# ENLINK PROCESSING SERVICES, LLC — Notice of Probable Violation

**Citation:** CPF 420205006  
**Type / status:** enforcement / historical  
**Agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration  
**Effective:** Not stated  
**Published:** 2020-02-18

CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.452(f)(6), 195.452(i)(4).

## Document text

Notice of Probable Violation involving ENLINK PROCESSING SERVICES, LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.452(f)(6),  195.452(i)(4). The case was opened on 2020-02-18 and is reported as closed as of 2025-04-07. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.

Official case documents:

420205006_Closure Letter_04072025_(19-164084S).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420205006/420205006_Closure%20Letter_04072025_(19-164084S).pdf

420205006_Closure Letter_04072025_(19-164084S)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420205006/420205006_Closure%20Letter_04072025_(19-164084S)_text.pdf

420205006_Consent Agreement and Order_06082021_(19-164084S).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420205006/420205006_Consent%20Agreement%20and%20Order_06082021_(19-164084S).pdf

420205006_Consent Agreement and Order_06082021_(19-164084S)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420205006/420205006_Consent%20Agreement%20and%20Order_06082021_(19-164084S)_text.pdf

420205006_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_01042021.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420205006/420205006_Decision%20on%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_01042021.pdf

420205006_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_01042021_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420205006/420205006_Decision%20on%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_01042021_text.pdf

420205006_Final Order_07272020.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420205006/420205006_Final%20Order_07272020.pdf

420205006_Final Order_07272020_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420205006/420205006_Final%20Order_07272020_text.pdf

420205006_NOPV PCO_02182020.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420205006/420205006_NOPV%20PCO_02182020.pdf

420205006_NOPV PCO_02182020_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420205006/420205006_NOPV%20PCO_02182020_text.pdf

420205006_Operator Petition for Reconsideration_08202020.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420205006/420205006_Operator%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_08202020.pdf

420205006_Operator Requesting a Stay and Contesting the Order_02052021_(19-164084S).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420205006/420205006_Operator%20Requesting%20a%20Stay%20and%20Contesting%20the%20Order_02052021_(19-164084S).pdf

420205006_Operator Response to Notice_03162020.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420205006/420205006_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_03162020.pdf

420205006_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_01042021_text.pdf

January 4, 2021
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: barry.davis@enlink.com
Mr. Barry E. Davis
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
EnLink Midstream, LLC
1722 Routh Street
Suite 1300
Dallas, Texas 75201
Re: CPF No. 4-2020-5006
Dear Mr. Davis:
Enclosed is the Decision on the Petition for Reconsideration issued in the above-referenced case.
For the reasons explained therein, the Decision grants your Petition in part, affirms Item 1 of the
July 27, 2020 Final Order, and issues an Amended Compliance Order. When the terms of the
Amended Compliance Order have been completed, as determined by the Director, Southwest
Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of this Decision by electronic mail is
effective upon the date of transmission as provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
This Decision constitutes the final administrative action in this proceeding.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Alan K. Mayberry
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Ms. Mary McDaniel, Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA
Mr. William V. Murchison, Counsel, Murchison Law Firm, PLLC
vince.murchison@pipelinelegal.com
Mr. Michael LeBlanc, Senior Vice President, Operations, EnLink Midstream, LLC
michael.leblanc@enlink.com
Mr. Cordell Theriot, Senior DOT Compliance Specialist, EnLink Midstream, LLC
cordell.theriot@enlink.com
CONFIRMATION OF RECEIPT REQUESTED



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
____________________________________
)
In the Matter of )
)
EnLink Midstream, LLC, ) CPF No. 4-2020-5006
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
DECISION ON PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
From February through July 2019, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA or Agency), Office of
Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and
records of EnLink Midstream, LLC (EnLink or Petitioner) in Lafayette, Louisiana and Dallas,
Texas. As a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to
Petitioner, by letter dated February 18, 2020, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed
Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed
finding that EnLink had violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452 and proposed ordering Petitioner to take
certain measures to correct the alleged violation. EnLink responded to the Notice by letter dated
March 16, 2020 (Response) contesting the allegation and offering additional information.
EnLink did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.
On July 27, 2020, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. §§ 60118 and 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.213, the
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety (Associate Administrator) issued a Final Order
finding that Petitioner had committed a violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.452 with respect to its
integrity management program (IMP). The Final Order found that Petitioner had failed to
evaluate certain preventative and mitigative measures (P&M Measures) to protect a high
consequence area (HCA) in its IMP.
Pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, the Final Order also
included a Compliance Order that required Petitioner to perform an emergency flow restricting
device (EFRD) study, including consideration of the factors listed in § 195.452(i)(4). The Final
Order did not assess a civil penalty for the violation.



CPF No. 4-2020-5006
Page 2
On August 20, 2020, Petitioner filed a petition for reconsideration pursuant to 49 C.F.R.
§ 190.243 (Petition).1 In its Petition, EnLink sought reconsideration of the entire Final Order,
including the finding of violation and the terms of the Compliance Order.
Section 190.243 allows a respondent to petition the Associate Administrator for reconsideration
of a final order that has been issued pursuant to § 190.213. Reconsideration is not an appeal or a
completely new review of the record. A respondent may ask for correction of an error or, in
limited circumstances, may present previously unavailable information. If a respondent requests
consideration of additional facts or arguments, the respondent must submit the reasons they were
not presented prior to the issuance of the final order. Repetitious information or arguments will
not be considered.2 The Associate Administrator may grant or deny, in whole or in part, a
petition for reconsideration without further proceedings.
In its Petition, Petitioner presents several grounds for reconsideration. First, Petitioner contends
that it did not violate § 195.452(f)(6) as found in the Final Order. Second, Petitioner contends
that the Final Order improperly applied the standard of conduct required by the regulation.
Third, Petitioner contends that PHMSA did not provide fair notice of the compliance
expectations under the cited regulations. Fourth, Petitioner contends PHMSA did not “carry the
burden of proof.” Last, Petitioner contends that the Compliance Order should be withdrawn
because it is ambiguous and impermissibly broad. This Decision carefully considers and
addresses each of Petitioner’s contentions in turn.
I. Finding of Violation
Petitioner contends it did not violate § 195.452(f)(6), based on its reading of the regulation.
First, I consider the text of the regulation itself and its plain meaning. Then I consider whether
the Final Order was correct in deciding that the evidence supports the finding in the Final Order
that Petitioner violated § 195.452(f)(6).
a. Analysis of 49 CFR § 195.452(f)(6)
Item 1 in the Final Order found that EnLink had violated § 195.452(f)(6) by failing to identify
P&M Measures to protect an HCA in its IMP. That section states:
§ 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.
(a) …
(f) What are the elements of an integrity management program? An
integrity management program begins with the initial framework. An
operator must continually change the program to reflect operating
1 On August 11, 2020, the Associate Administrator granted EnLink additional time to file a petition for
reconsideration.
2 Plains All American Pipeline, LP, CPF No. 5-2009-00118, 2013 WL 5883403, at *3 (Aug. 30, 2013).



CPF No. 4-2020-5006
Page 3
experience, conclusions drawn from results of the integrity assessments,
and other maintenance and surveillance data, and evaluation of
consequences of a failure on the high consequence area. An operator must
include, at minimum, each of the following elements in its written integrity
management program: . . .
(6) Identification of preventive and mitigative measures to protect the
high consequence area (see paragraph (i) of this section); . . .
(i) What preventive and mitigative measures must an operator take to
protect the high consequence area?—(1) General requirements. An
operator must take measures to prevent and mitigate the consequences of a
pipeline failure that could affect a high consequence area. These measures
include conducting a risk analysis of the pipeline segment to identify
additional actions to enhance public safety or environmental protection.
Such actions may include, but are not limited to, implementing damage
prevention best practices, better monitoring of cathodic protection where
corrosion is a concern, establishing shorter inspection intervals, installing
EFRDs on the pipeline segment, modifying the systems that monitor
pressure and detect leaks, providing additional training to personnel on
response procedures, conducting drills with local emergency responders
and adopting other management controls.
(2) Risk analysis criteria. In identifying the need for additional
preventive and mitigative measures, an operator must evaluate the
likelihood of a pipeline release occurring and how a release could affect the
high consequence area. This determination must consider all relevant risk
factors, including, but not limited to:
(i) Terrain surrounding the pipeline segment, including drainage
systems such as small streams and other smaller waterways that could act
as a conduit to the high consequence area;
(ii) Elevation profile;
(iii) Characteristics of the product transported;
(iv) Amount of product that could be released;
(v) Possibility of a spillage in a farm field following the drain tile into a
waterway;
(vi) Ditches alongside a roadway the pipeline crosses;
(vii) Physical support of the pipeline segment such as by a cable
suspension bridge;
(viii) Exposure of the pipeline to operating pressure exceeding
established maximum operating pressure;
(ix) Seismicity of the area.
(3) Leak detection. An operator must have a means to detect leaks on its
pipeline system. An operator must evaluate the capability of its leak
detection means and modify, as necessary, to protect the high consequence
area. An operator's evaluation must, at least, consider, the following
factors—length and size of the pipeline, type of product carried, the
pipeline's proximity to the high consequence area, the swiftness of leak
detection, location of nearest response personnel, leak history, and risk



