47 C.F.R. § 61.2

General tariff requirements

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) In order to remove all doubt as to their proper application, all tariff publications must contain clear and explicit explanatory statements regarding the rates and regulations.

(b) Tariff publications must be delivered to the Commission free from all charges, including claims of postage.

[64 FR 46586, Aug. 26, 1999]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases, 1994–2017 · leading case: Global Naps, Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 247 F.3d 252 (D.C. Cir. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Global Naps, Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 247 F.3d 252 (D.C. Cir. 2001). · cites it 3× “” 47 C.F.R. § 61.2 (a). Tariffs may not “make reference to any other tariff publication or to any other document or instrument.”

Capital Network Sys., Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 28 F.3d 201 (D.C. Cir. 1994). · cites it 2× “The Commission also affirmed the Bureau’s finding that the tariff was “unclear and ambiguous” in violation of 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.2 , 61.54. Id. Capital seeks review of these determinations.”

In Re Nos Commc'ns, Mdl No. 1357, 495 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2007). “§§ 201 (b) and 203(a), 47 C.F.R. § 61.2 , and the Truth-in-Billing regulations, 47 C.”

N. Valley Commc'ns, L.L.C. v. AT & T Corp., 245 F. Supp. 3d 1120 (D.S.D. 2017). · cites it 2× “” 47 C.F.R. § 61.2 (a). The FCC has clarified that access stimulation tariffs must comply with this standard.”

Am. Message Centers v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States of Am., Sprint Commc'ns Co., L.P., Intervenor, 50 F.3d 35 (D.C. Cir. 1995). “FCC rules require that a carrier’s published tariffs contain “clear and explicit explanatory statements” regarding rates and regulations, 47 C.F.R. § 61.2 (1994), and that the tariffs “clearly and definitely” specify any “exceptions or conditions which in any way affect the…”

Sw. Bell Tel. Co. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 100 F.3d 1004 (D.C. Cir. 1996). “The Commission found that the tariff amendment’s language was vague and ambiguous in violation of Commission rules, see 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.2 , 61.54(j) (1995), requiring tariff language to be clear and explicit.”

Fisher v. Nos Commc'ns, 495 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2007). “§§ 201 (b) and 203(a), 47 C.F.R. § 61.2 , and the Truth-in-Billing regulations, 47 C.”

Cromwell v. Sprint Corp., 248 F. Supp. 2d 1024 (D. Kan. 2003). “In paragraph 24 of the Complaint it is alleged that 47 C.F.R. § 61.2 is violated by the Sprint tariffs because they “are neither clear nor explicit in describing under what circumstances Sprint will charge Casual Caller Rates or Surcharges for direct-dialed calls placed on…”

Global NAPs, Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 80 F. App'x 114 (D.C. Cir. 2003). · cites it 2× “We deny the petition solely on the FCC’s rationale that petitioner’s tariff was indeterminate in violation of 47 C.F.R. § 61.2 (a). This case is governed by Global NAPs, Inc.”

— 47 C.F.R. § 61.2(a) — 1 case

N. Valley Commc'ns, L.L.C. v. AT & T Corp., 245 F. Supp. 3d 1120 (D.S.D. 2017). “” 47 C.F.R. § 61.2 (a). The FCC has clarified that access stimulation tariffs must comply with this standard.”

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.