Opinion ID: 185374
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Tariff

Text: 19 The FCC found GNAPs' tariff to be ambiguous and to contain an impermissible cross-reference. Either is a sufficient ground to declare the tariff illegal. GNAPs maintains that a proper reading of its tariff shows that it is not ambiguous and does not contain an impermissible crossreference. Whereas the FCC and Verizon contend that the tariff is conditional on another document--the referenced interconnection agreement--GNAPs maintains that the tariff is conditional on whether GNAPs was actually paid for carrying the traffic, irrespective of the reason. GNAPs claims the tariff is not unclear or ambiguous, as carriers will know whether they paid GNAPs and therefore will know whether the tariff applies. For the same reason, GNAPs claims, the tariff should not be read to contain an impermissible crossreference in violation of 47 C.F.R. 61.74(a). 20 The FCC clearly has the better of this argument. 47 C.F.R. 61.74(a) provides that no tariff publication filed with the Commission may make reference to any other tariff publication or to any other document or instrument. The relevant portion of the tariff reads: This tariff applies to all ISP-bound traffic for which [GNAPs] does not receive compensation from the Delivering LEC under the terms of an interconnection agreement. (Emphasis added.) From these words it is unmistakable that the application of the tariff is contingent upon whether GNAPs is paid under the terms of an interconnection agreement. If GNAPs receives payment for some other reason, this would not satisfy the condition, and payment would still be due under the tariff. The tariff, on its face, violates the FCC's rule. Any reasonable construction of the tariff's language would require a customer to consult the interconnection agreement to determine whether the tariff applied. 21 The FCC also reasonably concluded that the tariff violates 47 C.F.R. 61.2(a) which provides that tariffs must be clear and explicit [i]n order to remove all doubt as to their proper application. When GNAPs filed the tariff, the DTE proceedings were still underway. As a result, it remained unclear whether the GNAPs-Verizon interconnection agreement required compensation for Internet-bound traffic. If a party could not know whether compensation was due under the agreement, it could not know whether any payment to GNAPs was under the terms of an interconnection agreement. If a party could not reasonably ascertain the proper application of the tariff at the time it was filed, the tariff was unclear and therefore was invalid. 22 DTE's subsequent dismissal of GNAPs' claim for compensation under the agreement did not cure its ambiguity for several reasons. First, the FCC's Order focused on whether the tariff was valid at the time it was filed. GNAPs revised its tariff on February 14, 2000, eliminating the provisions found unlawful by the FCC. DTE's subsequent ruling could not retroactively cure the deficiency of the tariff in effect prior to February 14 or affect the validity of charges GNAPs sought to assess Verizon prior to that point. In addition, because GNAPs appealed the DTE finding, that matter was not resolved when the FCC made its determination. Finally, even had the DTE ruling cured the tariff's indeterminacy, it did not eliminate the impermissible cross-reference.