CPF No. 4-2020-5006
Page 4
assessment results.
(4) Emergency Flow Restricting Devices (EFRD). If an operator
determines that an EFRD is needed on a pipeline segment to protect a high
consequence area in the event of a hazardous liquid pipeline release, an
operator must install the EFRD. In making this determination, an operator
must, at least, consider the following factors—the swiftness of leak
detection and pipeline shutdown capabilities, the type of commodity
carried, the rate of potential leakage, the volume that can be released,
topography or pipeline profile, the potential for ignition, proximity to power
sources, location of nearest response personnel, specific terrain between the
pipeline segment and the high consequence area, and benefits expected by
reducing the spill size.
Section 195.452(f) requires operators of pipelines that could affect an HCA to create a written
IMP that the operator must “continually change the program” to reflect operating experience;
conclusions drawn from results of the integrity assessments and other maintenance and
surveillance data; and evaluation of the consequences of a failure on HCAs. Section
195.452(f)(6), in particular, requires that operators include identification of P&M Measures to
protect HCAs in their written integrity management programs. Section 195.452(f)(6)
specifically refers to § 195.452(i) for the requirements regarding identifying and taking such
P&M Measures.
As quoted above, § 195.452(i) requires operators to conduct three analyses regarding the
identification of necessary P&M Measures. First, § 195.452(i)(1) contains the general
requirement to take P&M Measures to prevent and mitigate the consequences of a pipeline
failure that could affect an HCA, as well as the requirement to conduct a risk analysis of pipeline
segments to identify actions to enhance public safety or environmental protection. Subparagraph
(i)(2) lists the risk analysis criteria that an operator must use in identifying the need for any
additional P&M Measures that the operator has not already implemented on a line that could
affect an HCA. Second, subparagraph (i)(3) requires operators of pipelines that could affect
HCAs to have a means to detect leaks on its pipeline system and requires that operators consider
a different set of criteria to determine the capability of the leak detection system to protect each
HCA. Third, subparagraph (i)(4) requires operators to determine whether EFRDs are needed on
a pipeline segment to protect an HCA in the event of a hazardous liquid pipeline release. This
subparagraph lists still another set of 10 specific factors that an operator must at least consider
when determining the need for EFRDs. Each of these analyses is set forth in a separate
subparagraph of § 195.452(i), indicating they are distinct requirements.
The Petition centers on the notion that operators must perform the EFRD analysis pursuant to
§ 195.452(i)(4) only if the general risk analysis provided at § 195.452(i)(1) and (2) first identifies
a need for additional P&M Measures. This interpretation, however, is inconsistent with the plain



CPF No. 4-2020-5006
Page 5
language of the regulation.3 A close reading of the regulation reveals nothing in the text of the
regulation that indicates that either the evaluation of leak detection systems or the analysis of the
need for EFRDs are contingent on the results of the general risk analysis conducted pursuant to
§ 195.452(i)(1) and (2).
In fact, if one considers the entire text and structure of § 195.452(i) as a whole, it is evident that
one must read the whole paragraph in its entirety to be applied properly and that one cannot pick
and choose the individual words or subparagraphs to fit one’s own ends.4 PHMSA’s integrity
management program for hazardous liquid pipelines is contained entirely within § 195.452, so
the constituent parts of that section should be read holistically to properly interpret the purpose
and meaning of individual paragraphs and subparagraphs. The alleged violation here revolves
entirely around the concept of P&M Measures that pipeline operators must consider
periodically,5 taking into account constantly changing circumstances to determine what
additional protections they should develop and implement “to prevent and mitigate the
consequences of a pipeline failure that could affect a high consequence area.”6 Nowhere in
§ 195.452 does one find a single instance where any one particular P&M Measure is prescribed,
including EFRDs; instead, we find that operators are required to follow prescribed analytical
processes that consider specific factors in order to develop and implement their own unique
P&M Measures to prevent and mitigate releases. It is not a particular result that is generally
prescribed, but, rather, a process by which a valid result can be achieved and documented.
Here, the structure of paragraph (i) is particularly telling. The paragraph is titled: (i) What
preventive and mitigative measures must an operator take to protect the high consequence
area?” What follows are four subparagraphs that must be read individually in order to
understand how they fit together. Subparagraph (1) sets forth the general requirements, which
includes a “risk analysis” of the relevant pipeline segment to identify additional P&M Measures
designed “to enhance public safety or environmental protection.” One of these measures is the
possible installation of EFRDs. Subparagraph (2) then lists the set of minimum criteria or factors
that must be employed to determine whether additional measures are needed, aimed at the unique
physical characteristics of a particular segment and its operation.
3 See Statewide Bonding, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 980 F.3d 109, 116 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (“Where [] an
agency’s regulation is unambiguous, the court must give effect to the regulation’s plain meaning.”); Kisor v. Wilkie,
139 S.Ct. 2400, 2415 (2019) (explaining that to determine whether a regulation is ambiguous, “a court must
‘carefully consider’ the text, structure, history and purpose of a regulation….”). See also, Gen. Elec. Co. v. U.S.
E.P.A., 53 F.3d 1324, 1329 (D.C. Cir. 1995), as corrected (June 19, 1995) (“[W]e must ask whether the regulated
party received, or should have received, notice of the agency's interpretation in the most obvious way of all: by
reading the regulations.”).
4 See Statewide Bonding 980 F.3d at 117, (“A basic principle of statutory and regulatory interpretation is that the
statute or regulation should be read in context.”).
5 The concept of periodic integrity assessments of an operator’s pipeline system and its IM program is intrinsic to
49 C.F.R. § 195.452. For more details, see § 195.452(f) and (j).
6 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(i)(1).



CPF No. 4-2020-5006
Page 6
A separate required element in this overall consideration of P&M Measures is leak detection,
which is an important process for the timely detection of oil spills. Subparagraph (3), entitled
“Leak detection,” requires that every operator with pipeline segments that could affect a HCA
“must have a means to detect leaks on its pipeline system.” It does not mandate a particular
method of leak detection, but provides that the “means” chosen must be based on an evaluation
of the capability of the operator’s leak detection system, considering certain specific factors. The
subparagraph dictates that an operator must be able to show that the process used to evaluate and
use a particular leak-detection system has considered certain specific factors.
A similar requirement is found in subparagraph (4), entitled “Emergency Flow Restricting
Devices (EFRD).” This subparagraph is even less prescriptive than the preceding subparagraph
on leak detection and does not dictate that an operator employ EFRDs at all. On the contrary, it
merely requires every operator with pipeline segments that could affect HCAs to determine
whether EFRDs are needed, based on the actual consideration of 10 specific factors (see
regulation cited above).
The regulatory history of 49 CFR § 195.452(i) also supports the textualist reading outlined
above. In July 1994, Congress specifically required PHMSA to prescribe standards for the use
of EFRDs to minimize product releases from hazardous liquid pipeline facilities.7 Pursuant to
that mandate, PHMSA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)8 seeking public
comments on the use of EFRDs in high-risk areas. In December 2000, publication of
§ 195.452(i) codified the Congressional mandate that PHMSA require operators to evaluate the
specific need for EFRDs on their systems. The preamble to the Final Rule, by which
§ 195.452(i) was promulgated,9 states:
Another protective measure the rule identifies is for an operator to install an EFRD on the
pipeline segment. The final rule does not prescribe the specific conditions under which
EFRDs or other preventative and mitigative measures are required. Rather, the final rule
requires an operator to develop and apply risk assessment and decision-making processes
that reflect pipeline-specific conditions and operating environments.
The preamble to the Final Rule supports a plain language reading of the regulatory text, that
operators of pipelines that could affect HCAs must follow a defined process to make a
7 49 USC 60102(j) states that the Secretary of DOT “shall prescribe standards on the circumstances under which an
operator of a hazardous liquid pipeline facility must use an emergency flow restricting device or other procedure,
system, or equipment described in paragraph (1) of this subsection on the facility.”
8 Pipeline Safety: Pipeline Integrity Management in High Consequence Areas, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 65
FR 21695 (April 24, 2000).
9 Pipeline Integrity Management in High Consequence Areas (Hazardous Liquid Operators With 500 or More Miles
of Pipeline) (Final Rule), 65 Fed. Reg. 75378 (Dec. 1, 2000) (codified at 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.450-195.452).



CPF No. 4-2020-5006
Page 7
determination regarding whether EFRDs are needed on their systems to minimize product
releases from hazardous liquid facilities. The preamble explains the process that must be
followed in making this determination:
The rule also specifies factors that an operator must consider in making this
determination. OPS will review during inspection the adequacy of the analysis
and the appropriateness of the operator’s decision on the need to install an EFRD
(emphasis added).10
In its Petition, EnLink repeatedly contends that the Notice and Final Order misinterpret and
misapply § 195.452(f)(6) and (i)(4). Petitioner argues that the analysis required by
§ 195.452(i)(4) only needs to be completed if the analysis required by § 195.452(i)(1) and (2)
identify a need for additional P&M Measures. This interpretation of the regulations, however, is
inconsistent with the plain language and context of the regulation, which clearly indicate that
operators must determine, based on a specific set of criteria, whether additional EFRDs are
necessary on their pipeline system. As discussed above, the plain language of the regulations
requires operators to conduct three separate analyses regarding the identification of necessary
P&M Measures, each with separate subparagraphs of § 195.452(i), indicating they are distinct
requirements. The EFRD analysis has a separate set of specific criteria from the general risk
analysis criteria that must be considered in making the determination regarding the need for
EFRDs. The factors relevant to the need for EFRDs are in § 195.452(i)(4), not under
§ 195.452(i)(1) and (2), so the general risk analysis required under (i)(1) and (2) would not be
effective or sufficient in evaluating the need for EFRDs.
In summary, neither the regulatory text nor the preamble to the Final Rule supports Petitioner’s
interpretation of § 195.452(i)(4). In fact, Petitioner attempts to subvert the required EFRD
analysis by construing the regulation as a sequence of events and concluding that its conduct was
sufficient to complete the sequence. However, the regulation plainly sets out a list of individual
analyses, each of which must be completed to achieve compliance. The Petitioner’s proposed
procedure is simply not reflected in the text of the regulations. On the contrary, the text and
structure of § 195.452(i) itself, as well as the language in the statute and regulatory measures
describing the leak detection and EFRD analyses, provide that operators must evaluate their
systems in light of two unique sets of factors pursuant to § 195.452(f)(6) and (i)(3) and (4).
As discussed in more detail in Section III below, subsequent guidance published by PHMSA
on this regulation, as well as enforcement actions issued by the Agency based on violations of
§ 195.452(f)(6) and (i)(4), show that PHMSA has consistently applied this plain language
reading of the regulation.
10 65 Fed. Reg. at 75393.



