Motion to hold litigation in abeyance re Natural Gas Pipeline Co of America under RP01-503.

Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20031024-0091 Received by FERC OSEC 10/24/2003 in D o c k e t # : O R 0 3 - 6 - 0 0 0 u r x l OlI I/. L BOSEK L A W FIRM 1090 V ~ o h r r Avvz~im,N.W. ~"IL D Surrt 800 !)f t ;(,: THE SECI~TAR~' WASHBNG"rON,D.C. 20005 TELEPHO~:202/326-5256 03 OCT25 AHII: 20 F , ~ L E : 202/289-7624 dmse~w.com t~EOERAL :I~dRG REGbLMOR COHHIS$10N October 24, 2003 Magalie R. Salas Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, N.E. Washinglon; D.C. 20426 Re: Sinclair Oil Corp. v. Chevron Pipe Line Co., Docket No. OR03-6-000 Dear Ms. Salas: Enclosed for filing in the captioned docket on behalf of Chevron Pipe Line Compan)'s ("CPL") are the original and 14 copies oftbe following documents: . CPL's Answer to Sinclair Oil Corporation's Motion for Summary Disposition; and . Supplement to CPL's Motion Requesting that the Commission Deny Privileged Treatment for Certain Information Filed by Sinclair Oil Corporation. Please stamp the additional copies of these pleadings as filed and return to the messenger. Please call me if there are any questions regarding this filing. Sincerely yours, Counsel for Chevron Pipe I,ine Company Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20031024-0091 Received by FERC OSEC 10/24/2003 in D o c k e t # : O R 0 3 - 6 - 0 0 0 ORIGINAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION ~t~," Sinclair Oil Corporation, Complainant V. Docket No. OR03-6-000 Chevron Pipe Line Company, Respondent CHEVRON PIPE LINE COMPANY'S ANSWER TO SLNCI~IR OIL CORPORATION'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION Pursuant to Rule 213 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure oftbe Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (''Commission" or "FERC"), 18 C.F.1L 385.213, Chevron Pipe Line Company ("CPL') opposes the Motion for Summary Disposition filed by Sinclair Oil Corporation ("Sinclair") on October 9, 2003. While CPL agrees that the Commission can dispose of this proceeding in summary fashion, the only appropriate summary action is dismis.,al of Sinclair's Complaint for failure to state a claim cognizable under the Interstate Commerce Act ("ICA"). Sinclair has failed to carry its burden of establishing that the Commission has the authority under the ICA to provide the relief that Sinclair has reque~,'ted. That is the threshold issue which the Commission should resolve before any other issue is even arguably relevant. Si..aclair's Motion contains nothing of interest that was not set forth in Sinclair's earlier pleadings. ~ The Motion merely repackages and repeats ...