Texas Gas Transmission, LLC submits tariff filing per 154.204: Filing to Implement Rate Schedule WNS on Permanent Basis to be effective 4/1/2012 under RP12-461 Filing Type : 570

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Seaway Crude Pipeline Company LLC ) Docket No. OR15-6-000 RESPONSE OF SEAWAY CRUDE PIPELINE COMPANY LLC TO REQUESTS FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION Pursuant to Rule 213 of the Commissions Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 C.F.R. 385.213 (2014), Seaway Crude Pipeline Company LLC (Seaway) hereby responds to the requests for summary disposition filed by the protestants in this case.1 Protestants requests to summarily dismiss the application constitute motions for summary disposition pursuant to 18 C.F.R. 385.217. See Suncor Protest at 1-2 (seeking summary disposition pursuant to Rule 217); see also Liquids Shipper Group Protest at 1, 3, 28 (seeking summary dismissal); CAPP Protest at 1, 3, 27 (same); Airlines Protest at 3- 4, 67 (same). The Commissions rules permit answers to motions for summary disposition. See 18 C.F.R. 385.213(a)(3) and (d)(1). To the extent this pleading is otherwise deemed a pleading for which leave to file must be sought, Seaway respectfully 1 The protestants are (1) Suncor Energy Marketing Inc. and Phillips 66 Company (collectively, Suncor); (2) the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP); (3) Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, Apache Corporation, ConocoPhillips Company, Marathon Oil Company and Noble Energy, Inc. (collectively, the Liquids Shipper Group); and (4) Air Transport Association of America, Inc. (Air Transport Association) and Valero Marketing and Supply Company (collectively, the Airlines). requests that the Commission grant leave to file this response, which is intended to assist the Commission in making its decision and to respond to the numerous misstatements and inaccuracies in the protestants pleadings. As described below, Seaways application fully complies with the Commissions recently re-established policies regarding applications for MBR authority. Consistent with those policies, Seaways application demonstrates that Seaway lacks market power in its applicable markets. Indeed, the measures of market concentration in Seaways origin and destination markets are well below the thresholds that the Commission has generally found require further investigation or hearing. The protests, by contrast, are based almost entirely on challenges to the Commissions MBR rules and precedent, rather than on legitimate challenges to the merits of Seaways application of those standards. Protestants disagreement with Commission policy and precedent, which certain of them have raised in requests for rehearing currently pending before the Commission in Docket No. OR12-4-000, cannot provide the basis for not granting Seaways application. Nor do those arguments support the need for any hearing procedures in the context of Seaways application or its denial on the merits. The Commission now has before ...