CPF No. 4-2020-5006
Page 8
b. Evidence and Finding of Violation
The Final Order found that Petitioner violated § 195.452(f)(6) by failing to identify P&M
Measures to protect a HCA in its IMP. Specifically, the Order found that Petitioner failed to
determine if EFRDs were needed on its Cajon Sibon NGL Pipeline System in accordance with
§ 195.452(i)(4), which is incorporated into § 195.452(f)(6). As discussed in the Final Order,
EnLink admitted that it did not conduct an EFRD analysis specific to determining whether
additional EFRDs were needed on the IP-1000 segment of the Cajun Sibon NGL Pipeline
System. In its Response, EnLink stated that “[t]he need for additional EFRD analysis was
evaluated but not recommended since these lines were identified to be most affected by the Third
Party threat.”11
Further, as noted above, there is no documentary evidence showing that EnLink actually
performed the required EFRD analysis. EnLink submitted a blank copy of its LIMP Form 108,
titled “EFRD Evaluation Form.” This form outlines the factors listed in § 195.452(i)(4) that are
supposed to be used for determining whether EFRDs are needed, but it was not completed by
EnLink. In its Response and in the Petition, EnLink cites to an entirely different form, LIMP
Form 106, to argue that it complied with the regulations; however, the LIMP Form 106 also does
not reflect any analysis of the factors listed in § 195.452(i)(4).12 The form instead indicates
simply that “further EFRD/Leak Detection Evaluation” was not recommended.13 In other words,
EnLink’s own admissions and documents show that EnLink used the risk analysis process that is
used for a general assessment of the need for additional P&M Measures as a short-cut or
substitute for performing the required EFRD analysis.
Accordingly, the evidence, including EnLink’s own admissions and records, clearly supports the
finding in the Final Order that EnLink did not evaluate the need for additional EFRDs on the IP-
1000 segment in accordance with § 195.452(f)(6).
EnLink’s Response and Petition also contend that EnLink considered the factors listed under
§ 195.452(i)(4) while conducting the general risk analysis for the IP-1000 segment, and
therefore, it complied with the regulations.14 EnLink, however, has never been able to produce,
either during the inspection, in its Response, or with its Petition, any evidence that it evaluated
all of the factors listed in § 195.452(i)(4).15 EnLink’s Response discussed the factors, but the
11 Petitioner’s Response to the Notice (Response), at 4-5.
12 Id., at 15.
13 Id.
14 Response, at 2; Petitioner’s Petition for Reconsideration (Petition), at 13.
15 Section 195.452(l)(1)(ii) requires operators to keep records to demonstrate compliance with the integrity
management regulations, including “documents to support the decisions and analyses, including any modifications,
justifications, deviations and determinations made, variances, and actions taken, to implement and evaluate each



CPF No. 4-2020-5006
Page 9
supporting documentation only included a blank copy of LIMP Form 108, graphs of liquid
volume release, a risk table for the IP-1000 System, the LIMP Form 106, and other apparent
outputs from its risk model, none of which shows that EnLink considered the required factors,
including swiftness of leak detection and pipeline shutdown capabilities, the potential for
ignition, proximity to power sources, location of nearest response personnel, or specific terrain
between the pipeline segment and the HCA. The Petition listed the factors that EnLink
ostensibly evaluated as part of its IM program, but several factors required under § 195.452(i)(4),
noted above, were not included. Even if the regulations could be interpreted to allow one
analysis that evaluates all of the factors listed in § 195.452(i)(1) through (4) together, as
Petitioner argues, EnLink would still be in violation of the code since the evidence shows
EnLink did not evaluate all of the factors required by § 195.452(i)(4).
Finally, in its Petition, EnLink contends that it fulfilled the requirements of § 195.452(f)(6)
because it demonstrated that its IMP identified P&M Measures to protect the HCAs.16 Petitioner
argues, on this basis alone, that the finding of violation in the Final Order and the Compliance
Order should be withdrawn.17 As discussed above, § 195.452(f)(6) includes the EFRD process
outlined in paragraph (i) for how an operator must identify and implement necessary P&M
Measures and conduct a separate EFRD analysis under subparagraph (i)(4). Simply listing P&M
Measures and ignoring the requirements in § 195.452(i)(4), which is clearly and plainly
referenced by § 195.452(f)(6), is not sufficient to comply with the entirety of the regulation.18
Here, it is appropriate to find Petitioner violated § 195.452(f)(6) since paragraph (f)(6) requires
the completion of paragraph (i) in its entirety.19
For the above reasons, I affirm the finding in the Final Order that Petitioner violated the pipeline
safety regulations by not conducting an EFRD analysis, in violation of § 195.452(f)(6). This
Decision further clarifies the violation is based on EnLink’s failure to conduct the EFRD analysis
on the IP-1000 segment, rather than for the entire Cajun Sibon NGL Pipeline System, as
discussed in more detail in Section V below. Having addressed the fundamental questions of the
element of the integrity management program listed in paragraph (f) of this section.” EnLink provided no records to
demonstrate compliance.
16 Petition, at 8.
17 Id.
18 The Petition itself acknowledges that at least some of paragraph (i) must be completed. Petition, at 6-7, 12.
19 EnLink’s IMP reflects a process that is not consistent with the regulations. EnLink’s LIMP Form 108 states:
“Triggering events for EFRD evaluations include follow-up to P&M evaluation or other event that in the judgment
of the IMP Team Chairman necessitates additional EFRD analysis.” EnLink’s LIMP Form 106 allows personnel to
“make a recommendation to perform/not perform leak detection and EFRD evaluations.” EnLink’s IMP process
therefore is not in accordance with § 195.452(i)(4) because it makes the EFRD analysis and evaluation of the factors
in subparagraph (i)(4) contingent on the results of the general risk analysis or at the discretion of EnLink personnel.
EnLink’s IMP, which applies to all of EnLink’s hazardous liquid lines subject to § 195.452, is not consistent with
the requirements of the regulations.



CPF No. 4-2020-5006
Page 10
regulation’s requirements and evidence proving EnLink violated the regulation, I now turn to the
remaining arguments presented in the Petition.
II. Standard of Conduct
a. Use of Word “Properly” in the Final Order
Petitioner alleges that the Final Order applied a standard of conduct different than what was
alleged in the Notice, and therefore, violated Petitioner’s right to due process because Petitioner
did not have adequate notice of that standard of conduct and constitutes an arbitrary and
capricious agency action. Petitioner argues that the statement in the Final Order that EnLink
“did not properly determine if EFRDs were needed on its Cajun Sibon NGL Pipeline System to
protect HCAs” constituted a heightened standard of conduct and that Petitioner was not given
fair notice of this standard.
I disagree. The only standard by which Petitioner’s conduct has been judged during this
proceeding is the plain language of the regulation. The Notice alleged that “EnLink failed to
implement a process for the evaluation, identification, and implementation of preventative and
mitigative measures to protect the HCAs of its pipeline system as required by § 195.452(f)(6)
and § 195.452(i)(4).”20 The Final Order likewise found the Petitioner “violated § 195.452(f)(6)
by failing to identify P&M Measures to protect a high consequence area in its IMP.”21 The Final
Order also stated, EnLink “did not properly determine if EFRDs were needed on its Cajun Sibon
NGL Pipeline System to protect HCAs.”22 Use of the word “properly” did not create some new
standard, as Petitioner claims, but rather described Petitioner’s failure to follow the regulation.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “properly” to mean “in an accurate or correct way.”23
Use of the term was appropriate in describing Petitioner’s violation of § 195.452(i)(4). By its
own admission, Petitioner failed to conduct an EFRD evaluation and the evidence proved that it
failed to evaluate the factors required to be considered at § 195.452(i)(4). Thus, Petitioner failed
to accurately or correctly determine if EFRDs were needed as required by the regulation. Since
this language was entirely appropriate, its usage can hardly be said to violate Petitioner’s right to
due process or that it constitutes some sort of arbitrary and capricious action. Accordingly, this
argument is rejected.
b. Application of the Regulations
20 Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice), at 3.
21 Final Order and Compliance Order (Final Order), at 2.
22 Id., at 2.
23 Properly, Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/properly (last visited Nov. 16, 2020).



