U.S. Code » Title 47 » Chapter CHAPTER 5— WIRE OR RADIO COMMUNICATION › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER III— SPECIAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO RADIO › Part Part III— Radio Installations on Vessels Carrying Passengers for Hire

47 U.S.C. § 382

Vessels excepted from radiotelephone requirement

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 47 CasesGoogle Scholar
The provisions of this part shall not apply to—(1) vessels which are equipped with a radio installation in accordance with the provisions of part II of this subchapter, or in accordance with the radio requirements of the Safety Convention; and(2) vessels of the United States belonging to and operated by the Government, and(3) vessels navigating on the Great Lakes.(June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title III, § 382, as added Aug. 6, 1956, ch. 973, § 1, 70 Stat. 1048; amended Pub. L. 103–414, title III, § 303(a)(20)(B), Oct. 25, 1994, 108 Stat. 4295; Pub. L. 104–104, title IV, § 403(h)(2), Feb. 8, 1996, 110 Stat. 131.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

Part II of this subchapter, referred to in par. (1), is classified to section 351 et seq. of this title.

Amendments

1996—Par. (2). Pub. L. 104–104 struck out “except a vessel of the United States Maritime Administration, the Inland and Coastwise Waterways Service, or the Panama Canal Company,” after “the Government,”.

1994—Pub. L. 103–414 inserted section catchline.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Section effective Mar. 1, 1957, see section 4 of act Aug. 6, 1956, set out as a note under section 381 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases, 1997–2013 · leading case: Second Generation Props., L.P. v. Town of Pelham, 313 F.3d 620 (1st Cir. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Second Generation Props., L.P. v. Town of Pelham, 313 F.3d 620 (1st Cir. 2002). “2 In February 2000, Second Generation filed a federal court complaint alleging that the ordinance violated the TCA by effectively prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services, in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 382 (c)(7)(B)(i)(II) (2000), and unreasonably discriminating…”
W. PCS II Corp. v. Extraterritorial Zoning Auth. of Santa Fe, 957 F. Supp. 1230 (D.N.M. 1997). “For the reasons outlined above, the Court concludes that the EZA violated the TCA by failing to issue a written denial, 47 U.S.C. § 382 (c)(7)(B)(iii), by “unreasonably discriminating among providers of functionally equivalent services,” 47 U.”
Omnipoint Commc'ns, Inc. v. Common Council of City of Peekskill, 202 F. Supp. 2d 210 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). “(“Om-nipoint”) brings this action against the Common Council of the City of Peekskill, the City of Peekskill and Richard DiMar-zo, the Director of Public Works of the City of Peekskill, alleging violations of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 382 (the…”
Petersburg Cellular P'ship v. Bd. of Supervisors of Nottoway Cnty., 205 F.3d 688 (4th Cir. 2000). “IV The conclusion that 47 U.S.C. § 382 (c)(7)(B)(iii) is unconstitutional does not invalidate the rest of the Telecommunications Act.”
MetroPCS, Inc. v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 259 F. Supp. 2d 1004 (N.D. Cal. 2003). “Prohibiting Provision of Personal Wireless Services MetroPCS next claims that the City’s decision has the effect of prohibiting the *1013 provision of wireless services, in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 382 (c)(7)(B)(i)(II). Section 332(c)(7)(B)(I) states that: “[t]he regulation of…”
Omnipoint Commc'ns Enter., L.P. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Easttown Twp., 72 F. Supp. 2d 512 (E.D. Pa. 1999). “See 47 U.S.C. § 382 (c)(7); Pine Grove, 181 F.”
Omnipoint Holdings, Inc. v. Town of Westford, 206 F. Supp. 2d 166 (D. Mass. 2002). “Count I—Effective Prohibition Count I of the Complaint alleges that, “[b]y its decisions, the Zoning Board of Appeals has had the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services by Omnipoint in portions of Westford and surrounding communities,” in violation of…”
Joffe v. Acacia Mortg. Corp., 121 P.3d 831 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). “” An MSCM is a “commercial electronic mail message that is transmitted directly to a wireless device that is utilized by a subscriber of commercial mobile service (as such term is defined in [ 47 U.S.C. § 382 (d)(1) (2004) ][ 12 ]) in connection with such service.”
Omnipoint Commc'ns, Inc. v. City of Huntington Beach, 738 F.3d 192 (9th Cir. 2013). “47 U.S.C. § 382 (c)(7)(B)(ii)-(iii). Because the voter approval process required by Measure C did not meet these procedural requirements, the court concluded that the City could not use Measure C as a reason to deny T-Mobile’s applications or to delay making a decision.”
MetroPCS, Inc. v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 400 F.3d 715 (9th Cir. 2005). “” 47 U.S.C. § 382 (c)(7)(B)(iii). In the proceedings below, the district court ruled that the Board’s decision was adequately “in writing” under the TCA and granted the City’s motion for summary judgment on this issue.”
St. Charles Tower, Inc. v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals of Evansville, 855 N.E.2d 286 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). “47 U.S.C. § 382 (c)(T)(B)(fii). Regardless, the TCA limits the ability of a board of zoning appeals to satisfy the requirement of substantial evidence by considering environmental effects of radio transmission as a reason for a denial: No State or local government or…”
Porter Cnty. Bd. of Zoning Appeals v. SBA Towers II, LLC, 927 N.E.2d 915 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). “Under the TCA, local governments retain control over decisions regarding the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities 47 U.S.C. § 382 (c)(7)(A); see also id. However, local government's control is subject to substantive and procedural…”
Show all 19 citing cases →
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.