wednesday at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on legislation renewing three expiring provisions, which affect court-ordered collection of electronic communications. Feingold and other Democrats told Obama administration officials that more privacy protections and heightened oversight measures are needed in the bill. “There can be no question that statutory changes to our surveillance laws are necessary,” Feingold said. “Congress cannot grant overly broad authorities and just keep its fingers crossed that they won’t be misused, or interpreted by aggressive executive branch lawyers in as broad a way as possible.” Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy of Vermont introduced a measure Tuesday that would add oversight of government data-collection in espionage cases, a step that many lawmakers support. “It is important to ensure there is aggressive oversight,” Justice Department Inspector General Glenn Fine said at the hearing. “We believe this oversight should come from several different levels and from different entities -- not only congressional oversight.” The department announced new policies Wednesday to increase accountability in the government’s use of the state secrets privilege in lawsuits. Attorney General Eric Holder said the policies, taking effect Oct. 1, will help rebuild public trust by ensuring that the privilege “is invoked only when necessary and in the narrowest way possible.” The privilege was raised in lawsuits against telecom carriers following public reports of the Bush administration’s expanded surveillance operations after Sept. 11. Under the new policy, the privilege can’t be invoked in court unless Justice is “satisfied there is strong evidentiary support for it,” Holder said. The policy requires officials to show a “risk of significant harm to national security” before they can invoke the privilege, and it can’t be raised “for the purpose of concealing government wrongdoing or avoiding embarrassment to government agencies or officials.” The policy calls for strict oversight. Leahy praised the announcement, saying it will bring a “higher degree of transparency and accountability to a process previously shrouded in darkness.” But Feingold called the policy “disappointing because it still amounts to an approach of ‘just trust us.'”

Some high-profile members of the FCC’s most significant advisory panels could be barred from further service under an Obama administration policy reportedly under consideration at the White House. The proposal was first reported in Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call. Craig Holman, Capitol Hill lobbyist for Public Citizen, said in an interview Tuesday the administration appears to be sending up a “trial balloon” as it looks at further tightening lobbyist restrictions. Holman said the restrictions would likely be consistent with the ethics order President Barack Obama released his first day in office.

Some high-profile members of the FCC’s most significant advisory panels could be barred from further service under an Obama administration policy reportedly under consideration at the White House. The proposal was first reported in Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call. Craig Holman, Capitol Hill lobbyist for Public Citizen, said in an interview Tuesday the administration appears to be sending up a “trial balloon” as it looks at further tightening lobbyist restrictions. Holman said the restrictions would likely be consistent with the ethics order President Barack Obama released his first day in office. The restrictions would probably apply to committees chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Holman said. That would include such high-profile committees as the FCC Advisory Committee on Diversity for Communications in the Digital Age, the Consumer Advisory Committee and the North American Numbering Council. Applying such restrictions to independent regulatory commissions raises questions of executive branch interference, said Andrew Schwartzman, president of the Media Access Project. “That aside, as a measure designed to promote public confidence in the activities of government, it’s a potentially useful development,” said Schwartzman, a member of the diversity committee who’s not a registered lobbyist. But a member of one advisory committee and former FCC official noted that advisory committees at the FCC have no decision-making power. “It’s not like the advisory committee is whispering in the chairman’s ear.” A ban on lobbyists would create immediate holes in the Consumer Advisory Committee. Marti Doneghy, representing AARP, Consumer Union’s Joel Kelsey, the American Council of the Blind’s Eric Bridges and former FCC Commissioner Gloria Tristani all are listed as registered lobbyists by CQ Moneyline. Among members of the diversity committee listed in the database of registered lobbyists are NAB’s Jane Mago, NCTA’s James Assey, Toni Cook Bush, representing Virgin Mobile, and Google’s Alan Davidson.

The FCC will start a rulemaking abou tadding two net neutrality principles to the original four, Chairman Julius Genachowski said in a speech Monday at the Brookings Institution. The announcement sent ripples through Washington, drawing skepticism from broadband providers and Republicans and enthusiasm from longtime advocates of neutrality rules. The FCC’s two Republican members raised strong concerns about the proposal, in their biggest break yet with the chairman.

The FCC will start a rulemaking adding two net neutrality principles to the original four, Chairman Julius Genachowski said in a speech Monday to the Brookings Institution. The announcement sent ripples through Washington, attracting skepticism from broadband providers and Republicans and enthusiasm from longtime advocates of neutrality rules. The FCC’s two Republican members raised strong concerns about the proposal, in their biggest break yet with the chairman.