CPF No. 4-2020-5006
Page 11
Petitioner next argues that the Final Order is deficient because it: imposes a new standard by
“misapplying” the regulations; bases its finding “upon an erroneous interpretation of its own
regulations”; and applies an “ad hoc re-interpretation of its own regulations,” constituting an
arbitrary and capricious agency action.24 Petitioner bases these arguments again on its
contention that the regulation does not require operators to perform an EFRD analysis pursuant
to § 195.452(i)(4) because it “requires only that an operator determine whether additional
preventative and mitigative measures are needed by way of the risk analysis performed pursuant
to [§ 195.452(i)(1) and (2)].”25 As explained in detail in Section I, Petitioner’s argument
regarding the construction of §§ 195.452(f)(6) and (i)(1), (2), and (4) is refuted by the plain
language of the regulation, and is not supported by any Agency statements on the regulations,
including those made in the preamble to the Final Rule when the regulation was first
promulgated. Therefore, PHMSA did not misapply or “re-interpret” its regulations in finding
that EnLink violated § 195.452(f)(6).
Petitioner makes several other arguments that are equally unpersuasive. First, Petitioner argues
that § 195.452 does not require operators to install P&M Measures or EFRDs. I find this
argument irrelevant. The Final Order never determined that Petitioner violated the regulations
by failing to install any P&M Measure that should have been installed. In fact, it is not possible
to know if EFRDs are needed on Petitioner’s pipeline to protect the HCA until the operator has
performed the specific analysis required by § 195.452(i)(4). The Compliance Order does not
require the operator to install any P&M Measure at all to come into compliance with the
regulations, but rather requires the completion of a distinct EFRD analysis that considers all the
factors enumerated in subparagraph (i)(4).
Second, Petitioner argues that § 195.452(i)(4) only requires operators to “consider” the factors
listed and does not require operators to install EFRDs. Again, there is no statement in the
Notice, Final Order, or Compliance Order that alleges Petitioner was required to install EFRDs.
All of the actions are based on the requirement to conduct the EFRD analysis outlined in
§ 195.452(i)(4).
c. Agency Intent
Petitioner next argues that PHMSA “intended” for the requirement to conduct an EFRD analysis
pursuant to § 195.452(i)(4) to be contingent on the results of the risk analysis conducted pursuant
to § 195.452(i)(1) and (2).26 Petitioner’s interpretation again is refuted by the plain language of
24 Petition, at 10-12.
25 Id., at 10-14.
26 Petitioner also contends that, from a policy perspective, PHMSA has “misdirected” the application of
§ 195.452(i)(4) since circumstances have supposedly changed since the regulation was first promulgated in 2000,
approximately 13 years before EnLink’s pipeline was commissioned. “Newly designed systems,” Petitioner argues,
all address EFRDs in system designs so no additional EFRDs would need to be added to these systems at a later
time. I disagree. By its terms, § 195.452(i)(4) applies equally to pipelines such as EnLink’s that may have been



CPF No. 4-2020-5006
Page 12
the regulations and is not supported by any statement made by the Agency, including those made
in guidance documents, which are described in more detail in Section III below.
For the reasons stated in Section I and reiterated again above, Petitioner’s interpretation of
§§ 195.452(f)(6) and (i) is erroneous and, therefore, I find there is no violation of due process on
any of the bases alleged by Petitioner.
III. Fair Notice
Petitioner argues that PHMSA failed to provide Petitioner with “fair notice” of its compliance
expectations and, therefore, the findings in the Final Order and Compliance Order constitute an
arbitrary and capricious action.27 Petitioner cites to PHMSA guidance regarding § 195.452(i)(4),
including the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) related generally to § 195.45228 and PHMSA
Enforcement Guidance,29 to support Petitioner’s argument. For the reasons discussed below, I
find that Petitioner had fair notice of the requirements of §§ 195.452(f)(6) and (i), and that
neither the Final Order nor the Compliance Order constitutes an arbitrary and capricious action.
In the administrative context, fair notice requires that an agency have stated with “ascertainable
certainty what is meant by the standards it has promulgated.”30 Thus, if by reviewing the
regulations themselves as well as other public statements issued by the agency, a regulated party
acting in good faith could identify, with “ascertainable certainty,” the standards with which the
agency expects parties to conform, then the agency has fairly notified a regulated party of the
agency's interpretation.31 As discussed in detail in Section I, the plain language of the regulation
in this instance is clear and unambiguous that an operator must perform an EFRD analysis that
satisfies § 195.452(i)(4). The regulation is not ambiguous and thus the regulation itself provides
adequate notice to regulated entities.32 In this case, the regulated party, if acting in good faith,
designed and constructed after the effective date of the regulation, which was March 31, 2001. The regulation
clearly applied to Petitioner’s pipeline in this case, as intended, and Petitioner’s policy argument is purely
speculative.
27 Petition, at 15-16.
28 Hazardous Liquid Integrity Management FAQs (HL IM FAQs), available at
https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/hazardous-liquid-integrity-management/hl-im-faqs (last accessed November
12, 2020).
29 Hazardous Liquid Integrity Management Enforcement Guidance (HL IM Enforcement Guidance), available at
https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/Hazardous_Liquid_IM_Enforcement_Guidance_12_7_2
015.pdf (last accessed November 12, 2020).
30 ExxonMobil Pipeline Co. v. United States Dep't of Transportation, 867 F.3d 564, 578 (5th Cir. 2017).
31 Id., at 578-579, quoting, Gen. Elec. Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 53 F.3d 1324, 1329 (D.C. Cir. 1995), as corrected (June
19, 1995).
32 See, Gen. Elec. Co., 53 F.3d at 1329 (“[W]e must ask whether the regulated party received, or should have
received, notice of the agency's interpretation in the most obvious way of all: by reading the regulations.”).



CPF No. 4-2020-5006
Page 13
could identify with “ascertainable certainty” the standard the being imposed by simply reading
the regulations.
Other public statements made by PHMSA provide further notice to regulated parties of the
Agency’s compliance expectations. The statements made in the rulemaking actions related
§§ 195.452(f)(6) and (i)(4) support the plain language reading of the regulations, as described
above. Petitioner attempts to use PHMSA’s own published guidance on EFRDs to undercut the
allegation of violation, arguing that two FAQs and PHMSA’s Enforcement Guidance fail to
provide fair notice of the Agency’s own interpretation of §§ 195.452(f)(6) and (i)(4). I have
reviewed all three documents and find, in fact, that they support a finding here that Petitioner had
fair notice of the Agency’s interpretation of the Code. I will discuss each document separately.
First, Petitioner cites HL FAQ 9.7 for the proposition that EFRDs are not needed if a risk
analysis under § 195.452(i)(1) shows there is no need for additional P&M Measures.33 However,
FAQ 9.7 makes neither an express statement to this effect nor any implication that an EFRD
analysis is somehow contingent on the results of the general risk analysis. It states:
9.7 HCAs?
What preventive and mitigative actions must be taken to protect
Operators must conduct risk analyses for the line segments that could affect HCAs.
These analyses should identify and evaluate the need for additional preventive and
mitigative actions to protect HCAs. The rule does not specify which actions must
be taken. A list of some measures which might be taken includes:
• implementing damage prevention best practices,
• enhanced cathodic protection monitoring,
• reduced inspection intervals,
• enhanced training,
• installing EFRDs,
• modifying the systems that monitor pressure and detect leaks,
• conducting drills with local emergency responders, and
• other management controls.
An operator must implement the appropriate preventive and mitigative actions to
address the risks unique to each specific line segment or facility.
Petitioner is correct that nothing in § 195.452 requires any operator to install one or more EFRDs
or where to place them, but PHMSA has never asserted that it does. In fact, this FAQ is
consistent with the plain language of the regulation that notifies operators they must perform
analyses to determine whether any P&M Measure they have not already implemented is needed.
33 Petition, at 17.



CPF No. 4-2020-5006
Page 14
EFRDs are on the list of possible P&M Measures that operators may need to implement, but
nothing in the FAQ can be construed to imply that the separate analysis required by
§ 195.452(i)(4) is satisfied by completing the analysis required under § 195.452(i)(1) and (2). On
the contrary, the regulation singles out EFRDs as being a P&M Measure that requires its own
independent analysis.
Second, Petitioner argues that HL IM FAQ 9.2 supports its argument that the decision to install
EFRDs is entirely discretionary with each operator. While it is true that EFRDs are one of a
menu of P&M options that an operator may select to protect HCAs, it is not unfettered
discretion. This is abundantly clear if one reads the entire text of the FAQ:34
9.2 What criteria must an operator use in determining whether emergency
flow restricting devices are required to protect HCAs?
Operators must make these determinations using criteria that they define,
considering the circumstances of each HCA and the pipeline segments that may
affect it. The rule includes specified factors that must be considered in these
evaluations. They include:
• the swiftness of leak detection and pipeline shutdown capabilities,
• the type of commodity carried,
• the rate of potential leakage,
• the volume that can be released,
• topography or pipeline profile,
• the potential for ignition,
• proximity to power sources,
• location of nearest response personnel,
• specific terrain between the pipeline and the high consequence area, and
• benefits expected by reducing the spill size.
An operator is required to install an emergency flow restricting device if the
operator determines one is needed to protect an HCA. PHMSA Pipeline Safety will
be reviewing operator analyses for technical justification and thoroughness.
Because of the significant variation in pipeline design and operation, the physical
characteristics of the land and waterways near pipelines, and the different nature
and location of HCAs, PHMSA Pipeline Safety believes specific EFRD installation
criteria are neither desirable nor appropriate.
Contrary to Petitioner’s argument, this FAQ makes no statement that could be read to suggest
that operators can avoid making a separate EFRD determination by simply conducting a broader,
34 HL IM FAQs, supra, note 30.



