47 U.S.C. § 622

Optional electronic labeling of communications equipment

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

(a) DefinitionsIn this section—(1) the term “electronic labeling” means displaying required labeling and regulatory information electronically; and(2) the term “radiofrequency device with display” means any equipment or device that—(A) is required under regulations of the Commission to be authorized by the Commission before the equipment or device may be marketed or sold within the United States; and(B) has the capability to digitally display required labeling and regulatory information.(b) Requirement to promulgate regulations for electronic labeling

Not later than 9 months after November 26, 2014, the Commission shall promulgate regulations or take other appropriate action, as necessary, to allow manufacturers of radiofrequency devices with display the option to use electronic labeling for the equipment in place of affixing physical labels to the equipment.

(June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title VII, § 720, as added Pub. L. 113–197, § 3, Nov. 26, 2014, 128 Stat. 2055.)Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesSavings Clause

Pub. L. 113–197, § 4, Nov. 26, 2014, 128 Stat. 2056, provided that: “The amendment made by section 3 [enacting this section] shall not be construed to affect the authority of the Federal Communications Commission under section 302 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 302a) to provide for electronic labeling of devices.”

Findings

Pub. L. 113–197, § 2, Nov. 26, 2014, 128 Stat. 2055, provided that: “Congress finds the following:“(1) The Federal Communications Commission (referred to in this section as the ‘Commission’) first standardized physical labels for licensed products such as computers, phones, and other electronic devices in 1973, and the Commission has continually refined physical label requirements over time.“(2) As devices become smaller, compliance with physical label requirements can become more difficult and costly.“(3) Many manufacturers and consumers of licensed devices in the United States would prefer to have the option to provide or receive important Commission labeling information digitally on the screen of the device, at the discretion of the user.“(4) An electronic labeling option would give flexibility to manufacturers in meeting labeling requirements.”

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 2020–2020 · leading case: Sacramento Metropolitan Cable Television Comm. v. Comcast Cable Comm. Mgt., LLC

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Sacramento Metropolitan Cable Television Comm. v. Comcast Cable Comm. Mgt., LLC (2020) caed “The FCC states that 2 47 U.S.C. § 622 envisions that fees imposed on cable operators 3 for access to the rights of way in their capacity as franchisees 4 is a fee imposed on a cable operator “solely because of their 5 status as such.”

Sacramento Met Cable Television Commission v. Comcast Cable Communications Mgt. (2020) caed “The FCC states that 2 47 U.S.C. § 622 envisions that fees imposed on cable operators 3 for access to the rights of way in their capacity as franchisees 4 is a fee imposed on a cable operator “solely because of their 5 status as such.”

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.