Opinion ID: 394102
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Compliance with Commission's Filing Requirements.

Text: 50 Mississippi Valley argues that Southern's October 31st filing clearly did not comply with the Commission's regulations pertaining to the information and supporting data to be included in a filing. See 18 C.F.R. § 154.63. Mississippi Valley claims the filing was deficient because the accompanying data included statements by Southern officials indicating their belief that a modified rate zone method of allocating transportation cost was still preferable, despite the October 31st filing's proposal to eliminate zones. Mississippi Valley also claims that data regarding zone allocation or costs required by Statement J of § 154.63(f) of the Commission's regulations was absent. Mississippi Valley therefore claims the filing was patently invalid. 51 The Commission's regulations preserve to the Commission the right to reject filings deficient in form: 52 The Commission reserves the right to reject any material submitted for filing which fails to comply with the requirements set forth in this part. 53 18 C.F.R. § 154.24 (1980). Clearly, summary rejection of a filing is appropriate where the filing is patently ... either deficient in form or a substantive nullity. Municipal Light Boards v. FPC, 450 F.2d at 1345. However, the Commission has been given discretion to relax its filing requirements since its filing rules are designed to give the Commission necessary information to make an informed decision. Id. at 1348; City of Groton v. FERC, 584 F.2d 1067 (D.C.Cir.1978). 54 In American Farm Lines v. Black Ball Freight Service, 397 U.S. 532, 90 S.Ct. 1288, 25 L.Ed.2d 547 (1970), competing carriers argued that an application for temporary operating authority with the Interstate Commerce Commission should be denied because the application violated that agency's filing requirements concerning information to be supplied. The Court there stated: 55 We agree with the Commission that the rules were promulgated for the purpose of providing the necessary information for the Commission to reach an informed and equitable decision on temporary authority applications.    The rules were not intended primarily to confer important procedural benefits upon individuals in the face of otherwise unfettered discretion   . Thus there is no reason to exempt this case from the general principle that (i)t is always within the discretion of a court or an administrative agency to relax or modify its procedural rules adopted for the orderly transaction of business before it when in a given case the ends of justice require it. The action of either in such a case is not reviewable except upon a showing of substantial prejudice to the complaining party. NLRB v. Monsanto Chemical Co. (8 Cir.), 205 F.2d 763, 764.    56 397 U.S. at 538-539, 90 S.Ct. at 1292. This understanding of filing requirements has been applied to the Commission. Papago II; Municipal Light Boards v. FPC, supra. 23 Mississippi Valley has made no showing of substantial prejudice resulting from any deviation from the Commission's regulations, assuming such deviation has occurred. The issues are clear to all parties involved and Mississippi Valley has had an opportunity to present its views on the issues in Docket No. RP78-36. Arguably, any harm suffered by Mississippi Valley is less than that suffered by the protesting carriers in American Farm Lines v. Black Ball Freight Service, supra, since in that case the ICC's action authorized the applicant to begin operations, resulting in a real threat of economic loss to the protesting carriers. 57 Accordingly, we find that the Commission has not abused its discretion in dealing with the issues relating to compliance with the Commission's filing requirements, and we reject Mississippi Valley's claim that the filing was patently defective.