CPF No. 4-2020-5006
Page 15
more generalized risk analysis pursuant to § 195.452(i)(1) and (2). Instead, the FAQ affirms that
operators have great flexibility in making the decision whether to install EFRDs, but that
decision must consider, at a minimum, all of the factors listed in § 195.452(i)(4).
Third, Petitioner argues PHMSA’s HL IM Enforcement Guidance35 supports its argument.
Petitioner quotes from the guidance that subparagraph (i)(4) “goes on to describe specific factors
that must be considered in the determination of whether or not an EFRD is needed.” 36 Once
again, Petitioner latches on to the word “considered” but fails to recognize the rest of the
guidance on (i)(4) in that document. The Enforcement Guidance specifically instructs PHMSA
inspectors to allege a violation of § 195.452(i)(4) “[i]f an operator performs no evaluation of the
need for additional EFRDs, or the evaluation has some inadequacies or deficiencies.”37 Finally,
this same guidance cites multiple enforcement actions by PHMSA that have applied and
reinforced the plain language of the regulation.38 Conversely, EnLink has not cited a single
enforcement action under subparagraph (i)(4) that accepts its reading of the Code.
As discussed above, the plain language of the regulation is unambiguous and Petitioner had fair
notice of the requirements by reading the text itself. Further, there is no evidence that PHMSA
has ever adopted a position consistent with Petitioner’s assertion. On the contrary, prior PHMSA
enforcement decisions and guidance are consistent with PHMSA’s application of the regulation
in the present matter. Accordingly, I find that by reviewing the regulations as well as other
public statements issued by PHMSA, Petitioner, if acting in good faith, could have identified
with “ascertainable certainty” the standards with which PHMSA expected it to conform.
Petitioner’s contention that it did not have fair notice is therefore rejected.
35 HL IM Enforcement Guidance, supra.
36 Id., at 123.
37 Id.
38 E.g., Plains Exploration and Production Co., Final Order, C.P.F. No. 5-2004-7002, 2007 WL 1498997, at *3
(May 22, 2007), finding that the operator failed to implement a proper process for determining the placement of
EFRDs by relying solely on the original construction design; Buckeye Partners, LP, C.P.F. No. 1-2009-5002, 2012
WL 3144486, at *9-10 (May 30, 2012), finding that the operator failed from 2005 to 2009 to determine whether
EFRDs were needed to protect against failures that could affect HCAs along its pipeline ; CHS Inc., C.P.F. No. 5-
2007-5015, 2008 WL 8430580, at *2 (Aug. 26, 2008), finding the operator failed to complete an evaluation to
determine whether additional EFRDs were needed on any segment of its pipeline system; Williams Field Services,
C.P.F. No. 4-2006-5027, 2007 WL 1202575, at *1 (Jan. 9, 2007), finding a violation based on the operator failing to
perform determinations of the need for EFRDs on the assets currently under their IM program. See also DCP
Midstream, LP, Final Order, C.P.F. No. 4-2017-5032, 2018 WL 2229416, at *2 (Apr. 12, 2018), finding the operator
failed to perform an initial evaluation for determining the placement of EFRDs; ONEOK NGL Pipeline, LLC, Final
Order, C.P.F. No. 4-2017-5028, 2018 WL 8058077, at *1-2 (Dec. 12, 2018), finding the operator failed to complete
the process to determine if EFRDs were needed on 17 pipeline segments to protect HCAs.



CPF No. 4-2020-5006
Page 16
IV. Burden of Proof
Petitioner next argues that “PHMSA fails to carry the burden of proof,” including the “burden of
persuasion” and the “burden of production.”39 Petitioner states that PHMSA has “proffered no
evidence” regarding any segment other than the IP-1000 segment of the Cajun Sibon NGL
Pipeline System, and therefore, PHMSA cannot prove that Petitioner failed to perform any IM
actions as to those other segments.
The Violation Report completed by OPS states that PHMSA’s inspection was performed on the
Cajon Sibon Pipeline System.40 As discussed in Section I above, the Violation Report contains
evidence clearly proving the violation of § 195.452(i)(4) for the IP-1000 segment, which is a
portion of the Cajun Sibon NGL Pipeline System, so I find that PHMSA has met its burden of
proof for this one violation.41 The Compliance Order, however, did not clearly state whether the
corrective actions were meant to apply to the IP-1000 segment alone or the entire Cajun Sibon
NGL System. Given that there is no other evidence pertaining to the remainder of EnLink’s
larger system, I find that it is appropriate to amend the Compliance Order to specify that the
corrective actions apply only to the IP-1000 segment.
V. Compliance Order
Finally, Petitioner argues that the Compliance Order is “ambiguous and impermissibly broad,” is
not warranted by the nature of the violation and the public interest, and must be withdrawn
because the violation has not been proven.42
Petitioner argues that the Compliance Order is impermissibly broad because it does not specify
whether the EFRD study must be performed for the IP-1000 segment or the entire Cajun Sibon
Pipeline NGL System. I agree that the Compliance Order should have more clearly articulated
the portion of Petitioner’s pipeline system to which it applied. Therefore, an Amended
Compliance Order is included with this Decision that applies the corrective actions to
Petitioner’s IP-1000 segment, not the entire Cajun Sibon NGL Pipeline System, consistent with
Section I, above.
Petitioner also argues that the corrective actions of the Compliance Order are ambiguous because
the Order does not explain what is meant by a “study.” The Compliance Order states the
Petitioner “must perform an EFRD study. The study must consider the factors listed in
39 Petition, at 18-20.
40 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), (February 18, 2020) (on file with PHMSA), at 1.
41 Id., at 14-17.
42 Id., at 20.



CPF No. 4-2020-5006
Page 17
§ 195.452(i)(4) to protect current high consequence areas to enhance public safety.” The word
“study” in this context is synonymous with an “analysis” or “evaluation.” To clarify any
possible ambiguity however, the Amended Compliance Order being issued with this Decision
uses the word “analysis” instead of “study.”
Last, Petitioner argues that the Compliance Order is not warranted by the nature of the violation
and the public interest, and must be withdrawn because the violation has not been proven in this
case. To the contrary, the Compliance Order is warranted by the nature of the violation and the
public interest because it directs the Petitioner to correct a violation of the Pipeline Safety
Regulations. As discussed in detail in Section I, the evidence supports the finding of violation,
but the Compliance Order is amended as set forth below.
AMENDED COMPLIANCE ORDER
The Final Order included a compliance order with respect to Item 1 in the Notice for a violation
of 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(f)(6). Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the
transportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to
comply with the applicable safety standards established under chapter 601.
For the reasons provided above, the Compliance Order is amended as set forth below.
Pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Petitioner is ordered
to take the following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations applicable
to its operations:
1. With respect to the violation of § 195.452(f)(6) (Item 1 of the Final Order),
Petitioner must perform an EFRD analysis for the IP-1000 segment of the Cajun
Sibon NGL Pipeline System. The analysis must consider all of the factors listed in
§ 195.452(i)(4) to determine whether one or more EFRDs are needed to protect high
consequence areas in the event of a hazardous liquid pipeline release.
2. Petitioner must complete Item 1 and submit documentation to the Director within
90 days after receipt of the Decision on the Petition for Reconsideration.
The Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a
written request timely submitted by the Petitioner and demonstrating good cause for an
extension.
It is requested (not mandated) that Petitioner maintain documentation of the safety improvement
costs associated with fulfilling this Amended Compliance Order and submit the total to the
Director. It is requested that these costs be reported in two categories: (1) total cost associated
with preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses; and (2) total cost associated
with replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.



CPF No. 4-2020-5006
Page 18
Failure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties
not to exceed $200,000, as adjusted for inflation (49 C.F.R. § 190.223), for each violation for
each day the violation continues or in referral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief in a
district court of the United States.
VI. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the Petition is granted in part and denied in part. This Decision
affirms the finding that Petitioner violated § 195.452(f)(6), which incorporates § 195.452(i)(4),
by failing to conduct an EFRD analysis for the IP-1000 segment of the Cajun Sibon NGL
Pipeline System and issues an Amended Compliance Order to provide clarifications regarding
the meaning and scope of the required corrective actions.
This Decision on Reconsideration is the final administrative action in this proceeding.
January 4, 2021
___________________________________ __________________________
Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety

420205006_Closure Letter_04072025_(19-164084S)_text.pdf

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: randy.lentz@oneok.com
April 7, 2025
Randy Lentz
Executive Vice President
EnLink Midstream, LLC
909 Lake Carolyn Parkway, Suite 1600
Irving, Texas 75039
RE: CPF 4-2020-5006
Dear Mr. Lentz:
On December 8, 2021, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)
issued to EnLink Midstream, LLC (EnLink) a Consent Agreement and Order in the above-
referenced case. This Order included a Compliance Order. Based on our review of the
documentation you provided, it has been determined that you have complied with the terms of this
Order.
Accordingly, this case is now closed, and no further action is contemplated with respect to the
matters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Bryan Lethcoe
Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
cc: Timothy Murphy, Sr. Director – EHS/AIMS, timothy.murphy@oneok.com
Andreu Vivas-Hunt, Sr. Manager AIMS Compliance, andreu.vivas-hunt@oneok.com

420205006_Consent Agreement and Order_06082021_(19-164084S)_text.pdf

June 8, 2021
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: aaron.wimberly@enlink.com
Mr. Aaron Wimberly
Vice President, EH&S
Enlink Midstream, LLC
1722 Routh Street, #1300
Dallas, Texas 75201
CPF No. 4-2020-5006
Dear Mr. Wimberly:
Enclosed please find a Consent Order incorporating the terms of the Consent Agreement between
the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) and Enlink Midstream,
LLC, which was executed on June 8, 2021. Service of the Consent Order and Consent Agreement
by electronic mail is deemed effective upon the date of transmission, or as otherwise provided
under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Alan K. Mayberry
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure: Order and Consent Agreement
cc: Ms. Mary McDaniel, Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA
Mr. James Bristow, Senior Counsel, Enlink Midstream, LLC, james.bristow@enlink.com
Mr. Vince Murchison, Counsel for Enlink Midstream, LLC, Murchison Law Firm,
vince.murchison@pipelinelegal.com
Mr. Brett Kutnick, Counsel for Enlink Midstream, LLC, Jackson Walker, LLP,
bkutnick@jw.com
CONFIRMATION OF RECEIPT REQUESTED



