47 U.S.C. § 2

UPDATES TO EQUIPMENT AUTHORIZATION PROCESS OF FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION.

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 47 CasesGoogle Scholar

“(a)Rulemaking.—“(1)In general.—Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act [Nov. 11, 2021], the Commission shall adopt rules in the proceeding initiated in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the matter of Protecting Against National Security Threats to the Communications Supply Chain through the Equipment Authorization Program (ET Docket No. 21–232; FCC 21–73; adopted June 17, 2021), in accordance with paragraph (2), to update the equipment authorization procedures of the Commission.“(2)Updates required.—In the rules adopted under paragraph (1), the Commission shall clarify that the Commission will no longer review or approve any application for equipment authorization for equipment that is on the list of covered communications equipment or services published by the Commission under section 2(a) of the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act of 2019 (47 U.S.C. 1601(a)).“(3)Applicability.—“(A)In general.—In the rules adopted under paragraph (1), the Commission may not provide for review or revocation of any equipment authorization granted before the date on which such rules are adopted on the basis of the equipment being on the list described in paragraph (2).“(B)Rule of construction.—Nothing in this section may be construed to prohibit the Commission, other than in the rules adopted under paragraph (1), from—“(i) examining the necessity of review or revocation of any equipment authorization on the basis of the equipment being on the list described in paragraph (2); or“(ii) adopting rules providing for any such review or revocation.“(b)Definition.—In this section, the term ‘Commission’ means the Federal Communications Commission.”

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1978–2014 · leading case: Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n v. Nat'l Citizens Comm. for Broad., 436 U.S. 775 (1978).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n v. Nat'l Citizens Comm. for Broad., 436 U.S. 775 (1978). “The Commission concluded, first, that it had statutory authority to issue the regulations under the Communications Act, Order, at 1048, citing 47 U. S. C. §§ 2 (a), 4 (i), 4 (j), 301, 303, 309 (a), and that the *785 regulations were valid under the First and Fifth Amendments to…”

Destek v. Verizon, et al., 2001 DNH 140 (D.N.H. 2001). · cites it 2× “Significantly, a voluntarily negotiated agreement is not subject to the pricing standards set forth in 47 U.S.C. § 252 (d) or the other obligations set forth in 47 U.”

Bellsouth BSE v. Tennessee Reg. Auth. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003). “47 U.S.C. § 2 71(d)(3 ). -6- compliance with the nondiscriminatory access requirements and the competitive checklist.”

ASI Worldwide v. MCI WorldCom, 2002 DNH 076 (D.N.H. 2002). “47 U.S.C. § 2 2 2 (h)(1). - 13 - users or a carrier servicing the end users could have suffered a compensable injury as a result of WorldCom's alleged violation of § 222.”

Verizon, N.E. v. NH PUC et al., 2006 DNH 094 (D.N.H. 2006). “47 U.S.C. § 2 71(d)(6)(A). The FCC has determined that TELRIC pricing is not required for § 271 UNEs.”

Lamont v. Furniture North, 2014 DNH 062 (D.N.H. 2014). “Lamont”) (collectively “the Lamonts”) brought suit against Furniture North, LLC d/b/a Bob’s Discount Furniture (“BDF”) claiming that it violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. § 2 2 7 , by making automated calls to their cellular telephones without…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.