C.F.R. » Title 18 » CHAPTER I—FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY › SUBCHAPTER P—REGULATIONS UNDER THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT › PART 343—PROCEDURAL RULES APPLICABLE TO OIL PIPELINE PROCEEDINGS

18 C.F.R. § 343.2

Requirements for filing interventions, protests and complaints

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

(a) Interventions. Section 385.214 of this chapter applies to oil pipeline proceedings.

(b) Standing to file protest. Only persons with a substantial economic interest in the tariff filing may file a protest to a tariff filing pursuant to the Interstate Commerce Act. Along with the protest, a verified statement that the protestor has a substantial economic interest in the tariff filing in question must be filed.

(c) Other requirements for filing protests or complaints—(1) Rates established under § 342.3 of this chapter. A protest or complaint filed against a rate proposed or established pursuant to § 342.3 of this chapter must allege reasonable grounds for asserting that the rate violates the applicable ceiling level, or that the rate increase is so substantially in excess of the actual cost increases incurred by the carrier that the rate is unjust and unreasonable, or that the rate decrease is so substantially less than the actual cost decrease incurred by the carrier that the rate is unjust and unreasonable. In addition to meeting the requirements of the section, a complaint must also comply with all the requirements of § 385.206, except § 385.206(b)(1) and (2).

(2) Rates established under § 342.4(c) of this chapter. A protest or complaint filed against a rate proposed or established under § 342.4(c) of this chapter must allege reasonable grounds for asserting that the rate is so substantially in excess of the actual cost increases incurred by the carrier that the rate is unjust and unreasonable. In addition to meeting the requirements of the section, a complaint must also comply with all the requirements of § 385.206, except § 385.206(b)(1) and (2).

(3) Non-rate matters. A protest or complaint filed against a carrier's operations or practices, other than rates, must allege reasonable grounds for asserting that the operations or practices violate a provision of the Interstate Commerce Act, or of the Commission's regulations. In addition to meeting the requirements of this section, a complaint must also comply with the requirements of § 385.206.

(4) A protest or complaint that does not meet the requirements of paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), or (c)(3) of this section, whichever is applicable, will be dismissed.

[Order 561, 58 FR 58780, Nov. 4, 1993, as amended by Order 602, 64 FR 17097, Apr. 8, 1999; Order 606, 64 FR 44405, Aug. 16, 1999]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1996–2019 · leading case: United Airlines, Inc. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 827 F.3d 122 (D.C. Cir. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United Airlines, Inc. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 827 F.3d 122 (D.C. Cir. 2016). · cites it 5× “” 18 C.F.R. § 343.2 (b). A protest to a proposed rate under 18 C.”
Sw. Airlines Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 926 F.3d 851 (D.C. Cir. 2019). · cites it 4× “As a result, in the context of complaints only, the Commission interprets the regulatory phrase "substantially in excess of the [pipeline's] actual cost increases," 18 C.F.R. § 343.2 (c)(1), to "provid[e] for the review of either a percentage increase or a dollar increase" in…”
Tesoro Refining & Mktg. Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 552 F.3d 868 (D.C. Cir. 2009). · cites it 3× “Tesoro filed the complaint under 18 C.F.R. § 343.2 , a regulation that permits challenges to pipeline rates adjusted for inflation under 18 C.”
Ass'n of Oil Pipe Lines v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, Kaneb Pipe Line Operating P'ship, L.P., Intervenors, 83 F.3d 1424 (D.C. Cir. 1996). · cites it 3× “” 18 C.F.R. § 343.2 (e)(1); see also Order No.”
Frontier Pipeline Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 452 F.3d 774 (D.C. Cir. 2006). “18 C.F.R. § 343.2 (c)(1); Order No. 561, FERC Stats.”
ExxonMobil Oil Corp. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 363 F. App'x 752 (D.C. Cir. 2010). · cites it 3× “” 18 C.F.R. § 343.2 (c)(1). In the orders on review, the FERC dismissed the complaints of two shippers, BP West Coast Products LLC (“BP”) and ExxonMobil Oil Corporation (“Exxon”), against rate increases taken by a pipeline operator, SFPP, L.”
ExxonMobil Oil Corp. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 363 F. App'x 752 (D.C. Cir. 2010). · cites it 3× “” 18 C.F.R. § 343.2 (c)(1). In the orders on review, the FERC dismissed the complaints of two shippers, BP West Coast Products LLC (“BP”) and ExxonMobil Oil Corporation (“Exxon”), against rate increases taken by a pipeline operator, SFPP, L.”
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.