US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
____________________________________
In the Matter of )
EnLink Midstream, LLC, )
Respondent, )
and ) CPF No. 4-2020-5006
EnLink Processing Services, LLC, )
and )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
EnLink Permian, LLC. )
____________________________________)
CONSENT AGREEMENT AND ORDER
WHEREAS, on February 18, 2020, the Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety,
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), U.S. Department of
Transportation (Director), issued to EnLink Midstream, LLC (EnLink Midstream), a Notice of
Probable Violation and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 U.S.
Code, for an alleged violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.452. The Notice also proposed ordering EnLink
Midstream to take certain measures to correct the alleged violation; and
WHEREAS, on March 16, 2020, EnLink Midstream submitted a written response to the Notice,
in which the company contested the alleged violation and offered additional information. EnLink
Midstream did not request a hearing and therefore waived its right to one; and
WHEREAS, on July 27, 2020, the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, issued
a Final Order, finding that EnLink Midstream had committed a violation of 49 C.F.R. §
195.452(f)(6) with respect to EnLink Midstream’s hazardous liquid integrity management
program (Hazardous Liquid IMP). Specifically, the Final Order found that EnLink Midstream had
failed to properly determine if Emergency Flow Restricting Devices (EFRDs) were needed on its
Cajun Sibon NGL Pipeline System as preventive and mitigative measures (P&M Measures) to
protect a High Consequence Area (HCA). The Final Order also included a Compliance Order that
required EnLink Midstream to perform an EFRD study to include consideration of all the factors
listed in 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(i)(4); and
1



CPF No. 4-2020-5006
WHEREAS, on August 20, 2020, EnLink Midstream filed a petition for reconsideration pursuant
to 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, seeking reconsideration of the entire Final Order, including the finding of
violation and the terms of the Compliance Order (Petition). EnLink Midstream presented several
grounds for reconsideration, including: (1) that EnLink Midstream did not violate 49 C.F.R. §
195.452(f)(6), as found in the Final Order; (2) that the Final Order improperly applied the standard
of conduct required by the regulation; (3) that PHMSA failed to provide fair notice of the
compliance expectations under the cited regulations; (4) that PHMSA failed to meet its burden of
proving the alleged violation; and (5) that the Compliance Order should be withdrawn because it
was ambiguous and impermissibly broad; and
WHEREAS, on January 4, 2021, the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, issued
a Decision on the Petition (Decision), which granted in part and denied in part EnLink Midstream’s
Petition. The Decision affirmed that EnLink Midstream violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(f)(6), which
incorporates 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(i)(4), by failing to conduct an EFRD analysis for its IP-1000
segment of the Cajun Sibon NGL Pipeline System. Specifically, the Decision rejected EnLink
Midstream’s contention that operators must perform an EFRD analysis only if the general risk
analysis required under 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(i)(2) first identifies a need for additional P&M
Measures. The Decision also rejected EnLink Midstream’s fair notice argument, finding that
EnLink Midstream should have identified with ascertainable certainty the standard with which
PHMSA expected EnLink Midstream to conform. However, the Decision did issue an Amended
Compliance Order that provided a clarification to the scope of the required corrective actions; and
WHEREAS, on February 5, 2021, EnLink Midstream filed a Petition for Review in the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, seeking judicial review of the Final Order and the Decision on the
Petition.1 EnLink Midstream also requested that PHMSA grant an administrative stay of the
Amended Compliance Order pending resolution of this matter before the Fifth Circuit;2 and
WHEREAS, EnLink Midstream and its subsidiaries, EnLink Processing Services, LLC (EnLink
Processing) and EnLink Permian, LLC (EnLink Permian) [EnLink Processing and EnLink
Permian are collectively referenced as EnLink] and PHMSA (PHMSA, EnLink, and EnLink
Midstream are collectively referred to as the Parties) met on several occasions to discuss potential
resolution of the disputed issues, and as the result of these good-faith discussions, the Parties have
reached agreement on the terms and conditions of a settlement, as set forth herein. The Parties
agree that this Consent Agreement and Order (Agreement) will avoid further administrative or
judicial proceedings or litigation, is the most appropriate means of resolving this proceeding, and
will serve the public interest by promoting safety and protection of the environment.
NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. Part 190 and upon consent and agreement of the
Parties, it is Ordered and Adjudged as follows:
1 EnLink Midstream, LLC v. U.S. DOT et al., Case No. 21-6004 (5th Cir.).
2 On March 5, 2021, PHMSA responded to EnLink’s request for an administrative stay by extending the
compliance deadline for the Amended Compliance Order to June 3, 2021. By letter dated May 28, 2021, PHMSA
extended said compliance deadline to July 3, 2021.
2



CPF No. 4-2020-5006
I. General Provisions.
1. EnLink Midstream and EnLink Processing acknowledge that they received proper
notice of PHMSA’s action in this proceeding and that the Notice, Final Order, and Decision issued
in this action all state claims upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60101, et
seq., and the regulations and administrative orders issued thereunder. PHMSA further
acknowledges that, while EnLink Midstream, LLC was the entity named in the Notice, Final
Order, and Decision, EnLink Processing Services, LLC3 is the actual operator of the Cajun Sibon
NGL Pipeline System at issue in this enforcement action.
2. EnLink acknowledges that EnLink Processing and EnLink Permian, and their
respective pipeline systems, are subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal pipeline safety laws, 49
U.S.C. 60101, et seq., and the regulations and administrative orders issued thereunder. EnLink
Midstream does not own or operate any pipeline subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal pipeline
safety laws.
3. EnLink Midstream and EnLink agree to the terms of this Agreement and hereby
waive any further procedural requirements with respect to its issuance. EnLink Midstream and
EnLink further waive all rights to contest the adequacy of the Notice, Final Order, and Decision
issued in this proceeding and the validity of this Agreement, including all rights to administrative
or judicial hearings or appeals.
4. This Agreement constitutes the final, complete, and exclusive agreement and
understanding between the Parties with respect to this proceeding and the issues embodied in this
Agreement. The Parties acknowledge that there are no representations, agreements or
understandings relating to settlement other than those expressly contained in this Agreement, except
that the terms of this Agreement may be construed by reference to the Notice.
5. Nothing in this Agreement affects or relieves EnLink of its responsibility to comply
with all applicable requirements of the Federal pipeline safety laws, 49 U.S.C. § 60101, et seq.,
and the regulations and orders issued thereunder. Nothing in this Agreement alters PHMSA’s
right of access, entry, inspection, and information gathering, or its authority to bring any
enforcement action against EnLink pursuant to the Federal pipeline safety laws, the regulations
and administrative orders issued thereunder, or any other provision of Federal or state law, with
the exception of the following:
a. As long as EnLink maintains substantial compliance with the Compliance
Measures set forth in Section III of this Agreement, PHMSA agrees that it will
not bring an enforcement action against EnLink, or EnLink Midstream on
behalf of EnLink, alleging a violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(f)(6) as it relates
to EFRDs, or § 195.452(i)(4), that occurs during the duration of the Agreement.
3 The Operator ID for EnLink Processing Services, LLC (OPID 32005) was properly identified in the Pipeline
Safety Violation Report (Violation Report) that accompanied the Notice. PHMSA tracks its enforcement actions by
the OPID identified in each Violation Report.
3



CPF No. 4-2020-5006
b. Notwithstanding paragraph 5(a) above, to the extent a violation of 49 C.F.R.
§§ 195.452(f)(6) and 195.452(i)(4) relating to EFRDs occurs in connection with
a reportable accident, as defined in 49 C.F.R. § 195.50, nothing in this
Agreement shall limit the right of PHMSA to pursue any administrative or other
remedies for hazardous conditions or violations (including penalties) of the
Federal pipeline safety laws or regulations.
6. This Agreement does not waive or modify any Federal, state, or local laws or
regulations applicable to EnLink’s pipeline systems. This Agreement is not a permit or a
modification of a permit under any Federal, state, or local laws or regulations. EnLink and EnLink
Midstream remain responsible for achieving and maintaining compliance with all applicable
Federal, state, and local laws, regulations and permits.
7. This Agreement does not create rights in, or grant any cause of action to, any person
not a party to this Agreement. PHMSA is not liable for any injuries or damages to persons or
property arising from acts or omissions of EnLink or EnLink Midstream or their officers,
employees, or agents carrying out the work required by this Agreement. PHMSA, its officers,
employees, agents, and representatives shall not be liable for any cause of action arising from any
acts or omissions of EnLink or EnLink Midstream or their contractors in carrying out any work
required by this Agreement.
8. This Agreement shall apply to and be binding upon PHMSA, EnLink Midstream
and EnLink, their officers, directors, employees, successors and assigns, including, but not limited
to, subsequent purchasers.
II. Findings of Fact and Violations.
9. EnLink Midstream and EnLink acknowledge that the Notice, Final Order, and
Decision issued in this proceeding state claims upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 49
U.S.C. § 60101, et seq., and the regulations and administrative orders issued thereunder. By entry
of this Agreement, PHMSA does not withdraw its interpretation or application of the pipeline
safety regulations set forth in the Final Order and Decision, but agrees to withdraw the finding of
violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(f)(6) for the Cajun Sibon NGL Pipeline System as set forth in the
decisions.
10. This Agreement shall not constitute a finding of violation of any Federal law or
regulation and may not be used in any civil proceeding of any kind as evidence or proof of any
fact, fault or liability, or as evidence of the violation of any law, rule, regulation, or requirement,
except in a proceeding to enforce the provisions of this Agreement. The Parties agree, however,
that Item 1 of the Final Order shall be considered a prior offense by EnLink Processing, in any
future enforcement action brought by PHMSA against EnLink Processing.
III. Compliance Measures.
11. Within 30 days following the Effective Date of this Agreement, EnLink will revise
its Hazardous Liquid IMP in accordance with the Decision and submit it to the Director for review
4



CPF No. 4-2020-5006
and approval; provided, that the Director’s approval shall be limited, for purposes of this
Agreement, to the revisions addressing EFRDs, including the installation of EFRDs. Nothing in
this paragraph alters PHMSA’s right of inspection and information gathering, or its authority to
bring any enforcement action against EnLink with regard to portions of EnLink’s Hazardous
Liquid IMP not revised pursuant hereto.
12. EnLink agrees to perform EFRD analyses on all HCA and could-affect HCA
segments for their interstate 49 C.F.R. Part 195-regulated pipelines. The analyses must consider
all of the factors listed in 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(i)(4) to determine whether any EFRDs are needed
on their respective systems in addition to existing EFRDs. The analyses will also consider the
existing EFRDs to ensure that they have been installed in locations to protect HCAs in the event
of a hazardous liquid pipeline release in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(i)(4). EnLink must
perform these EFRD analyses within the following timeframes:
a. No later than 180 days from the date the Director approves the revised portions
of the Hazardous Liquid IMP as specified in paragraph 11, EnLink Processing
will complete EFRD analyses for the Cajun Sibon NGL Pipeline System; and
b. No later than 18 months from the date the Director approves the revised portions
of the Hazardous Liquid IMP as specified in paragraph 11, EnLink will
complete EFRD analyses for the remainder of their interstate 49 C.F.R. Part
195-regulated pipelines.
13. EnLink must submit the EFRD analyses performed pursuant to paragraph 12 within
the specified timeframes to the Director for review and approval prior to the installation of any
EFRDs that must be installed as a result of any such EFRD analyses.
14. To the extent that the EFRD analyses, as approved by the Director pursuant to
paragraph 13, determine that any newly identified EFRDs or any components thereof are needed
on a pipeline segment to protect an HCA in the event of a hazardous liquid pipeline release, EnLink
shall install the same pursuant to the provisions of 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(i)(4) and EnLink’s revised
Hazardous Liquid IMP. Prior to installation of the EFRDs, EnLink shall submit a plan and
schedule for installation of the EFRDs to the Director, and allow the Director to review and provide
comments within 14 days of receipt of the plan and schedule. EnLink shall notify the Director of
any modifications to such plan and schedule to accommodate permitting, authorizations, land
matters, equipment procurement, the provisions of utilities, and/or other approvals necessary for
the installation of the EFRDs.
15. EnLink shall submit quarterly progress reports to the Director reviewing the status
of all the Compliance Measures set forth above.
16. The Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the Compliance
Measures above upon a written request timely submitted by EnLink and demonstrating good cause
for an extension.
5



CPF No. 4-2020-5006
17. It is requested (not mandated) that EnLink maintain documentation of the safety
improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Agreement and submit the total to the Director.
PHMSA requests that these costs be reported in two categories: (1) total cost associated with the
preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses; and (2) total cost associated with
replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.
IV. Petition for Review.
18. On March 8, 2021, the Parties filed a joint motion to abate EnLink Midstream’s
appeal in the Fifth Circuit, and on March 10, 2021, the Court responded by dismissing the Petition
for Review, without prejudice to the right of either party to reinstate the petition within 180 days.
The Parties agree that this Agreement resolves all disputed issues in this proceeding, that no party
may reinstate the Petition for Review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and that
each party shall bear its own costs for the previously-filed Petition for Review.
V. Review and Approval Process.
19. With respect to any submission of any document or plan required by this Agreement
that requires the approval of the Director, the Director may: (a) approve, in whole or in part, the
submission, (b) disapprove, in whole or in part, the submission, or (c) any combination of the
foregoing. If the Director approves or approves in part, EnLink will take all action as approved by
the Director. If the Director disapproves all or any portion of the submission, the Director will
provide EnLink with a written notice of the deficiencies and a reasonable period of time to correct
them. EnLink will correct all deficiencies within the time specified by the Director and resubmit
for approval.
20. The Director and EnLink will attempt to resolve informally any dispute arising
under this Agreement, including but not limited to any decision of the Director. The Director and
EnLink first will confer in an effort to resolve any dispute. If the Director and EnLink are unable
to resolve informally the dispute within 15 business days of EnLink providing notice of a dispute
to the Director, EnLink may request in writing, within 10 business days of the end of said 15-day
period, a written determination resolving the dispute by the Associate Administrator for Pipeline
Safety, PHMSA. Along with its request, EnLink will provide the Associate Administrator with
all information EnLink believes is relevant to the dispute. If the request is submitted as provided
herein, the Associate Administrator will promptly issue a written determination that shall be final.
Decisions of the Associate Administrator will constitute final agency action and are subject to
judicial review. The existence of a dispute and PHMSA’s consideration of matters placed in
dispute will not excuse, toll, or suspend any term or timeframe for completion of any work to be
performed under this Agreement during the pendency of the dispute resolution process, except as
agreed by the Director or the Associate Administrator in writing, or ordered by a court of
competent jurisdiction.
VI. Enforcement.
21. This Agreement is subject to all enforcement authorities available to PHMSA under
49 U.S.C. § 60101, et seq., and 49 C.F.R. Part 190, including the assessment of civil penalties as
6



CPF No. 4-2020-5006
determined in accordance with the requirements of 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. §§ 190.223
to 190.225, if PHMSA determines that EnLink is not substantially complying with the terms of
this Agreement or any determination made by the Director under Section III, Compliance
Measures. Failure to comply with the terms of this Agreement may also result in referral to the
Attorney General for appropriate relief in a United States District Court pursuant to 49 U.S.C. §
60120(a).
VII. Effective Date.
22. The term “Effective Date,” as used herein, is the date on which this Agreement has
been signed by all of the Parties.
VIII. Modification.
23. The terms of this Agreement may be modified only by mutual agreement of the
Parties. Such modifications must be in writing and signed by the Parties. Any party may request
modification by submitting a written request to the other Parties.
IX. Termination.
24. This Agreement terminates upon completion of all the Compliance Measures set
forth in Section III, as determined by the Director; provided, however, paragraph 5(a) of this
Agreement shall survive the termination of this Agreement for a period of five (5) years from the
date of termination. EnLink may request written confirmation from PHMSA when this Agreement
is terminated and the Director will provide such confirmation. Nothing in this Agreement prevents
EnLink from completing any of the obligations earlier than the deadlines provided for in this
Agreement.
X. Ratification.
25. The Parties’ undersigned representatives certify that they are fully authorized to
enter into the terms and conditions of this Agreement and to execute and legally bind such party
to this document.
26. The Parties, hereby, agree to all the conditions and terms of this Agreement.
7



CPF No. 4-2020-5006
For EnLink Midstream, LLC (Respondent):
___________________________________
Aaron Wimberly
Vice President EH&S
___________________________________
Date
For EnLink Processing Services, LLC
___________________________________
Aaron Wimberly
Vice President EH&S
___________________________________
Date
For EnLink Permian, LLC
___________________________________
Aaron Wimberly
Vice President EH&S
___________________________________
Date
8



CPF No. 4-2020-5006
For PHMSA:
___________________________________
Alan K. Mayberry
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety
June 8, 2021
___________________________________
Date
9

420205006_Final Order_07272020_text.pdf

July 27, 2020
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: barry.davis@enlink.com
Mr. Barry E. Davis
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
EnLink Midstream, LLC
1722 Routh Street, Suite 1300
Dallas, Texas 75201
Re: CPF No. 4-2020-5006
Dear Mr. Davis:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes a finding of
violation and specifies actions that need to be taken by EnLink Midstream, LLC, to comply with
the pipeline safety regulations. When the terms of the compliance order have been completed, as
determined by the Director, Southwest Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service
of the Final Order by electronic mail is effective upon the date of transmission as provided under
49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Alan K. Mayberry
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Ms. Mary L. McDaniel, Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA
Mr. Michael LeBlanc, Senior Vice President, Operations, EnLink Midstream, LLC,
michael.leblanc@enlink.com
Mr. Cordell Theriot, Senior DOT Compliance Specialist, EnLink Midstream, LLC,
cordell.theriot@enlink.com
CONFIRMATION OF RECEIPT REQUESTED



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
____________________________________
In the Matter of )
EnLink Midstream, LLC, ) CPF No. 4-2020-5006
)
)
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
FINAL ORDER
From February through July 2019, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety
(OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of EnLink
Midstream, LLC (EnLink or Respondent) in Lafayette, Louisiana and Dallas, Texas. EnLink
operates approximately 11,000 miles of gathering and transportation pipelines, 20 processing
plants with 4.8 billion cubic feet of net processing capacity, and seven fractionators with 260,000
barrels per day of net fractionation capacity.1
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to
Respondent, by letter dated February 18, 2020, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed
Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed
finding that EnLink had violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452 and proposed ordering Respondent to take
certain measures to correct the alleged violation.
EnLink responded to the Notice by letter dated March 16, 2020 (Response). The company
contested the allegation and offered additional information in response to the Notice.
Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.
FINDING OF VIOLATION
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:
Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(f)(6), which states:
§ 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.
(a) …
(f) What are the elements of an integrity management program? An
1 Enlink Midstream, LLC website, available at https://www.enlink.com/customer-center/ (last accessed July 15,
2020).



CPF No. 4-2020-5006
Page 2
integrity management program begins with the initial framework. An
operator must continually change the program to reflect operating
experience, conclusions drawn from results of the integrity assessments,
and other maintenance and surveillance data, and evaluation of
consequences of a failure on the high consequence area. An operator must
include, at minimum, each of the following elements in its written integrity
management program: . . .
(6) Identification of preventive and mitigative measures to protect the
high consequence area (see paragraph (i) of this section); . . .
(i) What preventive and mitigative measures must an operator take to
protect the high consequence area? . . .
(4) Emergency Flow Restricting Devices (EFRD). If an operator
determines that an EFRD is needed on a pipeline segment to protect a high
consequence area in the event of a hazardous liquid pipeline release, an
operator must install the EFRD. In making this determination, an operator
must, at least, consider the following factors—the swiftness of leak
detection and pipeline shutdown capabilities, the type of commodity
carried, the rate of potential leakage, the volume that can be released,
topography or pipeline profile, the potential for ignition, proximity to power
sources, location of nearest response personnel, specific terrain between the
pipeline segment and the high consequence area, and benefits expected by
reducing the spill size.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(f)(6) by failing to identify
preventive and mitigative (P&M) measures to protect a high consequence area (HCA) in its
integrity management program (IMP). Specifically, the Notice alleged that EnLink failed to
properly determine if Emergency Flow Restricting Devices (EFRDs) were needed on its Cajun
Sibon NGL Pipeline System to protect HCAs. The Notice alleged EnLink did not consider the
following factors in determining whether EFRDs were needed: the swiftness of leak detection
and pipeline shutdown capabilities; the type of commodity carried; the rate of potential leakage;
the volume that can be released; topography or pipeline profile; the potential for ignition;
proximity to power sources; location of nearest response personnel; the specific terrain between
the pipeline segment and the HCA; and benefits expected by reducing the spill size, as required
by § 195.452(i)(4).
In its Response, EnLink argues that its IMP has triggering events for EFRD evaluations, which
include “follow-up to P&M evaluation or other event that in judgment of the IMP Team
Chairman require additional EFRD analysis.”2 EnLink argues its risk model has built-in
attributes that consider all the factors required by § 195.452(i)(4) and that it complied with the
regulations by reviewing the results produced by the risk model and its P&M analysis and
concluding the results did not warrant “additional EFRD analysis.”3 EnLink stated that its P&M
process “includes analyzing the threats and prompts to determine whether an EFRD analysis is a
2 Response, at 2.
3 Id., at 2.



CPF No. 4-2020-5006
Page 3
recommended P&M.”4 EnLink provided several documents to support its Response.
After considering all of the evidence, I find that that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.452(f)(6) by failing to identify P&M measures to protect a HCA in its IMP. Specifically,
EnLink did not properly determine if EFRDs were needed on its Cajun Sibon NGL Pipeline
System to protect HCAs. Section 7.11 of EnLink’s IMP titled, “EFRD Need Evaluation
Factors,” states:
Outputs from both the HCA and risk analysis and other factors as described in 49 CFR
§ 195.452(i)(4) are reviewed by EnLink to determine the feasibility of risk reductions by
the relocation or addition of emergency flow restriction devices (EFRDs). ENLINK
LIMP Form 108, EFRD Evaluation, provides a more detailed discussion of the EFRD
evaluation process.
EnLink’s IMP shows that the company has an “EFRD evaluation process” in place, however,
EnLink has not produced documentation, including a completed “EFRD Evaluation, LIMP Form
108,” showing the specialized EFRD evaluation was conducted for the Cajun Sibon NGL
Pipeline System. While EnLink may have reviewed many factors listed in § 195.452(i)(4) as
part of its risk analysis, EnLink did not produce evidence that it conducted an evaluation focused
on the need for EFRDs, nor did the company show it evaluated “the feasibility of risk reductions
by the relocation or addition of emergency flow restriction devices” to protect HCAs as required
by its own IMP. Further, EnLink stated in its Response that it only conducts EFRD analyses
when it determines that EFRDs are a recommended P&M measure.5 EnLink acknowledged that
it determined the lines “were most affected by” third-party threats, so it did not conduct an
EFRD evaluation.6 Section 195.452(i)(4), however, requires operators to conduct an evaluation
to determine whether EFRDs are needed to protect HCAs regardless of what the operator
determines to be a top threat to the line.
EnLink provided supplemental exhibits with its Response including graphs of liquid volume
release, a risk table for IP-1000 System, a P&M Evaluation Form (LIMP Form 106), and other
apparent outputs from its risk model, however, none of these forms show an analysis specific to
EFRDs completed in accordance with the regulations or EnLink’s “EFRD evaluation process.”
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.452(f)(6) by failing to identify P&M measures to protect a HCA in its IMP.
This finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement action
taken against Respondent.
COMPLIANCE ORDER
The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Item 1 in the Notice for a violation of
4 Id., at 4.
5 Id.
6 Id., at 4-5.



CPF No. 4-2020-5006
Page 4
49 C.F.R. §195.452(f)(6). Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the
transportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to
comply with the applicable safety standards established under chapter 601.
With regard to the violation of § 195.452(f)(6) (Item 1), Respondent argued the compliance
terms should be withdrawn because the company has “already performed sufficient analysis of
relevant information and the factors listed in § 195.452(i)(4).” I disagree. As explained above,
EnLink has failed to provide evidence that it performed an evaluation specific to the need for and
use of EFRDs in accordance with § 195.452(f)(6) and the processes mandated by its own IMP.
For the above reasons, the Compliance Order is not withdrawn as set forth below.
Pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is
ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations
applicable to its operations:
1. With respect to the violation of § 195.452(f)(6) (Item 1), Respondent must
perform an EFRD study. The study must consider the factors listed in § 195.452(i)(4)
to protect current HCAs to enhance public safety.
2. EnLink must complete Item 1 and submit documentation to the Director within 90
days after receipt of the Final Order.
The Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a
written request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an
extension.
It is requested (not mandated) that Respondent maintain documentation of the safety
improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to the
Director. It is requested that these costs be reported in two categories: (1) total cost associated
with preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses; and (2) total cost associated
with replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.
Failure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties
not to exceed $200,000, as adjusted for inflation (49 C.F.R. § 190.223), for each violation for
each day the violation continues or in referral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief in a
district court of the United States.
Under 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent may submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this Final
Order to the Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of
Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address, no later than 20 days after receipt of service of this
Final Order by Respondent. Any petition submitted must contain a statement of the issue(s) and
meet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The terms of the order, including corrective
action, remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay.



CPF No. 4-2020-5006
Page 5
The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49
C.F.R. § 190.5.
July 27, 2020
___________________________________ __________________________
Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety

## Provenance

- Official: Yes
- Source: <https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420205006>
- Source ID: `phmsa-enforcement`
- SHA-256: `35faf4395d46b38529ab8542afd76ae4b6900bcae98cdc8615bdce30c12ed434`
- Retrieved: 2026-08-20T04:44:44.458Z
- Exported: 2026-08-25T13:06:25.851Z
- Document slug: `phmsa-enforcement-420205006`

### Source metadata

```json
{
  "cpf": "420205006",
  "operator": "ENLINK PROCESSING SERVICES, LLC",
  "region": "Southwest",
  "pipelineType": "INTERSTATE LIQUID ONSHORE",
  "caseStatus": "CLOSED",
  "citedSections": [
    "195.452(f)(6)",
    "195.452(i)(4)"
  ],
  "dataAsOf": "08/04/2026 12PM",
  "caseDataAsOf": "2026-08-04",
  "attachmentCount": 13,
  "attachments": [
    {
      "name": "420205006_Closure Letter_04072025_(19-164084S).pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420205006/420205006_Closure%20Letter_04072025_(19-164084S).pdf",
      "bytes": 5715698,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "420205006_Closure Letter_04072025_(19-164084S)_text.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420205006/420205006_Closure%20Letter_04072025_(19-164084S)_text.pdf",
      "bytes": 85585,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "420205006_Consent Agreement and Order_06082021_(19-164084S).pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420205006/420205006_Consent%20Agreement%20and%20Order_06082021_(19-164084S).pdf",
      "bytes": 525676,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "420205006_Consent Agreement and Order_06082021_(19-164084S)_text.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420205006/420205006_Consent%20Agreement%20and%20Order_06082021_(19-164084S)_text.pdf",
      "bytes": 225928,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "420205006_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_01042021.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420205006/420205006_Decision%20on%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_01042021.pdf",
      "bytes": 312243,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "420205006_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_01042021_text.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420205006/420205006_Decision%20on%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_01042021_text.pdf",
      "bytes": 245946,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "420205006_Final Order_07272020.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420205006/420205006_Final%20Order_07272020.pdf",
      "bytes": 188348,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "420205006_Final Order_07272020_text.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420205006/420205006_Final%20Order_07272020_text.pdf",
      "bytes": 149399,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "420205006_NOPV PCO_02182020.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420205006/420205006_NOPV%20PCO_02182020.pdf",
      "bytes": 98197,
      "category": "case_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "420205006_NOPV PCO_02182020_text.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420205006/420205006_NOPV%20PCO_02182020_text.pdf",
      "bytes": 179997,
      "category": "case_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "420205006_Operator Petition for Reconsideration_08202020.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420205006/420205006_Operator%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_08202020.pdf",
      "bytes": 447346,
      "category": "party_submission"
    },
    {
      "name": "420205006_Operator Requesting a Stay and Contesting the Order_02052021_(19-164084S).pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420205006/420205006_Operator%20Requesting%20a%20Stay%20and%20Contesting%20the%20Order_02052021_(19-164084S).pdf",
      "bytes": 526472,
      "category": "party_submission"
    },
    {
      "name": "420205006_Operator Response to Notice_03162020.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420205006/420205006_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_03162020.pdf",
      "bytes": 186779,
      "category": "party_submission"
    }
  ],
  "extractedAgencyDocumentCount": 4,
  "attachmentPolicy": "Official attachment links are retained. Agency-issued documents may also include a verified local PDF and page-level text representation.",
  "jurisdiction": "US",
  "operatorName": "ENLINK PROCESSING SERVICES, LLC"
}
```